The now infamous video has been shared around the world, showing South Carolina police officer Michael Slager fatally shot Walter Scott as he fled. Passerby Feidin Santana captured the video on his smartphone. But now, Santana is working with a management company to require TV stations airing the video must pay a fee. Stations interested in airing the footage may have to pay up to $10,000. The firm sent out cease-and-desist letters to many stations last week.
Fair use copyright laws frequently allow news networks to play footage of news stories without seeking permission from the owner the video. But Poynter’s Al Tompkins tells Take Two that these rules only apply as long as the story is news:
“The real question in these kind of cases is, ‘what is a fair use?’ How much can you use and how long can you use it?’ and so on. And that’s an answer that there is no clear resolution for, and that’s why they go to court to try to solve these things. Because there is no clear resolution on how much of a news video you can use.”
Because Michael Slager now faces murder charges, Tompkins argues that the video still constitutes news and, therefore, is still covered by fair use laws.
The New York Times notes that the decision to charge was likely made by Santana’s attorney, Todd Rutherford. Because the footage was central to many news segments, Rutherford reasoned that networks were making a profit from the video. For this, he believes that Santana deserves compensation. Tompkins notes that George Holliday, the man who captured the 1991 police beating of Rodney King on VHS sold the footage to KTLA-TV for just $500.
Martin Reynolds is senior editor of community engagement for the Oakland Tribune and a board member at the Maynard Institute. He tells Take Two that because the video is widely available on the internet, it will be difficult to get stations to pay, but he also adds,
“If you have a situation where a value can be placed on something, then it’s certainly going to put the onus on the news directors to decide, ‘wow, if others are going to start paying for this, then we’ve got to have it, because our audience is expecting us to be a primary source of news and information and we don’t have it.”
Tompkins and Reynolds agree that it will be difficult to predict if Santana’s decision to accept payment will have a long lasting effect on the way news organizations operate. Mainly because no stations have agreed to pay. Reynolds adds, “Obviously, [for] traditional news organizations, you don’t pay for stories. You say you want to cover something, you go out and cover it; you’re not expecting to hand over a check to a source for information.”
Press the play button above to hear more analysis from Al Tompkins and Martin Reynolds.