Copyright Infringement complaint from Vanity Fair/Condé Nast

Email

[Arthalion]

Awww man, I know I've personally posted a dozen or so Wired articles over the years...that's the only decent magazine Conde Nasty has IMO. Guess I'll have to start "summarizing".

One other point for fellow freepers: Excerpting from an article IS legal, so long as you are also including some sort of editorial content or analysis, or comments about its newsworthiness, in addition to the excerpt. The placement of a "bare" excerpt as an article is not legal.

See: US Copyright Law. Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 "Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use"

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Excerpting is not illegal, just watch how you're doing it.

[AppyPappy]

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

It doesn't matter. It's the way it is. I know Jim paid a lot of money and I don't want him to pay any more.

[AppyPappy]

They will beg JIM to link to their sites.

[Jim Robinson]

You can quote it. And you can quote as much of it as you need to make your point. But it depends on how you're using it. You can't use it for commercial purposes. And the copyright holder can challenge you at any time. And if he takes you to court and convinces the judge that your use of his copyrighted material is not a fair use, you lose.

[Chad Fairbanks]

True enough - however, I would have to wonder at the mentality of a judge who could agree that some guy on the internet discussing a news article with others is a commercial use. I certainly don't make any money off it, and I don't have any 'commercial interest' in discussing news with my friends... :0)

Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly not advocating the violation of anyone's copyright - especially on FR where I don't make the rules and anything I do wrong reflects on you and FR... I'm just trying to be clear on how everything works :0)

[Willie Green]

Some advertisers in September 2003 Vanity Fair

Hmmmmm.... I'd boycott them but I never bought anything from any of 'em anyway.
I guess I just don't fit the demographic profile of their "normal" readership.

[weegee]

It sounds like the LWers are writing magazines to report posting of their articles to get FR in trouble.

I wouldn't doubt it in the least. Indymedia, DUh, and other sites have been hosting disruption campaigns on FR. I know that I have read articles where some "concerned citizens" tell a reporter about how "FReepers" are "using the internet" to gather to arrange a counter protest to this or that. Like no other people use the internet to meet up.

I do not see FR as an activist site. Most of the discussions seem to be commentary on news reports and personal observations (some are vanities, some contain more news details from first hand accounts or detailed research). Activism threads appear under a seperate heading on the sidebar.

FReepers get called out in the biased press for "FReeping" inline polls yet I have also seen confessions from people who ISLAMmed a poll or DUped the media by DUmping more votes on a poll. We are the only ones who get called out on it.

We could retaliate by searching the web for LA Times and Washington Post reprints on leftist sites but why bother. We can do more good by defunding leftist activist organizations that use the 501c3 tax dodge. Some cases are now coming to court. Report things like the Rock The Vote call to vote NO on California's Prop 54. 501c3s are not permitted to tell people what/who to vote for/against. Tell the IRS and FEC and let them do the work.

Defund the left. Fight election fraud. Jail seditious rioting protestors (anarchists are admitedly anti-government).

[weegee]

Wired was the only one I would have considered posting from.

Good news for Freepers is that you can get free subscriptions to a number of those publications!!! (Wired and GQ among them)

Dailies Advantage

I believe that the offer still stands that there is an online survery for contacts (for eyes) and afterwards, you will be rewarded with a free 1-year subscription (no credit card info or anthing like that, just address and email).

I do prefer being able to read a publication's articles online and comment with a larger group about the contents. This is fair use of the materials. The power of the internet is being denied. I guess that since the lead comment said that they do not outright purchase the articles, they won't even remain online in Vanity Fair's archive (I know that Wired's old articles do remain online). If the articles cannot even be read at the original site, linking to that site for full disclosure is pointless. I have stumbled on some old articles (or reread some old articles) when dredging up facts for this or that counterpoint to someone's comment. Some FReepers may not fact check or use citations to back up their arguments but I do at times (it is time consuming and it sometimes seems pointless since the other posters don't always bother to respond).

[weegee]

It's good to hear that Wired News should still be safe.

There will be a lot to purge from FR (not so much deleting threads as reducing them to excerpts).

[weegee]

What would be really nifty is a feature that scans the "source" line, and if it finds a match with a prohibited publication, it warns the poster to do an excerpt.

I thought that there might already be something like that. I posted from something that was covered by WP/LAT but was not readily apparent (like a tv news station or smaller local paper) and quickly got a correction by the Admin Moderator. I know some and have viewed the list when I am unsure (like Atlanta Journal Constitution) but don't verify for every post.

Something that scans the source line would be good (although some aricles aren't apparent from that).

I know that I've had to hold off on posting some things from the Houston Chronicle (editorials mostly) that carry a Washington Post services credit near the byline. Some posters may not be as observant.

[weegee]

The left is instituting another of their chill winds because of our free speech.

We must be on target to be taking flak like this.

[weegee]

We are in the Information Age but Big Media doesn't like to be questioned. We are to accept what they say and not to question the facts or their biases. Baaaaaaaaaaa.

[UCANSEE2]

. I wonder if someone is ratting out FR to publications.

It's not that simple. There is a figure behind the curtain.

Expect many more of these to come during the period prior to the Presidential Election.

FR is a great source of information, and exposes much of the MEDIA for what is really is.

THOSE IN POWER do not like the fact that FR has POWER. The POWER of INFORMATION, the Power of COMMUNICATION. We gathered together and helped prevent the Democrats from illegally recounting votes behind closed doors, and this will not be forgotten.

We expose the lies on TV, in NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES, and the figure behind the curtain doesn't like it.

If you think someone hasn't noticed the Protestors that appear wherever B and H appear, you are wrong.

They will use these other sources (liberal media and lawyers) to attack us.

Expect to see more DISRUPTORS as well.

The fight for GOOD vs. EVIL has always been there, but EVIL has been in charge for a long time. Now that GOOD is gaining the lead, all HELL will break loose. Mark my words.

[MineralMan]

"I wonder if someone is ratting out FR to publications.
It's not that simple. There is a figure behind the curtain.

Expect many more of these to come during the period prior to the Presidential Election
"

You could be right. I was just asking if there was any evidence that someone is reporting FR to publications. It just seemed strange to me that we've had two of these incidents within the last month.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Oh, there is a movement - I am sure of it. I am awaiting independent confirmation from a source as we speak... will keep you advised when and if it comes...

[RnMomof7]

Thats a pretty big list.

Mostly bathroom reading IMHO. If we never post anything from this group, all we would miss is fluff..

[Chancellor Palpatine]

We see stuff from Wired and Vanity Fair. I've occasionally put up stuff from Conde Nast Traveler, but other than that, thats about it.

BTW, that travel mag has a great contest every month with a picture and a place description, and you have to guess where it is. She who must be obeyed and I spend hours on it together - its a lot of fun, and informative as well.

[MineralMan]

"Oh, there is a movement - I am sure of it. I am awaiting independent confirmation from a source as we speak... will keep you advised when and if it comes..."

I'll be very interested. Ping me, if you would.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Will do...

[Denver Ditdat]

I wonder if someone is ratting out FR to publications.

Just a guess, but I'll bet one of the denizens of the Demonic Underworld is smirking at the reaction his letters have had.

Perhaps it's time for a crew of strong-stomached volunteers to monitor the posts at the DUmpster and keep conservative publications advised when their material is posted there.

What's sauce for the goose, etc.