"no watermark or copy protection marked on the internet footage to indicate its source as being a video game"
However, it did have computer graphics where the real life stuff should be.
ITV has escaped a fine for using video game footage to illustrate IRA activities, and portraying the wrong riot, but will tighten up procedures to stop it happening again. The offending footage was supposed to show the IRA successfully shooting down a British Army helicopter, and was captioned "IRA Film 1988", but actually …
More importantly - having no watermark or copy protection marked does NOT mean you can just snag it and broadcast it on TV.
I've seen complete episodes of ITV shows online with no watermark or copy protection marked on them - does that mean I can just rebroadcast it as much as I like after downloading it?
It's double-standards like this that makes the pirates feel "justified" in what they do and hence encourages piracy.
Where's the lawsuit from the game developers for misappropriating and misrepresenting their copyrighted imagery?
I see your point, sort of, but unfortunately it doesn't really hold water.
Bohemia would only be overjoyed at the publicity if there were any chance in hell that it would lead to greater revenues or sales for them.
I don't imagine that there's an enormous overlap between the two groups labelled "ITV documentary viewers" and "Potential FPS gamers eager to spend money on titles with which they are currently unfamiliar". So if there's no money for them to make, why would they give a mousefart about "the publicity"?
To put it another way - if copyright holders expect, fairly reasonably, to be compensated when someone makes use of their work in a commercial context, why should a broadcasters' in-house production company be exempt from that rule?
Not saying that they're exempt, just that Bohemia likely don't care. And there are a *lot* more FPS gamers than might be readily apparent. It only takes a game to be mentioned to remind someone of it, and once the name's in your head, you're likely to recognise it on a shop shelf, etc, etc, etc. It might sound daft, but that's marketing for you.
Only if you're clever and make use of the ensuing publicity - I've not seen any statements from Bohemia about how the game in question is currently available (or part of a series whose most recent release is available in shops now for the low low price of $VALUE), nor have I even seen any official statement that they still make games!
Not to mention that after all the guff about whichever FPS it was last year that appeared to feature a "go on a killing spree as a terrorist killing innocents" (which is of course magically much worse than going on a legitimate "only killing evil terrorist types" killing spree), being the development house who made a game that ITV claimed was a depiction of IRA terrorist activities isn't necessarily the best advertising out there....
A person had to sit down and edit that video. They had to clip it from a longer segment to get the right start and end points and match it into the sequence. It is pure bs that looking at it in this frame view on FCP or avid that you cant tell its not real.
The editor at least knew it was from a computer game.
This is what happens when the modern media make redundant professionals with experience, training and a proven track record, and replace them with work experience boys or give green graduates inflated job titles and responsibilities on the minimum wage.
The London rolling news radio station LBC is a constant stream of mistakes made by young people with no life experience made to run it. Yesterday I heard one of their news bulletins talking about the former Liberal Democrat leader, Lord Ashcroft...
In making the ruling they also drew everyone's attention to how moronic ITV were in making the documentary.
Which is arguably more damaging than a fine would have been.
("I saw a really interesting medical documentary on ITV last night" "Are you absolutely sure it wasn't some clips from The Sims" "No, no I am not)
"In making the ruling they also drew everyone's attention to how moronic ITV were in making the documentary.
Which is arguably more damaging than a fine would have been."
Nope. ITV documentaries are in the main dumbed down opinionated redtop-esque shite made by idiots for couch potatoes. The people who would normally watch this stuff really don't give a stuff whether it's factually accurate. As long as it reinforces their prejudices they are happy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOD_TV there was another fine for a broadcast that claimed that the media was under the power of Satan. Not only is that not what the Bible says "The earth is the Lord's and everything in it", it would have to include themselves too. Beware of wide-sweeping statements!
What worries me is that this would seem to suggest that it is common practice among some production companies to simply rip video from the internet and use it without even bothering to check whether it is copyright or not.
Presumably there's one rule for them and another for the rest of us. It's almost a shame that three stuff didn't make it through, had it done so that would be two strikes against ITV already. One more and they would lose their internet connection.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019