Philosophical Question

Not to detract from the tragedy that occurred in Virginia, but yesterday, I was watching the news and reading the paper about the manifesto that the gunman sent to the newspaper. It brought up a question to me about who has the legal rights to the video and any and all photographs/videos of deceased persons, in general.
In this case, I'm pretty sure the newspaper probably had the right to publish the pictures/videos that were sent to them, however, do they have the right to "sell" in part or in whole, those pictures or allow them to be published outside of their own venues. Or, do they have "any" rights at all to publish them, unless they have specific written or verbal permission of the deceased person?

Admittedly, news has special rules that don't apply to most of us, but they also must follow some of the same rules that apply to all of us.

Subject is now open for debate. What do you "think" or "know"?

Well, since a video and manifesto was sent to a news organization, the organization certainly as a right to publish or air it as news, which some did.

Others take the view of...Does this video/manifesto further the story or provide information to the public that they should know or be aware of? If it doesn't, does it just become sensationalism or voyeurism that encourages copycat crimes? Since media are in competition with each other, there is also the question...If I don't publish or air it, will my competition do it, and gain viewers or readership? Do viewers really need blood and gore during the supper hour? Do graphic videos de-sensitize people to violence?

Bottom line is that it is really difficult for newspaper editors or television producers to call it right on every breaking story.

Ronnoco

Since the manifesto was sent to NBC, how did the other news organizations get it?
Did NBC sell it to them or did it become public domain after they started showing it?

My point exactly, Frog. NBC has specific rights to the videos and photos. But, how far do those rights go? Under the law, doesn't the next of kin retain the specific copyright on any photo or video. And if so, doesn't the next of kin have the right to receive compensation for any publication of those images that NBC may have sold or others, may have sold?

Ronnoco...I understand that NBC has some rights to the specific video and manifesto, but the question is...Who has the rights to the video and any photos, or for that matter, any words in his manifesto. Does any other new agency have the "specific" right to publish any of the video, pictures or quotes from the manifesto? Does NBC have the right to "sell" any or all of the video and/or manifesto?
Again, this is just a question for thought and debate. Something to have fun with.
Ken

Perhaps he included a waiver of all his writes in the package he sent to NBC. :)

I don't have any answers to these questions, but I do hope that if someone is making $$ off of these photos, and videos, (and we know someone is) I hope they donate it all to a fund or some sort of memorial for the victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ken1953

My point exactly, Frog. NBC has specific rights to the videos and photos. But, how far do those rights go? Under the law, doesn't the next of kin retain the specific copyright on any photo or video. And if so, doesn't the next of kin have the right to receive compensation for any publication of those images that NBC may have sold or others, may have sold?

Ronnoco...I understand that NBC has some rights to the specific video and manifesto, but the question is...Who has the rights to the video and any photos, or for that matter, any words in his manifesto. Does any other new agency have the "specific" right to publish any of the video, pictures or quotes from the manifesto? Does NBC have the right to "sell" any or all of the video and/or manifesto?
Again, this is just a question for thought and debate. Something to have fun with.
Ken

---

Legally the rights go back to the first owner of copyright who is the videographer or the person who wrote the manifesto. The next legal consideration is: was the video and manifesto just sent (given) to NBC or was there any mention of remuneration in the letter.
It sounds as if legally NBC was "given" the video and the manifesto and if that is true, then they can do with it what they like.

Ronnoco

Good point Ronnoco...not one I even considered. However, if I send you a picture, with no specific copyright permissions, do "you" then also have unlimited rights to that picture. It is my understanding that "no" you don't, so what gives NBC, et al, unlimited rights????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjs1973

Perhaps he included a waiver of all his writes in the package he sent to NBC. :)

I don't have any answers to these questions, but I do hope that if someone is making $$ off of these photos, and videos, (and we know someone is) I hope they donate it all to a fund or some sort of memorial for the victims.

---

Michael, sad thing is, someone is probably making money on it, and even sadder, probably few of the victims or their family's, if any, will benefit in any way!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ken1953

Good point Ronnoco...not one I even considered. However, if I send you a picture, with no specific copyright permissions, do "you" then also have unlimited rights to that picture. It is my understanding that "no" you don't, so what gives NBC, et al, unlimited rights????

---

The difference however is that if you send me a picture, it is not with any assumption or expectation that I will publish it. If you send a picture however to a news organization, it is with the expectation and implied permission for them to publish it and distribute it and therefore you are giving them those rights.

Ronnoco