The latest in the Carnahan/Fox News lawsuit is pretty silly. As Robin Carnahan's poll numbers solidify in the low 40's and attention goes elsewhere, the campaign continues to go through the motions to give themselves something to do between now and Election Day.
Seriously. The ad isn't running much, and it's not moving the needle. Why would the Carnahan campaign keep it going? Especially with these arguments.
1) Fox New didn't own the copyright until after they filed the lawsuit.
Fox News owned the copyright from the moment they created it. The specific filing isn't applicable - it's a way of strengthening the case, but there's no question Fox News owns the work product.
Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.
While Carnahan's lawyers are certainly within their rights to argue this, it's a novel way to spend time and money. They aren't arguing that they stole the content. They're arguing that Fox News didn't file the $35 copyright that would allow them to sue. The courts may or may not agree, but the money to argue this line comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is the Carnahan campaign coffers. Even if they were to win, they'd still have to pay their lawyers. How exactly will that help Robin's polling numbers? Lawyers get paid before GOTV operations do. But lawsuits can take time, and give Robin something to talk about in fundraising pitches. Well, that and cardboard cut-outs of Roy Blunt.
2) Fair Use applies because they only used a short portion of the entire program.
"Indeed, it is highly relevant, in the opinion of the Carnahan Campaign, not only that it used a very small portion of the copyrighted program (about 24 seconds from an hour-long program, less than 1% of the program).
This is hysterical, and there's not a chance it stands. If this were the case, then all those YouTube videos pulled down for copyright infringement are going to be reinstated, because you used less than 1% of the two hour movie. Think of it. You could run 1 minute of a 120 hour movie as a campaign commercial because it is less than 1% of the total output of the movie.
At stake is the problem of the commercial not using the video portion accurately. The, ahem, highly edited video, is intended to convey a message separate from that of the original news broadcast, and without the protection of satire or a substantial change from the original product. It's simply stolen, played out of context, and forms the main portion of the commercial. If the courts agreed with that, they'd be breaking new ground, ground that Hollywood, the music industry, and other news stations would never allow to stand.
But it buys time, doesn't it? The Fox News lawsuit has been going on for a couple of weeks. It makes Robin look busy. It's repeated in the news. But it has no impact on the race. It's not intended to.
It's intended to injure Fox News and protect Robin, claiming she lost because of right wing media. You will hear that after the election. They'll take a shot at Fox News, instead of blaming Robin for doing what all campaigns do, which is to pull the ad, but complain loudly.
Amateur hour. I hope the Democrats in Missouri take a long hard look at themselves and start asking the tough questions about why the let Robin step into the race, avoid running for a year, and end the campaign with a series of 3rd grade videos put out by a hungry-for-camera time campaign manager. Robin's polling numbers look like Art Hill in the winter. Good for sledding, but not so great for "a Missouri political dynasty."