I woke up this AM to this unhappy note:
I was a bit confused, as I try to specifically avoid that kind of thing, so I paged back to figure out what I might have put up that could have been infringing.
I found that it was the PAC advertisement that went after Marty Jackley, which I reported on as being based on the KELO-TV Coverage.
However, the takedown order didn’t come from the PAC running the ad. It came from KELO-TV’s parent company, whose news story footage formed the basis of the ad. Which I reported on.
I understand the original footage used in the commercial is their product. But, it seems like they’re shooting at the messenger here.
Moving on…
Interesting a Pac would only authorize KELO-TV to play their ad. Isn’t their an additional warning required for unauthorized rebroadcast when it is assumed the author would want the work republished as much as possible? That is an unwarranted strike. Sounds like Pac was displeased with the reception of its add on this blog.
Indeed. Even smells fishy…
That’s how copyright is supposed to work. Intent doesn’t matter, nor does the number of steps you are removed from the original infringement. If you don’t own the rights to the content you don’t have the right to distribute.