Reports that YouTube had caved to Cruise and the Church Scientology removing video clips of Tom Cruise's appearance and speech at a Church of Scientology event in 2004 seem to be greatly exaggerated! Scientology claims materials about it fall under copyright, leading to a DMCA takedown request sent to various sites posting the video, including YouTube. However, I just found the video on YouTube a few minutes ago.

This video has been run by various news organizations this past week along with interviews with Andrew Morton, the author of Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography. As a result the video has now appeared on a variety of websites - including the BBC, ITN, Defamer.com and Gawker.com.

It won't be surprising if the Church of Scientology threatens litigation over the clip. But in the YouTube era, the Scientologists won’t be able to permanently keep that video off the Web. Yes, the group can send takedown notices, or file lawsuits, but the clip now has a life of its own online.

Gawker publisher Nick Denton posted the clip again, along with the statement that he would not be taking it down. "Gawker is now hosting a copy of the video; it's newsworthy; and we will not be removing it," Denton wrote. Is Gawker right? Even if the material is copyrighted is it newsworthy and therefore like British-based news websites, use of the video should be protected as fair dealing under copyright laws for reporting news and current affairs?

But should YouTube be held under those same standards? Are the videos on YouTube protectable as a news source or just freedom of speech? Where do we draw the line?