Question regarding owner rights of "unaltered" footage, when it can be proven that it is altered.

[DSMissed]

Here is a scenario:

Bill declares to the world that he recorded a video of a real bigfoot. His video airs on news, social media, etc. as being footage of a real bigfoot. Bill himself is interviewed and states that he is the one who recorded the video, and it has not been altered in any way.

Nancy obtains a copy of Bills video by recording it on the news, or downloading it off the internet. She uses forensic software to enhance the video and is able to see that the video has in fact been altered. She creates a video using Bills footage, that shows the exact process Bill used to alter the footage. She is able to prove that there was no bigfoot in the original video at all, and that Bill would have been aware of this when recording.



This is my question: Can Bill sue Nancy for defamation, or for illegally obtaining/using/altering his video? Or, if Nancy proves the video has been knowingly misrepresented by Bill, does that void Bills copyright protection?

To take this one step further: Lets say a news station had actually worked with Bill to obtain and alter the video, and deliberately lied to its viewers about the authenticity. Can that news station be held accountable as well?

 

[Zigner]

I'm sorry - this forum is for US law matters only.

Im sorry - we don't like to deal with third-party interlopers.

I'm sorry - this forum is not for hypothetical scenarios.

 

[quincy]

Here is a scenario:

Bill declares to the world that he recorded a video of a real bigfoot. His video airs on news, social media, etc. as being footage of a real bigfoot. Bill himself is interviewed and states that he is the one who recorded the video, and it has not been altered in any way.

Nancy obtains a copy of Bills video by recording it on the news, or downloading it off the internet. She uses forensic software to enhance the video and is able to see that the video has in fact been altered. She creates a video using Bills footage, that shows the exact process Bill used to alter the footage. She is able to prove that there was no bigfoot in the original video at all, and that Bill would have been aware of this when recording.



This is my question: Can Bill sue Nancy for defamation, or for illegally obtaining/using/altering his video? Or, if Nancy proves the video has been knowingly misrepresented by Bill, does that void Bills copyright protection?

To take this one step further: Lets say a news station had actually worked with Bill to obtain and alter the video, and deliberately lied to its viewers about the authenticity. Can that news station be held accountable as well?

What is the name of your state, DSMissed?

Is this an event that happened?

 

[xylene]

Well, really if we look to the relevant case law in United States v. Harry and The Hendersons...

 

[DSMissed]

I live in the US, in South Dakota.

I am making a documentary film that will be very intricately proving several news stations and film producers complicit in an ongoing lie against the public. Not bigfoot, of course, but I felt the need to maintain some privacy in the matter. I am just researching what possible backlash I may face.

 

[quincy]

A woman in California filed a lawsuit earlier this year against the State of California and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife over her sighting of Bigfoot..

Claudia Ackley claimed her sighting of Bigfoot should not have been so easily discounted as a mere bear sighting.

The suit, Claudia Ackley v. State of California, et al, was dismissed in March.

https://unicourt.com/case/ca-sbd-claudia-ackley-v-state-of-california-1035977

 

[DSMissed]

I've been going over WIPO Section 1202 but I haven't really found anything that pertains to this type of situation, unless I'm just not fully understanding the context.

 

[DSMissed]

Interesting... thanks for that Quincy

 

[DSMissed]

I do know that news anchors have a "code of ethic" but no actual laws on honesty or forgery. The news stations are not owned by the people or the government, and so they don't work for the people per say, so really have no obligation to them.

I think this is still quite a gray area.

 

[xylene]

Are you looking to sue some media outlet for publishing fake news or are your looking to avoid being sued for exposing fake new in a way that requires forensic analysis of copyrighted material?

 

[quincy]

Here is a scenario:

Bill declares to the world that he recorded a video of a real bigfoot. His video airs on news, social media, etc. as being footage of a real bigfoot. Bill himself is interviewed and states that he is the one who recorded the video, and it has not been altered in any way.

Nancy obtains a copy of Bills video by recording it on the news, or downloading it off the internet. She uses forensic software to enhance the video and is able to see that the video has in fact been altered. She creates a video using Bills footage, that shows the exact process Bill used to alter the footage. She is able to prove that there was no bigfoot in the original video at all, and that Bill would have been aware of this when recording.



This is my question: Can Bill sue Nancy for defamation, or for illegally obtaining/using/altering his video? Or, if Nancy proves the video has been knowingly misrepresented by Bill, does that void Bills copyright protection?

To take this one step further: Lets say a news station had actually worked with Bill to obtain and alter the video, and deliberately lied to its viewers about the authenticity. Can that news station be held accountable as well?

Thank you for providing your state name and what you hoped to learn from your Bigfoot example.

Using your Bigfoot example: Bill holds the copyrights in the video he shot. As copyright holder, he can alter the video however he wants and he will hold the copyrights in any altered videos he makes.

Nancy violates Bill's copyright by making a copy of the video without his authorization so Bill potentially has an infringement action to pursue.

Nancy's use and analysis of the video could allow her some defenses (e.g., fair use). Her commentary on her analysis could, however, result in a defamation suit filed against her by Bill.

Bill's copyright is not voided by his modification of the video.

Whether any civil action could be pursued or any crimes charged against Bill and/or the news media would require more facts (e.g., purpose of use and deception).

For example, if the video was used in a news story aired on April 1, it would probably be viewed as an April Fool's Day joke. If aired at other times, it could be viewed as fake news or real news (depending on what side of the fence you are rooted). If aired to purposely deceive consumers and gain some sort of financial benefit, I suppose a legal action of some sort could be fashioned.