Two Famous Journalism Institutions Shame Themselves By Not Standing Up For Basic Fair Use

from the awful dept

Two of the most respected and forward looking schools for journalism are the Knight Center for Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin and the Poynter Institute. I've long been a fan of both, but I'm now quite disappointed in both of them too. Last week, we had a few stories concerning a woman named Teri Buhl, who (to put it mildly) had some "unique" (and, by that we mean "totally wrong") legal theories concerning whether or not someone could quote her public statements on Twitter, as well as basic copyright and fair use rules. By the end of the week, she was threatening to sue us and others as well.

We are familiar with our fair use rights, and we think such rights are an important part of the law. In fact, fair use is frequently cited by courts as one of the key "safety valves" that ensures copyright does not violate the First Amendment. Fair use is of utmost importance in the act of journalism, and historically, news organizations have been some of the most zealous defenders of fair use. Section 107 of the Copyright Act explicitly calls out "news reporting" as one of the key areas where fair use applies. Given that, one would hope that these two giants of journalism education would stand up for fair use.

But last week, both failed to do so.

Both the Knight Center and Poynter wrote stories about the whole Teri Buhl saga. Both of them included the key screenshot of her Twitter profile, where she declares that "no tweets are publishable."
However, both Knight and Poynter have since modified the image in their own postings, with both admitting that they did so after Buhl told them that the image in her profile was covered by copyright and that they did not have permission to publish it. This is hogwash. The whole point of fair use is that you do not need permission. That's what fair use means. If you needed permission, you are not making use of your fair use rights. And yet, both the Knight Center and Poynter caved immediately.

This is problematic in a number of different ways. First, many journalists look to both the Knight Center and Poynter for leadership on ways in which journalists should act. Providing this kind of example runs entirely counter to the kinds of things they should do and the kinds of things they should stand for. They are teaching the wrong lesson. They're teaching a lesson that says "journalists should give up their fair use rights." Second, they are giving Buhl more ammunition. In various comments around the web, she has been pointing to these moves as some sort of evidence that she is correct and those using the image are violating her copyright. She is wrong. For respected journalism institutions like Knight and Poynter to cave and give her this kind of ammo is simply shameful.

Yes, there may be bigger or more important fights, and lots of organizations decide to cave in the face of bogus legal threats, rather than have to deal with them at all. But, people look to Knight and Poynter for leadership, and this is case where both failed to provide leadership on a key issue that impacts the First Amendment in a very real way. As someone who has had tremendous respect for both organizations, they both have lost a lot of credibility with me. If they're unwilling to stand up for our basic rights on something like this, what else will they cave on? Perhaps it's time for other journalism institutes, which actually have some principles, to step up and take the mantle as true leaders on these issues for journalists, because Knight and Poynter have failed to live up to their own principles.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 3:53am

    Off Topic: CFAA and DMCA

    Folks, i've just got an idea on how to turn CFAA and DMCA on their heads to promote access to the information instead of restrict it. Something like GPL use copyright law to turn it on it head and grant more liberty.
    Suppose somebody let's call him P makes copies of DVDs for backup purposes
    and then publishes a web page with links to these movies.
    The links are password protected with WEAK password.
    So a potential downloader have to break/guess the password to download a movie.
    The potential downloaders will be breaking the law breaking the password and downloading the movies form this site, however they can be confident that P will not sue them.
    However to accuse P of copyright violation the accuser will have to break the CFAA and DMCA laws too, and this action will invalidate the evidence against P.

    What do you think?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 4:09am

    Techdirt, publication of this comment shall be construed as a licensing agreement from me to you over my intellectual property. As part of the license, you agree to the following: you agree to pay me $500, and you revoke your free use rights on this comment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rentn.org, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 4:20am

    Anonymous Coward, having read your comment, we realize that we came into this thread to post that same snarky comment which we developed in out labs. We demand Techdirt immediately take down your unlicensed use of our intellectual property.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mark Murphy (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 4:34am

      Re:

      Rentn.org, it has come to our attention that you are making illegal use of our trademark, "snarky". Our trademark application covers its use in "an arrangement of black and white pixels", and your comment is clearly such an arrangement. We demand that TechDirt immediately take down your unlicensed used of our intellectual property.

