Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-175 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.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
bump
122 posted on 09/24/2003 6:17:05 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

123 posted on 09/24/2003 6:22:08 AM PDT by macrahanish #1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Ichneumon
Okay, no 10% allowed, glad to learn that then.
125 posted on 09/24/2003 6:58:03 AM PDT by texasbluebell (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
I don't think it's a coincidence at all.
126 posted on 09/24/2003 6:58:13 AM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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?
130 posted on 09/24/2003 7:03:45 AM PDT by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

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.)

131 posted on 09/24/2003 7:06:05 AM PDT by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

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.

132 posted on 09/24/2003 7:09:33 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
So you agree with the LAT/WP when they sued Jim.
135 posted on 09/24/2003 7:37:02 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

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.

136 posted on 09/24/2003 7:37:43 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Okay, thanks much for clarifying this.
137 posted on 09/24/2003 8:11:38 AM PDT by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

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.

138 posted on 09/24/2003 9:49:04 AM PDT by NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Oh man! No more Architectural Digest posts - this is horrible!
140 posted on 09/24/2003 10:02:10 AM PDT by NittanyLion (Go Tom Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-175 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson