Sky, the Olympics and Fair Use Media Coverage.

Forums › Sports › Sky, the Olympics and Fair Use Media Coverage.

SheriffNZ

677 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 322

#198965 29-Jul-2016 17:40

Hi all.

Just read this article (A legal battle is brewing over how much coverage Kiwis get of the Olympic Games).

I must be missing something here. As long as Fairfax/NZME abide by the copyright act in respect of their coverage of the games (I'm not sure of the specifics but assume it must allow news outlets to cover newsworthy things up to a certain point without breaching the act), surely Sky would have no claim against them. The way the article reads (admittedly the article will probably be self serving given its writing about its own organisation and Fairfax can't be impartial anyway) that Sky are asking them to limit their use of copyrighted material over and above what's in the act when they don't have to.

Based on that, it doesn't make sense. What am I missing???

1 | 2

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1600978 29-Jul-2016 18:48

The games only cost a few million and are of national significance, the Govt should have funded TVNZ for the rights.

I dont follow the article either, I gather Sky has all the rights for live stuff, then Kendrick from TVNZ talks about timely news, implying they cant get any news in a timely manner, yet they, Fairfax and NZME haven't sent any reporters over. Confusing.

Its gonna be a sad games. Haven't started yet and there are already security incidents

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1600986 29-Jul-2016 18:58

Ok, so there are rules in place for all reporters who are not rights holders to comply with. Thats standard across all IOC supported reporting, not just Sky. Fairfax/NZME wont agree, so they wont send reporters.

Staff would not be accredited for Rio unless signed up to Sky's conditions. Accreditation gives reporters and photo journalists access to athletes, venues, accommodation and even a passport visa to enter Brazil.

One condition was not to criticise Sky commentators. That's fair, they are there with a lot of access, and should focus on the games, not the rights holder. IOC was involved in most of these rules.

I know its proper and trendy to hate Sky, but I cant really see the issue, its more like Fairfax/MZME cut their nose off to spite their face.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1600992 29-Jul-2016 19:05

This is pertinent too, and covers Kenricks comment on timely. This relates to video, they are free to report what they like, volume-wise in the written form I assume.

TVNZ had chosen an option that would allow it to rebroadcast up to three minutes of Olympic footage each day, he said.

Sky spokeswoman Kirsty Way said it also gave media companies the alternative of up to six minutes of footage in news bulletins, with coverage delayed until at 30 least minutes after each event finished, or two minutes with a 30 minute delay with no requirement for that to be in news bulletins.

SheriffNZ

677 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 322

#1600994 29-Jul-2016 19:06

tdgeek:
Ok, so there are rules in place for all reporters who are not rights holders to comply with. Thats standard across all IOC supported reporting, not just Sky. Fairfax/NZME wont agree, so they wont send reporters.

Staff would not be accredited for Rio unless signed up to Sky's conditions. Accreditation gives reporters and photo journalists access to athletes, venues, accommodation and even a passport visa to enter Brazil.

One condition was not to criticise Sky commentators. That's fair, they are there with a lot of access, and should focus on the games, not the rights holder. IOC was involved in most of these rules.

I know its proper and trendy to hate Sky, but I cant really see the issue, its more like Fairfax/MZME cut their nose off to spite their face.

Ok, I appreciate that but if they're not sending reporters, just reporting on an event, and not breaching copyright law, why can commercial agreements stop entities reporting on newsworthy stories if there is a specific carve out of copyright legislation for "news"?

I'm not having a go at Sky, just trying to understand the legal position.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1600995 29-Jul-2016 19:09

SheriffNZ:
tdgeek:

Ok, so there are rules in place for all reporters who are not rights holders to comply with. Thats standard across all IOC supported reporting, not just Sky. Fairfax/NZME wont agree, so they wont send reporters.

Staff would not be accredited for Rio unless signed up to Sky's conditions. Accreditation gives reporters and photo journalists access to athletes, venues, accommodation and even a passport visa to enter Brazil.

