Telstra V Optus (Copyright)

[geoffsta]

Surprised this hasn't come up already.

Telstra and Optus are fighting over the rights to AFL & NRL games. Telstra paid millions to have the exclusive rights to air the games live over the net and to mobile phones.
Optus wins the case providing that they have a two second delay. And don't have to pay a single cent.

How does this effect other media, including professional photographers?
Does this mean that our copyright is only effective for two seconds?

Does this mean that if we post a good image on here, two seconds later someone can load that image on any other site, and get away with it.

[Kerrie]

I think that Telstra needed to define "live" more definitely in their contracts and add a few more clauses.

Seems the court found that " live" means real time, and a 2 second delay isn't live.

Good post

[maccaroneski]

Geoff,

It's got nothing to do with photography, and everything to do with a person recording TV shows that have been broadcast free to air. The Copyright Act contains an exemptiion to allow someone to recod live TV to view it later - "time shifting" - and the court has said that (a) Optus is simply doing this on a customer's behalf, as the recording process is individually requested; and (b) a delay as little as 2 seconds is "later" for the purposes of he exemption.

Photography is not affected by the exemption in the Copyright Act.

[Kym]

Thanks Tony!

The way its being reported in the media and discussed by Telstra execs the legal situation is not clear.
Telstra will appeal, but my understanding is they don't have much to go on within the current law.

[geoffsta]

Geoff,
It's got nothing to do with photography, and everything to do with a person recording TV shows that have been broadcast free to air. The Copyright Act contains an exemptiion to allow someone to recod live TV to view it later - "time shifting" - and the court has said that (a) Optus is simply doing this on a customer's behalf, as the recording process is individually requested; and (b) a delay as little as 2 seconds is "later" for the purposes of he exemption.
Photography is not affected by the exemption in the Copyright Act.

Ok.. Here is the difference.
You and I when we record something to watch later, we do not make money out of it like Optus will. (Making money out of Telstra's copyright privledges) If you were to make a profit from that video, it would be a breach of copyright.
I see this as:
Someone saves images from this site to show his/her family and friends at a later date. Often quoting where they got it from.(No harm done)
As opposed to someone gets hold of a someones print. Then scans it, bungs a frame around it. Then sells it as their own. (Hence recording the games, then selling it as their own.)

[ameerat42]

It sure is a vexed question, and will have ramifications. I dunno what the answer is supposed to be/will come out as.

PS. I don't know that the analogies above are quite the same, as we have not got all the details of the decision.

[Bennymiata]

IMHO, if Optus charge their clients to watch it, they should have to pay something to either Telstra or the NRL etc.

It wasn't clear in the case if Optus is going to charge people to watch it, but they will get money out of their customers for the air-time they use in watching it anyway, and as they will make a profit out of this, they should have to pay for the privelage.

Recording something at home for your own use is one thing, broadcasting it out to potentially millions of people is another.
Just my opinion.

If Optus do win out on this, it could mean a serious loss of income for the NRL etc., and for live sports everywhere and could mean that there will be no live broadcasts of ANY sporting events, as who would spend all the money to pay for the TV production (and if you've seen all the equipment and people needed to do this you know it costs a shedload), only to have it used and shown to the public for free, albeit 2 seconds later by another company?

[I @ M]

What is an optus or a telstra?
What is an nrl or afl?

I will hazard a guess they are companies selling products.

Does anyone really pay money to any of those companies?

Surely not?

I thought most people had better things to do with their time than to spend $$ with businesses who don't actually offer a palatible product.

[Kym]

Ok.. Here is the difference.
You and I when we record something to watch later, we do not make money out of it like Optus will.

Except that Optus make money from providing a service, not the content per se.
The subscriber decides what content they want much like using your remote control at home to record to a PVR

Maybe sue PVR manufacturers?

[Ezookiel]

If it really affects anything, I guess it might be most likely to affect how much anyone will now pay for the rights to broadcast live coverage of anything if they can instead broadcast it two seconds later for nothing. I see it having a bad effect on the income sports get from TV and phone companies with the ruling having gone the way it did.

[Mark L]

It may provide advertisers a bigger market. Good for free to air coverage, not good for subscriber coverage.
It only affects stuff viewable over the phone (from Optus). Do you want to watch your favourite footy team get beaten in H.D.T.V. or on you iPhone?
Storm in a tea cup that if needed, can be fixed with a little change to the law.
I'll keep listening to my footy on the radio.

[bricat]

The "law" is an ass. If this doesn't prove it nothing will. In plain and simple terms one company is trying to get out of paying for something. The only people getting rich out of this is the lawyers......

[maccaroneski]

Ok.. Here is the difference.
You and I when we record something to watch later, we do not make money out of it like Optus will. (Making money out of Telstra's copyright privledges) If you were to make a profit from that video, it would be a breach of copyright.
I see this as:
Someone saves images from this site to show his/her family and friends at a later date. Often quoting where they got it from.(No harm done)
As opposed to someone gets hold of a someones print. Then scans it, bungs a frame around it. Then sells it as their own. (Hence recording the games, then selling it as their own.)

I'm sorry mate that won't wash: the relevant provision of the Copyright Act allows a person to make:

a cinematograph film or sound recording of a broadcast solely for the private or domestic use by watching or listening to the material broadcast at a time more convenient than the time when the broadcast is made.

A photo that you post to AP is not a broadcast. Hanging a frame around it is not a cinematograph or sound recording. Selling the print is not private or domestic use.

[geoffsta]

My take on this is making "Piracy" Legal. Why should I buy expensive image editing programs when I can wait 2 seconds and be allowed to copy them for nothing. I know it's not the same, but it has simularities.
(Software companies spend millions to develop programs/ Telstra spends millions to get exlusive rights to AFL/NRL games
I download said software from piracy site for nothing/ Optus broadcasts AFL/NRL games for nothing)