Denver Post Column That Righthaven Is Suing Over May Have Given Implied Permission To Copy
from the oops dept
We already pointed out that Righthaven has signed up MediaNews and is now suing over people reposting content from the Denver Post, but law professor Eric Johnson is pointing out that the very first such lawsuit Righthaven filed may have some problems, specifically since the content that was "reposted" was written as an "open letter" to Tea Partyers. In his blog post on the subject, he notes that not only is the open letter format potentially suggesting it's okay to repost it, but also that the text itself implies that his column is a part of a grassroots effort. Johnson suggests that there's clear "implied permission" to repost the column. I would imagine that would make for quite a fun court battle.
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
Filed Under: copying, copyright, denver post, open letter
Companies: medianews, righthaven
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
But an 'open letter' is certainly not the same as 'open source'. As said, its just a letter, publised in the open.
So its free for everyone to read, and its directed at a specific group, but its still HIS letter.. Open or not..
After all, he has created something that people are willing to click on his site and read, making him an income.. (you know what thats like Mike!!).
He created something of value, something people are willing to pay to see.. (yes by add's, and again Mike knows exactly what im talking about)..
It is after all his creation, and his material, he wrote it one to express his public comment, and 2, to create content that will bring people to his blog or web site or whatever.
He owns the material, he created it, he edited it and he researched the subject, which takes time, money and effort.
So why not try to recoup your investment, by stopping others who want to profit off your work, but keep the money..
They do no work, they do no research, they do no editing or spend their time, and input any talent they may have.
But they 'repost' someone else who has paid the money, done the work, but they keep all the profit from their page hits..
And mike, you might want to tell you're people how important you're page hits are for you..
considing the amount or page real estate you 'give' give advertising.. you must be doing quite well !!!..
so why should you be able to profit from others work, but not those the created the content..
And dont give me crap that they can compete like everyone else, thats a bullshit argument.. really.. you expect them to compete against their own creations ?
When someone copies your material, they are not competing with or against you.. They are stealing off you, and either selling of giving away your product..
Thats not competition, its theft..
I know, you will drop the usual one liner, and say "You're wrong".. I know..
All you appear to be complaining about is the application of the law..
So is it copyright you hate, or having to obey the law ? or both ? Do you believe that you do not have to obey laws you do not like ?
Do you think it is right for people to disobey laws that they do no agree with? I wonder..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
Since you have shown interest in the subject, here is a link to some light reading for your spare time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
disclaimer: It is only a link pointing you to reference material located elsewhere. This is in no way an attempt to copy or claim rights to anything found at said location. Linking to content is not copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
It can't be. Civil disobedience by definition is a violation of the law. Those who engage in it should be prepared to go to jail for their cause. After all, that's exactly what happened to Martin Luther King and Ghandi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
- Please indicate where I said this.
"Please learn and understand the difference."
- What is it that makes you believe I do not understand this difference? Is it possible you read too much into what I posted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
AC, go back to bed with Daryl cause you both got out on the wrong side of it this morning. Even for you two this is far fetching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
Actually, the Civil War was an armed insurrection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
Civil disobedience by definition is breaking the law. If you call piracy civil disobedience, you are implying that it is an illegal act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
You may proceed to get your foot out of your mouth now. You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
and finally, RAWR!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
Darryl... let me get this straight... A law professor states that the 'open letter' format may open up the door for fair use... and you say he's wrong? You can barely grasp basic writing composition or grammer... how the hell are you a legal expert?
That's called 'plagerism', not 'copyright infringement'.
Have you asked Santa for an education yet?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101214/02371412269/owners-hiphop-blogs-seized-homeland-secu rity-still-havent-been-told-why.shtml#c1580
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
Now, in Darryl's case, English seems to be his fist language, and, yes, he seems to type with his hands in oven mitts. I don't have to worry about that, because I just skip anything he posts. Try it, it's great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
I never call people on spelling unless it's tongue-in-cheek... I'm a horrible speller and I know it. But as far as 'dammit' vs 'damnit'... I stand by my spelling :p I know it's wrong, but I'm using it as a protest. The word is a bastardization of "Damn It", so I'm running them together in a more logical fashion. Although, another part of me hates the spelling of "damn" because I believe in phonetics over 'correctness'... dam(n/m)it... now I'm torn. :/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its a letter from a specific person to a group, that is open to everyone to read
So you're saying I can't forward a mail I receive, not even to other intended recipients.
So you're saying I can't post mails I receive, not even for news reasons.
Both or either may be true by the letter of the law, but I suspect neither would fly as a legal argument.
The rest of your post talks about how the letter has value. It's true, but completely irrelevant to the question of whether I can legally post the letter or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The writer does not appear to be claiming parody, rather he is claiming that it was "in the public domain" because it was an open letter. Sort of a different kettle of fish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For instance, how can reposting an article be parody in and of itself? I was taking the mickey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I could picture where, with a few extra words added before or after, you could in theory turn something into a parody of itself. Not easily, but it might be possible.
No mickey required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Without being able to see what Lowcountry912 posted, we can't make a judgement call.
However, DP has this to say on their site about Fair Use:
They're even kind enough to tack on their terms of use to the bottom of a copy. That there's some FANCY javascript...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait, fair use requires javascript?
This is cruel and unusual punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johnson says the Denver Post article, the one in a letter format from Mr. Rosen could "almost could be interpreted as implied permission." Reading the actual article, this is certainly a far stretch from what is written, and is more a tortured interpretation of the written word. Rosen expressing his support for a cause does not imply permission to take a protected work. The Denver Post article is simply and obviously, as even Professor Johnson mentioned in his article, a style choice for the work.
Of course irony and humor seem to have demanded that Mr. Rosen dump on the very people for whom he espoused support in his letter; it appears Mr. Rosen's open support demands a sum certain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can go back through the righthaven articles on TD and see the trends for yourself. TD hates righthaven. They hate the idea, they hate the concept, and they hate what they are doing. So when they get to pour a little more haterade on the fire, they will do it.
Having a professor say it isn't exactly like having a judge say it. I am certain if the fine staff of TD took a while, they could find and equally well placed law professor to state the opposite. But that opposite would not support what is being pushed here, so you don't get to see it.
This is why you have to remember that TD is an opinion blog, and a very, very slanted one at that. You won't get both sides of the story unless you going looking for the other side elsewhere, because it sure won't come up here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is this a new energy drink ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So... Is it in you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or is that just too tenuous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shaky legal argument
Non-exclusive, implied licenses which are unsupported by consideration (nothing of value was exchanged) and established only through the conduct of parties are revocable. This is a well established doctrine. And, as you might image, such licenses are often revoked prior to the filing of a lawsuit. Some courts have even held the filing of the lawsuit itself is sufficient to establish the revocation.
The better argument is that the repost was fair a use of the work, especially since the original article involves some political expression. Political expression is sometimes given stronger protection under the fair use doctrine because of the interplay with the first amendment. Still, success ultimately depends on the factual circumstances of the repost (which I have not seen) among other things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]