By Carlos Miller
You know it’s never a dull moment around here, so even though charges were dropped in my second arrest on Tuesday, I now have a new legal issue to contend with.
Some guy up in Vermont is threatening to take legal action against me if I don’t remove a photograph from this site by 5 p.m. today.
Oh, how I’m tempted to just say fuck you to Sean Cooley, who tries to come across as an attorney, but apparently is nothing more than a journalist who plays an attorney.
Sound familiar?
But I do sympathize with the photographer he is representing, Jordan Silverman, who shot the photo I posted with the article about the Vermont photographer who was banned from a shopping mall for taking photos from public property.
But I wish Silverman would have emailed me himself rather than get his co-worker to fire off a cease and desist letter under the guise of a lawyer.
Since receiving the letter Tuesday morning, I’ve consulsted with a couple of highly respected attorneys on both coasts who gave me their opinions, which I will get into later.
First, check out the letter:
Dear Carlos Miller
Sean here. We are writing on behalf of the proprietors of all copyright in a artistic work, currently listed on your site under the file name, “Vermont.jpg”, at the address:
http://carlosmiller.com/2010/03/12/vermont-photog-banned-from-mall-because-of-photos-he-took-o/
otherwise known as (The “Work”). We have reserved all rights in the Work, which was first expressed in material form on 3.10.10 at:
http://7dvt.com/2010photographer-banned-taking-pictures-church-street
It has come to our attention that your work entitled ‘vermont’, at the above address, is identical to our copyrighted Work. Permission was neither asked nor granted to reproduce our Work and your Work therefore constitutes infringement of our rights. In terms of the Copyright Statutes, we are entitled to an injunction against your continued infringement, as well as to recover damages from you for the loss we have suffered as a result of your infringing conduct.
In the circumstances, we demand that you immediately:
1. remove all infringing content and notify us in writing that you have done so;
2. pay a licensing fee in the amount of: none, as long as said work is removed within 24 hours of receipt of this email;
3. immediately cease the use and distribution of copyrighted material;
4. undertake in writing to desist from using any of our copyrighted Work in future without prior written authority from us.
5. In all honesty, we’re surprised that as a photographer who clearly tries to make a living off of his work, you didn’t bother to write us, call us, pay us, or in the very least, bother to even remotely ask to use our work on your site. Additionally, it seems strange that you bothered to write your own article, but didn’t think about shooting your own image, or again, at least asking to use ours or to have someone else shoot one for you. In the end, it’s been proven year after year that linking to a news story is indeed quite different than what you did with an image; pulling an image from a news story, in the separate fashion you have (which clearly is now separate from the news story). And as I’m sure you also know from being a freelancer, crediting someone for an image or a written piece, is indeed no way compensation for the actual work, but instead simply the legal & ethical thing to do, when it’s not your own work and someone else instead created that work.
We await to hear from you by no later than close of business on 5pm tomorrow, 3.17.10.
This is written without prejudice to our rights, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
Yours faithfully,
Sean Cooley
Legal & Accounting
=====================
Some of our recent projects:
=====================www.globalassignment.gettyimages.com/Jordan-Silverman/Portraits/Default.aspx
=====================
www.jordansilverman.comSTUDIO ADDRESS:
Jordan Silverman Photography
266 Pine Street
Burlington, VT 05401
(glass door on left of loading dock, north side of Conant Custom Brass)STUDIO STAFF/EMAIL:
Photographer: Jordan Silverman, photo@jordansilverman.com
Creative Director/ Client Communications Manager: Alisa Schwartz, alisa@jordansilverman.com
Production Manager: Jesaca Lin, production@jordansilverman.comStudio: 802.860.4668
Cellular: 802.238.7282
Fax: 802.660.1977
==============================
.
Although Cooley signs off the letter as stating that he works in “legal and accounting,” his job description, according to the link he included in the letter, is as follows:
In addition, our workflow includes smooth processing, editing and project management from Sean Cooley, who handles image production and communication.
He also appears to have a few short-lived blogs he created to display his work. He’s not a bad writer or photographer, but I wonder how he is about writing legal briefs, if it comes down to that.
As I’ve always stated on this blog, I abide the fair use doctrine, which allows for limited use of copyrighted material in certain instances, like news reporting.
This is how the U.S. Copyright Office defines Fair Use:
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
- The nature of the copyrighted work
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
- The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.
Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
It should be noted that when I consulted with my attorney friends Tuesday morning, I was still under the impression that Cooley was an attorney, so they also assumed he was a lawyer.
Below is the response I received from an intellectual Property and Internet Law attorney in Miami.
Carlos,
I think that you have a strong argument for fair use. Moreover, there is no direct causal connection that would entitle this gentleman to any damages. A reasonable royalty for the use of a photo is between 200-300 presuming that you are required to pay for the use. Further, without a copyright registration certificate for the photo (which I’m sure he does not have) he cannot sue you in Federal Court. Of course, he could always register the photo after the fact, but again, the alleged infringement would have occurred prior to registration with the Copyright Office.
This is a lot of hoo ha over nothing. While you have good defenses, the better course of action is to tell Mr. Cooley that you will take down the photo as a courtesy, but not out of any legal obligation. In fact, it’s ridiculous that you are giving him and similarly situated photographer publicity and he turns on you. Clearly a cat you want to stay away from.
And below is the response I received from a First Amendment attorney in Southern California.
Carlos,
He has a point, even if he’s being a bit of a douche about it. Merely crediting and linking is not enough to make it fair use. You can’t just take someone’s image, credit or not, without their permission and use it like you did.
The analysis of fair use is somewhat mushy and malleable. Essentially, it is a four factor test, which is enshrined in Section 107 of the copyright act.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
Lets go through the four factors here:
1) What was the purpose and character of your use? It was likely commercial, even if your blog makes no money. Non-commercial uses are pretty much limited to educational use (like if a school teacher used it).
2) The nature of the copyrighted work — well, it is copyrighted and it is commercial. You lost on this prong too.
3) Amount and substantiality — you used the whole work.
4) Effect on the market, meh, likely little — but you’re still down 3-1. Probably more like 3-0-1
I would do the following:
A) Take the photo down
B) Write back and eat a little shit in the process — tell them that you didn’t mean any harm, that you allow your works to be used this way, and that you see their point.
