Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Did they ask the parents to use the baby footage?

Yesterday the Tories released the following video which - having asked someone in the right place the question - features the child of parents supportive towards the Conservative Party (with full permission), rather than just a random agency baby.

Today Labour List has posted a "rapid rebuttal" to it with this, author unknown.

The question that springs to my mind therefore is, did anyone think to ask the parents (or seek out the relevant party) whether it was OK to use the footage of the child given it was not just some anonymous agency child?

I think this raises an interesting question in the online video world. Is all fair in love and politics? If the parents gave permission for the Tory party to use their kid, because they support the Tories, is the child then fair game in a "rapid rebuttal" video from Labour, or the Lib Dems or anyone else for that matter? Are there ethical concerns?

Interesting times I think.

NOTE: The rebuttal video was by a user called jumpingjaysus0001 who has only five videos, all anti-Tory.


Anonymous said...

yes, it is perfectly fair. if you pimp out your newborn child to the tory party, you more than deserve to have the piss taken by anyone from any party. it has become public property.

Cinnamon said...

I think the term you're looking for is copyright infringement.

Theft is never ethical.

CityUnslicker said...

legally if the parents signed something then labour will be open to legal action for not seeking permission.

Their is no fair game, just THE LAW.

Anonymous said...

whats become public property anon? the BABY!?


Legally you cannot photograph or film any minor (under 18) without written permission.

I'm sure the Tories had that covered.

Anonymous said...

Once the parents have allowed the footage to be put into the public domain they couldn't complain legally on privacy grounds. It doesn't matter whether it's an agency baby or not.

Anyway, privacy matters for babies are complicated as they're not easily distinguishable and they aren't aware of what privacy is (I don't think celebrity magazines blurring children in photos is done for strict legal reasons).

Copyright of the clip would be an issue (again, it's irrelevant if it's an agency baby or not) but there may be a fair usage defence.

If the parents complained that it's simply not very polite to use their kid it would be pretty embarrassing for jumpinjaysus0001 (and Labour if it could be made to stick).

quisling said...

Darwen Reporter, what rubbish. Which Act was that offence created under, then?


It is the law! See this rule which is common in photography contests:

If you enter a photograph which shows any persons under the age of 18 you must ensure you obtain written consent of that child’s parent or guardian to the publication of that photograph.

Try breaking it and you'll soon find out, mate

Gaz said...

Hey darewen reporter you are a clueless fu*$wit. There is no law about filming and taking photos of under eighteens, except that the pictures and film are not indecent.

It is often good sense to ask for permission before you print a photograph, out of politeness and courtesy.

No permission is required. However, this is a slightly different case, because intellectual property rights now exist, the owners of the original film have rights, and one cannot just copy their work without permission and agreed payment.

Anonymous said...

Wrong way to feed a baby - can't Tories get anything right?