Skip to comments.
Copyright Infringement complaint from Vanity Fair/Condé Nast
Email
Posted on 09/23/2003 1:40:22 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Edited on 09/25/2003 11:29:47 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-175 next last
To: Pan_Yan; Excuse_My_Bellicosity
ping
121
posted on
09/24/2003 6:11:51 AM PDT
by
Pan_Yans Wife
("Life isn't fair. It's fairer than death, is all.")
To: Jim Robinson
bump
122
posted on
09/24/2003 6:17:05 AM PDT
by
PGalt
To: 2nd amendment mama
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.
To: freedom4ever; Jim Robinson; AppyPappy
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.
124
posted on
09/24/2003 6:49:41 AM PDT
by
AAABEST
(I phoned the pest control department and their response was to send me a leaflet)
To: Jim Robinson; Ichneumon
Okay, no 10% allowed, glad to learn that then.
To: MineralMan
I don't think it's a coincidence at all.
To: Chad Fairbanks
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.
127
posted on
09/24/2003 6:58:31 AM PDT
by
AppyPappy
(If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
To: 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.
128
posted on
09/24/2003 7:00:31 AM PDT
by
AppyPappy
(If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
To: finnman69
Did we get a ruling on the cover art and photos?
129
posted on
09/24/2003 7:01:07 AM PDT
by
rftc
To: Ichneumon; AppyPappy
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?
To: 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. In other words, no permission required to do this? (I hope not anyway.)
To: Jim Robinson
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.
To: texasbluebell
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.
133
posted on
09/24/2003 7:21:42 AM PDT
by
AppyPappy
(If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
To: rftc
They are covered under the copyright.
134
posted on
09/24/2003 7:22:06 AM PDT
by
AppyPappy
(If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
To: AppyPappy
So you agree with the LAT/WP when they sued Jim.
To: Bloody Sam Roberts
It would seem that the left leaning, FR hating publications have latched on to a new tactic.Two can play that game.
To: AppyPappy
Okay, thanks much for clarifying this.
To: Mears
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.
To: AppyPappy; Jim Robinson
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.
139
posted on
09/24/2003 10:00:02 AM PDT
by
AAABEST
(I phoned the pest control department and their response was to send me a leaflet)
To: Chancellor Palpatine
Oh man! No more Architectural Digest posts - this is horrible!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-175 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson