[Jim Robinson]

Please do not post materials from Vanity Fair or any other Conde Nast Publication.

Thanks,

Jim

[jellybean]

I'm curious. Do all those publications who troll through FR and lift quotes from FReepers request permission from you or the poster to use their quotes?

[Fester Chugabrew]

"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."

I don't think that's S.O.P. for most publications, or even Vanity Fair. This article must be a special case. How would anyone know about the exclusive arrangement and time limit? There are also legal remedies that would allow for posting any length of any material on FR, i.e. compulsory licensing, and it may be worth looking into that expense. I don't think it would all that great.

[MissAmericanPie]

Is it legal to summarize an article? Once in print, information has been made public domain, or it should be that way.

So how about it? Summarize the content for discussion and provide a link to the article? Is that allowed?

[syriacus]

Am I right in thinking we can still post articles from the original Vanity Fair magazine (1860-1863)? Those issues can be accessed online.

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/serial?id=vfair

"The Vanity Fair described on this page was a humorous weekly published in New York in the 19th century. To my knowledge, that weekly has no relation to the present-day Conde Nast publication, except for its name and its publication place. (The name was also the title of a famous Thackeray novel in the 1840s, and has been used for various magazines since then.)"

Publication History

Vanity Fair began publication in 1860, and ceased publication in 1863.

[Publius6961]

*chuckle*

I know this is not a funny subject.

What is funny is the mentality that that came up with the apparent program of attacking FR through "copyright infringement" charges.

Can we get a list of Conde Nast publications?
I have no desire to read anything created by perverts er... sensitive people anyway.

My last question, is, how do we identify the trolls who will inevitably arrive for the express purpose of violating the ban?
And thus prompting additional charges?

Can a filter be installed to prevent all mention of Vanity Fait and Conde Nast publications completely?

[Rebelbase]

Seems like they have been coming out of the workwork lately.

[Rebelbase]

"and that you provide us with a written statement specifying all of the material removed,"

I hope you submit a compliance letter with a postscript of :KISS MY A$$.

[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')

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[friendly]

You can expect more of these shyster love notes in the near future.

It is clear to me that some organized anti-free speech leftist vermin are monitoring Free Republic, and are sending nasty letters to the legal departments of all publications with FR unexcerpted articles. The hope is to get an preposterous over-reaction as seen from the rocket scientists at Conde Nast.

[arasina]

I promise to never type the words V----- F--- again unless it's a reference to a certain lingerie manufacturer. And if I see one of those magazines in a doctor's office or hair salon, I will put it in a nice hiding place so that it can't be seen.

What was the subject of the post that included material from that magazine? Perhaps they Googled and saw a reference to the post here?

[denydenydeny]

Vanity Fair does not post its articles online, so the only way that they get posted to FR is if someone goes through the trouble of typing them out or scanning them, as I've done in the past with a couple magnificent Christopher Hitchens columns from VF.

The point is, we can't link to VF articles because there is nothing to link to. In the future, we will just have to summarize briefly, I guess.

[null and void]

Am I starting to perceive a pattern here?

[M Kehoe]

They seem to be coming out of the woodwork.

Excerpts will have to do. Right?

5.56mm

[swheats]

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.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

An FYI ping/bump - not that any of you guys read Vanity Fair. : )