My feeling is when someone becomes a public official, the rules change (or should change) due to public accountability and power. If you put something out in the public that's relevant to your position, I think the fair use of that material increases dramatically in scope.

Basically even if the FCC official made the recordings, I think at some point copyright on certain materials should become moot because fair use becomes dramatically greater in scope. I know not everyone would agree with that but it's what I feel should be the case.

▲

bsimpson 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

For those who don't know the specifics of intellectual property law:

Copyright is unwavering. The law says that the author/owner gets exclusive use of that content for a really fucking long time (something like life + a century, thank you Disney lobbyists). Full stop.

The courts recognize that that lack of nuance is unreasonable. Therefore, they have ruled that copyright law doesn't apply if the use is "fair," hence the phrase "fair use." There's no hard-and-fast way to know if something is fair use. You're basically betting that if you ever get sued, the court will be on your side. There are axioms that the court has given (for instance, if you are making money from your use, it's less likely to be fair) that help you guess if the ruling leans in your favor.

The reason for these exemptions is that it's in the public's interest for certain kinds of expression to transcend copyright, such as news and satire. (This is also where the folks belief that you can't get in trouble if it's a parody come from.)

"Clearance and Copyright," and "Free Culture" are both great books to learn more about this. The author of the latter, Larry Lessig, is the guy who fought Disney's copyright lobby in court. His experience inspired that book, and also inspired him to found the Creative Commons.

All of that is to say that there are carve outs to copyright where the public interest overrides the private content monopoly, and a public official speaking in an unflattering way certainly qualifies.

[update] apparently those axioms were actually codified into law in 1976, but they are still merely defensive - nudges for how the court might rule, not protections in their own right.

▲

Animats 2 days ago | parent [-]

A work performed by a Government employee in connection with their job is not copyrightable in the US. (The UK has "Crown copyright", but the US has nothing similar.) Most of these people were Government employees speaking on Government business.

Where does YouTube get off taking them down? That's way out of line for Google.

Meanwhile, move them over to PeerTube or something.

▲

qingcharles 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

* Federal employees

(I've been blocked on FOIAs in Illinois by state and locals claiming wild copyright claims)

▲

NewJazz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The work was recorded prior to him becoming a government employee.

▲

bigbadfeline 2 days ago | parent [-]

But that work is directly related and highly relevant to his work as a government employee now. If you were right, any politician could silence anyone from speaking about his former transgressions, affairs or whatever.

In fact, a state Rep in California (R) tried that after his bragging was caught by an open mic, he graphically bragged to a colleague about having sex with a lobbyist and then claimed copyright on that "work" and his own name.

That went nowhere, of course.

	▲	TheNewsIsHere 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Although what I’m about to say would be taken to a logical extreme by some, that is just fallacy — It is of course immaterial that someone later becomes a government employee. If we were to pass a law along these lines, then any expert who later becomes a government employee would not be entitled to the protection of prior intellectual property. Barack Obama penned many items prior to the commencement of his government employment. His interest in those pieces where he discussed topics relevant to his interests or expertise in constitutional law is not abridged because he entered public service. In this case with Prasad, there is other nuance, but none of it material to that specific point. A much more fruitful focus would be on the doctrine of fair use and the examination of the credentials and claims of those who do enter public service.

▲

gruez 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>My feeling is when someone becomes a public official, the rules change (or should change) due to public accountability and power. If you put something out in the public that's relevant to your position, I think the fair use of that material increases dramatically in scope.

That's theoretically what "fair use" is supposed to cover.

▲

disposition2 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just want to point out this is someone (in leadership) from the FDA, not the FCC.

> Prasad, a former hematologist-oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, is now *head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which makes him the chief vaccine regulator in the US.*

▲

NewJazz 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's definitely a better fair use case than "archiving" and monetizing Kendrick's latest album. Courts would be more cautious denying fair use when policy is involved.

▲

nobodyandproud 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

So Google is as much at fault here as Prasad.