You cannot be serious!…
Some bloggers have all the luck.
The Tulsa World is threatening a blogger for linking to the newspaper’s content and for reproducing portions of that content as part of fair use criticism. A letter from TW vice-president John R. Bair reads in part:
The Tulsa World copyrights its entire newspaper and specifically each of the articles and/or editorials at issue. The reproduction of any articles and/or editorials (in whole or in part) on your website or linking your website to Tulsa World content is without the permission of the Tulsa World and constitutes an intentional infringement of the Tulsa World’s copyright and other rights to the exclusive use and distribution of the copyrighted materials.
This is nonsense, of course. And it’s made worse by the fact that newspapers such as the TW do the same thing every day, i.e. comment on published material. So one can only suppose the management of the TW supposes First Amendment and “fair use” rights belong to professional journalists alone. Perhaps Bair needs a refresher on the Bill of Rights.
I called the TW and spoke to Bair’s secretary. She was unable to confirm this letter. Executive Editor Joe Worley did conform that a letter was sent to Michael Bates, the author of BatesLine.
What’s stunning about this letter? Take your pick. But I’m fascinated to know if Bair et. al. thought this would be a simple, under-the-radar attack on a pj-clad nobody? Is the management of the TW really this clueless? Perhaps. This ought to tell you something: You have to pay for much of the content on the TW web site.
The TW will lose. Bates will win. And that’s exactly as it should be.
UPDATE (11:25 a.m.): See this post by Outside the Beltway for relevant links about copyright law and fair use. Check here for 14 copyright tips for bloggers.
UPDATE (4:50 p.m.): TW responds.
Aside from the stunning ignorance from a newspaper about fair use, what’s amazing to me is how the World jumped on the wrong side of a debate about transparency and just keeps digging.
Here’s Bates’ devastating (and fact-based!) takedown of a World editorial on it’s conflict of interest in the airline “scandal.” No wonder they don’t want him using their own words against them!
If I were the World’s owners, I wouldn’t be suing Bates, I’d be hiring him. The guy got me interested in Tulsa politics, and I live 1,500 miles away.
a failed attempt
andrew cline at rhetorica.net carries out this echo-driven act of potential piracy: the newspaper complained that the blogger was quoting from/linking to them without their permission; cline picked it up & quoted the complaint (& linked to the paper, a…
a failed attempt
andrew cline at rhetorica.net carries out this echo-driven act of potential piracy: the newspaper complained that the blogger was quoting from/linking to them without their permission; cline picked it up & quoted the complaint (& linked to the paper, a…
S- Yes. I read every word of that post. It must be hell to have someone like that on yer ass
“I’d be hiring him”
I am highly complimented by this comment from “Sven Haagendaas” in response to Rhetorica’s post on the World’s attack: Aside from the stunning ignorance from a newspaper about fair use, what’s amazing to me is how the World jumped on the wrong side of …
Sneak’s wide world of Blogging 22
This series is dedicated to the proposition that Blogging is a prime example of the saying
Sneak’s wide world of Blogging 22
This series is dedicated to the proposition that Blogging is a prime example of the saying