In a ruling on a trademark dispute, Judge Terence T. Evans of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals this week digressed from the normal pattern of appellate opinions to tell a story. It was a story about baseball. By the time it was over, Judge Evans had encouraged thousands of readers to infringe on Major League Baseball's broadcast …
Hmmm. Isn't the clip now officially part of the "public record?"
It would appear, prima facie, that linking to the YouTube video in his opinion would make the clip a part of the court record, and thus, if YouTube has removed the clip, they are apparently guilty of tampering with the court records after the decision.
An easy solution would be for YouTube to provide a copy of the "offending" media for attachment to the court's file.
Watching MLB scream at the court to expunge their "property" would be amusing.
"Part of the public record"? Methinks not
Correct me if I am mistaken but, if linking to the YouTube video makes it a part of the court record, then writing the ISBN of any given book the judge has read as part of the case would make it too... even if the book was never was presented in court. I certainly know little of US law but I would find such a reasoning hardly tenable. Then again, it's not like the video will be now unavailable for ever more. Once in the 'Net, always in the 'Net.
The law is a banana?
"I certainly know little of US law but I would find such a reasoning hardly tenable." And what is so untenable, anonymous poster, whenever it seems perfectly reasonable.
And if you don't "get" the banana reference, here is its origin .... http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/24/newsid_2503000/2503595.stm
The video may well be part of the Court Record, and that should mean that any use in connection with the case constitutes Fair Use. However, now that a verdict has been returned and the case is over, anyone browsing court records out of Merionesian curiosity might lose the Fair Use entitlement. On the other hand, anyone browsing court records looking for material to be used in another, live case may well have a valid argument for Fair Use!
There *must* be *some* precedent involving copyrighted material having relevance to a court case ..... Surely? What was done then?
Not part of the "public record", whatever that is
The clip doesn't have its copyright license altered by being referenced by a court decision.
But, in the interests of future readers, ephemeral content such as YouTube clips shouldn't be referenced at all, but incorporated into the judgment.
If incorporated, then the clip in the judgment would be able to be reproduced by anyone. However, publishers of the clip would be subject to the usual laws of court reportage. That opens another can of worms if an edited clip is published.
- Very fabric of space-time RIPPED apart in latest Hubble pic
- Dell charges £16 TO INSTALL FIREFOX on PCs – Mozilla is miffed
- Video Hubble snaps SPACE CRUMBLE enigma 'roid
- CIA snoops snooped on Senate to spy spy torture report – report
- Updated Newsweek knocks on door of dad-of-six, tells him he invented Bitcoin