      And, to those who are thinking about replying, pointing out their patents on pixels (or the colors black and white, or on the English language), please be advised that we possess significant second-strike capability.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Kode, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 4:46am

        Re: Re:

        Unfortunately the comment uses the colour #333333 not black (#000000) so your trademark may not apply

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 2:12pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          #000000 is not black.

          Black by definition is the absence of all color. And white is by definition the presence of all color. There is not an electronic device in existence that is capable of rendering pixels in either of these colors. Therefore, this patent is meaningless anyways.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 5:26am

        Re: Re:

        Kind Sr. you are infringing on Adobe's Pantone's patents and if in Europe databases copyrights, specially if your black is a PANTONE Black 6, you may also be infringing on Kodak's patents for individual luminance- and chrominance-sensitive elements.

        http://www.google.com/patents/US3971065?hl=en

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 5:51am

        Re: Re:

        Sorry, but I own the patent on second-strike capabilities, so, as compensation, I shall see you in court first thing next Monday in East Texas.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 5:59am

          Re: Re: Re:

          But I own the concept of "first-strike capability, by being the last remaining member of the founding of the FBI, thus you owe me (inflation-adjusted) $3.3trn. Please pay this by the end of the current tax period, as I feel generous, and also need a massive pay-raise form working in Wal-mart.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Watchit (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 6:34am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'm afraid that I own a patent on all litigation, ever. Fortunatly my licensing fee for the right to sue is a mere $40k per law suit, as well as $10k per working hour by all lawyers under your hire. And let's of course not forget the licencing fee for my patent on procedures and methods for commencing and holding court proceedings, that will require a small number of payments equal to $1million per day(s) of hearings.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    FritzMuffknuckle, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 4:33am

    Quotes from her blog post yesterday:

    TreiBuhl idea of the day:
    "I think we need some case law to define when online bloggers or journalist can lift other people’s reporting, ideas, photos."

    A cry for help:
    "I could also file a federal copyright infringement suit and sue for thousands in damages. If I have any readers who are copyright lawyers and want to take the case on contingency I’ll gladly you offer 70 percent of what you can collect."

    We are so mean:
    "What these tech bloggers have done this week is more than report a story – they’ve taken my product, tried to dirty it up just because they didn’t agree with my notion of how anything I do on twitter can or can’t be used, and tried to limit a revenue stream."
    Never mind the huge gap between her notion and the law...

    Her blog post. Any bets on how quick she turns comments off?:
    http://www.teribuhl.com/2013/02/10/about-that-twitter-thing-i-did-that-has-tons-of-techies-mad-at- me/

    Oops... I stole some of her words. Lawsuit in 3, 2, 1...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 2:33pm

      Re: Quotes from her blog post yesterday:

      Dissocial Personality Disorder, it is characterized by at least 3 of the following:
      • Callous unconcern for the feelings of others;
      • Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations;
      • Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;
      • Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;
      • Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment;
      • Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 2:41pm

      Re: Quotes from her blog post yesterday:

      > Any bets on how quick she turns comments off?

      She does't have to. I just put a comment up about how absolutely horrendous her writing skills are (subject-verb agreement throughout the article is non-existent) and it comes back with "Comment awaiting moderation".

      So my guess is she's moderating out anything that's even remotely criticial of her, as I'm sure she will my own comment, and that leaves her with no comments at all.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 4:43am

    two points cometo mind

    a) would Buhl respect the rights of others, on their say so over copyright, or would she use whatever she wanted in a story? i suspect the latter,

    b)the only way i can see this ending is if either she carries through with her threat and sues someone (Techdirt?) or someone (again, Techdirt?) call s her bluff and sues her for bogus claims or whatever they could sue her for.

    as for Knight and Poynter, perhaps the best thing for them to do is reexamine what they did and if they still think they have done right, take back seats now as far as standing up for journalists and fair use, before someone calls them to task!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 5:46am

      Re:

      a) Her entire perspective on copyright law is from a running court case where she is being prosecuted for copyright infringement. She likely is upset about it and has swung from the pragmatic laissez-faire copyright we treasure here to a very strict censorship right which lack any grip on reality. So I would guess she is self-censuring a lot after having been found guilty in first instance of the court and thus is likely to overburden copyright holders with pleas for use.

      b) I think the running case she is part of, will be just as important. Let the claims fly and let the courts rule on the validity of the claims. You will no matter what have a judge shape her perception of copyright. For better or worse? It all depends on the judge and how she reads it.

