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]
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.
TOPICS: Announcements; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: adminlectureseries; condenast; copyright; epigraphyandlanguage; freerepubliczotted; godsgravesglyphs; infringement; romanempire; thenewyorker; vanityfair; zot; zotfreerepublic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-175 next last
To: texasbluebell
It's determined on a case by case basis and it's left up to the judge to decide. Good luck on the draw.
101
posted on
09/23/2003 10:17:42 PM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
Comment #102 Removed by Moderator
Comment #103 Removed by Moderator
To: Jim Robinson
I came across this 10% rule a while ago, am not too certain how it applies in this case. Here's a link that may help define it:
link--towards the end is the mention of 10%
It seems pretty murky though. But I think it all hinges on whether one is profitting financially from someone else's work. If there is no profit involved, well, I'm no lawyer, but I'm not at all certain it's that much of an issue...though I have a feeling you'd say "Tell that to the Wash Post and LAT"...
To: MineralMan
I wonder if someone is ratting out FR to publications.Bingo.
105
posted on
09/23/2003 10:32:58 PM PDT
by
Kevin Curry
([Arnold's] lust for power is not rooted in strength, but in weakness)
To: Jim Robinson
Am I starting to perceive a pattern here?
106
posted on
09/23/2003 10:34:54 PM PDT
by
null and void
(Life is like a sewer, what you get out of it depends entirely on what you put into it. - Hen3ry)
To: texasbluebell
Well, that looks like someone's opinion. It's not in the actual code.
107
posted on
09/23/2003 10:37:22 PM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
To: texasbluebell
Fair use allows up to 10% of the article. So we can paraphrase the gist of it, but we can also quote 10% if we want, I believe. I think that's the allowable limit, unless it's changed recently. No, it doesn't. There is no such "rule" in the copyright laws themselves, nor in court rulings on the matter. In fact, depending on circumstances people have been found guilty of copyright violation based on as little as two quoted sentences.
108
posted on
09/23/2003 10:39:29 PM PDT
by
Ichneumon
(Life is too short to waste time on trolls)
To: Defiant
Fair use allows you to quote a little bit, too, but if the authorities that be only want us to link, that's what we should do.If by "authorities that be," you mean JimRob, fine. But if you mean Conde Nast or The Onion, they have no right to prevent us from even posting short excerpts of a few paragraphs or so (like what we usually post for Washington Post articles). The law on this point is unquestionable.
To: zeromus; Jim Robinson
And to think I was close to subscribing to wired because of all the times I had read fascinating stuff from wired posted here.Keep in mind that Wired News (at wired.com) is not, and has not been for some time, any relation to Wired magazine other than in spirit (and a little agreement for the sites to keep cross-advertising each other to a tiny extent). Condé Nast owns Wired magazine, but Wired News is owned by Lycos. So we can keep posting from them all we want.
To: Jim Robinson
They seem to be coming out of the woodwork.
Excerpts will have to do. Right?
5.56mm
111
posted on
09/23/2003 11:19:00 PM PDT
by
M Kehoe
To: Jim Robinson
Before you know it, there will only be conservative stuff posted on here...which might not be a bad idea.
While watching a few tv shows tonight I was amazed with the number of new season shows that have President Bush giving a speech.
The Left is steaming and fit to be tied.
112
posted on
09/23/2003 11:20:16 PM PDT
by
swheats
To: Chad Fairbanks; Howlin; Amelia; Southflanknorthpawsis; justshe; terilyn; Scenic Sounds; ...
An FYI ping/bump - not that any of you guys read Vanity Fair. : )
113
posted on
09/23/2003 11:24:54 PM PDT
by
DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
("Mary, help!" - General Wesley Clark, presidential candidate)
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
Not unless
they're on the cover. The Magnificent Seven.
114
posted on
09/23/2003 11:30:52 PM PDT
by
swheats
To: swheats
Now that is a great cover, swheats! Forgot about that one...
115
posted on
09/23/2003 11:33:26 PM PDT
by
DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
("Mary, help!" - General Wesley Clark, presidential candidate)
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet; dighton; Jim Robinson
not that any of you guys read Vanity Fair. : ) Not only that, if the list posted by dighton at #39 is inclusive, I don't read ANY Conde Nast publications, although I might possibly read an article published in one of them, if it happened to be posted here on FR.
I agree with some of the earlier posters, however - I've seen complete articles from publications copied at *other* websites, which don't seem to be bothered with copyright infringement notices - is it just that those other websites aren't big enough to be bothered with?
116
posted on
09/24/2003 3:10:07 AM PDT
by
Amelia
To: Defiant
Fair use allows you to quote a little bit, too,Legally, no. It's up to the copyright holder to establish rules for their own property.
117
posted on
09/24/2003 4:51:34 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 what you are saying is that regardless of the Fair Use law, people can publish stuff while saying "You can't quote any of it, so you can't criticize or comment on it by using examples hahahahahahahahahahaaa suckers!"??
118
posted on
09/24/2003 6:06:14 AM PDT
by
Chad Fairbanks
(Madness takes its toll. Luckily, I have exact change ready...)
To: Chad Fairbanks
No. The property owners decides how their property can be used. They cannot control what people SAY about it.
119
posted on
09/24/2003 6:08:31 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: AppyPappy
THat's what I don't get - If someone publishes an article, an I want to comment on it, what if I am commenting on a specific portion - I can't quote even a sentence in order to point out the fallacies contained within it?
I can understand wanting to protect one's copyrights, but to not even allow a quote or two for purposes of comment and/or criticism goes against the very concept of 'Fair Use', imho...
120
posted on
09/24/2003 6:11:00 AM PDT
by
Chad Fairbanks
(Madness takes its toll. Luckily, I have exact change ready...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 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