Copyright Infringement complaint from Vanity Fair/Condé Nast

Email

[Pan_Yans Wife]

ping

[PGalt]

bump

[macrahanish #1]

I've always wondered about that. It seems that courts
would protect copyrighted material as long as the
publishers want to extend their prohibitions to ALL
re-postings.

[AAABEST]

I have a funny feeling this going to get worse.

There's nothing bad about these mainstream publications doing this, it's a blessing in disguise.

See, not only are they cutting off their nose by denying themselves major traffic by allowing others to bring attention to their sites/magazines, but they're foricing us to use only right leaning and alternative sources for our content.

So now they'll have less traffic and these boards will take on a more alternative or right leaning mood. If they want to Balkanize the information flow on the web it's their loss.

[texasbluebell]

Okay, no 10% allowed, glad to learn that then.

[Constitution Day]

I don't think it's a coincidence at all.

[AppyPappy]

I can't quote even a sentence in order to point out the fallacies contained within it?

It's up to the owner to decide. That's why some can say "links only". However you can summarize what is in the article and there is NOTHING they can do about it. You don't even have to link. You are screwing them. Which is good.

[AppyPappy]

If I see something I like on one of these sites, I'll just summarize the information and screw them out of the link.

[rftc]

Did we get a ruling on the cover art and photos?

[texasbluebell]

Just to make it clear for myself, paraphrasing is the only allowable way to get beyond someone else's copyright?

And there's no need for permission to paraphrase?

I'd really like to know this for certain. Anyone know?

[texasbluebell]

If I see something I like on one of these sites, I'll just summarize the information and screw them out of the link.

In other words, no permission required to do this? (I hope not anyway.)

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Hmmm. First the Onion and now this.

It would seem that the left leaning, FR hating publications have latched on to a new tactic.

I don't think this will be the last such "cease and desist" request you will receive from one of the rags.

[AppyPappy]

Of course not. As long as you don't use their words, there is nothing they can do. Now, if the info is Top-Secret or they claim an exclusive, that's another matter. However, you can't simply move words around. It's has to be your own thoughts on the matter using "their" info.

[AppyPappy]

They are covered under the copyright.

[Sir Gawain]

So you agree with the LAT/WP when they sued Jim.

[Sir Gawain]

It would seem that the left leaning, FR hating publications have latched on to a new tactic.

Two can play that game.

[texasbluebell]

Okay, thanks much for clarifying this.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

The last time I looked VF was 80% advertising(I'm estimating here),15% Hollywood and Beautiful People gossip,and 5% newsworthy articles.

Same goes for Vague, er, Vogue, also a Conde Nast publication. GQ ain't far behind.

[AAABEST]

If I see something I like on one of these sites, I'll just summarize the information and screw them out of the link.

Bingo. I've always thought that JR should not link to publications that don't play ball. This is one of the most trafficked sites on the web, why should we send business to those who are opposed to us in every way.

We don't need them and are in fact better for not having them.

[NittanyLion]

Oh man! No more Architectural Digest posts - this is horrible!