      As for the universities, they treasure another value higher than who is right or wrong in the eyes of the law. That value is the respect for the opinions of the people in the news-story: If you treat your sources or potential sources like crap you loose the possibility of getting exclusives and first reportings in a case. The less of the controversial subject you leak in an article, the more likely it is that both sides will be willing to try and influence the story!
      It is horrible for the reader, but it will give the scent of journalistic integrity to the parts in the story.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jesse (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 8:50am

      Re:

      I think we need to be nice to Buhl. IMO Bennett had it right when he described her "cray cray" and if she starts running around with a sawed off shotgun I don't want anyone here to be on the list.

      Offer her a snickers or something.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9-Oxkqbjpw

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 4:53am

    I hope they aren't paying the lawyers who suggested that course of action, if they are they really need to get their money back.

    First CNET, and now these two, this year is shaping up to be one that will hear the death knells of the credibility for a number of 'professional' news groups.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      sysadmn (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 6:31am

      Re:

      It's not necessarily a failure on the part of the lawyers.

      It's possible the legal advice they got was, "No, she has no basis for this threat. If you don't take it down, here's what it will cost to prove it."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        That One Guy (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 2:31pm

        Re: Re:

        Then the journalists should have replied with 'And how much will a hit to our credibility for folding on this cost us long term?'

        Because while the legal fees short term might have been higher, news outlets live or die by their credibility, which makes it essentially priceless, and moreover, much harder to replace.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 5:21am

    Teri Buhl...

    ...shit, am I the only one to think that's a fake journalist ? :D

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Capt ICE Enforcer, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 5:22am

    Omg Baby

    OMG. About to have my baby 6 weeks early. This rules. Oh yeah. Shame on them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    The Old Man in The Sea, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 5:27am

    Teri Buhl - writes wubbish and gets no comments

    Title of entry:

    About That Twitter Thing I Did That Has Tons of People Mad at Me

    Followed by lots of waffle but the interesting thing is that it ends with

    No Responses to “ About That Twitter Thing I Did That Has Tons of People Mad at Me "

    I couldn't even get up the energy to read past first paragraph as it was so "woe is me" and "I am so misunderstood". My eyes just started glazing over.

    Even the jackasses here are more interesting in their trolling than she is in her writing. My grandchildren appear to have more interesting and intelligent speech patterns and they are only two and four.

    Note to self, don't read any more of her stuff, it kills the mind and leaves your eyes bleeding.

    The above is an opinion, my opinion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rabbit80, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 6:05am

      Re: Teri Buhl - writes wubbish and gets no comments

      "The above is an opinion, my opinion."

      Ah, but will you sue me if I publish it?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        The Old Man in The Sea, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 1:33pm

        Re: Re: Teri Buhl - writes wubbish and gets no comments

        Why would I want to sue you if you publish my publicly stated opinion? Enjoy and use to your hearts content.

        I only have one to whom I will have to account for my words and at least He judges rightly.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 6:54am

      Re: Teri Buhl - writes wubbish and gets no comments

      I'm hoping for one of Techdirt's traditional line-by-line dissections of that article.

      For an added bonus, look near the bottom of the about page there too.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Chad Miller, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 6:56am

      Re: Teri Buhl - writes wubbish and gets no comments

      I thought about posting a comment along the lines of "I thought professional journalists were supposed to be literate" but then realized that I'm dealing with a litigious crazy person and it probably wasn't worth the effort.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        techflaws (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 7:35am

        Re: Re: Teri Buhl - writes wubbish and gets no comments

        You should be protected not only by the 1st amendment but by said illiteracy on her part ;)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Chad Miller, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 8:13am

          Re: Re: Re: Teri Buhl - writes wubbish and gets no comments

          Well yeah, but then I assume she just deletes the comment. I think if I did want to pick on her, I'd post it somewhere else and possibly link her to it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 10:29am

      Re: Teri Buhl - writes wubbish and gets no comments

      No Responses to “ About That Twitter Thing I Did That Has Tons of People Mad at Me "

      I went to that site and I found these gems:
      Mark’s little post caught the attention of a tech blog I’d never heard of, called TechDirt, and they took the idea of suing over copying people’s words/ideas or photos people put on twitter as a complete affront to their way of blogging.
      I make money as a journalist off words and facts that I creatively put together to report and educate readers. This is my work product found here at teribuhl.com, any of the other publications I write for or on twitter. I don’t think it’s ok for bloggers to take my ideas/news analysis and copy them onto their sites with out a link and credit back to my work regardless of if it’s 140 characters or a whole paragraph
      And there a bunch more of these semi-derogatory references to "blogs" and "bloggers" on her blog post.

