Crisis vs. Copyright
April 29, 2009 2:06 PM Subscribe
Crisis vs. Copyright: UNOSAT first put these images showing possible war crimes [pdf] online and then later added a password protection, blocking them from public view. Some journalists from top mainstream media outlets have called UNOSAT to ask if they can run them, but the UN agency that analyses satellite images that told them no, they were only for a private briefing, not the rest of the world.
The images clearly show the results of heavy artillery and probably air strikes by the government of Sri Lanka. Almost certainly indiscriminately in areas with large numbers of civilians, ie a war crime. The images and analysis should be as public as possible.
The images clearly show the results of heavy artillery and probably air strikes by the government of Sri Lanka. Almost certainly indiscriminately in areas with large numbers of civilians, ie. a war crime. The images and analysis should be as public as possible.
So, right now, some mainstream media outlets are internally debating the niceties of
copyright law while evidence of war crimes sits unseen by the world.
UNOSAT is the UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) Operational Satellite Applications Programme, implemented in co-operation with the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and they provide analysis of satellite images of humanitarian
emergencies. (These images were provided to the UN by the US State Department ... UNOSAT don't take the pics; they describe what's in them.)
(Please note, I am NOT posting this in support of the LTTE, aka the Tamil Tigers, who are almost certainly guilty of war crimes as well in recent weeks, as they have been using civilians as human shields.)
The images clearly show the results of heavy artillery and probably air strikes by the government of Sri Lanka. Almost certainly indiscriminately in areas with large numbers of civilians, ie a war crime. The images and analysis should be as public as possible.
The images clearly show the results of heavy artillery and probably air strikes by the government of Sri Lanka. Almost certainly indiscriminately in areas with large numbers of civilians, ie. a war crime. The images and analysis should be as public as possible.
So, right now, some mainstream media outlets are internally debating the niceties of
copyright law while evidence of war crimes sits unseen by the world.
UNOSAT is the UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) Operational Satellite Applications Programme, implemented in co-operation with the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and they provide analysis of satellite images of humanitarian
emergencies. (These images were provided to the UN by the US State Department ... UNOSAT don't take the pics; they describe what's in them.)
(Please note, I am NOT posting this in support of the LTTE, aka the Tamil Tigers, who are almost certainly guilty of war crimes as well in recent weeks, as they have been using civilians as human shields.)
This post was deleted for the following reason: Posts with heavy editorializing don't work very well here. -- pb
There isn't really anything to debate, this would clearly be a case of fair use. The only problem is that the people who have the images (mainstream media outlets, I guess) favor a maximalist interpretation of copyright where fair use doesn't exist.
In other words, publishing these images wouldn't violate actual copyright laws, it would only violate the copyright laws the news orgs wish existed (assuming that's what's happening)
posted by delmoi at 2:23 PM on April 29, 2009
In other words, publishing these images wouldn't violate actual copyright laws, it would only violate the copyright laws the news orgs wish existed (assuming that's what's happening)
posted by delmoi at 2:23 PM on April 29, 2009
IANAICJL, but Sri Lanka is not a signatory to the Rome Statute and thus its actions within its borders do not fall under the ICC's purview.
FWIW, ARVN terror-bombed the shit out of the VC's delta strongholds 1960-1972. It's one way to win an ideological-driven civil war, perhaps the only way.
posted by mrt at 2:28 PM on April 29, 2009
FWIW, ARVN terror-bombed the shit out of the VC's delta strongholds 1960-1972. It's one way to win an ideological-driven civil war, perhaps the only way.
posted by mrt at 2:28 PM on April 29, 2009
This post would be better if you could get the mods to delete everything below what shows up on the main page. As is, the header contains the only link and the only explanation of any worthwhile substance.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 2:33 PM on April 29, 2009
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 2:33 PM on April 29, 2009
delmoi is right, journalism is fair use. This is pretty explicitly laid out in the law as one of the main purposes of 'fair use'.
You didn't provide any other links saying they are sitting on them because of copyright, so I doubt that is the case. Maybe there is a security angle to this or some other reason the UN doesn't want them out?
posted by bradbane at 2:35 PM on April 29, 2009
You didn't provide any other links saying they are sitting on them because of copyright, so I doubt that is the case. Maybe there is a security angle to this or some other reason the UN doesn't want them out?
posted by bradbane at 2:35 PM on April 29, 2009
mrt: Geneva Conventions and other associated treaties are the issue here; jurisdictional issues are something else altogether.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:37 PM on April 29, 2009
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:37 PM on April 29, 2009
Geneva Conventions
are bilateral with the TT. They don't have a leg to stand on with that.
posted by mrt at 2:39 PM on April 29, 2009
are bilateral with the TT. They don't have a leg to stand on with that.
posted by mrt at 2:39 PM on April 29, 2009
We have one link to the report. Ok. I can't making anything of it and there is no context provided.
Then we have an insanely editorialized commentary that somehow casts the entire issue as one of copyright law, despite the fact we have no links or anything showing that copyright is even an issue here. Did you read this somewhere that there is a copyright issue? Or is that your assumption? This could be a security issue or it could be that newspapers are just being respectful of the UN's request.
You also start making claims about what that report shows. Again, editorializing.
Overall, crappy post.
posted by dios at 2:42 PM on April 29, 2009
Then we have an insanely editorialized commentary that somehow casts the entire issue as one of copyright law, despite the fact we have no links or anything showing that copyright is even an issue here. Did you read this somewhere that there is a copyright issue? Or is that your assumption? This could be a security issue or it could be that newspapers are just being respectful of the UN's request.
You also start making claims about what that report shows. Again, editorializing.
Overall, crappy post.
posted by dios at 2:42 PM on April 29, 2009
The point is not about copyright for the UN agency; that's what's worrying the media outlets.
For UNOSAT, who know why they changed from making this file public to making it private?
The key question here is: why would a UN agency hide possible evidence of war crimes?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:42 PM on April 29, 2009
For UNOSAT, who know why they changed from making this file public to making it private?
The key question here is: why would a UN agency hide possible evidence of war crimes?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:42 PM on April 29, 2009
designbot yes, thanks
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:51 PM on April 29, 2009
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:51 PM on April 29, 2009
Does "some journalists from top mainstream media outlets" include anyone other than Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press? Do you have any links regarding these alleged copyright issues?
posted by designbot at 2:54 PM on April 29, 2009
posted by designbot at 2:54 PM on April 29, 2009
« Older WHO Declares Pandemic Imminent | Boyz in the hood? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Saydur at 2:21 PM on April 29, 2009