BBC to take action over use of Edinburgh Military Tattoo footage on BNP site

The British National Party is illegally using BBC footage of the Edinburgh Military Tattoo to promote its agenda among young people.

BBC lawyers have announced that they will be writing to the party demanding the footage be taken off BNPtv, its online television channel. The film appears on the Youth BNP site, and shows several pipe bands marching at the Tattoo, including some that are not even British. A member of one of the bands that features in the film said he was angered that their identity had been commandeered to serve a political purpose.

Justifying their use of the copyrighted material, the BNP said it had "history" with the corporation, which famously sneaked hidden cameras into one of their meetings two years ago.

The Sunday Herald brought the issue to the attention of the Edinburgh Military Tattoo organisers, who then prompted the BBC to take action.

A spokesman from the Tattoo said, in a guarded statement: "The matter has, we understand, been referred to the BBC's intellectual property lawyers in London. Clearance has not been obtained from either the BBC or the Tattoo for the use of the footage in question and it looks like a possible breach of copyright."

But an insider at the Tattoo revealed that organisers were "appalled" by the use of the footage. He said: "We're not happy that this footage has appeared on their website. The Edinburgh Tattoo has no connection with the BNP and we have no wish to be associated with them."

The giveaway that the film was under copyright was the use of a Steadicam, a camera used only by professionals. The BBC recognised the footage as their own and passed the matter on to their intellectual property department, who will take further action next week.

A BBC spokesman said: "Due to the growth of the internet, it is very difficult for the BBC to police all use of its material online. The BNP's broadcast of the Military Tattoo is not licensed by the BBC and we are contacting them to request its immediate removal."

The Scottish Trades Union Congress pointed out that the BNP had "shot itself in the foot", as the Military Tattoo was an event that was attended by a cosmopolitan group of troops and spectators from many different countries.

Ian Tasker, assistant secretary of the STUC, said: "We would not be happy with the Military Tattoo being used to promote the narrow-minded agenda of the British National Party. The Edinburgh Military Tattoo, albeit a display of militarism, propagates the sort of cross-cultural message that the BNP absolutely detests. We wonder what the message they are trying to get across is."

The bands shown in the film include corps from Australia and New Zealand, who marched alongside military bands like the Black Watch as well as university groups. The Aberdeen University Officers' Training Corp was one of those bands and regimental sergeant-major Angus Steele said: "The BNP have hijacked our identity. It's quite concerning."

Simon Darby, spokesman for the BNP, argued that the British National Party had every right to use the footage. He called the BBC and Edinburgh Military Tattoo's reaction "totally pathetic" and said: "We're not going to get intimidated by the politically correct brigade just for having images up on BNPtv of a spectacular event and part of our culture that we're proud of. It is much ado about nothing because, remember, this is the BBC that tried to smuggle hidden cameras into our meetings and then tried to get us locked up for seven years. I notice they didn't ask for permission to film us."

Sunday Herald

BNP in hot water over 'Millionaire' leaflet

Who Wants to Be Done for Copyright Theft?

Campaign literature by the BNP that used images from the TV show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? fell foul of copyright rules.

A leaflet to promote BNP hopeful Alan Girvan in Dewsbury East was withdrawn after Carl Morphett of the anti-fascist group Kirklees Unity highlighted the breach. The leaflet featured Labour councillors Paul Kane and Eric Firth above the caption: ‘Q. How many years have you promised to clean up Dewsbury?'

2waytraffic, the company that owns the copyright on the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? images, wrote to Mr Girvan's agent, Coun David Exley, demanding that the leaflets were withdrawn.

Coun Exley said the leaflet was no longer being distributed by the time the complaint occurred.

He said: "The company telephoned me about it. There was no shouting and bawling. They said they weren't happy with the image being used to promote any political organisation - not just the BNP. I gave them notice that it had been withdrawn."

He said the agreement was formalised in writing - and that was the end of the matter. He said he was furious over comments from Carl Morphett "It makes my blood boil. Carl Morphett has nothing better to do than criticise other people's efforts," he added.

Mr Morphett said: "Mr Exley should know that as an agent for Mr Girvan he should have played by the rules."

Dewsbury Reporter

Thanks to our friends at Kirklees Unity for the heads-up

This is of course, far from the first time that the BNP has happily ignored copyright. A couple of years back, we reported the party's use of one of the children's characters, the Mr Men, dressed as a suicide bomber, on the party's so-called 'jokes' page. Chorion, the company that holds the copyright on the Mr Men, was much perturbed at any association with the far-right party and demanded the removal of the image. Similar breaches occurred with the Apple iPod ad images and the Books for Dummies series images. Anything goes at the BNP.

Just a few weeks ago, we reported the sale of Usborne children's books through the party's Excalibur merchandising site. Presumably the BNP hoped to achieve some spurious and undeserved respectability through their sale and a perceived link between Usborne and itself. Following complaints from ourselves and many of our supporters, Usborne forced the party to remove the books from the Excalibur website.

