Copyright Infringement complaint from Vanity Fair/Condé Nast

Email

[Jim Robinson]

Subject: Copyright Infringement

Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:42:53 -0400

From: "Gigante, John D."

To: "'WEBMASTER@FREEREPUBLIC.COM'" WEBMASTER@FREEREPUBLIC.COM

September 23, 2003

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, AND BY E-MAIL TO WEBMASTER@FREEREPUBLIC.COM Free Republic, LLC P.O. Box 9771 Fresno, CA 93794

Re: Copyright Infringement Dear Sir or Madam:

We represent The Conde Nast Publications, publisher of Vanity Fair. It has come to our attention that your website posted and continues to post without permission at least two copies of an article entitled "The Message in the Anthrax" written by Don Foster for the October 2003 issue of Vanity Fair.

Mr. Foster owns the copyright in this article and Vanity Fair paid for the exclusive right to publish the article for a limited period of time. As the copyright owner, Mr. Foster has the legally enforceable right to determine who, if anyone, may publish the article, and during the period of its exclusivity, Vanity Fair has the legally protectable right to be the only party publishing the article.

Your reproduction of this article on your site (even if it was posted by third parties) is an infringement by you of Mr. Foster's copyright rights and, since your infringement continues to occur during the period of Vanity Fair's exclusivity, it also violates Conde Nast's rights. The remedies available under the U.S. Copyright Act are severe, including injunctive relief, payment of statutorily-prescribed damages of up to $150,000 per infringement, and reimbursement of attorneys' fees.

We demand that you immediately remove from your website all materials from Vanity Fair and any other Conde Nast publication, and that you provide us with a written statement specifying all of the material removed, and that you agree not to use any Conde Nast material in the future unless you first obtain the copyright owner's written permission (which may be granted or withheld). If you do not agree, we will advise our client it must pursue more formal means to resolve this problem. We expect to hear from you within ten (10) days of your receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

John Gigante, Esq. Sabin, Bermant & Gould LLP Four Times Square New York, N. Y. 10036-6526 Tel. 212-381-7066 Fax. 212-381-7227

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, purge it and do not disseminate or copy it.

[Defiant]

Fair use allows you to quote a little bit, too, but if the authorities that be only want us to link, that's what we should do.

[Peach]

Actually, you have a good point. I know there are other sites that don't have this problem posting articles.

[4CJ]

Like I said: WE're at war, but don't seem to realize that. They're going after this forum as well. (And "we're in power")

Could be we're hitting a nerve? ;o)

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Mr. Foster owns the copyright in this article and Vanity Fair paid for the exclusive right to publish the article for a limited period of time."

I don't think that's S.O.P. for most publications, or even Vanity Fair. This article must be a special case. How would anyone know about the exclusive arrangement and time limit? There are also legal remedies that would allow for posting any length of any material on FR, i.e. compulsory licensing, and it may be worth looking into that expense. I don't think it would all that great.

[geedee]

Good list . . . perhaps a good way to show the info-narcs that we don't appreciate their nonsense is for all FReepers who are buying any of the Conde trash to cancel their subscriptions along with a nice little note explaining why.

If you know . . . What are the copyright laws anyway? For example, Ann Coulter writes a book . . . or a newspaper column. A gazillion people quote from it. Are they all breaking the law since she, obviously, hasn't given them all permission? Or is there some kind of "blanket" permission that's allowed?

[Centurion2000]

This is the second one of these recently. I wonder if someone is ratting out FR to publications. It's possible that it's just a coincidence, but....

For once I agree with you .... three times is enemy action. Guess time will tell.

[freedom4ever]

I have a funny feeling this going to get worse. I hope it doesn't, but I just have a bad feeling more publications will start doing this. One thing we can do is put Free
Republic members out there as reporters and report the news, honestly, as it happens, before the spin begins. There are a lot of us, all over the country/ world and we often times beat the competition to the headlines. I think we could go to the next level. Seriously, what would prevent us from obtaining press passes at events?

[cwb]

Yep...and beware the infiltrators who may ignore the rules and post just to get the site in trouble. Everyone has to keep an eye open. That gives me an idea...DUhh. Just kidding.

[MissAmericanPie]

Is it legal to summarize an article? Once in print, information has been made public domain, or it should be that way.

So how about it? Summarize the content for discussion and provide a link to the article? Is that allowed?

[dighton]

If you know . . . What are the copyright laws anyway?

Not an attorney, what to speak of a copyright attorney. Way out of my depth.

[syriacus]

Am I right in thinking we can still post articles from the original Vanity Fair magazine (1860-1863)? Those issues can be accessed online.

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/serial?id=vfair

"The Vanity Fair described on this page was a humorous weekly published in New York in the 19th century. To my knowledge, that weekly has no relation to the present-day Conde Nast publication, except for its name and its publication place. (The name was also the title of a famous Thackeray novel in the 1840s, and has been used for various magazines since then.)"

Publication History

Vanity Fair began publication in 1860, and ceased publication in 1863.

[Ff--150]

Could be we're hitting a nerve? ;o)

Hopefully a death from a 1000 slashes =>

[dighton]

The name was also the title of a famous Thackeray novel in the 1840s, and has been used for various magazines since then.

And Thackeray got it from John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress.

[Publius6961]

*chuckle*

I know this is not a funny subject.

What is funny is the mentality that that came up with the apparent program of attacking FR through "copyright infringement" charges.

Can we get a list of Conde Nast publications?
I have no desire to read anything created by perverts er... sensitive people anyway.

My last question, is, how do we identify the trolls who will inevitably arrive for the express purpose of violating the ban?
And thus prompting additional charges?

Can a filter be installed to prevent all mention of Vanity Fait and Conde Nast publications completely?

[afraidfortherepublic]

What a pathetic group of publications. It is unlikely that there is anything in any of them that would interest our erudite posters and lurkers! Most of those rags are either vehicles to indulge oneself, or high priced gossip mags. I read them only when I'm waiting to get my hair cut.

[MineralMan]

""Mr. Foster owns the copyright in this article and Vanity Fair paid for the exclusive right to publish the article for a limited period of time."

I don't think that's S.O.P. for most publications, or even Vanity Fair.
"

Actually, that's the normal procedure. I've been a freelance journalist since 1974, and almost always sold just First North American Serial Rights, which is what they're talking about. I'm not writing any longer, but I wrote for several mags with circulations over 1 million. The length of time for exclusivity varied from publication to publication, but I always retained my copyright in all articles I wrote. The magazine got just first publication rights.

Incidentally, this is because of the IRS. If a publication buys all rights from a regular contributor, the IRS is pretty insistent that the writer is an employee and not a private contractor. Otherwise, the magazines would hold writers up for all rights.

[Rebelbase]

Seems like they have been coming out of the workwork lately.

[MineralMan]

"This is the second one of these recently. I wonder if someone is ratting out FR to publications. It's possible that it's just a coincidence, but....

For once I agree with you .... three times is enemy action. Guess time will tell."

I hope not. Otherwise, we're going to be reduced to paraphrasing and linking, and that's not going to work nearly as well as seeing the articles right here. But, it's certainly a possibility that someone is maliciously emailing publications and linking to FR postings.

It should be a matter of considerable concern to all Freepers.

[Rebelbase]

"and that you provide us with a written statement specifying all of the material removed,"

I hope you submit a compliance letter with a postscript of :KISS MY A$$.

[Rebelbase]

"Can a filter be installed to prevent all mention of Vanity Fait and Conde Nast publications completely?"

And suddenly, all Democrat National Committee public correspondence will be published in Vanity Fair and Conde Nast Traveler.