CNN Demands YouTube Yank Embarrassing Susan Roesgen Video

Well folks, looks like the thought police are on the prowl… CNN has demanded that YouTube take down a video that was recorded and posted by Founding Bloggers. I smell a law suit.

This is the video…post it, upload it, email it… thanks to Founding Bloggers for stirring the sh*t.

From

Founding Bloggers: An Open Letter To CNN

FROM THE BLOGS

The Right Side Of Life: Censorship: CNN Scrubs YouTube Video; Demands Blogger Remove Own Follow-Up Video; Update: Letter to CNN

Patterico’s Pontifications

I’m sick of people knocking embarrassing videos off YouTube with bogus copyright violation claims.

The latest culprit is CNN, a network that was recently embarrassed by a video of reporter Susan Roesgen cutting off tea-party protestors in Chicago, and assailing them with silly liberal talking points. The blog Founding Bloggers showed up on scene and caught her in further arguments with angry citizens who noted her biased coverage. I posted the Founding Bloggers video on Thursday.

But guess what happens when you click on it now?

I encourage every reader with a YouTube account to upload this video to YouTube. I encourage every blogger reading this to embed this same video to your own site.

Crossing Ts and dotting Is…

Ben Sheffner of Copyrights and Campaigns:

CNN makes copyright claim on video critical of reporter’s ‘Tea Party’ interviews; a clear case of fair use?

CNN does own copyright in its own news footage and, as a general matter, has the right to demand its removal from YouTube. However, as to this particular video, I think Founding Bloggers has a very strong fair use defense. The purpose for Founding Bloggers’ posting of the CNN footage is crystal clear: to comment on and criticize CNN’s reporting on the “Tea Party.” Such a use is right in the heartland of the fair use doctrine; the statute specifically mentions “criticism, comment, [and] news reporting” as protected uses that are “not an infringement of copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 107. To quickly run through the four fair use factors as they apply here: 1) the use is transformative (for critical comment); 2) the CNN footage is factual, not fictional, and was previously broadcast; 3) the amount used is small in relation to the whole CNN broadcast; and 4) any effect on the market is minuscule (and if fewer people watch CNN because this video causes them to think less of its coverage, that’s simply not cognizable harm). Many fair use cases are difficult, close calls--but, given the facts as I know them, this is an easy one.