Gawker Threatened For Publishing Quotes From Book Proposal, Adds 'Commentary' In Response
from the nauseating-and-cloying-precociousness-that-permeates-the-entire-proposal dept
Apparently, Gawker recently got its hands on a book proposal from someone named Lena Dunham, who received a rather significant $3.7 million advance for the work. I've never heard of Dunham, though $3.7 million book advances are pretty rare. You generally have to be someone pretty big to get that. Either way, Gawker, as it is known to do, published the book proposal and made fun of Dunham and the writing. Gawker's initial post definitely did seem a bit gloating and childish in mocking Dunham, but that's kind of the point of Gawker, I believe. Either way, Dunham went legal. Her lawyer contacted Gawker and demanded removal of the proposal, along with all of the quotes from it. In response, Gakwer did remove the full proposal, but left in the quotes but added commentary which is unlikely to make Dunham particularly happy. Here are two examples, though there are many more.Of course, by adding commentary, Gawker is clearly trying to show that it's quoting was fair use. Given the short nature of the original quotes, they probably could make a decent fair use claim on the original post as well, even without the additional commentary (and, of course, if sued, they could still get dinged for the original quotes sans commentary). But, still... the end result of all of this is that Gawker just gets that much more attention, and Lena Dunham's "nauseating and cloying precociousness" gets a further hearing. I fail to see how that benefits Dunham at all. Going legalistic just because you don't like how someone covers your work -- even if you have a legitimate copyright claim -- is often not a particularly intelligent business decision.I've been in therapy since I was seven.
Update: Lena Dunham's personal litigation counsel Charles Harder has contacted Gawker to relay a demand from his client, Lena Dunham, that we remove the above quote from our web site. In order to clarify our intent in quoting the above matter from Dunham's proposal, we have decided to append the following commentary: The quoted sentence is revelatory of Dunham's character in that it provides evidence that she has been examining her own thoughts and desires analytically from an absurdly young age. It is also indicative of a nauseating and cloying precociousness that permeates the entire proposal.
When I was about nine I developed a terrible fear of being anorexic.
Update: Lena Dunham's personal litigation counsel Charles Harder has contacted Gawker to relay a demand from his client, Lena Dunham, that we remove the above quote from our web site. In order to clarify our intent in quoting the above matter from Dunham's proposal, we have decided to append the following commentary: The quoted sentence is indicative of Dunham's self-dramatizing narcissism inasmuch as it presents what is obviously a desire for an attention-grabbing condition as a fear of developing said condition. It is also indicative of a nauseating and cloying precociousness that permeates the entire proposal.
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: book proposal, cloying precociousness, copyright, fair use, lena dunham
Companies: gawker
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or they're attempting to turn what was infringement into fair use. But by adding the text and trying to make it into fair use, they are only admitting that it wasn't fair use to begin with. Even if this new use is fair, that doesn't negate the prior infringement. And now they're just pissing them off, making it more likely that they are sued. Good times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second, even if she did sue, what are her damages? I doubt it was registered, so no statutory damages are available. Proving actual damages would be fairly difficult since there really aren't any; she's not selling the proposal in bookstores and she's already sold the book
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I did note that they could still get dinged by the original quotation sans commentary. However, I don't think that adding commentary is an automatic admission that the original was NOT fair use. That seems like an extreme interpretation. Adding to the commentary for the sake of making the point clearer is a reasonable move.
Even if this new use is fair, that doesn't negate the prior infringement.
As I noted. And, again, you're assuming that it absolutely is infringement.
And now they're just pissing them off, making it more likely that they are sued. Good times.
A lawsuit under the circumstances would seem really, really stupid. Gawker has a pretty good track record on these kinds of lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not saying it absolutely was infringement. But the fact that they felt they had to change the post indicates that they weren't so sure that it wasn't infringing. If they were sure that it was fair use, they wouldn't have changed it. The fact that they changed it indicates that they didn't think fair use was a lock. My point was that by changing it they haven't erased the infringement whatsoever.
A lawsuit under the circumstances would seem really, really stupid. Gawker has a pretty good track record on these kinds of lawsuits.
And they might even win. My point though is that all they did was make things worse. They should have left it alone or taken it down. Rubbing it in her face while she's obviously upset about it was not the move I would have made. But I can see how such a move would meet with your approval.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Even if this new use is fair, that doesn't negate the prior infringement
More flops than than bacon in a frying pan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lena Dunham ( /ˈlinə ˈdʌnəm/ lee-nə dun-um; born May 13, 1986) is an American filmmaker and actress.[1] She wrote and directed the independent film Tiny Furniture (2010), and is the creator and star of the HBO series Girls. In 2012, she was nominated for 4 Emmy Awards for Girls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When will the publisher invest a fraction of this sort of money into reviewing submissions and coaching promising would be published authors. This would be using their monopoly to encourage the production of works of value to a culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm all for pretentious young movie stars ruining their reputations in this manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't know that any publicity is good publicity?
It's an and still likely strategy -- just look: with this notice on Techdirt, at least a dozen people are informed of her upcoming book! If the usual rates apply, she's assured of 0.001 more sale!
I'm surprised that Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick wouldn't know all there is about publicity (reverse strategy too), let alone that old saw. But Mike's failures are frequent.
Every click for Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick is a click for him!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
His fame now depends totally on you! He's done all he can!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You don't know that any publicity is good publicity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You don't know that any publicity is good publicity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You don't know that any publicity is good publicity?
Are we supposed to take you seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You don't know that any publicity is good publicity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
me again
It's a reason to completely disregard ALL CONTENT of your argument.
Did Mike steal your girlfriend or something ?
I do somewhat agree that all publicity is good publicity to a point.
And.... you should Ignore the Attention Whore
given... something Mike didn't do with TheOatmeal and that marketeer scammer Inman.
But that was a very specific case were the narrative was established by Inman(the viral marketeer). It also wasn't just TD that used that narrative of "poor helpless cartoonist VERSUS the evil rich empire of FunnyJunk".
This story has fuck all to do with TD buying a narrative.
Get that stick about Mike, out of your ass.
You sound retarded again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You don't know that any publicity is good publicity?
I rarely ever scroll down to the comments section on blogs but whenever I read an article on here I think "huh, I wonder what one of the trolls will do with this one." and then scroll down looking for you! Easy to find given it's a different colored text I'm scanning for to click on.
If anything Mike and the rest of the crew should thank you! You are improving the community here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
■ Writer spends two years writing a book.
■ Writer spends another two years trying to get a publisher to look at it, never mind read it.
■ Privileged woman gets $3.7 million for writing a book that doesn't exist yet.
@ Gawker
""Dunham exists in a navel-gazing bubble of privilege where one's mother simply has a nutritionist.""
Well said Gawker, well said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justified
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given she has to sell way more than $3.7m worth of books, can you really blame her for attempting to pull 66 pages worth of proposed contents and samples of said contents? Also, this just gives her way more publicity and think she knows (and probably doesn't care) just how love/hate she is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, she doesn't, unless she has an unusual deal with her publisher. She doesn't have to sell a single book. Her publisher has to sell that many books to recoup, of course, but she gets to keep the advance regardless (unless she fails to produce the work on schedule).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dunhams laughing all the way to the bank
Second, Lena Dumb-Ham is probably delighted at Gawker's subsequent lambasting of her. In her world of self absorbed, elitist, fat-chick-lit, neo-feminist "comedy" the attention, no matter what kind, will only help her.
And I've got nothing against her. Live and let live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]