I'm not a lawyer, but judging from the wikipedia article, it seems unlikely. This isn't a video of an "event", it's a video describing an event. Sky could have perfectly well made their own video.
Photographs are excluded, however; Cornish, Llewelyn and
Aplin write that this is "in order to preserve the full
value of holding a unique visual record of some person
or event".
I don't think using media created ad-hoc to show how something works is fair use. It's like Fox News showing footage from National Geographic (without paying)
Comments
Would it not classify as fair use? (I don't mean to defend Sky but I thought using media for the purpose of news was considered fair use).
I'm not a lawyer, but judging from the wikipedia article, it seems unlikely. This isn't a video of an "event", it's a video describing an event. Sky could have perfectly well made their own video.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing_in_United_Kingdom_...
In particular
Does a video count as "photographs"?I don't think using media created ad-hoc to show how something works is fair use. It's like Fox News showing footage from National Geographic (without paying)