New ‘Charlie Hebdo’ editor scolds US media: When you blur our cover, ‘you blur out democracy’

[kpete]

“I’m just curious as to your reaction,” Todd said shifting gears, “because as you know, many news organizations, including our own, have not shown your cover completely — blurred out, as a decision we made editorially, no government told us to do it. What is your reaction to our decision and others who have chosen not to show your cover?”

“Listen,” Briard replied, “we cannot blame newspapers that already suffer much difficulty in getting published and distributed in totalitarian regimes for not publishing a cartoon that could get them at best jail, at worst death.”

“But,” he said, “I’m quite critical of newspapers published in democratic countries. This cartoon is not just a little figure — a little Muhammad — it’s a symbol of freedom of speech, of freedom of religion, of freedom of democracy and secularism. It is this symbol that they refuse to publish.”

“What they must understand,” Briard continued, “is that when they blur it out — when they decline to publish it — they blur out democracy, secularism, freedom of religion, and they insult the citizenship.”




http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/new-charlie-hebdo-editor-scolds-us-press-when-you-blur-our-cover-you-blur-out-democracy/

[TexasProgresive]

1. Wouldn't the choice of dioing that be a case of free speech?

They can print/show what they want. Charlie Hebdo chose to show it. U.S. Media chose not to. I would call that freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Briard is just a cry baby.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

6. yep... free speech in the form of cowardice n/t

[jberryhill]

8. Was CH handing out copyright licenses?

Please post the link to where they disclaimed copyright by a written document.

Absent a copyright license, I would advise a publication to blur it out on that ground alone.

When did "free speech" confer the right to copy works of others without one?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. you go right ahead and believe that is why they did it...

copyright...

sP

[jberryhill]

13. Did I say that?

No.

That's what I would have said, if asked by one of my clients if they could publish it.

But, yeah, Freedom of Speech is all about bullying publications over what they choose to publish or not publish.

The guy who made the porn video "Two Girls One Cup" was sentenced for obscenity. I guess DU's failure to post it in Videos and Multimedia is simply cowardice.

[PSPS]

16. With attribution, a news article can publish any image without a release (17 US Code § 107)

But newspapers, magazines, etc., are not obligated to publish anything. "The First Amendment" applies only to individual speech and is not something that compels anyone to do or say or publish anything they don't want to.

[Ms. Toad]

19. That is not correct.

The statute you are citing is the codification of the fair use law. It does not grant an absolute right news media to publish the work of others. It provides an affirmative defense to a claim of copyright infringement - which I would never advise a client to rely on because whether you are entitled to that defense depends on a multi-factor test, the outcome of which is anything but certain. And if you lose (your use is determined not to be fair use), you are liable for infringement.

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.

You are misinterpreting the law.

[PSPS]

21. Sorry, but one sees this all the time.

I don't know about your "clients," but the rule of thumb at daily newspapers is that if it is newsworthy, related to the story, is attributed, and otherwise meets the editorial discretion of the publisher, it's good to go.

[Ms. Toad]

22. Seeing it all the time,

is not the same as following a practice which complies with the law.

There is a greater likelihood that an image used without consent will be determined to be fair use than many other uses - but the code you cited to does not grant newsmedia the right to use others' images merely by giving attribution to the source. It describes a limited set of circumstances in which you may have a defense when the copyright owner comes calling.

That limited defense is not a free pass to news media.

The Daniel Morel vs AFP/Getty Images saga has been going on since 2010 when the agencies first pulled his photos off of Twitter and distributed them without permission to several major publications. Now the saga has finally ended, and ended on very happy terms for Morel, who is walking away from the deal $1.2 million richer.

http://petapixel.com/2013/11/23/daniel-morel-awarded-1-2m-damages-law-suit-afp-getty-images/

And by clients, I mean real live paying clients who come to me for legal advice on copyright matters.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Yes, but obviously that's only a defence of legalising it, not doing it.

And no-one has suggested criminalising blurring the cover of Charlie Hebdo.

[TexasProgresive]

11. Well here it is unblurred

Actually is there anyway to show that is an image of Mohammed? Could be any guy in a turban with a scraggly beard.

[Comrade Grumpy]

2. No. The government isn't stopping the media from publishing those cartoons.

The media is exercising its discretion. You have the right to be an asshole, but you don't have to be one.

[belzabubba333]

3. charlie's mad cause we wont join him in his rudeness to the rest of the religious world

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. Indeed he is, and with good cause. N.T.

[BlueStater]

15. "Charlie" is the name of the magazine.

There is no "Charlie" the person.

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. The media decided to dump on democracy, secularism, freedom of religon, and insult the citizenship.

this time. They are a private corporation that must worry about the state of a profit and loss statement. Funny how the mindless pursuit of money makes cowards of people.

[Pooka Fey]

5. The USA Media Industrial Complex

has very few real journalists left, employs very few political cartoonists, prints Wing-Nut propaganda straight from the headquarters of the RNC, and has shown little interest in the Fourth Estate free exchange of ideas which is the basis of a democratic society. The US media will defend no one and no principal other than that which increases their stockholder's share prices.

[Brigid]

7. I wouldn't have Charlie Hebdo in my home because I think it's crude and stupid.

That's free speech too.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. It's left wing, pro equality and pro gay. Their original slogan was 'Stupid and Nasty' which was

taken from a comment from a reader of the first issue in the 70's.
What I find to be crude and stupid is the stream of anti gay hate speech that flows out of the 'faith communities' of the world. The Pope's anti equality tirade this weekend, stupid and nasty as well as ignorant and bigoted and just plain mean spirited.
To protect good people from a creature like the Pope, snarling that we disfigure God and are disordered, it will take a certain fearless flair.

[JonLP24]

17. This is the same American media that includes Bill O'Reilly

who cited a nonexistent news source in France (Paris Business Review or some BS) to claim success of a French boycott.

[Egnever]

18. Fuck him

I will defend his right to be as callus as his publication wishes. But he can go fuck himself if he thinks everyone has to join in.

[Ms. Toad]

20. Hence my response that I am not Charlie Hebdo. n/t