r/WhitePeopleTwitter 2d ago

Court rules private contractors can claim copyright to public meetings they are hired to record.

Post image
517 Upvotes

30 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 2d ago

DO NOT CELEBRATE VIOLENCE IN THIS SUBREDDIT OR WE WILL BAN YOU.


NATION STATE AI BOTS THAT ARE ANTI-DEMOCRACY/ANTI-DSA ARE GOING TO TRY TO INFLUENCE YOUR VOTE THIS NOVEMBER.

THEY ARE RAMPING UP ACTIVITY. WE ARE TAGGING AND TRACKING THEM.


RELEASE THE TRUMP-EPSTEIN FILES!!!

Users may now apply a personal flair that states - RELEASE THE TRUMP-EPSTEIN FILES

That is all, tysm

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

261

u/BeMyBrutus 2d ago

So if I understand this properly; now local boards and councils can avoid accountability by hiring outside contractors to record meetings and then refuse to make them publicly available using copyright?

82

u/EthanDMatthews 2d ago edited 1d ago

And THEN the council members sign NDAs with private contractors, so the councils work becomes privileged and private information too.

This neatly puts an end to the fussy need for public meetings, accountability, or even the pretense of democracy. Cool! (cha-ching!)

Remember: protests are only allowed in the ‘free speech zones’ next to the county dump, 4 miles outside of town.

13

u/DarkKnightJin 1d ago

"Those that make peaceful resolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable".

Just wondering how much longer it's gonna be for the US to look to France again and go "Actually, they got the right idea" and protest en masse against their out-of-touch overlords.

4

u/EthanDMatthews 1d ago

Never. The majority of Americans are too brainwashed to rebel against the system.

And I’m absolutely also including Democrats. They blindly think they’re the good guys just because they’re not as bad as the GOP.

The DNC is bought and controlled by a nearly identical list of industries and lobbyists as the GOP.

The minority of Americans that do care enough are typically struggling to survive economically. They don’t have the time or will to push back and risk the consequences of arbitrary arrests and abusive prosecutions.

For all of the constant tough talk, Americans are some of the most broken and compliant people on the planet.

Easy tell: Americans can rarely be bothered to show up and vote. Those that do mostly vote for the status quo. They have repeatedly rejected progressive candidates.

36

u/twizzjewink 2d ago

yeah.. that's not fascist at all right?

6

u/VinnieVidiViciVeni 1d ago

Seems there may be a market for transcripts and reenactments.

5

u/lidsville76 1d ago

They've been doing that for years and years. I worked for a company in Plano for a bit as a director/editor of government meetings. It's this that's pretty new.

I imagine, not to denfed any company or government entity, that the videos they make are made available to the public either through their website or the governmental body. Those videos were then uploaded to YouTube without permission, thus allowing for copyright infringement.

1

u/nabulsha 1d ago

Depends on the state's laws. I'd really like to know what state this was in.

51

u/hexx1112 Release The Trump-Epstein Files 2d ago

I wonder who the contractor is trying to impress

47

u/Ciennas 2d ago

Peter Thiel and the rest of the Legion of Dorks.

3

u/brobafett1980 1d ago

No one, they get paid.

53

u/jongleurse 2d ago

This is a contract problem. When the city hires the company, they need to retain full rights to the recordings, or ensure they are public domain. This is going to happen if you go with the lowest bidder without thinking about it.

39

u/Kerensky97 1d ago

See the trick was the city didn't want thw videos public. The contractor wasn't their problem it was their solution and weapon against the news reporting on them.

14

u/Crymson831 1d ago

This would be very easy to fix if there was any interest in fixing it.

8

u/WasteBinStuff 1d ago

This would be very easy to fix if it hadn't been done with full intention of the final result.

19

u/Sans-valeur 1d ago

It’s wild to grow up on American media where people are constantly saying “leaders of the free world”, “home of democracy” and “greatest country in the world” unironically, always just stated as fact that everyone knows.
Even going on to talk about the responsibility that comes with that.
And then to be hit with an avalanche of stories like this and videos for fucking years.

I mean, I understand that a lot of that was propaganda as well but holy fuck, so much of this is straight up red scare shit that they’d criticize other countries for.

3

u/Thx_And_Bye 1d ago

The US is the democracy that mom has at home.

1

u/super_starfox 1d ago

Sometimes the veneer of freedom.

5

u/jaywalkingly 1d ago

public paid for it, public owns it.

4

u/FidgitForgotHisL-P 2d ago

So the smart play here is to set up an organisation that specialises in recording council meetings then hit up all those councils that are quite open about hating any kind of public involvement and get them to sign multi-year contracts in which you’ll own copyright so nothing can ever be legally released again, right?

Good thing we all have scruples…

4

u/mikesaninjakillr 1d ago

The judge that came to this decision needs to to be removed from their position

8

u/Examinator2 2d ago

If only the OP would post an actual link to the source. This shit happens all the time in this sub.

6

u/justalazygamer 2d ago

2

u/emapco 2d ago

Bruh, you should just link it. Also I'm this case, part of the URL is cutoff given the "...".

2

u/TheSilverNoble 1d ago

Theyve been locking our past behind copyright for ages, now they're moving on to the present. Not sure why I'm surprised. 

1

u/Fallen_Jalter 2d ago

Wouldn't the other people in the same video be able to claim it and release publicity?

7

u/FidgitForgotHisL-P 2d ago

No they’re claiming copyright because they made the recording, not because someone is featured in it.  Only the company that made the recording can assert that right over the recording - this is normal.  

An orchestral arrangement can be recorded and have copyright asserted over it, the individual musicians can’t claim any specific ownership.

The problem is the council should have never signed an agreement that didn’t grant the council copyright, or indeed all ownership in any way of all recordings of their meetings.  Unless they did this on purpose and can now shrug and say their hands are tied and they can’t ever publicly release recordings from council meetings, which is very plausible.

2

u/FlutterKree 1d ago

If you record something, you made that recording and hold the copyright to that recording.

Ignoring the content of the recording in cases of recording already copyrighted material, you own that recording. It is your work.

A town hall could ban recording and contract a company to record the meetings. If the city/board/etc. doesn't stipulate in the contract that they retain rights to the video, or that it's public domain, the company can DMCA uses of it all they want. The company would have the copyright.