Funeral of Elizabeth II | Buckingham wants to control the dissemination of images

A month after the death of Queen Elizabeth II, Buckingham Palace and British broadcasters are engaged in a fight over the rights to broadcast images of the sovereign’s funeral.

Andre Duchesne
The Press

Crown officials practically ordered broadcasters to create a 60-minute stock footage that they could use from now on and toss everything else. This image bank must also be approved by Buckingham Palace.

On Friday, BBC star former presenter David Dimbleby added a chapter to the story by revealing how the Royal Family virtually controlled the broadcast of footage during the funeral.

Speaking at the Henley Book Literature Festival, Mr Dimbleby, who has taken over the funeral service, said the BBC was receiving emails “almost simultaneously” from Palace officials dictating what footage should not be shown again. the following.

Buckingham Palace intends to keep control over the dissemination of images relating to the activities of the new king, Charles III, we also note from reading several articles.

At the Palais, a member of the communications department declined our request for clarification. “It’s not something we would like to comment on,” Izzy Stepehnson said in an email to The Press.

In a recent report, the British daily The Guardian said the three official funeral broadcasters, the BBC, ITV and Sky News, have been ordered to submit their compilation of 60 minutes of footage for approval by October 2.

“Once this procedure is complete, the vast majority of the remaining images from the ceremonies will be withdrawn from circulation. Any media outlets wishing to use unapproved images will need to have them approved piecemeal by the Royal Family,” it adds.

However, it is enough to go on YouTube to view countless montages of images of the ceremonies surrounding the death of the queen. What will the royal family do to oppose it? That remains to be seen.

Concerning rebound

One thing is certain, the case has raised many comments in the media.

In an email exchange with The Pressthe UK’s National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has expressed concern over the demands.

“This issue has been discussed at the NUJ Ethics Council and the union is considering how best to respond to this worrying development,” we were told.

At the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQAM), Professor Patrick White, of the School of Media, believes that Buckingham Palace’s requests are “abusive and unacceptable”.

Mr. White does not believe the directive will be followed. “In Great Britain, there is an even stronger freedom of expression than here. »

Ysolde Gendreau, full professor and specialist in intellectual property at the Faculty of Law of the University of Montreal, describes the situation as “strange”.

“It reminds me of Wallis Simpson, when American newspapers coming into England were checked to remove material about his relationship with Edward VIII,” she says of this story from the 1930s.

Tim Luckhurst, principal of South College at Durham University, also mentions it in an article entitled “Media deference to the royals must have a limit” and published on the website The Conversation. “Foreign press headlines covered the relationship for ten months before British newspapers told their readers about it,” he writes.

On the current situation, Mr.^me Gendreau lingered to dissect article 85 of the English law on copyright where it is mentioned that a person who orders a photo or a film retains control over its distribution.

“Does this mean that at major Royal Family events, the Crown basically asks broadcasters to film? We can ask ourselves the question, ”she said.

On the other hand, the same article mentions the fact that the law applies when the order is placed for private and domestic purposes. “Is that the case here? It’s hard to determine,” adds M.^me son-in-law.

In any case, she adds that the monarchy “does itself much more harm with this” [la demande faite aux médias] than if she missed a disadvantageous photo or clip.

Verification made with Radio-Canada, the Crown corporation “has not received any request of this kind”, indicates Marie Tétreault, head, promotion and public relations.

With The Independent, The Guardian, The Washington Post and The Conversation