At ex-CIA panelist's insistence, Oxford Union reneges on promise to upload video of whistleblowing debate

[hallam]

@L0ki

@anon74729030

our assertions about what people are agreeing to are just that - assertions.

Well, in fact, her assertions about what she agreed to and why are what is relevant.

She states that she agreed as a result of the representation made to her by the Union that there would be significant media coverage of the event and that the level of media coverage would be hers to decide.

@hallam

This panel appears to have been on the same terms. There was no guarantee of publication. There was however a right for each panelist to veto publication. Seems pretty clear to me.

No, it doesn’t. See above.

There seems to be no question that the Union is entitled to publish the video if it chooses to. At least the Union does not appear to have argued that it is prevented from doing so. If it were able to make that argument, you would expect it do so since “We can’t publish for legal reasons” makes a far better PR response than “We don’t have to and we’re not going to, so there.”

Having spoken many times at similar events, it is my understanding that when I am told that the decision to publish lies with the panelists, that it lies with all of the panelists and that any one of them can exercise a veto.

Each of the panelists has a copyright interest in the material. They were each assured that they would be consulted before publication occurred.

In this particular case, verbal statements are irrelevant as a copyright interest cannot be waved by a verbal statement under US copyright law (which would apply to YouTube publication). The same is likely true of UK law and for the same reason and under the same treaty but it is the US law that I have personal experience with.