Nevertheless,
the camera should continue to go rolling:
The task left by KBS’s footage use
Eun-hye, Editor
which is the mainstream news program of public broadcasting KBS showed ‘MV Sewol, return in 1,091 days’ on April 12 under the planning intent of recording the salvage process for 3 weeks from when MV Sewol rises above the water to the land-based success, searching for nine missing dead persons who have not returned yet with the loopholes revealed in this process, and considering what the task left to clarify the truth is. This day’s broadcast has been a big topic in social media since then, it is not because of what was newly revealed through broadcasting, but because of the unusual behavior of the production crew.
The whole story is like this. The production crew of asked 4.16 Solidarity Media Committee(hereinafter referred to as the Media) to cooperate with data for MV Sewol broadcast, and the Media revealed ‘One-to-one principle’ applying the other party’s principle [n1] of providing data. However, The production crew of used the footage of the Media without showing source indication, not showing any response to this condition. Although the production crew recognizing the severity of the incident posted an apology [n2] on the website, the explanation that it was due to tight production schedule and the promise to pay the fee with the benefit of hindsight and the indisputable pledge to pay more attention did not have any solution. The Media posted its statement [n3] on the 4.16 Solidarity Media website for this poor apology. The Media asked (1) apology of the executive director level of the current affairs, (2) establishment and publication of data usage guidelines to prevent recurrence of use, (3) compensation, not usage fee, (4) official submission of modified apology and posting it on the program website through the statement.
The Facebook post [n4] of the Media activist who allegedly described the incident and the rude attitude of public broadcasters became popular with more than 2,000 ‘Like’ and more than 800 ‘Share’ but the media coverage of this incident is extremely rare. The public opinion, the bossiness of giant media and moral hazard on this case has bred resentment. Obviously, the case is based on the inverse relationship of Journalism documentary with big capital made by professional journalists and independent activism documentary created by activists. However, the relationship between KBS PDs and 4.16 Solidarity Media Committee directors is not ‘Relations between the topdog and the underdog(For example, a broadcaster as the original company and a outsourcer as a subcontractor) in general terms, and the power that operates here is far more microscopic and clever.
One of the important truths known through this case, broadcaster PDs and reporters(and sometimes oursourcers) have exploited the special position of media activists rather than the authority of broadcasting media such as social influence and power. That particular position is the clear purpose of activists. Since activism documentary among independent documentaries has its purpose of ‘It emphasizes the subject as a social issue through works’, and the activists were forced to endure unfair demands and rudeness (“You should be very grateful for dealing with it”)of the broadcast crew(If it can help this movement). The broadcast crew searched precisely for this point. They used the position of the media activists who have recorded the every movement of the struggle parties who desperately need one line of article, one scene of news at close range in a mean way.
If so, what measures should be taken to correct this problem? The way we who live in the capitalist market economy think of intuitively is to enhance copyright. The point at which people was morally indignant in reality was the dual attitude of a giant broadcaster on copyright, in other words, the attitude of strictly applying its copyright but of ignoring the copyright of others. It was also a matter of not paying the fee for use, and it used the video image without source indication in the condition without finalizing the agreement. In copyright terms, the former is the infringement of authored property rights, the latter is the infringement of moral rights.[n5]
In this contest, this case makes people think about the attitude of copyright on video images, the most wise approach is to think of author’s property rights and moral rights separately. Copyright on the one hand, plays a role of protecting the honor and the interest of the creator, on the other hand, it also becomes a barrier to free cross referencing. Author’s moral rights are the creator’s own, but author’s property rights belong to the publisher or distributor rather than the creator. Therefore, it’s an idea strategy that author’s moral rights are operated exclusively and author’s moral rights are operated generously. It will make the documentary scene more rich and active to make mutual respect and solidarity among the creators sustainable instead of entrusting to copyright law or equivalent exchange.
In that sense, One-to-one principle the Media sticks to the product of the bitter experience and the agony of the past activists. The principle may be ignored by institutional broadcasters but it is based on building strong trust and cooperation by non-institutional media.(For example, mutual provision free of charge to news outlets, accusative news) It’s a very constructive response on an apology by executive director level and the need of establishing company-wide manuals through the statement of the Media whether they are realized or not. It’s real that even a PD with ‘goodwill’ can not do anything without a boss or an organization’s approval, it’s because author’s property rights that they are strictly applying belong to the broadcaster rather than the producer. [n6]
The camera of the activism documentary is rolling without stop in the struggle scene across the country today. The broadcaster that need to produce timely news will ask for data in a rude attitude, then it may post an apology for the unauthorized use of footage after use. Hopefully, starting with the mature response of 4.16 Solidarity Media Committee on this case, I look forward to changing the ecosystem of Korean documentary. It’s time to defend against unwarranted demands on social activities such as ‘Making a documentary’, ‘Recording with video’ and to need experiments on establishing a free and productive tradition of mutual cooperation.
[note 1] For example, if the other party has an principle of providing a fee of 100,000 won per 10 seconds, the Media provides its data at 100,000 won per 10 seconds, if the other party has an principle of providing free of charge on condition that the source is marked. the Media provides the same conditions to the party.
[note 2] http://www.kbs.co.kr/2tv/sisa/chu60/notice/index.html
[note 3] http://416act.net/index.php?mid=notice&page=2&document_srl=77584
[note 4] https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1564051146979672&id=100001244044375
[note 5] “Copyright is not simple a right. Copyright consists largely of author’s property rights and moral rights. Author’s property rights are to protect property interest on the work of authors and to obtain property benefits by copying works, using performance, broadcasting, transmission, exhibition, etc. Since the rights are about property, they can be transferred and become an object of inheritance. On the other hand, author’s moral rights are to protect personal interest on the work of authors. There are the right to decide whether or not to publish works(publicity rights), the right to display his or her name on the work(right to issue name), the right to maintain the identity of the content, format and title of the work(right to maintain identity).Author’s moral rights belong to the author in the nature of morality.” (Legal journal ｢The court story of lawyer Shin Jong-burm(76) – Fight songs and author’s moral rights｣ http://www.lec.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=44062)
[note 6] There remains a fundamental problem of ‘How about the exercise of author’s property rights of KBS which is national broadcasting operated by subscription fee.