Now… you COULD possibly use the image I have attached, as long as you make it small enough. In fact, you might just want to replace your image with this one. Upon doing so, I would still send this guy your link and say that you have replaced it with a shot of the Seven Days’ website, and you wonder if they mind that use.
Of course, if they do, then you might just want to say fuck it… but I think you would have an argument that providing a thumbnail of the seven days website is beyond their ability to complain.
So even though both attorneys, whose opinions I highly respect, have different opinions on whether or not this falls under the fair use doctrine, they both agree that this guy is being a wanker about it and that I should remove the photo.
But that was before I realized he was not an attorney. And even when I was still under that impression, I was still wrestling with the decion.
After all, I disagree that my use falls under the commercial realm. I believe it falls under the editorial realm, which could also fall under the educational realm. Perhaps some of my attorney readers will weigh in.
The truth is, my images have been used countless times on various blogs, including many who have outright criticized and mocked me. The only time I’ve asked anybody to remove a photo was a blogger who was using my header image as his header image, meaning he was using my brand as his brand.
The problem was that I was getting emails from readers asking if I was somehow connected to him, which I wasn’t.
But I can’t tell you how many times that header image has been used on blogs where they were writing about my story. And there have been so many times I’ve found other pictures I’ve taken on blogs. If they credit and link to me, I leave it at that.
If they don’t, then I ask them to both or remove the photo. I manage to do this without writing a cease and desist letter. And I’ve never had anybody refuse to abide my request.
I take a common sense approach in realizing that most bloggers don’t have the financial resources to license photos that are already published on somebody else’s blog or news article. And it’s not going to benefit me more financially by asking them to remove the photo.
In fact, it usually leads to more people discovering my blog.
I know many copyright enthusiasts will disagree with my thinking, but we’re living in an age where it is virtually impossible to protect your copyright once you publish an image online.
This is the age of New Media. The rules are different. And new laws must be carved out.
What if I remove the image, but another ten blogs decide to publish the image? Would Cooley spend the rest of his working hours firing off cease and desist letters?
I’ll guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Popularity: 4% [?]
106 responses so far ↓
1 the bulldog // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:44 AM
one vote for “go fuck yourself sean”
2 Josh Saint Jacque // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:51 AM
Wow, my friend!
First of all, after all you did to publicize and come to this guy’s defense I find his third party response from a hack/fake attorney to be extremely poor taste, to say the least. If I were you, I might consider taking down not only his photo, but the whole article defending him and his rights.
By the way, your fair use argument (in my understanding) would be stronger is you modified the image for comment. For example, if you wrote “douche bag” over the image you would be acting as a critic – and I strongly recommend it.
Secondly, how can he suggest it’s a commercial work when his defense to requests by the lady in the photo to delete it was that it was “non-commercial”??? If it is commercial, he needs her permission. Maybe we should contact her, since we know where she works, and let her know that he has admitted to using her image without her permission for commercial purposes.
Sorry if you feel my words are too harsh, I know he’s a fellow photographer, I just think this was a total dick move on his part.
Please keep us informed on whatever you decide.
Josh Saint Jacque´s last blog ..HuffPo: Tea Party is “All About Race”
3 Iroc // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:52 AM
It his photo.
If he wants it down then I’d comply with a note as to why.
The article belongs to you, keep it and fuck him.
4 Josh Saint Jacque // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:53 AM
Here, here!
Josh Saint Jacque´s last blog ..HuffPo: Tea Party is “All About Race”
5 Carlos Miller // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:55 AM
These are two different photograpers. This guy took the photo of the photographer who got banned from the mall. He, himself, was not banned.
6 Josh Saint Jacque // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:59 AM
It’s 1AM here and I just realized you are not talking about the guy who took the photos, but the guy who took the photo of the guy who took the photos. I’m dizzy.
In any case, my feelings remain: fuck ‘em.
Josh Saint Jacque´s last blog ..HuffPo: Tea Party is “All About Race”
7 Hazy // Mar 17, 2010 at 4:04 AM
I don’t quite understand why they are attacking you when you are blogging in their defense. The courteous thing would’ve been to politely ask you to take down the photo, not to send a cease and desist letter.
You could stand and fight, but that would just make drama where it’s unnecessary. I would take down the photo. Whether or not the guy who sent you the letter is an attorney is irrelevant.
8 Adam // Mar 17, 2010 at 4:31 AM
I’d most definitely find out if he is a legit attorney before making any decisions on your use of the photo.
9 Jody // Mar 17, 2010 at 4:35 AM
Fuck Sean, he sounds like a right little cun*. I put 10 bucks on him shagging the smoking girl, they’d make a great couple.
Jody´s last blog ..Massachusetts: 2nd Amendment does not apply to states
10 Jason Cerundolo // Mar 17, 2010 at 4:49 AM
It seems like you have more legal experience than the other side for a change, so I say fight it.
Is this one of those DCMA take-down notices? If so, I believe the appropriate response is to file a counter-notice or something. Basically you say, “Tough luck, I think it’s fair use.” That makes it his move, and he has to actually file a lawsuit. It might be more trouble than he’s willing to go through with.
11 James Pratt // Mar 17, 2010 at 6:47 AM
You have a lot of photographers that follow your blog and enjoy it. I think most will agree that you are out of line on this issue. Just because others use your images without permission doesn’t make it right that you can use his image without permission. Maybe he should have handled his request a bit different. But I still would prefer that you honor the legitimate requests of a photographer to not use his image without permission. Failure to do so would really turn off a lot of your photographer fans, me included.
12 Michaelk42 // Mar 17, 2010 at 7:26 AM
It’s fair use; guy can get bent.
Which is to say…
He can ponder this, which is better:
The photo and his name having more widespread circulation and hence positive publicity for him
OR
The time and expense of filing a lawsuit that’s likely to fail, in another STATE even, and broadcasting to even MORE people that he’s a massive douchebag… and the photo/credit/link staying up despite all that?
I’d say it’s Jordan Silverman’s own foot to shoot if he’s really determined to “Engage Streisand Effect!”
