[James2001]

Doesn't help endearing the public to the monarchy at a time they really need to try and get the public on side.

[Ash101]

I don't quite understand what the palace is getting out of overseeing such a strict usage policy though?

It's fairly obvious that the whole lot won't be broadcast again in full, but surely for any future documentaries or features they should have free rein to include any of the footage from across the 10 days? It was all pretty respectful and there weren't many gaffes? (and as noted earlier, gaffes are circulated 'unofficially' online anyway, so they have zero control over that)

[James2001]

You say it wouldn't be repeated in full, but BBC Parliament have repeated Diana's funeral in full, as well at the coronation and Charles's investiture.

Though obviously it won't be repeated whether they wanted to or not with these restrictions on usage.

[Jon]

Doesn't help endearing the public to the monarchy at a time they really need to try and get the public on side.

As much as I think it’s slightly silly, I hardly think it’s an issue that’s going to resonate with the public at large.

---

I don't quite understand what the palace is getting out of overseeing such a strict usage policy though?

It's fairly obvious that the whole lot won't be broadcast again in full, but surely for any future documentaries or features they should have free rein to include any of the footage from across the 10 days? It was all pretty respectful and there weren't many gaffes? (and as noted earlier, gaffes are circulated 'unofficially' online anyway, so they have zero control over that)

I imagine things like Prince Harry not singing the national anthem are what they don’t want to be shown again. But surely if a Channel 5 documentary for example wanted to use the footage in a documentary they’d be able to get around it all through fair usage. 

I think there has always been a bit of understanding between the Palace and the broadcasters though and I guess they’re only acting in a way any other rights owner would. And similar rules exist or have existed about footage of parliament. 

What makes this different though is universal access seemingly given to broadcasters of these broadcasts at the time.

[Ben Shatliff]

Let’s not forget this is the first State Funeral of a Monarch which has had universal access where as much as possible could be shown.

These rules will have been in place before but seventy years ago we had less of a mainstream media.

There has also been a message throughout this very sad period about keeping the moment for yourself. Not using mobiles etc. They may also be thinking along those lines for anybody watching on TV.

I have not commented properly during the last few weeks. I like many others was shocked and devastated at the passing of Her Majesty but I do think the national mourning helped me as an individual. I felt we could all grieve together

[Stooky Bill]

You say it wouldn't be repeated in full, but BBC Parliament have repeated Diana's funeral in full, as well at the coronation and Charles's investiture.

Though obviously it won't be repeated whether they wanted to or not with these restrictions on usage.

I think I'm right in saying that some parts of the Queens coronation have never been reshown because the Palace haven't allowed it. The same with the Royal weddings - the actual service is ownership of the Royals. 

The same will apply to the Queen Mums funeral too, I don't think that's ever been repeated. Diana was different of course not being a royal so I expect subject to different rules 

To be honest I don't really see the appeal of seeing a funeral again

[JayCasey]

I'd like to see how any challenge would play out in court.

You'd have the King basically suing to block his subjects from watching a repeat of his mother's - their Queen's - funeral.

I would suggest that as the event was of significant historical importance, and as it was a "State" event, the footage would therefore become default ownership of the state.

That said, if the Royals want royalties out of it, or want to limit access to it for other reasons, the Treasury should be knocking up the bill for all the pageantry and planning for His Highness to settle.

[Keith]

These rules will have been in place before but seventy years ago we had less of a mainstream media.

I'm inclined to agree that it's quite likely these rules were probably drawn up many years ago. Limiting footage of the lying in state would be reasonable, if only to stop them from showing clips of members of the public and certain celebrities walking through. Similarly limiting pre-funeral service indoor coverage to prevent re-using the couple hours of dignitaries waiting also ensure the media don't show it later in the context of someone who is later publicly disgraced.

Apart from instances such as these limiting use of footage of the actual service and specific events/services seems a bit outdated. I also doubt it would be easy to enforce outside of the UK, beyond restricting those media outlets to future events involving the royal family. I dare say they may be conscious of certain parts of the media wanting to re-use footage of Harry & Megan to make a few more Channel 5 type documentaries, and by limiting the amount of footage it makes this harder. I also wonder if they might be wanting to limit reshowing footage of Prince Andrew from the funeral.

[Jon]

The thing is I can’t see how they could stop Channel 5 documentaries using them. Surely that would fall under some fair use rules?

[Stooky Bill]

Any programmes that wanted to use footage to illustrate the funeral etc would just get round it by using non restricted footage like the parade.

Fair use wouldn't cover it, it doesn't give you cart blanched to use anything for any context