Yle wanted the video based on snippets from the After Wise People program to be removed from social media and caused it much more attention than the video would otherwise have received, writes HS cultural editor Juuso Määttänen.
Comments sound undeniably contradictory.
“I think it’s at least a freesia to be reminded that disobedience is allowed here – and then for a good cause. I am delighted by the hippies of Mannerheimintie. ”
“I think the price of gasoline could be drastically raised to keep me from getting here. It would not be possible to come to block Mannerheimintie. ”
The first is the reporter Anna Perhon a comment on the Elokapina demonstration and another is his view of the Convoy demonstration. Both are presented by Yle Wise afterwardsin a program where Perho is a standard panelist.
Of course, it is irrelevant that the throw made by Perho about the “rampant increase” in the price of petrol in the latter sounds like a joke. Similarly, the latter quote omits the point where Perho says before his petrol comment that Convoy’s mechanics are the same as in Elokapina and that Finland is a free country where you can demonstrate.
An equally contradictory impression is created by the journalist Maryan Abdulkarimin comments in the same program. The first is from Elokapina last year, the second from Convoy this year.
“Instead of talking about climate change, the debate goes into these means and who is annoyed by this. In which case this main issue will remain a side sentence. ”
“I wonder how responsible it is to even plan a demonstration that is supposed to block traffic in the center of Helsinki for a longer period of time. I fully support the demonstrations and the fact that people are demonstrating in a democratic society. But at the same time, we have people who need to get from one place to another. ”
These views received significant attention on social media this week, and much of the increase in attention was due to how Afterthought Yle himself reacts to the spread of video clips removed from the program.
City and regional councilor from Tampere for basic Finns Joakim Vigelius posted a video of Butterfly and Abdulkarim ‘s comments on Youtube on Monday.
The video was a little over two minutes long in total, and it consisted of a total of four stitched together Wise afterwardsfrom the program. In addition, the captions “When Elokapina blocks the roads” and “When Convoy blocks the roads” were written at the top and bottom of the video.
On Thursday, Youtube deleted a video of Vigelius that was his according to their own declaration viewed 20,000 times at that time. The reason was that YLE had made a copyright removal request for the Vigelius video.
Is not actually very surprising what happened next. It has been called the “Streisand phenomenon” in the Internet for years. For example, an attempt to remove a video from the Internet will result in it receiving more times the amount of attention it would have received without the removal attempts.
Very soon, Twitter was full of discussion about how Yle was trying to limit the critical conversation about her own program and the people in it.
On Twitter, the video can still be found with accompanying words “Yle really wants this video off the web”.
So far, it has been viewed 430,000 times there, more than 20 times more than the video of Vigelius had been viewed on Youtube before it was removed from there.
On Friday Evening paper published an article on the subject to which the same video had been added for viewing.
By insisting to remove a video made by an individual Yle has managed to both multiply the attention the video receives and to look like the company itself is trying to block a critical debate about itself.
When presented in this way, this seems like a model example of how not to act.
In Iltalehti’s case, Yle’s communications and brand director Jere Nurminen defends the original depreciation claim but admits that “balancing is difficult”.
Nurminen only responded briefly to HS’s request for comments by e-mail. He says Yle made requests to remove more than 400 videos from Youtube alone last year.
Did it break Is the video made by Vigelius really Yle’s copyright? On the Internet, many have pointed out that copyright law includes the right to quote, according to which “it is permitted to take quotations from a published work in accordance with good practice to the extent required for the purpose”.
To what extent, then, can the work be redistributed in the name of the right of citation?
It has sometimes been said in common practice in the art that quotations of a few seconds are acceptable but minutes are not. Still, the length of the allowed citation is determined on a case-by-case basis. The essential thing is that the whole work may not be quoted and that a work consisting entirely of quotations may not be made in the name of the right of citation.
Vigelius’s video is at least close to “a work that consists entirely of citations,” in which case it would not be allowed in the name of the right of citation. On the other hand, it includes remarks on the context of the comments added by Vigelius and short audio tapes.
Lawyer specializing in intellectual property rights Jussi Kari considers it possible that Vigelius’ video falls within the scope of the right of citation.
“The video clearly comments on Yle’s actions and claims it is hypocritical. Of course, the video author’s own share here remains quite small, which is why the video would not necessarily go from a parody to what it has also been called, ”says Kari.
Kari also points out that the exercise of the right to quote must not be misleading, ie comments must not be taken out of context. He has not seen the whole Wise afterwardsperiod, so he cannot take a position on whether this can be the case.
At the weekend, Jere Nurminen did not want to comment in more detail on why the video does not fall under the right of quotation from Yle’s point of view.
Lawyers Kari points out that even if Yle ‘s copyright is infringed on the video, Yle has no obligation to demand that the video be removed.
Of course, Yle does not have to allow the illegal distribution of, for example, entire episodes of documentaries and TV programs it produces online.
But is it so harmful for Yle that an individual politician makes a video of Youtube’s social debate about the views presented in Yle’s programs? Is it worthwhile for Yle for technical copyright reasons to demand the removal of such a video when the end result is that the video will only receive more attention due to removal requests?
Or should Yle allow some kind of commentary discussion, at least close to the law of citation, about the content of its programs, when it is clearly not an attempt to distribute huge amounts of Yle’s content illegally?
About the people in the video Butterfly has already had time to reportthat sharing a video of him about Vigelius should be allowed. Abdulkarim apologized for his own comments contradiction as early as Monday.
Ylen Jere Nurminen answers the question about taking into account the Streisand phenomenon that depreciation claims are considered “yes from different perspectives”.
Perhaps the different perspectives should have been considered a little more closely.
#analysis #Yle #demanded #video #politician #removed #internet #sudden