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
13 SteelToad // Mar 17, 2010 at 7:35 AM
A lawyer would never use the phrase “In all honesty”. Not that all lawyers are dishonest, it’s just that they learn first year not to use absolute phrases like that.
14 brummie // Mar 17, 2010 at 7:57 AM
I think in this case the photographer is right, you should have emailed him before using it, he is well within in his rights to complain, though I would have thought a personal email from the photographer would have sorted it.
15 Dan // Mar 17, 2010 at 8:03 AM
I am not sure I agree that one does not have a First Amendment right to publish a copyrighted artwork, if the artwork itself is an essential part of fairly and accurately reporting a story of legitimate interest to the public.
I don’t have all the facts and I can’t give a final opinion, and I am not giving you legal advice about this particular situation; I am just offering a general observation.
16 Roger Krueger // Mar 17, 2010 at 8:33 AM
Of course, he could always register the photo after the fact, but again, the alleged infringement would have occurred prior to registration with the Copyright Office.
That’s dangerously wrong. You can recover statutory damages and fees if you register before infringement —-OR—– register within 3 months of initial publication.
Unless this is a file photo he’s way inside the 3 month window and you have a serious problem. Plus it wouldn’t be that surprising if A) the copyright belonged to the paper via work-for-hire and B) the paper bulk-registers regularly.
You’ve got nothing to gain and a small but real chance they’ll decide to make an example of you and screw you hard. Stick to fights you can win.
17 j.c. cina // Mar 17, 2010 at 8:34 AM
Unbelievable! NO respect or gratitude for the effort put into bringing this situation to a larger audience and for getting free promotion of ones work . Freakin Gen-Yers cant stand them. Amateurish nonsense. They’d never last here in NYC thats’ for sure. I know you had a brief moment of legal peace and a good nights sleep but I think you should not comply right away or come to an amicable solution. thanx as always for all your efforts and sacrifices.
18 Cam // Mar 17, 2010 at 9:01 AM
I’ve seen “fair use” mentioned several times here. There is no legitimate fair use defense here.
Your interpretation of fair use as it pertains to news reporting is incorrect. The photo used here was not the subject of a news report; it was merely illustrating a news report. If fair use worked that way, no one would ever have to pay the Associated Press a dime.
A legitimate fair use claim would be the use of the original photo of the woman smoking. That photo was news in and of itself.
19 swampthing // Mar 17, 2010 at 9:32 AM
fight cheese w cheese
20 NYCPhotorights // Mar 17, 2010 at 9:56 AM
My understanding of fair use is similar to Cam’s. Fair use would apply if the photo itself were the subject of the article – say you were discussing its artistic quality, focus, composition, or as Cam said if the photo itself was the news story.. Perhaps fair use would also apply if the subject of the article was the photographer and the picture was used as an example of his work
Then again it depends on your resources. Two years ago the NY Post “borrowed” some photographs from the Flickr photo stream of another member of my photo club. The subject of their story was the model depicted in the image. The photographer sought legal advice but the attorney he consulted did not want to take the case.
NYCPhotorights´s last blog ..Burlington Vermont Forces Photographer to Quit Hobby
21 Ed // Mar 17, 2010 at 9:59 AM
Why does it matter if the author of the C&D is a lawyer or not? If his request is valid, it’s valid. If it’s not, it’s not.
22 bj // Mar 17, 2010 at 10:01 AM
Unfortunately, I think Cam is correct here.
23 Aaron // Mar 17, 2010 at 10:06 AM
I’m with Cam, NYCPhotorights, and BJ: Your use is not fair use, it’s infringement.
The photo is another journalist’s editorial work on the same story. You’re not commenting on the photo in question, you’re just using it for the same purpose as the copyright holder.
The photo of the girl smoking would be fair use in this case, since you’re adding commentary about that work. But the photo of the photographer is just infringement.
I’d say you should take it down and apologize.
24 Ronny // Mar 17, 2010 at 10:13 AM
The portrait is NOT the subject of your story. The status of the “lawyer” does not make the claim wrong. Ask the photographer for a self portrait you can use.
25 Bran // Mar 17, 2010 at 10:17 AM
I think the Californian legal eagle has been smoking lotus. It is consistent with music and movie industry efforts to gut fair use though.
26 Nick // Mar 17, 2010 at 10:18 AM
I find it rather ironic that you are considering not taking down the photo because the guy isn’t a lawyer, when you just finished writing all these posts talking about how you acted as your own lawyer in your recent legal cases which you won.
Clearly you think that being a lawyer is not necessary to correctly defend yourself against an injustice, and yet you take the exact opposite tact when you are the one who has wronged someone else.
Secondly, your argument that *you* don’t mind when other people use your works without permission is completely irrelevant. In a society based on individual rights, only his reasonings matter when it comes to his property… otherwise copyright and property rights in general don’t mean anything.
Frankly, I would have been upset too if you had taken photography of mine and distributed it without my permission. The fact that you see yourself as “doing him a favor” is irrelevant.
I really enjoy your reporting on photographer’s rights, so I find it disappointing that you feel like you can trample on them yourself.
27 wygit // Mar 17, 2010 at 10:34 AM
I agree with the “you’re wrong” gang here…
One point. Many of the commenters seem to be confused, in that they refer to you ‘doing him a favor’ by taking his side in the dispute.
I just wanted to clarify for the commenters that the photo you’ used in the story was OF Dan Scott, the subject of the story, but BY Jordan Silverman, a professional photographer who took that photo to illustrate someone else’s story about the shopping mall dispute.
So to me, you weren’t doing Jordan any favors when you used the photo to illustrate the story here on PINAC.
It should be Jordan’s call on how he wants to enforce his own copyright.
As far as the usage being “fair use’ because it falls under editorial realm… that would mean newspapers ,blogs or CNN.com would NEVER have to pay for a photo it found on a website.
Wouldn’t they also get the ‘editorial realm’ harbor?
And as someone else pointed out, it makes absolutely no difference whether the letter-writer was or wasn’t a lawyer. Why would it?
I like your blog, but in this case, I think you’re wrong.
