Sinclair Sued by Filmmaker Over Kerry Photos

Reuters ^ | 21OCT04 | Gail Appleson

[familyop]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The director of a documentary about John Kerry's Vietnam service sued Sinclair Broadcast Group on Thursday, accusing it of illegally copying his photographs in a controversial anti-Kerry movie it plans to air portions of this week.

George Butler filed the copyright infringement suit one day before Sinclair, one of the largest U.S. television broadcasting companies, plans to broadcast part of "Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal" in a one-hour television program discussing allegations about the Democratic presidential candidate's anti-Vietnam War activities in the 1970s.

Published reports said Baltimore-based Sinclair backed off its original plan to air the entire movie less than two weeks before the Nov. 2 presidential election because of mounting political, legal and financial pressures, but the company denied in a news release it ever announced it would show the full film on television.

Democrats have charged the documentary was a blatant political statement disguised as news and demanded equal air time from Sinclair, whose executives have been major contributors to President Bush and Republicans in recent years.

The movie was still being offered for sale through a Web site called www.stolenhonor.com, the lawsuit said.

A spokeswoman for Sinclair could not be reached for comment.

The suit, filed in Manhattan federal court, seeks unspecified damages and an order barring Sinclair and film distributors from selling or showing the movie containing copyrighted photographs and film footage.

Butler directed the documentary "Going Upriver: the Long War of John Kerry," which chronicles the circumstances leading to Kerry's Vietnam service, and his protest against the war after he returned home, having received the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts.

Butler and Swift Boat Film, which he manages, charge Sinclair wrongfully copied photographs used in "Going Upriver." The suit also accuses Sinclair of using film footage that had been licensed to Swift Boat by Winter Film, which made the 1971 documentary "Winter Soldier."

Lawrence Fabian, a lawyer representing Butler, Swift Boat Film and Winter Film, told Reuters he had heard from defense lawyers the one-hour news program, "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media" to be aired on Friday would not contain any of the copyrighted works.

[familyop]

I wonder if anyone is counting the total number of lawsuits regarding this Election.

[zarf]

You just have to think about what old Kerryboy has to hide.

I've never seen a candidate so fearful of his past and so busy trying to sweep it all away like so much dust.

[weegee]

Boo frickin' who. I don't know ANYONE that seeks permission from the USSR to reproduce THEIR images.

If you catch a historical moment (Jean Kerry and Hanoi Jane) in a photo, it has just reason to be brought to the masses.

The JFK assassination film (Zapruder's) went to govt. property (public domain) and BACK to private property. There is ANOTHER 8mm film (from the other side of the street) of that event.

Where exactly does FAIR USE come into play?

[quantim]

How could the director of the film object to the content? The first paragraph doesn't make sense.

[Joe Miner]

How could the director of the film object to the content? The first paragraph doesn't make sense.

Butler is the director of the Going Upriver documentary fiction of the war hero Kerry.

It looks like he is claiming that Sinclair is using some footage from his movie in their broadcast tonight.

[quantim]

Thanks. I wonder if there will be footage from Cambodia as well if it is a story of war hero Kerry?

[Zon]

heard from defense lawyers the one-hour news program, "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media" to be aired on Friday would not contain any of the copyrighted works.

Much ado about nothing. Save for free advertising from Reuters.

Thanks to the mainstream media, certain Democrats and special interests for their efforts to stop Sinclair they have helped to considerably improve the impact of the show -- not to mention create a large audience.

[YOUGOTIT]

Another piece of total crap from a brown shirt democrat.

[nmh]

WHY didn't someone sue Michael Moore?

[Zon]

The owner of Going Up River is piggybacking on the attack Sinclair bandwagon. A pile on.

Ironically, Going Up River is pro-Kerry. One could say that along with their open invitation to John Kerry to give a ball lanced and opposing view -- which his camp has repeatedly turned down -- George Butler has also  refused to allow Sinclair to use any footage from his film for balance and an opposing view.

Butler has not seen Sinclair's documentary and because it hasn't been aired the lawsuit is frivolous. Sinclair could sue George Butler for filing a frivolous lawsuit that falsely accuses Sinclair of copyright infringement. Libel.

[listenhillary]

Sinclair didn't produce the movie. They are not the ones who should be sued anyway.

More free publicity.

[Zon]

ball lanced = balanced

[sevry]

demanded equal air time from Sinclair

Wasn't there a story, some time back, concerning Clinton's book tour where CBS, I think, demanded that ALL its affiliates had to carry certain interviews and PR?

[nonkultur]

Amazing these comminists do not know of the concept called "Fair Use" in regards to copyright.

[TheFrog]

For those who do not know: Title 17 of the United States Code Chapter 1 Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.