@Kirwan said in NZRU and the Media:
@Tim said in NZRU and the Media:
The other side of this is that newspapers have narrow margins, and anyone can get extended highlights in five seconds by visiting youtube.
How is that Sky’s problem? If they can’t afford to use someone else content, bad luck.
There is a provision that allows them to use highlights for free.
@Kirwan said in NZRU and the Media:
@Tim said in NZRU and the Media:
The other side of this is that newspapers have narrow margins, and anyone can get extended highlights in five seconds by visiting youtube.
How is that Sky’s problem? If they can’t afford to use someone else content, bad luck.
There is a provision that allows them to use highlights for free.
I think that is the point.
I read that article as saying that the original document presented to Fairfax said that by accepting the accreditation the media outlets are giving up any claim to any highlights/footage whatsover under the fair dealing provision of the copyright act.
That was a bridge too far for Fairfax. By signing the document they would have been giving up something that they are entitled to do under copyright law. Why would they sign it in that case?
The amended wording seems better, but still sounds vague. A simple definition of x minutes of highlights per game would be in everyone's interests I think.