We need to keep a close watch on the BNP for anything of this nature. We already know that the party will ignore the law wherever it can and on the thinnest pretext, and we need to bring these constant breaches to the attention of a wider public. Keep your eyes skinned, folks.

Solidarity: an update. Theft is theft, even when it's intellectual property theft.

The appalling story of the BNP's disastrous move into the trades union movement continues with the September bulletin from the original union started by the BNP (which we shall refer to as Solidarity 1) having a go at 'untrustworthy' Nick Griffin and the union's Certification Officer.

In response to a question referring to the extremely confusing double-union situation that asks what the future holds for Solidarity, Vice-President Tim Hawkes responds thus:

'Which one? As far as the EC [Executive Committee] of Solidarity is concerned, the idea of a union run and controlled by the BNP leadership (and Third Way sidekicks) is a joke. The Union must be focused on worker issues not political point scoring. It is clear that the support structure of Solidarity with regards to promotion and recruitment has been seriously harmed and our association with Nick Griffin – who publicly and privately declared to me that he view (sic) Solidarity as ‘independent’ – who I now consider to be highly untrustworthy, has harmed us considerably. Well, with regards to the BNP-Solidarity version, we understand that it is fundamentally just a political union and by its actions have rejected any true sense of independence and therefore it is unlikely to go anywhere other than as a smoke screen in loosely supporting working class concerns. However, I for one would not be prepared to willingly betray the British workers by allowing the BNP leadership to dictate the actions of Solidarity. It is one of the prime reasons that I have continued my work with the Union. The future of Solidarity is in question, and in truth I would personally consider a dead union to be better than a corrupt thieving union, after all there are plenty of TUC unions who fill that role. My greatest concern is that BNP-Solidarity will succeed due to the Certification Office unwillingness to do their job, and the EC’s lack of legal resources means that genuine non-political people will join up with the BNP version, not knowing that it simply funds a lifestyle for individuals of questionable moral integrity who have no concerns for the workers of this country and frequently don’t even work themselves. At this stage we should just wait to see if the Certification Office do anything, and apply pressure where we can.'

Hawke is being disingenuous. Solidarity 1 was started by and for the BNP and was, from its birth, run and controlled by the BNP leadership and its Third Way sidekicks. Though the party and the detestable Patrick Harrington (former General Secretary of Solidarity 1, currently General Secretary of Solidarity 2 and long-time pal of BNP leader Nick Griffin) attempted to deny the BNP front-group status of Solidarity (and continually edit Wikipedia entries to that effect) the actions taken by the party immediately following the suspension of Harrington from Solidarity 1 made it perfectly obvious that Griffin always intended to control the union completely and wasn't about to let that control pass into the hands of others who may not have his best interests at heart.

Hawke's ludicrous statement that 'we understand that [Solidarity 2] is fundamentally just a political union' displays either a convenient disregard of Solidarity's entire very short history or a truly incredible naivety that makes one wonder whether he should just give up politics now before he does himself a mischief, though he almost redeems himself with his criticism of the Certification Office, which seems to have ignored the turmoil completely, and his comment 'that genuine non-political people will join up with the BNP version, not knowing that it simply funds a lifestyle for individuals of questionable moral integrity', presumably a reference to Harrington and/or Griffin.

Solidarity 1 has, let's face it, had it. It's time for Hawke and co to bite the bullet and accept that Griffin and Harrington have, despite acting in a manner that almost everyone with a conscience would consider both immoral and illegal (the theft of the union funds, the website and the account details immediately following Harrington's suspension), outflanked the original union leadership and appear to be getting away with it. If it's any consolation, our estimate is that the union will collapse within a year or two anyway, through lack of interest. Nobody would want to be a part of an unrecognised union with no negotiating power and in any case, once Nick Griffin sees that it isn't a money-spinner, he'll lose interest and stop supporting it.

Hawke is right about one thing though and that is that the Certification Office should have jumped on this right from the start. Both versions of Solidarity should have been suspended until a proper investigation (including a police investigation) had taken place.

The story (thus far) can be followed via the links below:

BNP's fake union Solidarity already up against the ropes
BNP's Solidarity situation worsens - fake union under threat
Solidarity - an email update from the Vice-President Tim Hawke
BNP discards democracy completely to force takeover of 'independent' Solidarity
Solidarity disaster goes critical as criminal investigation is threatened
Where next for the BNP’s amoeba-like Solidarity union?
Solidarity update - BNP’s Nick Griffin heavily criticised for interference
Solidarity - police called in

One interesting though relatively trivial spin-off from all this is that Solidarity 2 has applied to have the logo (top) registered as a trade mark, with all the intellectual property rights that this would give them. However, as many of our correspondents have pointed out, the design of the Solidarity logo (and indeed, the name itself) is a blatant rip-off of the logo (above) of the real Solidarity union which itself owns the copyright on the original image. Objections to the fake union stealing the logo and name of the original and far more worthy Solidarity can be made via email to the Intellectual Property Office here: law.section@ipo.gov.uk