      Not sure about anyone else, but I consider an unemployed self-proclaimed "journalist" whose most recent writings seemingly only appear to be on a blog site to be a blogger.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 5:33am

    Yes Mike they legally could have left the image in place. But sometimes it's about honoring other people's wishes. I know you don't understand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      McCrea (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 5:40am

      Re:

      Accurate reporting is unbiased.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 6:26am

      Re:

      But sometimes it's about honoring other people's wishes.

      She is the subject of the story, using bogus legal threats to have a story about her censored.

      Like it or not, this is a news story, and she doesn't get veto rights over it. Her tweets are an accurate account of what she said/did. They are an important part of the story.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 10:30am

        Re: Re:

        But copying an image of her twitter page isn't really critical to the story.

        I mean, you can say what she did and tell the whole story. I can see acknowledging her wishes not to post a photo of her along with the story, while maintaining accuracy and completeness in the story.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Mr. Applegate, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 11:37am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "But copying an image of her twitter page isn't really critical to the story."


          How do you figure that? The image shows her claim that she 'No tweets are publishable". That seems pretty critical to the story to me, especially when it could be changed at any time.

          Because if you don't post the proof I can tell you the next complaint: "I never posted that".

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          That Anonymous Coward (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 11:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Fine lets sub in her pics from Google Image where she appeared on TV and puts her breasts on display over and over in an attempt to use her sexuality to distract from the simple truth she is batshit crazy.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 7:10am

      Re:

      Why would anyone honor Teri's wishes?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Davey, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 7:19am

      Re:

      Yeah, they could have just done what she wanted, if she'd asked politely. Instead she put up a totally bullshit copyright threat. Turning the other cheek is a great theory, but sometimes it's more important to uphold the rights of everybody instead of the non-rights of a bogus non-journalist.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      techflaws (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 7:37am

      Re:

      I know you don't understand.

      Says the guy not honoring people's wishes he would stop posting braindead postings like this.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 9:20am

      Re:

      First Rule of the Internet: You will be offended.

      If you don't like it, don't use the Internet.

      And don't even get me going on the 34th Rule of the Internet.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      weneedhelp (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 9:30am

      Re: But sometimes it's about honoring other people's wishes.

      Oh you mean like when Mike asks you guys not to puke all over the comments and then you continue to do so.

      I know you don't understand.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ChrisB (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 9:44am

      Re:

      I'm totally with you. When a large oil companies "requests" a reporter not post images of an oil spill, or leaked company memos, they should honor those wishes.

      Journalism. Its built on respect.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 3:01pm

      Re:

      Free speech comes before doing people favors.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 5:07pm

      Re:

      If I wished that you'd jump off a cliff, would you honour my wish?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 5:36am

    On record or off record?

    In various comments around the web, she has been pointing to these moves as some sort of evidence that she is correct and those using the image are violating her copyright.


    I wonder if she got clearance to go "on record" and report their moves on various other blog and comment sites?

    This woman is a prize plonker.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mr. Applegate, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 5:57am

    Yes, there may be bigger or more important fights, and lots of organizations decide to cave in the face of bogus legal threats, rather than have to deal with them at all. But, people look to Knight and Poynter for leadership, and this is case where both failed to provide leadership on a key issue that impacts the First Amendment in a very real way. As someone who has had tremendous respect for both organizations, they both have lost a lot of credibility with me.

    I can't see much that is more important to a journalist than fair use.

    I mean without fair use imagine Microsoft yanking a story put out by a reviewer about Windows 8 because it wasn't flattering. "Sorry, we didn't authorize the use of "Microsoft" or "Windows 8" or "Redmond"."

    What if a journalist couldn't report on an interview with Tim Cook, until Tim Cook authorized the story. "We insist that you take down the story of your interview with Tim Cook, it was an "Off the Record" interview and we now assert our rights and insist that you retract your story."

    In order to publish that movie review better get it cleared with the producers of the movie.

