Can You Sue For Defamation If Someone Points Out Publicly That You Are Wrong?
from the thanks-for-nothing dept
Remember the publication that put legal statements on its site claiming that fair use did not apply and you could not reproduce anything on the site? Yes, the same one that then threatened to take legal action against the guy who (correctly) pointed out to them that you can't take away someone's right to fair use like that? Well, it appears that they changed part of their legal language to get rid of the bit about fair use not applying, though they kept up the part saying that you can't reproduce anything. The former lawyer, David Giacalone, who had pointed this out to the editor in the first place, sent her a nice followup email thanking her for making the change. In response, however, the woman claims she will be suing him for defamation and has already alerted law enforcement and her attorney. It's hard to see how it's defamation to point out that the legal language on a site appears to be mistaken. The editor claims that the posts about the legal language encouraged "threats, intimidation and profanity" though, if you read the original posts on the topic it's a pretty big stretch to seeing them as encouraging any such activity (not to mention that it was all brought on by the problematic language on her publication's site). In the meantime, Eugene Volokh also has posted a followup on this issue, asking why anyone should trust the accuracy of the content on her site when her claims about copyright are inaccurate? Update: Giacalone lets us know that, after just one day, the site has gone back to claiming fair use is not applicable.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
she's denying fair use again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: she's denying fair use again
Someone seems confused here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the hell...
Someone needs to sue these people for attempt at spreading mass ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Goes to Show...
Fair use is the law. The sad fact, however, is that how much use is allowable under fair use is not set in stone and is subject to interpretation on a case-by-case basis. Much depends on the judge that hears the case.
As far as the civil threats are concerned, me thinks the lady doth protest too much...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just Goes to Show...
"You can't fix stupid..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's not...
Short of having a bad lawyer, my guess is any suit would fail, as it sounds like all that was said was the facts and the author's personal opinion without even so much as a suggestion of contacting the site. If it were me and I got sued for a stupid reason, I'd be sure to file a claim of my own for damages.
Then again, I'm just some guy babbling on a web page, definitely not a lawyer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some Rights Restricted
The blog at elfink.blogspot.com is copyrighted, and absolutely no use of it qualifies as "fair." In fact, you are not allowed to read my blog without prior written permission, and you must have my verbal permission to read the written permission.
Furthermore, the designs on the t-shirts I sell at www.cafepress.com/elfink are also copyrighted, and I hereby declare by fiat that any and all purchases of said t-shirts only entitles the buyer to receive the shirt and hide it in a closet. You may not wear or use any Elf Ink products unless you hire 3 union elves during the entire process of wearing or using.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a correction to a factual assertion
Update & Correction (Oct. 27, 2006): I have learned this morning that, a day after I was accused of defamation by the Editor of North Country Gazette, I made an erroneous statement about NCG in a Comment to a prior post: After comparing the text of the two articles, I mistakenly said that NCG had taken another newspaper’s story without attribution. Here is the Correction notice that I have placed in the Comments to that post:
"CORRECTION (Oct. 27, 2006): Yesterday evening, I erroneously stated in this Comment that NCG had copied from this article in the Westchester News, when it wrote this story -- showing that at least five sentences from the NCG article were identical to the sentences in the Westchester.com article. It has been brought to my attention that the source of the NCG article was this release from the Westchester County District Attorney. I apologize for my error. Clearly, NCG did not take the information from Westchester.com. If NCG had attributed its story and facts to the Westchester DA’s press release, my mistake would not have occurred. My main point remains, however, that NCG was claiming exclusive rights to use materials that the public has every right to reproduce, when it placed the statement “This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed by anyone without the express written permission of the publisher. This article is copyright protected and Fair Use is not applicable” at the end of the article."
The update continues:
I have never had an “axe to grind” with NCG. In Oct. 30, 2005 and December 8, 2005, I had pointed to NCG articles as new sources at my other legal weblog and, on September 26, 2006, had discussed one of its editorials in a posting at this weblog. When I approached the Editor of NCG last week, it was with one simple purpose: to ask that she remove the incorrect clause “Fair Use is not applicable” from NCG articles and commentary. My purpose when I wrote about the topic at this weblog was to get the clause changed and to help the public better understand the Fair Use concept. That is why I wrote to Ms. Maxam thanking her, as soon as I learned that the clause was removed in the Oct. 24, 2006 articles at her site (and why I was disappointed when she reverted back to useing it the next day. I apologize to her for the one erroneous claim that I made, which is discussed above. I apologize to shlep’s readers and Team for allowing the story to take up so much of this weblog’s resources this week and for allowing the situation to get muddied by making that one incorrect assertion. Having said that, I hope the sources supplied below on defamation law will be helpful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a correction to a factual assertion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you're wondering what kind of person might marr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
personal rights always apply
Actually, I think i'm going to go and fairly use anything I like on their site within my rights and then send them a notification.
it will show them what I've "fairly used", and CLEARLY state that contacting me, with the intent of me investing time to consider what they say - amounts to them agreeing to be billed my standard rate of 125$CAD/hr.
If they so much as waste 15 mins of my time (my smallest bill-able block), i will bill them for each block they use... and I will send collectors as well.
Nice idea. thanks guys!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Standards for accuracy are somewhat lower than in other media (not that lower though) but you have to remember this media is shared by people who belive in the 'greys' (alien invaders who have secret agreement with the US government) or the ones who think the earth is hollow, and inside, is inhabited by a futuristic society of uber-men.
Also worth mentioning are the scams, the pyramid schemes, the free energy people, usw.
So, in light of all this, some misinterpretation of the law (agravated by a misguided editor, and when I say misguided, I really mean [expletive deleted]) is not that much to frown about...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can You Sue For Defamation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can u sue someone for posting information about yo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lots of cases like yours...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DEFEMATION OF CHARACTER!
Can you sue for getting fired without a "just cause"?
Can you sue a restaurant for finding a roach in your meal?
GO TO www.whocanyousue.org
Can You Sue For Defamation If Someone Points Out Publicly That You Are Wrong?
from the thanks-for-nothing dept
Remember the publication that put legal statements on its site claiming that fair use did not apply and you could not reproduce anything on the site? Yes, the same one that then threatened to take legal action against the guy who (correctly) pointed out to them that you can't take away someone's right to fair use like that? Well, it appears that they changed part of their legal language to get rid of the bit about fair use not applying, though they kept up the part saying that you can't reproduce anything. The former lawyer, David Giacalone, who had pointed this out to the editor in the first place, sent her a nice followup email thanking her for making the change. In response, however, the woman claims she will be suing him for defamation and has already alerted law enforcement and her attorney. It's hard to see how it's defamation to point out that the legal language on a site appears to be mistaken. The editor claims that the posts about the legal language encouraged "threats, intimidation and profanity" though, if you read the original posts on the topic it's a pretty big stretch to seeing them as encouraging any such activity (not to mention that it was all brought on by the problematic language on her publication's site). In the meantime, Eugene Volokh also has posted a followup on this issue, asking why anyone should trust the accuracy of the content on her site when her claims about copyright are inaccurate? Update: Giacalone lets us know that, after just one day, the site has gone back to claiming fair use is not applicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]