Paper Demands Liberal Blog Pull Video Of Kasich’s Awkward Interview

Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

The Northeastern Ohio Media Group, a business partner with the Plain Dealer newspaper in Cleveland, has demanded that an Ohio liberal political blog pull a video of Gov. John Kasich’s awkward interview with the newspaper’s editorial board.

The newspaper’s website had originally published the video of its interview with Democratic candidate Ed Fitzgerald and Kasich, whom it eventually endorsed. But the video was later taken down, for reasons unknown. Plunderbund, a liberal blog, posted parts of the video because its editors “felt the video was important.”

Plunderbund then reported Tuesday that NOMG had threatened to sue if the video was not removed.

They received a letter from senior NOMG staff, who alleged that Plunderbund had “illegally copied” the video and demanded that it be taken down or the blog would face legal action.

“We insist you delete the material immediately. We have registered the copyright, which means your illegal use of it entitles us to statutory damages, which can be quite steep, and recovery of all fees we pay our attorneys as we compel you to adhere to the copyright law,” Chris Quinn, NOMG’s vice president of content, wrote in the letter.

In the video, per Plunderbund’s description, Kasich “slumped in his chair, refused to acknowledge the other candidates and ignored repeated attempts by PD staff to answer even basic questions about his policies and programs.”

Plunderbund removed the video while it discussed its options, according to Tuesday’s post:

We believe the Plain Dealer and NEO Media Group, the PD’s non-union, online counterpart, have an obligation to the voters of Ohio to share the entire video interview, especially since they still chose to endorse John Kasich after his disrespectful performance during the interview. We implore them to restore the video.

We believe our posting of the video falls under the category of fair use, however we have temporarily removed the video while we discuss our options.

Meanwhile, an anonymous YouTube user republished the video on Tuesday.

(h/t Romensko)

UPDATE: 2:57 p.m. ET

Plunderbund has uploaded the edited video again, now with some of their own touches — inter-titles, music and a clear copyright credit to NOMG.

FitzKasichGagLaw3 from PBVIMEO on Vimeo.

Image via Vimeo.

Latest Livewire
73
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. So stupid. The desist order simply heightens the reporting and ensures that “anonymous YouTube users” will continue to republish. If they can’t keep copyright music material off Youtube, there’s no way they can keep Kasich’s meltdown off Youtube.

  2. "17 U.S.C. § 107
    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

    1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
    3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

    Plunderbund should tell these despicable fucks to go pound sand. PD published it, put it in the public sphere and now someone is reporting and commenting on it (one might even argue that giving the information to everyone else so they could discuss it was the entire purpose of publishing it in the first place). The only reason they want it removed and to pretend it never existed is because it’s an embarrassment to them and calls into question the newspaper’s credibility and ethics…why, after being front and center to such a horrible display of candidacy during their own interview, they would still go and endorse the miserable twerp (answer: $$$). I’m wondering how much collusion you could find under the hood here.

    I suppose the “news” media can run around shouting with its hair on fire that it’s supposed to be able to publish whatever secrets, no matter how dangerous or damaging, that it gets its hands on in order to “keep the gov’t [or everyone else] in check”…BUT GODDAMN YOU IF YOU SCRUTINIZE THE “NEWS” PURVEYORS AND TRY TO KEEP THEM IN CHECK.

  3. Just another example of no guts masquerading as ‘discussing options.’

    Then it takes an anonymous guy to put the thing right back up again.

  4. How many times can you write “liberal blog” in one article?

  5. Avatar for dont dont says:

    this is news. I think Sniffit has outlined why you cannot copyright the news.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

67 more replies

Participants

Avatar for dr_coyote Avatar for slbinva Avatar for ncsteve Avatar for nowarino Avatar for deckbose Avatar for humpback Avatar for commiedearest Avatar for msinformed Avatar for cvilledem Avatar for marioth Avatar for dont Avatar for sniffit Avatar for luigidaman Avatar for skippyflipjack Avatar for eastlansing Avatar for theghostofeustacetilley Avatar for astro_walker Avatar for iheartkasich Avatar for serendipitoussomnambulist Avatar for khaaannn Avatar for azjude Avatar for raincntry Avatar for thunderclapnewman Avatar for jinmichigan

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: