5 ms·

Do you have a source for raw surveillance footage not being subject to copyright? I'd not heard of this, and a web search didn't turn up anything.

Alive-in-2025 1mo ago
I'm the person who originally said "how can that be true about surveillance video?". I found a good writeup on it, https://www.techdirt.com/2020/02/24/can-you-license-video-you-dont-hold-copyright-over/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/02/24/can-you-license-video-yo... The tldr is you really can't copyright raw surveillance video, but you can apparently lightly edit to turn it into a creative work that is copyrightable.
- MaxBarraclough 1mo ago
  Thanks for the link but: > The tldr is you really can't copyright raw surveillance video, but you can apparently lightly edit to turn it into a creative work that is copyrightable. The article doesn't say that, it doesn't speak to CCTV surveillance footage. It discusses rare cases like cameras falling from aircraft, or animals pressing the button to take a photo. I can see your line of reasoning about there being zero creative input in the video's creation, but if surveillance footage isn't subject to copyright, I'd expect there to be plenty written about it.
  - Alive-in-2025 1mo ago
    The people up thread who replied to my original message give some other references for why this is the case. I agree with you that it is very surprising that it works this way, that this is considered a settled legal decision. From the techdirt piece, seen above: "To license out copyright, there must be creative contribution. This can arise from cutting/editing the video in a creative manner. Since there is no other prevailing copyright, the editing then makes you sole copyright owner entitled to all proceeds. You may feel inclined to call bullshit on this, but it’s actually the ongoing revenue model for "revised" editions of Beethoven, Bach and older."
    - MaxBarraclough 1mo ago
      > The people up thread who replied to my original message give some other references for why this is the case I'm afraid I'm not seeing it. Which comments specifically? Please link directly, rather than describing them. > From the techdirt piece, seen above: [...] My question was specifically about surveillance footage. The law doesn't work on perfect logical consistency, we can't infer an ironclad answer where there's no explicit law or legal precedent. Another web search turned up a reddit discussion [0] which says that in the case of US law it's unclear, but that under UK law it explicitly is subject to copyright, under a special non-creative films category. This Quora thread (sorry, couldn't find better sources) supports this. [1] > You may feel inclined to call bullshit on this, but it’s actually the ongoing revenue model for "revised" editions of Beethoven, Bach and older." Sure, I'm aware of that, but it's not the same question. [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/1j7y8i0/cctv_footage_fair_use/ https://old.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/1j7y8i0/cctv_foo... [1] https://www.quora.com/Can-one-claim-copyright-on-CCTV-footage https://www.quora.com/Can-one-claim-copyright-on-CCTV-footag...

Alive-in-2025 1mo ago

I'm the person who originally said "how can that be true about surveillance video?". I found a good writeup on it, https://www.techdirt.com/2020/02/24/can-you-license-video-you-dont-hold-copyright-over/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/02/24/can-you-license-video-yo... The tldr is you really can't copyright raw surveillance video, but you can apparently lightly edit to turn it into a creative work that is copyrightable.

MaxBarraclough 1mo ago
Thanks for the link but: > The tldr is you really can't copyright raw surveillance video, but you can apparently lightly edit to turn it into a creative work that is copyrightable. The article doesn't say that, it doesn't speak to CCTV surveillance footage. It discusses rare cases like cameras falling from aircraft, or animals pressing the button to take a photo. I can see your line of reasoning about there being zero creative input in the video's creation, but if surveillance footage isn't subject to copyright, I'd expect there to be plenty written about it.
- Alive-in-2025 1mo ago
  The people up thread who replied to my original message give some other references for why this is the case. I agree with you that it is very surprising that it works this way, that this is considered a settled legal decision. From the techdirt piece, seen above: "To license out copyright, there must be creative contribution. This can arise from cutting/editing the video in a creative manner. Since there is no other prevailing copyright, the editing then makes you sole copyright owner entitled to all proceeds. You may feel inclined to call bullshit on this, but it’s actually the ongoing revenue model for "revised" editions of Beethoven, Bach and older."
  - MaxBarraclough 1mo ago
    > The people up thread who replied to my original message give some other references for why this is the case I'm afraid I'm not seeing it. Which comments specifically? Please link directly, rather than describing them. > From the techdirt piece, seen above: [...] My question was specifically about surveillance footage. The law doesn't work on perfect logical consistency, we can't infer an ironclad answer where there's no explicit law or legal precedent. Another web search turned up a reddit discussion [0] which says that in the case of US law it's unclear, but that under UK law it explicitly is subject to copyright, under a special non-creative films category. This Quora thread (sorry, couldn't find better sources) supports this. [1] > You may feel inclined to call bullshit on this, but it’s actually the ongoing revenue model for "revised" editions of Beethoven, Bach and older." Sure, I'm aware of that, but it's not the same question. [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/1j7y8i0/cctv_footage_fair_use/ https://old.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/1j7y8i0/cctv_foo... [1] https://www.quora.com/Can-one-claim-copyright-on-CCTV-footage https://www.quora.com/Can-one-claim-copyright-on-CCTV-footag...