In other words, they don't own the airwaves. We do.
They are granted permission to use. (And some licensing fee???)
Permission is partially granted in exchange for ABC airing political discourse.
I'm not sure their program of one of the candidates in the election is their property. I think it's in response to fulfilling their obligation.
Anyone agree with me?
I am not a lawyer, but I think that ABC has a copyright on everything it generates, even recordings of newsworthy events and public figures. Maybe a lawyer could chime in on this and whether footage being from a pooled newsfeed would make a difference.
I have no idea of whether this would fall into the "fair use" category, but it might, since the clips are short. I suspect that by the time ABC could do anything about it, the ad will have run its course.
The Swifties are certainly doing quite well at generating controversy and getting a lot of free publicity.
Well, we don't own their license.
No they don't, but they own the images sent out. They are copyrighted. Just like something that appears in a newspaper. However there is the same exemption for quoting copyrighted material that applies right on FR. For purposes of public discussion you can quote excerpts, even if the source objects. You cannot post entire works, if the copyright owner objects.
In this case I'd say that the SwiftVets did the video equivalent of posting excerpts.
As a counter charge all it would take it to find a Soros type 527 ad that uses ABC source material, and ask ABC whey they didn't object to that.
ABC beams its electro magnetic waves into my yard, my living room,
my bedroom etc, all without my permission.
So if they object at what I do with their signals, they are
hereby on notice to keep their signals off my property.
I believe the FCC ruled in the 40's that signals beamed
out into private property were fair game for anyone being
bombarded.