28 Mike S // Mar 17, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Take it down, comply to the letter (which he states will cancel any legal action) as it’s his, but keep it up and write an entire blog sreis about what an ass the guy and his “lawyer” are.
This photographer, and his average image, will cost himself SO MUCH MORE in the photographic/PJ community than he thinks he is missing in income from using this image on your blog.
So much for sticking together, huh! The photographer and the “attorney” are complete and total asshats for going after you on this.
Mike S
29 Maz // Mar 17, 2010 at 11:37 AM
Maz recommends taking the photo and editting it in a LOLCat fashion and claiming SATIRE.
At that point, I believe you’re in the clear.
I am not an attorney.
30 Maz // Mar 17, 2010 at 11:38 AM
Oh, and then telling Sean choke upon your massive throbbing ****.
31 The Straw Buyer // Mar 17, 2010 at 12:05 PM
How many attorneys do you know that start their letters with “Sean here…”
32 Andrew Crawford // Mar 17, 2010 at 12:29 PM
I’m a photographer who has been following your blog for a while. I think you’re in the wrong here, legally and morally. No doubt they could have been nicer about it, but you don’t have a fair-use justification for using that image the way you are. Merely having a newsworthy subject does not make use of an image fair.
It’s probably not too late to write back to them, apologizing for inadvertently breaching their copyright and asking if you might have permission to use their image in exchange for a linked credit.
33 Josh Saint Jacque // Mar 17, 2010 at 12:39 PM
I agree, just edit the photo for satire and repost it.
Josh Saint Jacque´s last blog ..HuffPo: Tea Party is “All About Race”
34 Chris // Mar 17, 2010 at 1:01 PM
Can’t you photoshop “Giant Douche” under the picture and call it Parody?
35 Steve Gray // Mar 17, 2010 at 1:12 PM
Just because the guy was a douche about it doesn’t mean that he’s in the wrong. Even if he is, the world has enough douches in it without you feeling like you need to be one, too.
And BTW, in my non-lawyer recollection, I think in the world of copyright protection, owners need to try and be consistent in their efforts to go after infringement. If nothing else, failing to send a take-down letter to you could demonstrate a lack of concern with his property, and could possibly come back to bite him in other infringement cases.
36 Difster // Mar 17, 2010 at 1:40 PM
If you really wanted to have some fun, you could file a complaint with the District Attorney where he lives and complain he’s practicing law without a license.
37 Roger Krueger // Mar 17, 2010 at 2:02 PM
Nope, failure to go after infringers only hurts you with trademarks, not copyrights.
38 PGP Protector // Mar 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM
Simple solution
Get someone from that area to Take A Photo of him (While he’s out in a Public area
) And let you have the rights to use the Photo in your Blog.
Problem solved.
39 Duane Kerzic // Mar 17, 2010 at 2:13 PM
Since they didn’t offer a way for you to keep it I’d write them and ask what they want for you to be able to keep it posted. Who knows, maybe they are willing to be reasonable.
Carlos, you mentioned your header photo being your “brand”. So this is clearly commercial.
While I think the guy is kind of being a douche in the way he’s handling this I also think he’s correct.
Duane Kerzic´s last blog ..2010-03-09 Yahoo Hard At Work
40 Michaelk42 // Mar 17, 2010 at 2:24 PM
On second thought…
Based on reading comments further down – and being more awake – fair use claim on this one might be a bit shaky. Silverman shot this as an illustration for the paper, OK. He probably DOES have a right to refuse to let you use it.
Why he couldn’t take care of that in an email and why he went straight to the legal nastygram route I don’t know.
But he still needs to ponder whether being right is worth being such an instant dick about it.
(Yeah, I shouldn’t fire these things off right after I wake up. My bad.)
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
41 akagoldfish // Mar 17, 2010 at 2:33 PM
While my instinct is to say “fuck him” since, in my opinion, fair use has the most value and should have the most protections for journalistic use, the fact that the second attorney you talked to feels you were in the wrong shows that this guy probably could drag you into court once he talks to a real attorney.
I’d say take the photo down and replace it with some sort of vicious burn like “photo removed due to douchebag Sean Cooley” or something. I don’t know, it’s lame, but there are better battles to fight and probably better ways to test the bounds of fair use doctrine.
42 akagoldfish // Mar 17, 2010 at 2:34 PM
Ask Dan if you can use his selfportrait from Flickr, or maybe he can take a new one.
43 Johnny Law // Mar 17, 2010 at 2:37 PM
@michael42
Fair use YOU say? Imagine that! Hahaha
Don’t forget to make a tiny URL of that posting. I would hate for you to miss a chance to be self-rightous.
44 Michaelk42 // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:14 PM
Yeah, because Carlos is using this to defame the subject(s) under color of law… it’s EXACTLY the same as what you did!
Sorry Johnny, you’re not off the hook for being a prick.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
45 akagoldfish // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:17 PM
It’s not an issue of the 1st amendment, it’s an issue of copyright law.
46 akagoldfish // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:20 PM
To clarify, fair use doctrine is not based in the 1st amendment, but is based upon what is consistent with the Constitutional intent of copyright law, which contrary to contemporary popular belief, is not simply dependent on the whines of copyright holders.
47 Michaelk42 // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:23 PM
In fact, here’s the link on how to basically admit you use police power to harass people who are powerless to defend themselves, and try to use the people’s own picture in your attempt to defame them.
And then be *surprised* to find they’re not happy with that.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
48 akagoldfish // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM
It sounds like the lawyer was pointing out exactly what you just said.
Of course, the chances that the complainant could prove actual damages is still a question.
Also, if the copyright belongs to the paper, then the whole “cease and desist letter” becomes incredibly hilarious, since the photographer or his pretend lawyer buddy have no standing to demand anything from Carlos with regards to it.
49 akagoldfish // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM
I could be wrong, but I believe that area of fair use is still legally murky. I would bet you that if we got a lawyer from the AP and a lawyer from the EFF together and asked them if this type of use constitutes fair use we would get two different and opposite answers.
50 akagoldfish // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:32 PM
Well, if the NYT can do it…
51 akagoldfish // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:32 PM
If only copyright law were that simple.