    Where would TechDirt be if it had to clear the latest Prenda story with John Steele before publishing. "Dear Mr. Steele, we are publishing a story on you and your business interests Prenda Law et al. We would like your permission to use your name, business names and publicly stated positions and opinions in our article. Do we have your permission to do so?"

    Quite frankly it is bad enough when you have suits at CBS dictating what stories can be published on CNET, so now you not only need to get it by the bosses, but by the subjects as well!

    Very short sided in my opinion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 6:01am

      Re:

      I wonder which laws she would hide behind were she to disclose those "sources" that say she is in the right on this...?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 11:45am

      Re:

      "I mean without fair use imagine Microsoft yanking a story put out by a reviewer about Windows 8 because it wasn't flattering. "Sorry, we didn't authorize the use of "Microsoft" or "Windows 8" or "Redmond".""

      You mean like how some labels were caught using DMCA takedowns to removed blog posts calling some musical work crap and such? It is already happening and not being challenged because everything is weighted to the copyright holders.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Mr. Applegate, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 1:39pm

        Re: Re:

        Yes, that is exactly what I mean!


        Just think now you can get a 'strike' just for saying "Microsoft Sucks!" Six of those and boom no internet!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    jameshogg (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 5:59am

    Look up any history whatsoever, and you will see that nobody is ever good enough to police free expression or even appoint somebody who can police free expression without falling into corruption.

    Yet, copyright believers seem to think that they can? What good is the fair use doctrine - assuming people are aware of what it allows them to do - if people still suffer chilling effects due to being unsure of their protection from such a doctrine?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Travis, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 6:11am

    This makes me sick

    I'm SO sick of this stupid copyright and permission culture. Ship 'em out the fracking airlock and have done with them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 6:29am

      Re: This makes me sick

      Too many lawyers and bureaucrats. They've taken over the creative side of free speech (music, movies, books), and now they're working on the news reporting side, too.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 7:03am

        Re: Re: This makes me sick

        They have taken control of the output of creative people. Lawyers and bureaucrats specialise in getting other people to tell them what to say and then claiming it as their own ideas.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2013 @ 11:28am

      Re: This makes me sick

      I shall call you Javik from now on.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Steve R. (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 6:39am

    Media Cognitive Dissonance

    The media, depends on fair use and the free flow of information, yet they display a poor understanding of copyright law and attempt to privatize their content.

    For example, when SOPA/ACTA was running "hot" as a National issue, FOX News had a panel of so-called pundits discuss the copyright law. What floored me, was the call for compromise. Not once was it mentioned that copyright has grown ever "strong". But piracy has. So the obvious implication by the word compromise was the continued trend towards an ever stronger version of copyright. The logical approach of comprise; to restore copyright to its original intent was never raised.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Davey, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 7:28am

      Re: Media Cognitive Dissonance

      Not to sound like an old fogey, but we basically don't have news media anymore. We have overpaid corporate hacks doing the bidding of their masters, who are 99% as corrupt and irresponsible as any Wall Street hedge fund manager. Just the universal media of the term "piracy" is all the evidence you need.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    bobb, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 7:28am

    Hogwash? Ask Ashley Brilliant

    He's been successfully copyrighting very, very short works for a long time. The courts have stood by him.

    What is amazing is how little you understand about fair use. It's not a right to reproduce anything you like, even if you keep the amount small. It's designed to encourage discussion. So you can reprint snippets FOR DISCUSSION as long as you don't damage the market for the original.

    But reprinting everything removes the need for anyone to go to the original.

    Quit getting your legal theories from the department of wishful thinking at Big Search and start looking at the actual case law. It's bad enough that blogs like this egg on people like Aaron Swartz and Jammie Thomas to get into legal binds with horrible consequences. At least spend some time looking at reality.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashleigh_Brilliant

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 7:36am

      Re: Hogwash? Ask Ashley Brilliant

      You are wrong, as always.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 7:58am

        Re: Re: Hogwash? Ask Ashley Brilliant

        No, he's right. He usually is. Just as AJ usually is. It's why people on TD get angry at them and censor their posts. They have difficulty handling truth and reality.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 8:57am

          Re: Re: Re: Hogwash? Ask Ashley Brilliant

          Actually, he isn't, and neither are you, AJ. Trollish to the last and stuffed full of the propaganda and lies the industries spout all the time. They're nice legal theories (for the monopolists), but have little to no basis in fact.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 9:02am

          Re: Re: Re: Hogwash? Ask Ashley Brilliant

          Hahahahahaha...cough hilarious comment

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 11:26am

          Re: Re: Re: Hogwash? Ask Ashley Brilliant

          If you think Bob is correct about anything, you need professional help.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      techflaws (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 7:40am

      Re: Hogwash? Ask Ashley Brilliant

      At least spend some time looking at reality.

