Copyright Infringement complaint from Vanity Fair/Condé Nast

Email

[Jim Robinson]

It's determined on a case by case basis and it's left up to the judge to decide. Good luck on the draw.

[texasbluebell]

I came across this 10% rule a while ago, am not too certain how it applies in this case. Here's a link that may help define it:

link--towards the end is the mention of 10%

It seems pretty murky though. But I think it all hinges on whether one is profitting financially from someone else's work. If there is no profit involved, well, I'm no lawyer, but I'm not at all certain it's that much of an issue...though I have a feeling you'd say "Tell that to the Wash Post and LAT"...

[Kevin Curry]

I wonder if someone is ratting out FR to publications.

Bingo.

[null and void]

Am I starting to perceive a pattern here?

[Jim Robinson]

Well, that looks like someone's opinion. It's not in the actual code.

[Ichneumon]

Fair use allows up to 10% of the article. So we can paraphrase the gist of it, but we can also quote 10% if we want, I believe. I think that's the allowable limit, unless it's changed recently.

No, it doesn't. There is no such "rule" in the copyright laws themselves, nor in court rulings on the matter. In fact, depending on circumstances people have been found guilty of copyright violation based on as little as two quoted sentences.

[Timesink]

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.

If by "authorities that be," you mean JimRob, fine. But if you mean Conde Nast or The Onion, they have no right to prevent us from even posting short excerpts of a few paragraphs or so (like what we usually post for Washington Post articles). The law on this point is unquestionable.

[Timesink]

And to think I was close to subscribing to wired because of all the times I had read fascinating stuff from wired posted here.

Keep in mind that Wired News (at wired.com) is not, and has not been for some time, any relation to Wired magazine other than in spirit (and a little agreement for the sites to keep cross-advertising each other to a tiny extent). Condé Nast owns Wired magazine, but Wired News is owned by Lycos. So we can keep posting from them all we want.

[M Kehoe]

They seem to be coming out of the woodwork.

Excerpts will have to do. Right?

5.56mm

[swheats]

Before you know it, there will only be conservative stuff posted on here...which might not be a bad idea.

While watching a few tv shows tonight I was amazed with the number of new season shows that have President Bush giving a speech.

The Left is steaming and fit to be tied.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

An FYI ping/bump - not that any of you guys read Vanity Fair. : )

[swheats]

Not unless they're on the cover. The Magnificent Seven.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Now that is a great cover, swheats! Forgot about that one...

[Amelia]

not that any of you guys read Vanity Fair. : )

Not only that, if the list posted by dighton at #39 is inclusive, I don't read ANY Conde Nast publications, although I might possibly read an article published in one of them, if it happened to be posted here on FR.

I agree with some of the earlier posters, however - I've seen complete articles from publications copied at *other* websites, which don't seem to be bothered with copyright infringement notices - is it just that those other websites aren't big enough to be bothered with?

[AppyPappy]

Fair use allows you to quote a little bit, too,

Legally, no. It's up to the copyright holder to establish rules for their own property.

[Chad Fairbanks]

So what you are saying is that regardless of the Fair Use law, people can publish stuff while saying "You can't quote any of it, so you can't criticize or comment on it by using examples hahahahahahahahahahaaa suckers!"??

[AppyPappy]

No. The property owners decides how their property can be used. They cannot control what people SAY about it.

[Chad Fairbanks]

THat's what I don't get - If someone publishes an article, an I want to comment on it, what if I am commenting on a specific portion - I can't quote even a sentence in order to point out the fallacies contained within it?

I can understand wanting to protect one's copyrights, but to not even allow a quote or two for purposes of comment and/or criticism goes against the very concept of 'Fair Use', imho...