(C)linton Campaign illegally uses storm chasers video

a reply to: Sillyolme

And also, from the article:

It was a popular ad piece, with thousands of online views and hundreds of airings on television.

a reply to: boncho

Mistakes happen with copyrights, as mentioned in the article. As this guy says, people usually work it out. They either work out a payment agreement, or if it was not used heavily, sometimes pulling the material from use makes both sides satisfied. I have seen this negotiation work in real life a few times.

But this guy's complaint is that the Hillary campaign is refusing to compensate him. They pretty much told him tough luck, we can do what we want.

Just another example of Hillary and crew ignoring the law and doing whatever they want.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: boncho
But this guy's complaint is that the Hillary campaign is refusing to compensate him. They pretty much told him tough luck, we can do what we want.

Just another example of Hillary and crew ignoring the law and doing whatever they want.

Blah blah blah, partisan BS. Spare me. The owner of the video states very clearly he already distributed his video and his actions speak to what's really going on. It's a political hit piece and he was probably trying to blackmail them or some other shady garbage.

I was sending a live stream to national networks and thousands of viewers online...they didn’t deny it was my clip. They stated they had received the piece from a particular national news outlet.

He also claims (but doesn't prove) he has limited license with the networks.

He goes on to claim some convoluted story where the news agency denied involvement and Clinton pretending to pay but after securing the nomination reneged. The problem is this isn't how handling copyright works. He also claims he had an attorney, so where is the suit he filed?

The first response covers all you need to know. "Why not just hire a copyright attorney and go after her campaign and the DNC?

Because he knows they didn't steal it and he thought he would get more press and business and attention by writing this "article.""

Since we now know it's not about partisan politics (as you claim *cough*), and we realize there is likely nothing here, since the actions of the content provider are more inline with a political smear rather than an actual content claim. Why not focus on real content violation stories. Im sure you will be rushing to post the following as front page threads.

Trump, stealing media in multiple formats. Taken to court for it. ...Because court claims are how these are solved. (The music I would imagine is covered by a multi use license like restaurants or others, but Tyler began legal action against Trump's campaign so idk if he had it.)

Whelp, get on it! Big evil Trump is stealing music and pictures from people, maybe you can cover the court proceedings since copyright infringement by politicos is super important to you /s


Trump campaign sued for copyright infringement by owners of iconic bald eagle photo

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was sued on Wednesday by award-winning wildlife photographers who say the potential GOP nominee is using their copyright-protected image of an American bald eagle without permission.
Attorneys for Wendy Shattil and Robert Rozinski filed the civil complaint in federal court this week after watching a presidential rally for Mr. Trump on television and noticing that an attendee was holding a campaign sign that incorporated one of their photographs of the national bird.

6 Artists in total tell Trump to stop using their music without permission.

Tyler’s objection to Trump’s use of his rock classic “Dream On” wasn’t so much about politics.**Instead, the Aerosmith lead singer was infuriated over the campaign’s lack of compensation for the song**.

Rolling Stones tell Trump to stop using their music.

The Rolling Stones have never given permission to the Trump campaign to use their songs and have requested that they cease all use immediately."
The candidate has been playing their songs at his rallies for months.

In February, Adele issued a statement distancing herself from Trump, after he had been playing Adele's hit Rolling In The Deep as his "warm-up" music at his rallies.
The singer issued a statement making it clear she had "not given permission for her music to be used for any political campaigning," .

Now excuse me while I go wash my hands from how dirty they feel defending HRC online. Drop partisan hits on both parties. It's annoying. It's lame. It's useless drivel that reduces the quality of this site. Especially annoying when you own a business and deal in copyright issues on either side, and have spent thousands of dollars in various efforts to be compliant or protecting your own. The moment I read he had no legal action against her is the moment I stop caring. It's obviously political. If he has a copy of the license and HRC's campaign admitted using it, it's free money. The only reason for him to post online is an ulterior motive. Period.