      Right back at ya. Gonna be fun to see you whine when she fails miserably in court (should she actually ever go through with suing Techdirt).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 7:52am

      Re: Hogwash? Ask Ashley Brilliant

      So you can reprint snippets FOR DISCUSSION as long as you don't damage the market for the original.

      So than you agree that Techdirt's reprinting the screenshot of Ms. Buhl's silly claims on her Twitter profile for the purpose of DISCUSSION was entirely Fair Use and Ms. Buhl's attempts to quash the stories with claims of copyright on the background picture are completely bogus.

      It's nice to know you can agree with Techdirt now and than and that your bias hasn't totally blinded you, bob.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 8:00am

      Re: Hogwash? Ask Ashley Brilliant

      "He's been successfully copyrighting very, very short works for a long time."

      Notice the difference? Short works. Tweets are NOT short works. They are literally a sentence, if that. In no way is that a short work.

      "The courts have stood by him."

      All well and good for Ashley Brilliant, the same does not apply to Teri Buhl or any of her made up on the fly legal ramblings/theories regarding her tweets.

      "What is amazing is how little you understand about fair use."

      What is amazing how little you understand about the article or the situation in question. Not too mention life or reality in general. But that's par for the course with you bob.

      "It's not a right to reproduce anything you like, even if you keep the amount small."

      Actually, that is very much what fair use is. the right to reproduce anything you like, as long as its usage isn't just limited to reproduction. You can reproduce it and then discuss said reproduction and the reason for reproduction (like showing a scene of a movie, then discussing the director's usage of certain camera angles or music in the scene, etc.)

      "It's designed to encourage discussion."

      No, it designed to ALSO encourage discussion, but fair use has numerous uses besides encouraging discussion. It can be used for teaching purposes, parody purposes, etc.

      "So you can reprint snippets FOR DISCUSSION as long as you don't damage the market for the original."

      [buzzer sound] Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. For someone telling others they don't understand fair use you sure do an atrocious job of understanding it yourself.

      "Quit getting your legal theories from the department of wishful thinking at Big Search and start looking at the actual case law."

      Ah yes, wouldn't be a bob comment without a shot at Google, which has absolutely nothing to do with the article or situation in question.

      But suffice it to say, the legal theories proposed in the article regarding fair use aren't theory, they're legal fact. You'd do well to utilize Google search and maybe, but probably not, learn a fucking thing or two before you open your trap again. Which won't happen, because ignorance is bliss and stupidity is your forte.

      "It's bad enough that blogs like this egg on people like Aaron Swartz and Jammie Thomas to get into legal binds with horrible consequences."

      Also irrelevant to the article, but just fyi, Aaron Schwartz did what he did of his own volition and as a direct result of the actions of you and yours. Namely SOPA is what motivated him to become more active and outspoken against some of the copyright wrongs being done lately.

      "At least spend some time looking at reality."

      Wow. Coming from you the hypocrisy/irony of that sentence is so much I'm afraid I'm about to be crushed by the weight of both. Not even sure how you can stand it.

      In conclusion, stfu bob. You're an idiot and you are so wrong in everything you said that I don't know how you can believe any of it, but I'm sure you misguidedly do. I've said it before and I'll say it again, we so need an extinction level event to cull some of the stupid from the gene pool. That or Lion Day. Oh how I long for Lion Day. Also, don't EVER breed. For the love of all that is holy or unholy, don't procreate or attempt to. The world will be a better place if you abstain.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 9:11am

      Re: Hogwash? Ask Ashley Brilliant

      Discussing false allegations of Perceptional Property isn't fair use?

