Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by kristofferR 4723 days ago
Cool I guess, but why is the video so horribly filmed? Was filming not actually allowed or was the photographer just extremely lazy?

And a second, slightly off-topic question. The footage of Snowden is obviously news worthy and it would be fair use for channels like CNN to air it without asking lifenews.ru for permission. The semi-transparent watermarks are easy to remove with the right software. Would they be breaking any laws if they did that while still showing the red logo on the top of the screen?
2 comments
ots 4723 days ago
According to the article, no journalists were allowed on the conference and no filming or taking pictures were allowed either. The article also says that Snowden expressed his wish to stay in Russia and get asylum there.
link
k-mcgrady 4723 days ago
Why would they remove the watermarks? I often see on the news footage that comes from other news companies with the watermark still on. e.g. during a big event in the US that happens without warning the initial footage on UK channels will often contain ABC/NBC watermarks.
link
kristofferR 4723 days ago
Personally I think the watermarking on this video is a little obsessive, but my opinion doesn't matter. I'm asking a hypothetical question, what I think or what the news channels actually ends up doing isn't important.

If they actually had removed it (for whatever reason, justified or not), would that be legal?

link
k-mcgrady 4723 days ago
I think so. If I remember correctly I saw this footage on another site yesterday without watermarks. I think it was taken by one of the human rights workers and then was used by several news agencies who put their won watermarks on it.

Edit: I was wrong, the BBC used it here and covered one of the watermarks with their own. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23293756 (about 50 secs into the video).

link