ترول ایرانی

گالری عکس

Planned Parenthood Proves WisconsinEye’s Case in its Defense of Actions

I’m not a copyright lawyer (it is an interest of mine though…), but if you’re on the verge of a cease and desist order, or lawsuit for violating the wholly-owned copyright of video distribution rights, the last thing you ever say is “watch the whole video.” 

Not only does it prove WisconsinEye’s point that Planned Parenthood is violating their copyright, it is explicitly saying it has changed video to put their own context on the events that occurred in the state Senate chamber that morning.

WisconsinEye Public Affairs Network on Tuesday accused Planned Parenthood of violating its user agreement by using the footage of Ellis in a political ad. The footage used showed Ellis, of Neenah, banging his gavel and shouting at lawmakers during debate of a bill requiring doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges. The ad has been airing on television stations in Green Bay.

Planned Parenthood attorney Nicole Safar responded Wednesday, urging the public to watch the entire debate to “make their own decision about Sen. Mike Ellis.”

My decision after watching it:  Senate Democrats were acting like children, Ellis was trying to maintain order.  Five seconds of video tells a completely different take than thirty minutes of video.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin knows this; and if they aren’t smart, all the money they hoped to use to finance their operations in the Badger State will end up in escrow to help finance about five years of WisconsinEye’s production costs.

By the way, for every liberal in Wisconsin who’s bitching about what WisconsinEye is doing, consider this: C-SPAN does the exact same thing and always has when it comes to copyright of their video.

Since 1979.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • jhs

    That’s your opinion, mine is ellis was acting like a power hungry a$$

  • Robert

    Let us know where your blog is on the matter. I need to take a shit and would like to take it on your opinion.

  • Stan

    Wisconsin Eye’s “agreement” violates Fair Use and is irrelevant.

  • John Foust

    If you’re truly interested in finding the truth, you could’ve examined WisEye’s user agreement ( http://www.wiseye.org/Portals/0/Docs/Other%20PDFs/User_Agreement_2012.pdf ) and considered whether their ad fits the definition of “political” there. Also see ( https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/11/01/16 ).

    For more fun, ask yourself why WisEye’s letter to PP didn’t simply claim they were violating the agreement, and quote chapter-and-verse as to why they believed it. Instead, the letter went to the content and veracity of the claims in the ad… and didn’t even get those facts right.

    You could also dig to examine the political stands of the WisEye Board, and try to see why they did what they did.

    You could also examine how WisEye has issued takedowns – or not – of people who’ve used clips while claiming “fair use.”