One condition was not to criticise Sky commentators. That's fair, they are there with a lot of access, and should focus on the games, not the rights holder. IOC was involved in most of these rules.

I know its proper and trendy to hate Sky, but I cant really see the issue, its more like Fairfax/MZME cut their nose off to spite their face.

Ok, I appreciate that but if they're not sending reporters, just reporting on an event, and not breaching copyright law, why can commercial agreements stop entities reporting on newsworthy stories if there is a specific carve out of copyright legislation for "news"?

I'm not having a go at Sky, just trying to understand the legal position.

Explain carve out? I saw that referenced for other overseas news agencies, but Sky rejected it, but I don't know what it means

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#1600997 29-Jul-2016 19:11

Considering the Olympics isn't professional sport, and is of national significance, coverage of this should be Free to air IMO. Especially as we already pay to fund athletes competing. Not sure how it is handled overseas. The least taxpayers deserve for the investment, is being able to see them without having to subscribe to a private companies service. It seems private companies are instead benefiting from our investment in these athletes. Sure, they may have paid the rights, but I think is NZOA or RNZ purchased them them that people would see it as a better use of tax payer money, than that very expensive flag referendum.

I guess they may have some on their prime platform. Although probably delayed and in SD. I remember in Bejing, 8 years ago?, we had it on Free to air, and in Full HD on freeview.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

SheriffNZ

677 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 322

#1601000 29-Jul-2016 19:19

tdgeek:
SheriffNZ:
tdgeek:

Ok, so there are rules in place for all reporters who are not rights holders to comply with. Thats standard across all IOC supported reporting, not just Sky. Fairfax/NZME wont agree, so they wont send reporters.

Staff would not be accredited for Rio unless signed up to Sky's conditions. Accreditation gives reporters and photo journalists access to athletes, venues, accommodation and even a passport visa to enter Brazil.

One condition was not to criticise Sky commentators. That's fair, they are there with a lot of access, and should focus on the games, not the rights holder. IOC was involved in most of these rules.

I know its proper and trendy to hate Sky, but I cant really see the issue, its more like Fairfax/MZME cut their nose off to spite their face.

Ok, I appreciate that but if they're not sending reporters, just reporting on an event, and not breaching copyright law, why can commercial agreements stop entities reporting on newsworthy stories if there is a specific carve out of copyright legislation for "news"?

I'm not having a go at Sky, just trying to understand the legal position.

Explain carve out? I saw that referenced for other overseas news agencies, but Sky rejected it, but I don't know what it means

Not a great source (Wikipedia), but conveys the general concept.

"In Australia, the fair dealing exceptions under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) are a limited set of circumstances under which copyrighted material can be legally copied or adapted without the copyright holder's consent. Fair dealing uses are research and study; review and critique; news reportage and the giving of professional advice (i.e. legal advice). "

Jaxson

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#1601003 29-Jul-2016 19:23

I'm assuming this is how the rights were packaged up, ie everything in one bundle.

Then Sky won this rights package and are now enforcing the rights it includes.

Like many of these things, it won't really change until the content providers/creators change the sale and distribution model.

I mean it's not really fair to nail Sky for winning the bidding is it?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1601005 29-Jul-2016 19:24

mattwnz:

Considering the Olympics isn't professional sport, and is of national significance, coverage of this should be Free to air IMO. Especially as we already pay to fund athletes competing. Not sure how it is handled overseas. The least taxpayers deserve for the investment, is being able to see them without having to subscribe to a private companies service. It seems private companies are instead benefiting from our investment in these athletes. Sure, they may have paid the rights, but I think is NZOA or RNZ purchased them them that people would see it as a better use of tax payer money, than that very expensive flag referendum.

I guess they may have some on their prime platform. Although probably delayed and in SD. I remember in Bejing, 8 years ago?, we had it on Free to air, and in Full HD on freeview.