      ...My world view. It is ruined. Now I must go on a homioidal rampage. ...For the children, of course.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      JarHead, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 10:44am

      Re: Hogwash? Ask Ashley Brilliant

      For discussion, I need to visually highlight parts of a website to make my point clear to others. What should I do, do I hack the said site to put my highlights so I can tell others to see it on the original site? One wonders.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 1:20pm

      Re: Hogwash? Ask Ashley Brilliant

      He's been successfully copyrighting very, very short works for a long time. The courts have stood by him.


      Yes, you can copyright short phrases. But this is not about the copyright on short phrases. So... off topic.

      What is amazing is how little you understand about fair use. It's not a right to reproduce anything you like, even if you keep the amount small. It's designed to encourage discussion. So you can reprint snippets FOR DISCUSSION as long as you don't damage the market for the original.

      That's not entirely accurate, but even if what you said was accurate, we DID encourage discussion and we did nothing to damage the market for the original.

      But reprinting everything removes the need for anyone to go to the original.


      We didn't.

      Quit getting your legal theories from the department of wishful thinking at Big Search and start looking at the actual case law.

      The case law supports us. As do a whole bunch of lawyers who have nothing do with "Big Search". And, since this has nothing to do with search why would we even ask lawyers who work on search stuff?

      It's bad enough that blogs like this egg on people like Aaron Swartz and Jammie Thomas to get into legal binds with horrible consequences.

      Yes, this blog, which said that Jammie Thomas should have settled...

      Do you only make shit up or do you ever actually have a point?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      jackn, Feb 13th, 2013 @ 9:02am

      Re: Hogwash? Ask Ashley Brilliant

      The fact that he was reporting (journoing) about her, seems to suggest fair use.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2013 @ 11:34am

      Re: Hogwash? Ask Ashley Brilliant

      Did the bullies called you "Bob" on high school Teri? I am sorry, but i simply can't fathom any other human being so stupid to think this joke of a journalist is right...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 8:27am

    "Who's the more foolish; the fool or the fool that follows him?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 8:35am

    Can't she change her name to some unprintable character (like the artist formerly known as Prince) or some unprintable string of characters (like th3 B!tch)

    Or are we to believe that her thought process generates a comment so exactingly perfect without any input from any external sources?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 11:59am

      Re: This one is rich...

      ""How do we expect journalist to do their jobs investigating issue of public interest, such as the parents role in enabling underage drinking and the local cops role in ignoring it, when we see this kind of pressure to first amendment rights." "

      Maybe we should be investigating how a grown woman was so threatened by her boyfriends child that she needed to destroy the parental bond between them by going public with things that should have been discussed privately.
      Has anyone come forward to admit they paid her to do this article she keeps talking about? She claims she was paid to do it and it would be lovely to see her back in jail for having lied to the court.

      While her insane ideas about copyright are fun, I think we should investigate her fully. As I said before I would have serious reservations about any media outlet using her, and having learned more about her I'd have to consider them unreliable.

      She keeps thrashing and calling attention to the fact she is crazy... and everyone who bends to her will looks that much dumber having kowtowed to her demands that have no legal basis.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Will, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 2:37pm

    Does this have anything to do with it?

    Anyone think this has something to do with it?

    http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2236638/agence-francepresse-inf ringed-on-photographers-copyright-in-landmark-twitter-case

    It appears twitter images are copyrightable (in some countries). Does she have a case?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btrussell (profile), Feb 11th, 2013 @ 2:45pm

      Re: Does this have anything to do with it?

      "Does she have a case?"

      Yes. An incurable case of stupid.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 12th, 2013 @ 1:48am

      Re: Does this have anything to do with it?

      It appears twitter images are copyrightable (in some countries). Does she have a case?


      We've covered that case extensively. Totally unrelated and totally different issues. No one's arguing that images aren't copyrightable. What we're saying is that this is fair use.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      jackn, Feb 13th, 2013 @ 9:08am

      Re: Does this have anything to do with it?

      All images are copyrightable and probably are copyrighted. Journo's are still able to use what they need for coverage under fair use rules.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2013 @ 11:58pm

    I hope she does sue

    She'll get her tochus handed to her very quickly if she sues.

    At the very least, discovery will reveal some very interesting things from her initial deposition--
    --what she hopes to gain from the suit
    --her medical records because she's likely delusional about this going anywhere
    --the last time she had a yeast infection
    --if she has a "I'm not crazy--my mother had me tested" t-shirt

    At the very least, she and Charles Carreon are a match made in heaven. He could take her case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This