What interviewee is incentivized because of the alleged copyright? Under the fair use factors test, I’d think that factor 2 would lean heavily towards making interviews used by the interviewer obvious fair use. Third, the entire purpose of copyright is to create incentives for creative output, but that makes no sense for an interviewee. Second, if the interviewee has any significant copyright in the work, it would be a rather thin one as they’re only answering questions posed by the interviewer, and they’re generally not the one “fixing” the work in whatever medium. If they wanted conditions on the interview that should have been negotiated at the beginning. For one, there’s an implied license in granting the interview. There seem to be many, many reasons why interviewees should have zero legitimate copyright interest in their interviews. As that piece notes, because courts have been a bit all over the map in looking at the issue, it has allowed interviewees to “chill journalistic speech.”įrankly, all of this seems ridiculous to me. There was even a law journal article a few years back exploring this topic. A few times in the past we’ve written about the subjects of interviews claiming copyright over those interviews (or the estate’s of deceased individuals making such claims). Believe it or not, there are some interesting, if confusing, unsettled copyright law questions regarding interviews.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |