NOt sure I see any conflict here.

If the footage falls outside the 'fair use' mandate for use of copyrighted material, FOX can license its use to whomever they please - and deny it to whomever they please.

If I owned material that required permission to use, I would also permit its use by, say, HIllary Clinton - and deny its use to, oh, say, Mitt Romney.

Seems logical to me.

"Peter Formaini wrote on October 26, 2007 6:08 PM:

NOt sure I see any conflict here."

Sure - no conflict if Fox acknowledges its support for Giuliani. But if it claims to be a fair and balanced" news source, then the conflict should be obvious. Of course, we know it isn't fair and balanced - and it's good that it continues to belie its claims in such obvious ways, so that more people will eventually see through it.

(Maybe you were being sarcastic too subtly for me to get it, Peter)

Considering that the McCain footage in question that started all this was taken from a debate at which most if not all of the candidates appeared, there is something rather screwy about the whole thing.

I wouldn't make a fair use case out of this one, as it's obvious FOX* doesn't believe McCain is capable of carrying an election and is intent on doing what it can to keep him from getting a national nod.

If FOX* was upset that it's logo and name were being used (or perceived!) as a potential endorsement, then that I could understand, but if they have no problem there, obviously, then that copyright nonsense doesn't really stick.

*And by the way, I call it FUX news, but you know, whatever.

Looks to me like Faux has made a bit Faux pas.

Fox is can tell a candidate not to use its footage. Depending on the context the candidate may or may not have the ability to refuse under fair use.

What Fox cannot do is to make donations in cash or kind to candidates. If they allow some candidates to use their content and not others they are making a contribution in kind. That is a clear violation.

In most cases the debates have a 'no use in campaign ads' clause. I suspect that the McCain campaign almost certainly broke that rule unless the restriction was on only on the use of footage of other candidates.

Murdoch will back Giuliani to the hilt, he is repaying Giuliani's help in setting Faux news up in the first place by forcing NYC cable to carry it.

So, if Fox News can't help Rudy like this, then Comedy Central can't help Stephen Colbert in South Carolina either, right?

Jake D. wrote on October 26, 2007 6:47 PM:

So, if Fox News can't help Rudy like this, then Comedy Central can't help Stephen Colbert in South Carolina either, right?

Right.

Could allowing the use of the footage be considered a campaign in-kind donation? If I was McCain, I would be on the horn to the FEC, demanding either that rudi pay for the footage, or get equal time on the network.

John Q:

"Maybe you were being sarcastic too subtly for me to get it, Peter)"

Not in the least.

Note that I said 'aside from fair use'. That is the legal requirement that covers use of news footage freely without permission.

But if the content of a network is used in excess of the fair usage level, then it becomes a question of copyright infringement - and it has nothing to do with 'fairness' (which is what fair use is all about).

Once 'fair use' is exceeded, the question is, pure and simple, whether the owner of the footage wants to grant permission to use it or not - and that is perfectly open to political favoritism. It involves only the right to control the fruit of ones ownership of property.

So if FOX wants to grant use of their property over and above 'fair use' to Giuliani and not McCain, well - that's their right - just as The Advocate can grant use of its property to Ron Paul and not to Obama or Hillary, if they so choose.

And I see nothing wrong with it on any level. Networks are private entities and may support any candidate with their property that they wish (after allowance for 'fair use' doctrines.)

John McCain is this election's version of Hey, It's My Turn To Be President.

Previous members include Ted Kennedy and Bob Dole. I'm sure you can think of others.

FOX is trying to influence the elections 24/7. They stole the 2000 election for Bush, and will try to do it again. This is what happens when rabid free market capitalists report the news.

As Greg investigates this story, I think it is worth it for him to explore whether Fox did this at the request of the Hillary camp. Hillary might be playing her Rupert Murdoch connection; she's been cultivating it hard. The ad was the first in this season to lay a glove on Hillary in a way that was effective. Please, don't accuse me of thinking that the Woodstock Museum controversy is a real issue; it isn't; it's a classic bullsh*t issue. But a lot of less ideological voters are likely to see it as a pretty effective knock at Hillary (as well as an effective booster of McCain's two strengths: long time opposition to earmarks and of course courageous POW back in Nam).

Its true, i mean ususally its fox news tearing down mitt romney but now they are going after mccain. Really fox and sean hannity are nothing more than rudy's pr spin...

Didn't Murdoch hold a fundraiser for Clinton?

The McCain ad was completely anti-Hillary, which may be what got Murdoch/Fox's attention.

Corporate Conspiritor Clinton is FOX!s favoite candidate and Guiliani is an acceptable fall-back.

A Clinton Presidency will remove ownership limits and give them fooder for another eight years of existence.

If McCain were to public profess a desire to abolish the Sherman Anti-Trust Acts and the FCC, he'd be their boy but even he is not that insane.

It's just one more reminder that the "fair and balanced" "news" network is neither fair and balanced, or a news provider.