|
It seems clear that Cythetiq has nailed the issue on the head. If Viacom or whoever spends the money to produce a show, then they (under current law) should and do own that material. I can see their point in refusing to release an unflattering clip. After all, if the administration begins to see a particular network as a sort of middleman clearinghouse for unflattering material, it could be that the president will appear on that network's programs less often in the future. It might be a good idea to amend the law to say that footage of the POTUS is owned by the people, but I would support a provision that requires compensation for the producing agent (who today would be the owner).
As to what roachboy has said about the implications of intellectual property... I was actually at a party last night where Jack Valenti mentioned that he believed that intellectual property was one of America's most important exports. I think there is some truth to that. Unfortunately, the premises of copyright law have a lot to do with printed mediums. The recent additions and expansions to cover digital and more abstract property are clearly just bandaids over gaping wounds. Much new ground will be broken in this area over the next decade - both through court cases and law making.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
|