52 Geoff // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:34 PM
I recall that scene in the movie Con Air in which Steve Buscemi turns to Nicholas Cage as says “Define irony. Bunch of idiots dancing on a plane to a song made famous by a band that died in a plane crash.”
So the same people that would take exception to Dan Scott being termed “creepy” would jump at the opportunity to call Sean Cooly a “douche?” Is this the intended example and message that is to be conveyed?
Does this help or hurt public perception and understanding about photographers’ rights?
53 Cam // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:34 PM
Yes, the fair use defense is far from a settled matter. However, in the case it’s pretty cut and dry. None of the conditions for fair use has been met.
54 akagoldfish // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:35 PM
And guess where the movie and music industry are headquartered? Coincidence? Unlikely.
55 Johnny Law // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:44 PM
I think you may need a class in reading comprehension. Just feel free to ignore all the problems those folks cause and the police resources it sucks up.
Why bother yourself with RL facts? A self-righteous post is more your style anyways.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All
56 akagoldfish // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:45 PM
I’m having trouble following the analogy you are drawing.
57 akagoldfish // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:46 PM
You do realize the photo in question was not a self-portrait, right? Because you missing that detail is the only way I can find sense in your comment.
58 Alex J // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:47 PM
While I personally think that this type of use is fair use (IANAL), I don’t think this is the legal hill I would want to die on. If you have two lawyers who disagree it shows that there isn’t a great consensus on this type of issue and you could lose. While the guy comes off as a douche it shouldn’t be a part of your decision.
Remember,discretion is the better part of valor.
59 Michaelk42 // Mar 17, 2010 at 3:51 PM
Yeah, that’s the way people saw it on the comments there too, Johnny*.
*This is, of course, sarcasm of the highest concentration. Be advised.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
60 Nate K. // Mar 17, 2010 at 5:29 PM
You know what? This blog doesn’t need this drama. You have an important message, and diluting it with coverage of a petty property squabble does not serve the blog’s larger purpose.
Hey, it’s your blog. I get that. But I’m currently reluctant to recommend/link to this site because of the recent “noise” posts that distract from the core PINAC message.
61 discarted // Mar 17, 2010 at 7:16 PM
Hey Carlos,
We have to respect other photographers’ requests, so I say just take it down, if that’s what they’re asking you to do. It’s not the end of the world. Plus, if someone was using my image or your image and I/you asked them to remove it, I hope they would.
The image is still up on our blog, and we have not been asked to removed it—yet. But we’re going to do so anyway, since it’s obvious Silverman has a problem with others using his image. Plus, I’m sure Dan Scott has many great images that we could useto replace Silverman’s shot.
Plus, if you think about it, we should be promoting Dan Scott’s work and not Silverman’s. It is Scott’s story.
Silverman is right though, we/photographers should be compensated for our work even though it is fair use. Credit is not good enough even though we’re guilty of taking advantage of fair use too.
No need to sidetrack yourself with this one.
62 Kell // Mar 17, 2010 at 9:29 PM
Carlos,
I suggest you contact the photographer, and inform him of the legal dung he and Cooley could find themselves in if Cooley continues to represent himself as a lawyer if he is in fact not. AFAIK, even implying he worked in “legal” can be construed as misrepresentation.
63 Workingindust // Mar 18, 2010 at 12:55 AM
Thing is that anything you put on the web is instantly public. Yes you do hold copyright on anything you create and publish but in this day in age is it really worth the hassle of chasing down and issuing DMCA C&D letters to everybody who uses it? Sometime yes, often no, it’s a mixed bag. There are much better ways of dealing with it and even using it to your advantage as a business owner.
Carlos definitely has a fair use defense for editorial/newsworthy purposes – He’s not claiming the picture as his own work and hell, the picture links back to the 7dvt.com article as well. The only downside is that the ‘Fair Use’ defense is exactly that; a defense, not a right. You still have to defend your use of the work as fair use. Lots of companies use this loop in the hopes that people don’t want to go through the hassle and just give up.
I’m wondering if Mr. Silverman is feeling some heat from the mall and the store whose logos are visible in the background (advertising extortion???). Or maybe he really is clueless about how the web works and is about to get rudely educated – Streisand Effect style.
I’m with Michaelk42 in that I just woke up and still pouring coffee down my throat. But my sleep deprived eyes did catch something I haven’t seen mentioned yet – read the tags on the 7dvt.com article: Civil Liberties. That’s rich…
Workingindust´s last blog ..USAF MH-60A
64 Erik G. // Mar 18, 2010 at 5:11 AM
Carlos,
I’d contact the Vermont Bar Assn. and State of Vermont Attorney Licensing . Inform them that Cooley is holding himself out to be an attorney and possibly practicing law without a license. They don’t take kindly to things like that.
65 Jim // Mar 18, 2010 at 11:53 AM
Sounds more like a DMCA notice rather than a cease & desist. Just let him know a friendly request would have sufficed.
66 Michaelk42 // Mar 18, 2010 at 1:46 PM
Yeah, I think this *is* what they consider a “friendly” request.
(Yeah, that’s sarcasm you sense on the “friendly” there.)
Technically they could just send a DMCA to Carlos’s webhost and the picture Will Be Taken Down until Carlos makes a counter-claim.
I suppose. We’d have to look up the host and see what their claim/counterclaim policy is to know for sure.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
67 Guy Freeman // Mar 18, 2010 at 2:32 PM
You get more attention from the bees by kicking the hive than waiting for them to find the clover.
Guy Freeman´s last blog ..Sheffield school children recklessly endangered by Sheriff’s Department
68 Carlos Miller // Mar 18, 2010 at 5:33 PM
The photo has been removed. As some of you have pointed out, this has become too much of a distraction for the real task at hand.
I will probably write a post on this later, but now I have to deal with some computer issues.
69 Michaelk42 // Mar 18, 2010 at 5:44 PM
It’s probably the better idea.
I looked, and if your host is GoDaddy, it looks like they have a rather non-specific-threshold “repeat DMCA offender” clause that lets them dump customers.
Based on that it looks like even collecting DMCA notices isn’t a good idea for the site.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
70 akagoldfish // Mar 18, 2010 at 6:39 PM
I think Carlos should take down the photo. Then he should contact the Burlington DA and the Vermont Bar about the actions of Mr. Sean, Esq.
