Why doesn&#39;t the US Supreme Court just forbid the &quot;re-use, capture, re-editing or redistribution&quot; of video footage like the UK Supreme Court?
<p>First, I know that US and UK law differ. Here's one common argument against televising proceedings of the US Supreme Court as summarized by <a href="https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/07/scalia-cameras-in-supreme-court-would-mis-educate-americans-130246" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the dead Justice Antonin Scalia</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Though Scalia said he was sure Lamb’s network would air the proceedings in their entirety, his concern was that “what most of the American people would see would be 30-second, 15-second takeouts from our arguments.”</p>
<p>Lamb pressed on, asking how sound bites on TV were different from quotes in a newspaper article.</p>
<p>“People read that and they say ‘well that’s an article in the newspaper and the guy may be lying, or he may be misinformed.’ But somehow when you see it live, an excerpt pulled out of an entire, when you see it live, it has a much greater impact. I am sure it will mis-educate the American people,” Scalia declared.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here's my rebuttal. Why doesn't SCOTUS just follow the UKSC's lead on this issue?</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc-2019-0041/241019-am.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This footage is made available for the sole purpose of the fair and accurate reporting of the judicial proceedings of the Supreme Court. Although you are welcome to view these proceedings, the re-use, capture, re-editing or redistribution of this footage in any form is not permitted. You should be aware that any such use could attract liability for breach of copyright or defamation and, in some circumstances, could constitute a contempt of court.</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Can't Congress enact an Act prohibiting &quot;the re-use, capture, re-editing or redistribution of&quot; any video footage of SCOTUS, and make them contempt of court? To take this a step further, why not amend the U.S. Constitution just to do this? I know that amending the U.S. Constitution is AWFULLY DIFFICULT. I screenshot the same warning from the <a href="https://youtu.be/QnkfgTTK_Wo" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Court of Appeal</a> of England and Wales.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/7CCDS.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/7CCDS.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>I know the Supreme Court of Canada and High Court of Australia also televise their proceedings.</p>

<h2>No</h2>
<p>Any such law would violate the US First Amendment as an improper restriction of speech and of the press. If done by the court rather thiygh a law, it would also conflict with <a href="https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" rel="nofollow noreferrer">17 USC 105</a> which says that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Courts have restricted video and still photography of court proceedings, on the ground that the presence of cameras would disturb court sessions and distract witnesses and jurors. But that would not apply to the proceedings of an appellate court.</p>

us-supreme-court