Posted on 07/09/2008 10:07:48 PM PDT by kristinn
...How important is calumny today? In 2000, calumny effectively led to John McCain's defeat in South Carolina. That smear campaign against him used robo-calls and fliers, and e-mail also played an important role, as the New York Times reported in February 2000. Arguably, calumny defeated John Kerry in 2004, and the infamous Swift boat television ads of that summer were, importantly, preceded by an aggressive Internet campaign begun that January that included perhaps the first viral campaign e-mail: a computer-generated image of Kerry and Jane Fonda beside each other on a podium at an antiwar rally. The image originally emerged at the Web site FreeRepublic.com, and Fonda had not in fact been at the event. But the damage was done. Today we are seeing viral anti-Obama e-mails, some of which I have traced to some of the same origin points for the 2000 and 2004 smear campaigns.
SNIP
A right to free speech is no excuse for lying. While strongly protected rights of free speech are critical to a healthy democracy, rights bring responsibilities. Citizens should, as a standard practice, take responsibility for their views -- the matters of fact and principle that they wish to put before the public for consideration -- by appending their full, legal names to their expressions, even in blog posts. While there are times and places for anonymity, it should be the exception. Unfortunately, the Internet has brought us to a point where anonymity is the rule, not the exception. Rather than facilitating free speech, this is corrosive to democratic discourse. It's time to rebuild a responsible culture in which people speak in their full, legal names and honor the truth.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The copyright owners must appeal through court and attain victory or out of court settlement.
This has not happened. The parody may have been derivative but it no more belongs to the photographer than the numerous parodies of Reuters’ daily photos belong to that agency.
Bill Gates’ Corbis and the rest of the Left never shouted over the version of the color legit photo of Kerry and Fonda being altered to also show GWBush in the shot.
It was selective enforcement of copyright. Liberals take care of their own.
I seriously doubt ALL of these offenders are paying Corbis or even negotiated waivers. DUmmies tipped them off to cause havoc. Mission “accomplished”.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=kerry+fonda&gbv=2
And in the case of AP, they reserve the right to deny licensed excerpts if it (pointing out fraud, bias, and error for example) could hold them up to public ridicule. Where does the First Amendment say anything about that? It definitely violates “fair use”.
“A right to free speech is no excuse for lying.”
That will be news to politicians.
Then fight it in court. It's really just that simple. Anyone has the right to ask you to stop doing something; if they decide to stop, then they haven't violated your rights.
No longer restricted to face-to-face encounter with The Authorities. Who knows it's you with that opinion? Ms Allen do.
Keep radical Islamists safe from FISA -- but you right wingers out there . . . .
Danielle Allen was the Googling genius (doing research in the tradition of Albert Einstein) that was quoted in the first Washington Post article. Now she is a journalist for them too? Looks like the Washington Post created their own story.
Or they can simply assert copyright, and if folks stop publishing the photo, there's no need to go through all the rigamarole. If the target is someone high-profile enough, they can opt to take it to court, pour encourager les autres.
This has not happened.
The creator of the fake Kerry/Fonda photo is anonymous, and even if found and identified is not responsible for subsequent redistribution of the parody. Going after him in court would take a lot of time and effort with little real point. Going after FR would be easier and make more of a splash, which is probably why FR opted to remove the photo.
The parody may have been derivative but it no more belongs to the photographer than the numerous parodies of Reuters’ daily photos belong to that agency.
No one is claiming that the parody "belongs to" Corbis, any more than Linux was claimed to "belong to" SCO. Corbis cannot distribute the parody image -- but they can halt its distribution.
The documentary series "Eyes on the Prize" wasn't distributed for a number of years because the filmmakers originally licensed the archival footage used in it for a period of ten years. When the ten years ran out, the series went into a vault.
I saw an article a couple of years ago about the issue, and last year it aired on PBS again. Presumably, the drive to raise funds to relicense the footage was successful, the rights holders were afraid enough of bad PR to renegotiate the terms, or some of both.
This case isn't novel when it comes to derivative works. Every local nightly news broadcast has sports clips; those are typically licensed for 24 hours or a similar short time span. The (for example) NFL doesn't "own" that broadcast; but the station cannot re-air it next month or next year with that footage in it. The Academy Awards and other high-profile events are the same way.
So we can march them off to the re-education camps.
freedom of speech has always relied on the fact that one fully research the others points... not for intentional falsehoods, but for the fact that humans see or hear what they want to hear and not necessarily the truth...
she’s an idiot who is easily manipulated by words...
teeman8r
the one and only...
The gag photo was taken out of context.
Most FR threads contain at least an element of humor in them (even at times of tragedy there may be a slip of gallows humor). That "forgery" was known as illegitimate from the get go and quickly pulled by a moderator. The Left worked hard to keep that photo "alive" so as to discredit the legitimate photo that was the primary subject of that thread (and has been disavowed in this WaPoo hit piece).
We point out forgeries all the time. Forgeries from Iran and elsewhere that the MSM is only too eager to run as "legitimate".
In an Iranian Image, a Missile Too Many (MSM picks up on the case of the missing missile) (NY Times 7/10/2008 | Mike Nizza and Patrick Witty)
LGF image:
The subsequent NYTimes "graphic":
Little Green Footballs exposed the hoax. Why doesn't he get the "credit" for exposing the fraud? If he'd fabricated the forgery, it would be the subject of the discussion.
I'm wondering how soon she will be harping on FR over THIS image:
And talking about forgeries spawned at FR again...
Satirical images like this only help us to remain sane in a world gone topsy turvey where the press releases of Iranian dictators are run without scrutiny while the good news from the Bush administration about Iraq is denied until the end of the election.
The media needed only compare the video of the launch to the photos.
One more laugh...
But apparently freedom of the press is...
Couldn't have said it better.
More like the illicit spawn of Spike Lee and Noam Chomsky.
If they can get McCain and FreeRepublic on opposite sides, we'll be one step closer to President Obama.
There is a Michelle/Danielle connection, isn't there?
I wouldn’t be surprised.
Daniel is at best a third-rate hack. Another prize example of affirmative action, just like the less-than-literate Mean Michelle.
Read post 68 and do that. It works.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.