Can a media company use another broadcaster's footage in online news?

A media company should not automatically copy another broadcaster's video footage into its own online news reports merely because the underlying event is newsworthy. Copyright can protect cinematographic works and broadcasts, and Pakistan's Copyright Ordinance, 1962 recognises rights belonging to broadcasting organisations. Section 57 contains certain fair-dealing provisions relating to reporting current events, but those provisions must be interpreted according to their exact scope, protected work and use. Attribution alone does not necessarily grant permission for a substantial commercial rebroadcast.

Identify the protected material

A news clip may contain an original camera recording, edited footage, reporter commentary, graphics, music and the broadcast signal. Different persons may own different components. Obtain the source and the proposed copied segment. A television station's watermark may identify a broadcaster but does not automatically prove that it owns every sound recording or third-party image within the programme. Rights clearance should address the actual layer being reused.

Copyright in cinematographic work

Section 3 of the Copyright Ordinance addresses exclusive rights in cinematographic works, including copying and broadcasting. The fact that a recording documents a real-world incident does not automatically place the recording in the public domain. The facts and events themselves may be reportable, but the visual recording can remain protected expression. A newsroom can describe an event independently without taking the original broadcaster's footage.

Broadcasting organisation rights

Section 24 recognises specified rights of broadcasting organisations, including rebroadcasting, fixation and copying of fixations, subject to law. These rights can exist alongside copyright in the underlying programme or component material. A media company should not assume that permission from the original camera operator necessarily resolves every broadcast signal issue. The proposed technical use and chain of title should be examined.

Fair dealing for current events

Section 57(1)(b) contains a fair-dealing provision concerning reporting current events for certain categories of works and modes of reporting. Its exact wording is important. A news outlet should not apply a broad American fair-use standard without checking Pakistani law. The volume of copying, nature of the work and relationship to genuine reporting may be relevant to whether a particular use falls within the provision.

Newsworthiness is not blanket immunity

A clip can concern a major public event and still be protected. A broadcaster may have invested in exclusive cameras, on-site personnel and editing. Reporting that the event occurred is different from republishing substantial sections of another outlet's finished package. The legal assessment should identify what the new outlet contributes and why the particular extract is used.

Quantity and character of footage

Copying a few seconds for genuine criticism or reporting can raise a different analysis from playing an entire three-minute report with a new logo. There is no universally safe fixed number of seconds under Pakistani law. A newsroom should not rely on social-media myths that ten seconds or thirty seconds is always lawful. The actual work and statutory exception determine the question.

Original commentary and transformation

A new reporter may analyse a public speech, identify contradictions or critique a broadcaster's framing while showing relevant excerpts. That editorial purpose can matter to an exception analysis where the work and conditions qualify. Merely removing a watermark or adding background music does not automatically transform a protected recording into an independently owned work. The newsroom should document the journalistic purpose and avoid copying more than necessary.

Attribution and source identification

Crediting the original broadcaster is a useful editorial practice and may be required by licensing arrangements. It does not replace copyright permission where necessary. A clip labelled "courtesy of Channel X" can still be an unauthorised reproduction. A responsible newsroom should maintain a record of licences, public-domain sources and any legal exception relied upon.

Agency footage and syndication

Some news outlets purchase footage from agencies or participate in content-sharing arrangements. The licence may specify channels, territories, duration, edits and digital use. A television broadcast licence does not automatically include perpetual YouTube or social media redistribution. The newsroom should review whether digital platforms and commercial advertising are covered. Sub-licensing to affiliates may require express permission.

Social-media videos

A video posted publicly by an individual may have copyright ownership and privacy questions. A social network's terms can grant the platform certain rights without transferring unrestricted reuse permission to every third-party broadcaster. Embedding an authorised post can present different issues from downloading and reuploading its file. A journalist should verify authenticity, consent and the legal implications of revealing identifiable people.

Music and other rights

A news clip can contain recorded music, artwork or performances with separate rights. Permission to use the camera recording may not automatically permit all embedded works outside the original licence. This is especially relevant for entertainment events and sporting broadcasts. A media company should request suitable warranties and permissions from suppliers and use original or licensed replacement sound where appropriate.

Privacy and dignity considerations

A lawful copyright licence does not automatically justify publishing sensitive images of victims, children or private individuals. Article 14 and other legal interests may be relevant. Journalistic public interest must be assessed separately from intellectual property. Avoid exposing personal medical details or private material merely because another broadcaster previously did so.

Accuracy and editing

Selective editing can distort a person's words or imply events happened in a different sequence. Such conduct may create defamation, regulatory or ethical issues independently of copyright. Keep the original source and context. A licence to reproduce footage does not authorise false presentation of the underlying facts. Corrections should be made promptly where material context was lost.

Online platform enforcement

Video platforms may process copyright complaints through automated detection and takedown mechanisms. Those contractual systems do not necessarily determine ultimate Pakistani legal liability. A blocked YouTube upload may result from platform terms even where a legal fair-dealing argument exists. Conversely, the absence of an automatic claim is not proof of permission.

A political speech example

A broadcaster records a parliamentary press conference and another outlet wants short excerpts for a report analysing statements. The outlet should consider the source recording, fair-dealing provision and amount needed to report accurately. It may be able to report the words independently while avoiding wholesale reproduction of the first broadcaster's edited programme.

A sports news example

A news site uploads a complete televised football highlight package under its own branding. The programme may contain protected audiovisual and broadcast rights, and commercial reuploading can be difficult to justify as necessary current-event reporting. Obtaining a licensed highlights feed or using original reporting is commercially safer. Fair dealing should not be assumed merely because sports results are news.

Rights-clearing workflow

Maintain an asset register identifying the file, owner, permission, permitted duration and digital channels. Editorial staff should understand when a licence is required and when a statutory exception may apply. Obtain written rights from agencies where appropriate. Legal review should focus on high-value and exclusive footage, particularly before monetisation or long-term archive publication.

Opinion and recommended course

Another broadcaster's footage should generally be treated as protected material unless a valid licence or specific statutory exception applies. Section 57 must be applied carefully to the actual news use, while section 24 broadcast rights may also matter. Attribute accurately, avoid wholesale copying and maintain rights documentation for online publication.

Principal authorities: Copyright Ordinance, 1962, sections 3, 24, 27 and 57; applicable broadcasting and PEMRA regulation; Contract Act, 1872; relevant platform content terms and journalistic obligations.