Michael sez, “When Canadian politicians are videotaped in committee hearings, those tapes are deemed ‘proprietary content’ that can’t be redistributed by the very people who put them in power: the Canadian public and the advocacy groups who monitor their activities.”
The notion that videos of committee hearings constitute proprietary content that when used without permission raise the potential for allegations of contempt of Parliament will undoubtedly come as news to many Canadians. Using these excerpts in YouTube videos, webcasts, or podcasts has emerged as an important and powerful tool for business and consumer groups to educate the public on policy issues and legislative proposals.
Yet, House of Commons lawyers maintain that many of these activities violate the law and have sent notice and takedown demands to YouTube seeking the removal of videos that include House of Commons and committee proceedings. These include clips that involve satire and parody, since they are seen to “distort” the video itself.
SCPHA hearings held earlier this year revealed that Canada’s elected officials safeguard Parliamentary video with highly restrictive licencing requirements that are typically limited to use in schools or for private study, research, criticism or review. Relying on Crown copyright, the policy states that any other use – including any commercial use – requires the express prior written approval of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
MPs miss chance to embrace YouTube generation
(Thanks, Michael!)