click here to download
On August 2, 2007, Gov. Romney did a radio interview at the WHO Radio studio in Des Moines. I videotaped the 20 minute visit and made it available to the station for its web site.
A few hours later, Romney spokesman Tim Albrecht (Iowa communications director for the campaign) called me and insisted that the video be taken down immediately. His reasoning? At a point during a commercial break on the radio, the host uttered, "While we're off the air". Albrecht suggested what followed should have been treated as off-the-record and therefore the camcorder shouldn't have been recording or that portion shouldn't have been used.
Hardly off the recordThe control room had men standing three abreast, plus the producer sitting at a console, who could all hear the off-air exchange. In the studio with the governor was at least two people with the campaign, plus the host and myself, again, listening to the conversation. No reasonable person could expect the governor's comments to be private in those circumstances.
Nevertheless, station management ordered the video pulled while it considered the matter. But before that meeting ever happened, I suspect Romney campaign staffers downloaded it and posted it on their own YouTube area (under the profile of "GovMittRomney"). I didn't give it to them and I controlled the only copies.
Not long after today's phone conversation with Ms. Biber, the campaign faxed a counter-claim to YouTube, who in turn forwarded it to me. In it, they claimed , "...the material was removed or disabled [from YouTube] as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material..." That statement substantially contrasts the conversation I had with Ms. Biber. I assured her the video was mine, that I shot it using my personal camcorder, using my tape.
How did the Romney campaign get the video?
What Biber didn't say may be telling. She didn't claim that the campaign owned the video and had the right to use it for their purposes, nor that they know who the rightful owner is, nor did she claim they sought and received permission to use it for their purposes.
So if the poster knows he doesn't own the video, why would he have the need to challenge ownership? He'd never have used it. How did the campaign come by the video in the first place? Why would they state for the record that my claim is based on a mistake when there are a number of first-hand witnesses to the facts involving the video? It seems reasonable that if the case were to be challenged in court, the campaign would lose. And what would forcing a court fight against a private citizen do to governor's bid for presidency? Wouldn't it make the governor look like a bully? The public might wonder why the governor would steal people's property?
But would they even have to win in court? The simple act of submitting a counter-claim may have a chilling affect on the original claim, so perhaps it's a safe bet that a private citizen from Iowa wouldn't have the resources to fight it in a federal court in Massachusetts. Biber did mention this as a probability.
In my opinion, forcing that kind of an action under these circumstances is a misuse of the courts. The campaign knows it doesn't own the video, so it's morally inept to challenge the original claim.