71 Roger Krueger // Mar 18, 2010 at 7:11 PM
Read GoDaddy’s ToS carefully. It’s far worse than you imagine. They apparently even reserve the right to boot you for no-release shots. Not that I’ve ever heard of them doing it, but just the fact that it’s there is grim. I had a client who was looking for new hosting and GoDaddy was their first choice, but the ToS was a complete deal-breaker.
72 Michaelk42 // Mar 18, 2010 at 7:23 PM
Yeah, I didn’t even look at the full ToS, I was just looking at the DMCA notice/counternotice procedures all by themselves. It was tacked on the end:
“D. Repeat Infringers
It is Go Daddy’s policy to provide for the termination, in appropriate circumstances, of Go Daddy customers and account holders who repeatedly violate this policy or are repeat infringers of copyrighted works, trademarks or any other intellectual property.”
It just says “repeat” and something tells me if the person handling it there doesn’t like you for any reason at all, hey, a second notice is technically a repeat, why wait for a third.
I can kind of see how they would put something like that in, though. Someone who got several notices a week for posting warez or mp3s or something would be more of a pain than they would be worth as a customer.
Fair use worked a lot better for print. You don’t need a service provider to keep the ink on the physical page.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
73 The Blackbird // Mar 18, 2010 at 7:32 PM
Someone has informed me that the copyrighted photo Carlos stole from my Flickr photostream and posted without permission on this blog but refused to remove even though I demanded he do so, has finally been removed.
What’s the matter, Carlos? Don’t want to leave a trail of evidence of your theft of others’ work to illustrate what you try to pass off as journalism here on your blog and hence justify the theft by calling it “fair use”?
Your blog is so lacking in journalistic integrity it is beginning to take the form of a monument to how far some people will go to prove what a fighter they are.
ASK FIRST.
How hard can it bloody well be? Or maybe you assume that people will reject your permission requests after viewing your blog? I would.
Seems also that, when Carlos paints himself into a corner he starts to cry that it’s distracting from the main focus of the work. The only one creating the distraction is Carlos.
ASK FIRST.
74 Damien // Mar 18, 2010 at 8:04 PM
I admit it: 7/10
But you went a little too far with the high and mighty at the end and I realized then that you’re just an asshole trying to stir the pot.
If you’re going to decry him for theft by saying that he steals “others’ work ” then you’re going to have to provide links and sources.
Or you can go fuck yourself?
75 Michaelk42 // Mar 18, 2010 at 8:21 PM
I think Blackbird’s entitled a bit there, though.
Face it, Carlos took what should have been a minor spat on a completely different blog and turned it into a senseless flamewar over here on his own blog. Can’t say he didn’t pretty much bring that one on himself.
Between that and using Blackbird’s photo against his wishes just because Carlos felt like he could… I can understand Blackbird being pretty upset about it. He doesn’t have a popular blog with a large readership to just turn on someone like that.
I don’t think Carlos INTENDED to annihilate the dude like that, but it kind of came out that way.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
76 The Blackbird // Mar 18, 2010 at 8:38 PM
Others’ photos means the one in the blog post discussed here and the one in the blog post where he used my photo.
Others’ is the possessive plural of other. You only need two subjects to use the word in a grammatically correct manner. There is no error and sources are right under your nose, Damien.
And who knows how many other copyrighted photos by other photographers he has used without permission here? The only person who knows the answer to that question is Carlos.
A blog that is supposed to be about photographers’ rights authored by a photographer who appears to have little regard for other photographers’ copyright work?
Yeah.
77 Frank Palmer // Mar 19, 2010 at 12:14 AM
Hey Blackbird,
Can I have permission to use your photo on my website? It will be used to mock you and call you funny names.
Thanks,
Frank
78 Hazy // Mar 19, 2010 at 12:53 AM
Show us the picture he used and a link to the article it was used for.
79 Shawn // Mar 19, 2010 at 1:11 AM
Dude, quite complaining. It was a pretty clear application of “fair use”. If Carlos were to use one of my photos in that manner, I may shoot him an e-mail to at least ask him to give me proper credit, if he hasn’t already done so, and to remind him that I own the copyright to said photo, but I wouldn’t threaten him with a legal notice unless he were actually in violation of the law, and refused to take action to remedy the situation.
80 Shawn // Mar 19, 2010 at 1:15 AM
Whoops. I meant “quit”, not “quite”. I think that it’s time to take a break from the computer.
81 The Blackbird // Mar 19, 2010 at 1:30 AM
Link to the original post on this blog: http://carlosmiller.com/2010/03/11/canadian-pj-gives-up-fight-for-photographer-rights/
Link to the photo on Flickr which has since been removed: http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackbird_hollow/4422629907/in/set-72157623312230507/
82 The Blackbird // Mar 19, 2010 at 1:45 AM
Hello Cupcake, I mean Frank.
I’m new to Carlos’ site, found out about it because someone else who visits it reached me to inform me of the blog post. I can’t recall visiting beforehand. All I’m left with – and I’m someone on the side of photographer’s rights – is disappointment. I leave with the general impression the important overall intention of the site is being undermined by the man running it. It seems he is using it for personal reasons now, spending a lot of time defending himself from accusations of copyright infringement from other photographers and that runs contrary to what the mandate of the blog is. I don’t want to make a big deal out of it. I’m one a how many commenters here? All I’m saying is it’s a bit hypocritical and kind of discredits the blogger. I think it’s a fair assessment. Not trying to be mean, just pointing out an obvious contradiction between image and behavior.
Some people here like to call that passion. I say it’s inapproriate and we’ve all been inappropriate at times. The difference is those who recognize it and apologize for it and those who are too arrogant to do so. That is where a man’s character is determined. We all make mistakes. What counts is how we go about rectifying them. Carlos responded to a mistake I had made and have since apologized for on another blog by posting a story on his blog about my mistake. He was quite harsh and even other loyal readers of his blog commented in my defense. I asked him to remove my photo publicly, rather than shoot him an e-mail because his illegal action in publishing my photo on his blog without permission was a public act. If someone walks up to you and punches you in the head, are you going to reach out to shake his hand? If so, I’d say you’re an idiot.
