“as a result of a third-party notification by British Broadcasting Corporation”

As Horseman has noticed in the comments zone here, it looks like we’ll not be allowed to use clips from BBC NI programmes anymore. Apparently the BBC are complaining about breach of copyright. Here’s a copy of one of the notifications I’ve received.

Dear Member: This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by British Broadcasting Corporation claiming that this material is infringing: “not an acceptable way of doing this”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swOuk2JRZ6c

Please Note: Repeated incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to prevent this from happening, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube’s copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.


  • percy

    very sad peter, is there anyway of appealing this ?
    alternatively you might direct those of us in the UK to the BBI player, as they have extensive coverage of NI Politics.

  • igor

    Why not write to them and ask for a free licence as its for genuine journalistic use

  • The Raven

    How far behind the times are these people? So much for collaborative working and open source information…certainly as far as the Beeb is concerned.

  • Mark McGreg

    Maybe they’ll be reviewing the footage of the eirigi protest in Castle Court I hosted on Youtube (taken by Gonzo) that Tara Mills credited to a ‘bystander’ when they broadcast it on the news without permission, along with quotes lifted from my blog quoted as ‘passerby’ – then tried to fob me off with an offer of a few quid when I called them on not attributing original material.


  • Mark McGreg


    Something to think about…. why now? Have you upset someone by providing this material that may have forced the BBC into this?

    Hey, a FoI is you friend.

    You may find out a political party started complaining and forced them to act. Now that’d be funny.

    I really can’t see the Beeb being bothered unless some arse went complaining.

    Any Beeb folks fancy leaking it?

  • jone

    This is very peculiar given that the BBC states explicitly:

    “The BBC encourages you to embed its video and audio material on your website as long as you agree to a few terms.”

    See here – http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/terms/ and here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/7895116.stm

    Though perhaps this might explain it:

    “If you are a news site and wish to embed the BBC video news content, please contact us via the form below. Please indicate your website URL in the ‘Comments’ section and let us know the pages on which you plan to embed the BBC News video.”

    Before we set off on some FoI-fest seeking to expose some great clunking conspiracy can anyone tell me if anyone did the above?

  • duped

    The main DUP website has a lot of BBC content as well,

    as well as a line at the bottom which isn’t factually correct obviously:

  • ravenous

    ..and it seems none of the DUP’s BBC videos have been taken offline – hmmm

  • Mark McGreg

    We all know what has happened. Some press officer of one of the control freak parties has taken umbrage to how Pete writes and then hounded the BBC to have the letter of the law implemented over his video links.

    So the feeds are dead. Time to find out which anal freak demanded it.

    Shouldn’t take too long to out the wanker/party.

    SF or DUP? I’m betting a SF press officer.

  • I’m sure I read something recently about the BBC looking into ways of making content MORE accessible by third-parties. They probably just don’t want it done through intermediaries like YouTube.

    It shouldn’t have been on YouTube in the first place.

    Mark, I’m not familiar with the Ts&Cs; of uploading to YouTube, but do you not forfeit copyright when you do that?

  • jone

    Section 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows for use of material (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.

    However, and I don’t claim to fully understand why, an acknowledgement is not required in respect of reporting of current events by means of a sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme.

    How this actually translates into case law I don’t know – but I suspect it’s a bit more complicated than the statute suggests.


  • willis


    Look at the link


    Did this shutters down happen in NI?

    I think not.

  • PAD

    BBC content is ALL OVER Youtube (especially when you consider all the music taken from BBC broadcasts). No this is a deliberate attack on Slugger/Pete – someone reported his account to YouTube in order to have it yanked.

    Nothing to do with the BBC and everything to do with someone knowing how to use YouTube’s TOS to censor.

  • Belfast Gonzo

    Someone obviously has a bee in their bonnet. Perhaps the BBC only wants its embedded videos used as they can’t be seen outside the UK?

