Copyright Infringement complaint from Vanity Fair/Condé Nast

Email

[Jim Robinson]

Subject: Copyright Infringement

Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:42:53 -0400

From: "Gigante, John D."

To: "'WEBMASTER@FREEREPUBLIC.COM'" WEBMASTER@FREEREPUBLIC.COM

September 23, 2003

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, AND BY E-MAIL TO WEBMASTER@FREEREPUBLIC.COM Free Republic, LLC P.O. Box 9771 Fresno, CA 93794

Re: Copyright Infringement Dear Sir or Madam:

We represent The Conde Nast Publications, publisher of Vanity Fair. It has come to our attention that your website posted and continues to post without permission at least two copies of an article entitled "The Message in the Anthrax" written by Don Foster for the October 2003 issue of Vanity Fair.

Mr. Foster owns the copyright in this article and Vanity Fair paid for the exclusive right to publish the article for a limited period of time. As the copyright owner, Mr. Foster has the legally enforceable right to determine who, if anyone, may publish the article, and during the period of its exclusivity, Vanity Fair has the legally protectable right to be the only party publishing the article.

Your reproduction of this article on your site (even if it was posted by third parties) is an infringement by you of Mr. Foster's copyright rights and, since your infringement continues to occur during the period of Vanity Fair's exclusivity, it also violates Conde Nast's rights. The remedies available under the U.S. Copyright Act are severe, including injunctive relief, payment of statutorily-prescribed damages of up to $150,000 per infringement, and reimbursement of attorneys' fees.

We demand that you immediately remove from your website all materials from Vanity Fair and any other Conde Nast publication, and that you provide us with a written statement specifying all of the material removed, and that you agree not to use any Conde Nast material in the future unless you first obtain the copyright owner's written permission (which may be granted or withheld). If you do not agree, we will advise our client it must pursue more formal means to resolve this problem. We expect to hear from you within ten (10) days of your receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

John Gigante, Esq. Sabin, Bermant & Gould LLP Four Times Square New York, N. Y. 10036-6526 Tel. 212-381-7066 Fax. 212-381-7227

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, purge it and do not disseminate or copy it.

[IncPen]

I don't mean to stir a hornet's nest here, but I thought that articles could be posted for discussion, ie. 'fair use'.

No one profits from this, so how can they force FR to relinquish 'fair use'?

(Just askin')

[Jim Robinson]

By costing you more time and money than you have or can possibly raise to fight them in court.

[zeromus]

And to think I was close to subscribing to wired because of all the times I had read fascinating stuff from wired posted here.

[mjp]

Some advertisers in September 2003 Vanity Fair:
Calvin Klein
Estee Lauder
Pradabr
Saks Fifth Avenue
DKNY
Armani
Judith Leiber
St. John by Marie Gray
Dior
Gucci
Burberry
Victoria's Secret
Eddie Bauer
Movado
Yves Saint Laurent
Ralph Lauren
JilSander
David Yurman
Clinique
Marc Jacobs
Kenneth Cole
Loreal
Isaac Mizrahi at Target
Nissan
Helmut Lang
Jones New York
Andrew Marc
Poliform
Geoffrey Beene
Nautica
Hummer
Gap
Michael Kors
Longchamp
TSE
Dove
Adiamondisforever.com
Chanel
Rolex
Banana Republic
Guess
Aveda
Tiffany
MaxMara
Tods
Vera Wang
Givenchy
Hugo Boss
Cole Haan
Mercedea Benz

[Jim Robinson]

Not worth the effort. Forget anout them.

[Jim Robinson]

Not worth the effort. Forget about them.

[lisaann8]

Jim,

FYI, I subscribe to Vanity Fair. I may have to stop however because of the continuing attack by the editor of the magazine, Grayson Carter. For the last few months, he has used his editor's page exclusively to bash President Bush. I fear your "letter" has more to do with their policital philosophy than any copyright issues.

[f.Christian]

I would think if they are publishing political lies - misinfornation ... they are fair game --- open season !

[MineralMan]

"I would think if they are publishing political lies - misinfornation ... they are fair game --- open season !"

Well, unlike you f., Jim has to think about the survival of Free Republic. Are you willing to pay the legal costs of fighting Conde Nast for Jim?

Jim says no more posting from Conde Nast publications. That's the end of it. He owns Free Republic and gets to make the rules here.

Now, if you're willing to pony up all legal fees, then you should email Jim and let him know.

[f.Christian]

You are God and Jim Robinson now telling me what to do ?

[MineralMan]

"You are God and Jim Robinson now telling me what to do ?
"

I am neither God nor Jim Robinson, and I'm not telling you what do do. That's not my job. Jim already told you not to post any stories from Conde Nast publications. That should be the end of it.

I cannot tell anyone what to do here. I'm just another Freeper.

[philetus]

We should just start posting excerpts for everything. I don't mind clicking on a link if it's something I'm interested in.
I think we're going to be seeing complaints from everywhere.

[Clara Lou]

I think that anything over 100 years old is in the public domain-- can be posted in whole or in part.

[f.Christian]

Is there going to be a mineral man rule too ... special priveledges --- exemptions ?

[Lael]

They said links only

Are there 'Mirror Sites' for these???

I, for myself, purchased WIRED when FR ran a "The New (man made) Diamond Age."

I normally don't subscribe.

[FreedomCalls]

I think that anything over 100 years old is in the public domain

Not true anymore. The Sonny Bono Copyright Act extended all terms retroactively.

[Prodigal Son]

I certainly respect any publication's wish to protect their copyright as they see fit. I won't argue that at all even though I feel like what we're doing is fair use. But the crux of the issue seems to be money. The offended parties can always claim that their chance at revenue reaped through advertising banners is lost when a person reads the article here on FR and not at the original website. That's fair enough and I can understand their perspective. But is there not a way to get around this argument? I mean, would there be a way to write the software so that every time a thread was opened, a seperate window was opened that led to the original? That way, they could still reap their economic benefit- in fact, they would probably find that their revenues were increased much like Drudge increases hits to websites by posting links.

Failing that, a program that allowed FR users to view the article at its source while at the same time allowing people to point to the article and post in the same window might be an answer. It would perhaps look like a split screen that the user could resize as wanted (the origin site could be a few pixels wide while the FR posts section would be dominating the page.) It is difficult to carry on a discussion about an issue when the center of discussion is not readily available to look at.

Surely some accomodation has to be found to allow people to discuss what they see written in the news. One problem that I find vexing is the fact that often the original article gets dumped at the source after a specific amount of time. For example, Reuters articles posted from Yahoo. From the Operation Iraqi Freedom timeline, these original articles are gone and I can only see them in their original version here at FR. In that sense, we are providing a valuable service to the public by archiving the articles. Many original Washington Post articles are no longer available at the WP as well and the pity is, we are not allowed to archive them here. The Washington Post was at the center of the misunderstandings surrounding the Jessica Lynch story. How are we to bust these guys and make it stick if we don't archive their material?

[JacksonCalhoun]

You need to add a pinch or two of cheap shots at GWB.

[f.Christian]

Archived threads prevents ... denial - coverups --- maybe we need an off site non public library to resource and document their lies - fraud !

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Actually, that's the normal procedure."

Okay. Thanks for the explanation. Still, I would not be surprised if one could obtain permission to post certain articles in full. I've asked permission of authors before posting their articles and they were okay with it provided proper credit was given.

Otherwise, it behooves us all to be aware before posting full articles that copyright ownership is indeed an issue.