None of this is your business anyway so now all I’m wondering is how I could have wasted so much time responding to someone who will probably never get it. Have fun in your deluded hell!
83 Carlos Miller // Mar 19, 2010 at 2:18 AM
Your blog is so lacking in journalistic integrity it is beginning to take the form of a monument to how far some people will go to prove what a fighter they are.
Yes, Blackbird, we all know nobody compares to you in the journalistic department. You made that very clear in your response to Mark Kalan on the NYC Photo Rights blog.
84 Hazy // Mar 19, 2010 at 2:19 AM
Fair enough, maybe CM is developing a bad habit of using content that isn’t his.
I see that a lot of people had a knee jerk reaction to the other fellow calling him things like “douche” and what not. Not the most mature thing to do, especially when him and now Blackbird do indeed retain rights to their own content.
CM is taking things a little too personally, perhaps projecting his recent problems with police onto other people? He starts off this blog entry with “It’s never a dull moment” but to be honest, things like this happen all the time.
But yes I agree that Blackbird and Vermont guy have the right to protect their content. Was CM doing Vermont dude a favor by sending more traffic(exposure) his way? For sure, but maybe they didn’t care. It happens that people sometimes have different priorities.
85 The Blackbird // Mar 19, 2010 at 2:31 AM
I should also mention that even after I had informed Carlos of my wish that he remove the shot from his blog post, it remained their until he received the cease and desist from another photographer. Doesn’t look good given the tenacity with which the other photographer is defending his copyright.
In my humble opinion, Carlos needs to re-examine what he wants to do with this site and make a commitment to treat other photographers with courtesy and respect by asking for permission before using their copyrighted material and by refraining from writing small-time gossipy trash about how one commenter responded to another commenter on another blog post, calling it journalism and then using that false designation as a justification for his “fair use” defense against the photographers who have accused him of infringement.
But it all boils down to your displeasure with the public manner in which the accusers have challenged Carlos, that instead the request for removal should be made privately. But isn’t it fair to ask why when Carlos publishes their copyrighted material for the world to see without permission?
It’s okay to be loyal to your friends, but their is such a thing as being loyal to a fault. Real friends tell their friends when they’ve made a mistake and suggest ways of addressing the damage caused that will least impact on their friend’s happiness. Real friends are honest with each other. You’re only enabling by blindly sticking up for him without at least making an attempt to understand what has happened here.
86 The Blackbird // Mar 19, 2010 at 2:38 AM
It’s sad. From what I can see on this blog he started out with good intentions but hasn’t exercised the best judgement lately. I hope things change. That’s it. I’m done with this blog for good. I’ve said it once before, but I felt I owed Carlos the benefit of my opinion as to his recent writing.
I hope things work out for you, Carlos. Goodbye.
87 Carlos Miller // Mar 19, 2010 at 2:39 AM
Blackbird,
This blog has never been about protecting photographers from copyright violations. There are other blogs for that, including the one below.
http://www.photoattorney.com/
I’ve always made my stance clear on the use of photos. I abide by the Fair Use Doctrine.
I understand and accept that this also means my photos will get used without permission.
You will get various legal opinions on what constitutes Fair Use, but there has not been anything set in stone. At least not yet.
I tend to do my posting late at night, so for me to send an email to a photographer asking permission usually means I have to wait until the following afternoon for a response, if I even get one.
This is a news blog and my goal here is to inform my readers in a timely manner.
I also appreciate good photography, so I do like to include photos with the stories I write. I always credit the photographer and link to their site, if they have one.
If I was making money off this site, I would offer compensation. But I’m not.
I’m just a guy who invests hundreds of hours into this site in order to document these ongoing incidents against photographers.
I’ve thought of quitting many times because frankly, I get burned out writing the same story day in and day out. The only thing that changes are the names and locations.
But I know I would regret quitting because this issue is not going away anytime soon.
It’s obvious you’re pissed off because I called you a quitter, a whiner and a drama queen. I know those were harsh words, but that was the opinion I formed of you.
And now I realize you’re not necessarily a quitter because you’ve been relentlessly on my ass since that blog post, but you are a bit of a whiner and a drama queen.
And that’s cool. I do welcome you here to state your opinion without censorship.
And I do appreciate the discussion.
My goal with this site has never been to piss off other photographers. On the contrary, it was to defend photographers, which is why I wrote that post to begin with because you got all crazy on Mark.
Perhaps if you stick around, we’ll resolve our differences. Or maybe not.
Either way, you’re always welcome to comment.
88 Jon Quimbly // Mar 19, 2010 at 2:56 AM
What a prick this guy is. Carlos bends over backward to publicize the plights of fellow photojournalists, but none of that matters. He can expect little solidarity from other photojournalists when it’s his turn with a cop.
After scanning his Flickr account, it looks like the photo Carlos used was just about the only newsworthy image he’s ever produced, and only because of the backstory.
And all that Indymedia-style riot pr0n is just so … (yawn) … boring. He obviously has a problem finding the defining moment. Endless pics of helicopters and riot gear-clad cops standing around … whoop-te-doo. Any PJ who’s covered protests knows that camcorder footage of a beatdown has 100x the value of still photos, and I’ve covered dozens.
BTW, all of my non-job photos posted to Flickr are Creative Commons licensed, free-to-use with attribution, at full resolution. They’ve turned up on websites, published in books and magazines around the world. Nothing makes me happier than seeing my casual work used this way.
89 Jon Quimbly // Mar 19, 2010 at 3:01 AM
Oh good, he’s leaving! One less self-righteous, conceited prick to comment here! Yay!
90 Michaelk42 // Mar 19, 2010 at 7:04 AM
Whether you would allow someone to use your copyrighted work without permission does not invalidate anyone else’s right to not allow someone to use their copyrighted work without permission.
Fair use and whether there is an actual violation of the law is decided on a case-by-case basis, and then only finally by a judge. Up until then it’s anyone’s right to claim infringement under their copyright rights.