I think Prime is quite a bit of coverage. 11pm to 3pm daily. IOC has its own app, which has 24/7 coverage literally. It should be FTA here fir the reasons you say. In Australia thats the law or ruling

The issue is just video, and the use allowed is quite low, a few minutes per day, but again, that just video. Video rights is Sky's and IMO thats it. Its theirs, so they show the video, no one does, apart from the few minutes per day. So, Sky is fine on this issue, but the Govt should have funded the rights in the first place.

I wonder what the IOC app will be like? Chrome cast and Airplay, it could be quite good, maybe.

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#1601011 29-Jul-2016 19:29

I am failing to muster any enthusiasm or interest in the Olympics at all this year. I doubt I will bother watching any of it.

Moreover, I fail to see why the taxpayer is tossing tens of millions of dollars at allowing a bunch of people to go to an amateur sports meet - which is what the Olympics essentially is. Particularly when those taxpayers don't then even get to see the event unless they subscribe to Sky.

My preferred option is that the taxpayer simply stops funding it. The NZ Committee can then fundraise, including selling the rights to whomever will pay for them, and cut its cloth according to the budget it can raise.

If the politicians (for some bizzare reason) think that funding people to go to an amateur sports meeting is somehow a higher priority that health, education or aged care then they should offer the NZ Olympics Committee a choice. Either take this money but only sell the rights to a free-to-air broadcaster, or sell the rights to a non-FTA broadcaster in which case the taxpayer package is withdrawn.

EDIT: Typo

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1601013 29-Jul-2016 19:30

Jaxson:

I'm assuming this is how the rights were packaged up, ie everything in one bundle.

Then Sky won this rights package and are now enforcing the rights it includes.

Like many of these things, it won't really change until the content providers/creators change the sale and distribution model.

I mean it's not really fair to nail Sky for winning the bidding is it?

I agree. Oddly, the IOC has a big say in this, yet it supports the widest coverage possible.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

SheriffNZ

677 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 322

#1601065 29-Jul-2016 21:18

tdgeek:
This is pertinent too, and covers Kenricks comment on timely. This relates to video, they are free to report what they like, volume-wise in the written form I assume.

TVNZ had chosen an option that would allow it to rebroadcast up to three minutes of Olympic footage each day, he said.

Sky spokeswoman Kirsty Way said it also gave media companies the alternative of up to six minutes of footage in news bulletins, with coverage delayed until at 30 least minutes after each event finished, or two minutes with a 30 minute delay with no requirement for that to be in news bulletins.

Missed this first time around. This makes sense although fair use should be determined by the Courts, not Sky and how can Sky commence legal action around this before the Games even start?

Regarding govt funding, my view is simply an economic one. If the costs of funding are less than the benefits (including things like getting people into sport which reduces their health costs later on, and advertising NZ etc), I'm all for it.

Same goes for the America's Cup, although that's another large can of worms...

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#1601099 29-Jul-2016 22:19

tdgeek:
mattwnz:

Considering the Olympics isn't professional sport, and is of national significance, coverage of this should be Free to air IMO. Especially as we already pay to fund athletes competing. Not sure how it is handled overseas. The least taxpayers deserve for the investment, is being able to see them without having to subscribe to a private companies service. It seems private companies are instead benefiting from our investment in these athletes. Sure, they may have paid the rights, but I think is NZOA or RNZ purchased them them that people would see it as a better use of tax payer money, than that very expensive flag referendum.

I guess they may have some on their prime platform. Although probably delayed and in SD. I remember in Bejing, 8 years ago?, we had it on Free to air, and in Full HD on freeview.

I think Prime is quite a bit of coverage. 11pm to 3pm daily. IOC has its own app, which has 24/7 coverage literally. It should be FTA here fir the reasons you say. In Australia thats the law or ruling

The issue is just video, and the use allowed is quite low, a few minutes per day, but again, that just video. Video rights is Sky's and IMO thats it. Its theirs, so they show the video, no one does, apart from the few minutes per day. So, Sky is fine on this issue, but the Govt should have funded the rights in the first place.

I wonder what the IOC app will be like? Chrome cast and Airplay, it could be quite good, maybe.

Off peak though, and if it is like last time, it will be highly compressed SD . So you need a tivo or pvr to watch it in the evening. At least they should have prime in HD it should be a frequent for free view to have all channels in HD in 2016. All good streaming channels these days are in HD

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#1601392 30-Jul-2016 15:41

tdgeek:

mattwnz:

Considering the Olympics isn't professional sport, and is of national significance, coverage of this should be Free to air IMO. Especially as we already pay to fund athletes competing. Not sure how it is handled overseas. The least taxpayers deserve for the investment, is being able to see them without having to subscribe to a private companies service. It seems private companies are instead benefiting from our investment in these athletes. Sure, they may have paid the rights, but I think is NZOA or RNZ purchased them them that people would see it as a better use of tax payer money, than that very expensive flag referendum.

I guess they may have some on their prime platform. Although probably delayed and in SD. I remember in Bejing, 8 years ago?, we had it on Free to air, and in Full HD on freeview.

I think Prime is quite a bit of coverage. 11pm to 3pm daily. IOC has its own app, which has 24/7 coverage literally. It should be FTA here fir the reasons you say. In Australia thats the law or ruling

The issue is just video, and the use allowed is quite low, a few minutes per day, but again, that just video. Video rights is Sky's and IMO thats it. Its theirs, so they show the video, no one does, apart from the few minutes per day. So, Sky is fine on this issue, but the Govt should have funded the rights in the first place.

I wonder what the IOC app will be like? Chrome cast and Airplay, it could be quite good, maybe.

I was in Ozz for London Olympics and the FTA network and it's other channel ran wall to wall live action that the Ozzy teams were competing in and other stuff that they thought would be interesting. I guess the rest was on Foxtel.

Wonder if the likes of the Pacific Islands still get it FTA. It used to come via TVNZ.

Regards,

Old3eyes

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1601393 30-Jul-2016 15:51

old3eyes:

tdgeek:

mattwnz:

Considering the Olympics isn't professional sport, and is of national significance, coverage of this should be Free to air IMO. Especially as we already pay to fund athletes competing. Not sure how it is handled overseas. The least taxpayers deserve for the investment, is being able to see them without having to subscribe to a private companies service. It seems private companies are instead benefiting from our investment in these athletes. Sure, they may have paid the rights, but I think is NZOA or RNZ purchased them them that people would see it as a better use of tax payer money, than that very expensive flag referendum.

I guess they may have some on their prime platform. Although probably delayed and in SD. I remember in Bejing, 8 years ago?, we had it on Free to air, and in Full HD on freeview.

I think Prime is quite a bit of coverage. 11pm to 3pm daily. IOC has its own app, which has 24/7 coverage literally. It should be FTA here fir the reasons you say. In Australia thats the law or ruling

The issue is just video, and the use allowed is quite low, a few minutes per day, but again, that just video. Video rights is Sky's and IMO thats it. Its theirs, so they show the video, no one does, apart from the few minutes per day. So, Sky is fine on this issue, but the Govt should have funded the rights in the first place.

I wonder what the IOC app will be like? Chrome cast and Airplay, it could be quite good, maybe.

I was in Ozz for London Olympics and the FTA network and it's other channel ran wall to wall live action that the Ozzy teams were competing in and other stuff that they thought would be interesting. I guess the rest was on Foxtel.

Wonder if the likes of the Pacific Islands still get it FTA. It used to come via TVNZ.

From the media release some months ago:

"SKY has acquired the broadcast rights for 2018-2024 on all media platforms in the following territories:
New Zealand, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Independent State of Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu."

IOC Vice-President John Coates, delegate IOC member for broadcast rights in Oceania, said: “We have worked closely with SKY since the Olympic Winter Games Vancouver 2010 in order to deliver extensive coverage on SKY’s platforms in New Zealand. This includes a commitment of at least 200 hours of Olympic Games and 100 hours of Olympic Winter Games on free-to-air, whilst also ensuring that comprehensive coverage is available throughout the Pacific Islands.”

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

1 | 2