CD
I believe my case still stands: the BBC's broadcast is immediately available, so they copy them, so as not to be behind the BBC (the BBC got there first after all) - tehy should have obtained it from the police, albeit not immediately, like the BBC did. And then blurring it out, not giving the due credit to the BBC for their footage - seems like the tactics of an unscrupulous television company to me.
Lee Stanley posted:
Who knows - $ky may have asked the BBC for use of the footage - or asked the police if they could use it (where the only immediately available source would be the DOGged BBC broadcast of it). And of course it's not in $ky's interest to show a BBC logo on-screen. If they've asked the relevant copyright holder for permission to use the footage, they are within their rights to blur out the DOG.
I believe my case still stands: the BBC's broadcast is immediately available, so they copy them, so as not to be behind the BBC (the BBC got there first after all) - tehy should have obtained it from the police, albeit not immediately, like the BBC did. And then blurring it out, not giving the due credit to the BBC for their footage - seems like the tactics of an unscrupulous television company to me.