You can’t really claim it’s OK for photographers to stand up for their rights, but only against police and not Carlos.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
91 Cam // Mar 19, 2010 at 8:29 AM
I’m a huge fan of this blog. I’m also a photographer who greatly values my copyright. I have no doubt that you believe you are abiding by fair use guidelines. I also have no doubt that you are incorrect as to their application.
92 Alex J // Mar 19, 2010 at 11:01 AM
You can talk all you want about protecting your copyright but many –including some in the legal profession– don’t think what Carlos did was violating your copyright. This has been made a legal, and in so being a cost-benefit, issue not a moral one. He took down the image, leave it at that.
93 The Blackbird // Mar 19, 2010 at 1:57 PM
Faulty logic, Alex. Law is rooted in morality. We believe it is wrong to kill someone, so we create a law against murder. We believe it is wrong to use others’ property without their permission, so we create laws to protect property owners from such theft.
I believe the only way Carlos is going to obey the law is by appreciating the morality underlying it.
94 Roger Krueger // Mar 19, 2010 at 2:34 PM
It sounds like the lawyer was pointing out exactly what you just said.
Maybe I need to put more hyphens around the —–OR—– next time
The lawyer was implying that there wasn’t really a serious problem because the image probably wasn’t registered. I was pointing ot that that doesn’t save you if he can get it registered within 3 months of initial publication.
Of course, the chances that the complainant could prove actual damages is still a question.
Actual damages are almost irrelevant–statutory damages and legal fees are where the money is in a case like this, $250ish in actual damages is chump change. (Which is why registration is so important).
95 Roger Krueger // Mar 19, 2010 at 2:40 PM
When you go to court over murky issues winning is nearly as expensive as losing. It’s not “I won” vs. “I lost” it’s “I sold my house to pay my lawyer” vs. “I sold my house to pay my lawyer and I still owe a judgement”.
96 NYCPhotorights // Mar 19, 2010 at 3:04 PM
I once got into a slightly heated discussion with a photographer who was upset that I used a picture of his on my blog. All I did was click on the “blog this” icon on his Flickr stream and then insert my story on the space provided in the Flickr form. His argument was that I needed to ask special permission –
I did not fight him with respect to deleting the picture but my argument was why does Flickr deceive bloggers into thinking that the “blog this” button requires no further action. There was no warning on the button or the Flickr instructions that the button could not be used without permission.
I did notice that Flickr still has the “blog this” button but the size of the thumbnail it creates is significantly smaller than it was a year ago. Perhaps they found a compromise.
NYCPhotorights´s last blog ..Employer Sued for Spying on Employee
97 Roger Krueger // Mar 19, 2010 at 7:00 PM
At least it’s better than Yahoo–their hosting ToS reserve the right to confiscate your domain name if they terminate you.
98 Michaelk42 // Mar 19, 2010 at 9:00 PM
DAMN. I can’t think of a reason they would even want to do that off the top of my head… intimidating customers into behaving?
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
99 Frank Palmer // Mar 20, 2010 at 12:48 AM
Blackbird,
Wow you called me Cupcake. Was that supposed to be an example of you taking the high road?
Since you didn’t say if I could have permission to use your photos I am going to do it. If and when you find them feel free to send me a take down notice.
Have a nice day
100 Harrison Lansing // Mar 20, 2010 at 12:08 PM
Interesting little firefight here.
Question for the “Fair Use Defense” crowd; if this was an example of fair use, is photojournalism no longer a viable occupation? You all seem to be implying that once shot and published any photograph of anything by anyone that you can somehow relate to an article or blog you want to write is yours for the taking. In extending that argument, I could see a case made for ripping an image from Time and re-using it for an article on the same subject, citing fair use.
This guy’s a working photojournalist, the image was taken and used for news publication. This blog re-used the image without consent to illustrate an article on the same subject. I’m amazed to see how many photographers came down on the side of “It’s Fair Use, don’t take it down”.
His demeanor, frankly, is not relevant. He owns the work, or his paper does depending on his contractual relationship with them.
As another posted noted, are you all free to just wander to the AP library and take whatever work you want and re-use it without permission? If the answer is “No, of course not.” then this is a pretty simple issue. If the answer is “Yes, free means free beer…if it’s published anywhere it’s fair game for me to use as I please as long as I can somehow justify my own use as fair use” then I submit that you who make that argument do not pay your rent with your photography.
101 Michaelk42 // Mar 20, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Yes, you’re right.
Once I got straight which picture we were talking about and who exactly shot it through my actually awake mind, it made a great deal more sense.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
102 Roger Krueger // Mar 20, 2010 at 6:45 PM
For journalism, it’s mostly only fair use if THE PHOTO ITSELF is the subject of the story, rather than what the photo depicts. So the shot of coffee lady that set off this whole shitstorm is very likely fair use. But a photo not itself being reported on but merely illustrating the story is unlikely to be fair use.
103 Alex J // Mar 20, 2010 at 7:21 PM
Copyright law isn’t rooted in morality. It was establish as a way to encourage creation by letting creators have a monopoly over intellectual property for a limited time. But there are exceptions such as fair use as Carlos claims.
To your larger point while some law is created because of morality, not all is. Look at public choice theory. And if you you think morality comes into play in the court room you’re more naive they I thought.
104 Michaelk42 // Mar 20, 2010 at 7:45 PM
But if you’re going to act like a dick just because you legally can, you don’t get to cry that you’re somehow not a dick just because it’s legal.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
105 I don't have a darn name // Apr 7, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Wow, going WAY out of your way just to be a dick again, I see. I’m glad you took my advice to consult a lawyer about your crazy personal interpretation of what you call “The Fair Use Doctrine”. Now try taking the advice before you piss off someone with a real lawyer.
Later, Carlos; other people do this exact same blog much better.
106 Joe Piervincenti // Jun 3, 2010 at 9:35 PM
Sir,
I read the entire article. I did not find your opponent to write like an attorney so do not feel he in any way tried to be one. I also do not find that you reason like an attorney. He simply wrote with an awareness of his topic. I cannot say he did a poor job either, he made his point, that being, you took his work. Which you did and you try to make a case for it and your trusted lawyer friends told you so. His personality notwithstanding, anyone that creates work should know you don’t take someone elses work. I do not support your position. End of story.
Leave a Comment