    Anyway, my guess is that if Pete kept the clips a bit shorter, he might get away with using Youtube, as there’s a ‘fair use’ copyright argument for reviewing or criticism. If BBC Northern Ireland made more of its shows embeddable, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

  • Pete Baker


    The latest clip, which was also complained about, was a 2 mins clip from a 1 hour 15 min programme.

  • Pete Baker


    The BBC are entirely within their rights to assert their copyright.

    But your link provides no context for comparison.

    And, if they are archiving their live NI political output in the manner I have been doing, they are hiding it very well.

  • Mick Fealty

    I think we should probably cool all the speculation about ‘who done it’, since in my experience all such speculation is usually overblown and wrong. That said, some good points have been made.

    Those terms for embedding don’t apply since they are YouTube clips, and not BBC embeds. And, despite the high regard Slugger’s held in, and the fact we break news stories and provide high grade original content not available anywhere else; we actually make nothing out of the content we provide people for free.

    In short, the BBC as a corporate body are perfectly entitled to ask for it to be taken down; notwithstanding Mark’s point that corporatively BBC, (and to my certain knowledge The Sun, The Times and the News of the World) have themselves ‘ripped’ internet content without acknowledging where it came from.

    Should it have been on YouTube? My feeling was yes, whilst the BBC appeared tolerate it. ‘Ripping’ is part of the new media deal. It’s all over the web. Pete’s work may just have been too good and too consistent for the corporation to continue to ignore.

    Pete was able to bring quality content (that was not being offered by the BBC itself in any re-useable form) to an audience that would not have otherwise get to see the daytime broadcasts. It has helped bring precision to both our ‘reporting’ and (I hope) peoples’ broader understanding of specific issues.

    Think for a moment just how few news organisations can afford to put journalists up on the hill these days. The Assembly is buried deeply enough from the public view (at least on a day to day basis), without the access we have provided (albeit under ‘guerilla’ terms) to clips the BBC hasn’t otherwise provided, being taken away without replacement.

    All of that said, it would be good to try in some way to put the ‘relationship’ on a more regular footing. Pete has no intention of pressing on against this action, or ducking down and coming up again under an assumed identity.

    I’ve no immediate ideas how that might be done, but I know that in the past they’ve commissioned similar work (although in a much more technically complex way), with MySociety’s video recordings from BBC Parliament to match speeches in the House of Commons.

    It’s not just Slugger’s readers who will miss these clips. I know for certain they were highly valued inside BBC NI itself. IMHO, they were an important (if unacknowledged) collaboration between Slugger and the local Beeb to bring our democracy (such as it is) to a wider audience.

    Let’s see what the next few weeks bring…

  • Only Asking.

    “SF or DUP? I’m betting a SF press officer.”

    What would be the point? You tube accounts are based on e mails, for Pete a new e mail, a new account and he can upload away…

    It wouldn’t shut anybody up that doesn’t want to be shut up.

    Perhaps the BBC only wants its embedded videos used as they can’t be seen outside the UK?

    That sounds reasonable.

  • Only Asking

    The mysocietyvideo is a good idea .

    This project was initially commissioned and funded by the BBC, who asked mySociety to create a searchable, online video archive of debates based on footage from BBC Parliament. We were thrilled to help out, because we think that it will enhance the public understanding of – and respect for – the work of Parliament.

  • jone

    Every cough and spit of the Commons, Lords, the devolved bodies and EuroParl is due be made available as in a searchable, (hopefully) embeddable format in the spring.


  • Bearing Mick’s comment about speculation being a bit foolhardy in mind, my guess is that it comes from somewhere deeper in the BBC. Their contracts with third-party producers is only to licence the content for certain sorts of distribution.

    Their suppliers may be coming to them saying that the BEEB are getting some additional value out of YouTube carrying content (and YouTube will be extracting value from BBC content somehow) that has been supplied to them under narrower terms – and this may be a blanket BBC approach to blogs that carry a large amount of their material.

    Tread softy and ask nicely at this stage I reckon?