From the “things that make me laugh” department.
It seems the Guardian took exception to my use of this image (I suppose they haven’t found this one from Josh yet). I provide this exchange for a model by which others might refute such claims. This essay is also satire, just so you know. Email addresses and phone numbers are redacted as a courtesy and the exchange is ordered chronologically.
From: Helen Wilson
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 3:45 AM
Subject: Copyright Infringement
To whom it may concern
I am writing from the Guardian Syndication Department as it has been brought to our attention that you are displaying, without authorisation, the following image which is the copyright of the Guardian:
As this image is copyright of Guardian News & Media Ltd, you will need to remove the image from your website with immediate effect.
Please be mindful of the fact that if you wish to reproduce content, in full or in part, from whatever source, you need to secure the prior, written approval of the copyright owner, their publisher, or their agent. Failure to do so may involve legal action.
Best regards,
Helen
Helen Wilson
Content Sales Manager
Syndication
Guardian News & Media Ltd
Kings Place, 90 York Way, London, N1 9GU
================================================================
On 6 January 2014 16:18, Anthony <awatts@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
Dear Ms, Wilson,
Thank you for your letter. It falls under fair use, because it is used for satire and criticism. From Wikipedia:
Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work under a four-factor balancing test.
The article it is used with covers all three of the bolded items. Especially criticism, since Guardian reporters are part of the expedition under issue.
Further, the image is present on the Twitter feed of your reporter, and the feed header makes no claim of copyright. see: https://twitter.com/alokjha
The original source of the image: https://twitter.com/GdnAntarctica/status/412977161323036672 also has no Guardian copyright statement.
Given that the image is used under fair use practice, and that no copyright is claimed by the Guardian at publication, I see no legal reason to remove it.
Regards,
Anthony Watts
WUWT
cc: LS
===============================================================
Dear Anthony Watts,
I have noted your response and will update our records accordingly.
Kind regards,
Helen
Helen Wilson
Content Sales Manager
Syndication
Guardian News & Media Ltd
Kings Place, 90 York Way, London, N1 9GU
Touché
“update our records accordingly”. Very funny. Nice work !
AW: “Especially criticism…”
HW: “I have noted your response and will update our records accordingly.”
Ha ha ha.
Nice one! I do wonder exactly what records these might be, though. Perhaps a note to themselves to think twice before acting foolishly.
Ouch, that must have hurt them, I bet they thought that they could just bully you.
They may even have thought that they could gain something worth publishing from it.
Well Played.
“no copyright is claimed by the Guardian at publication”
Under US law and internation treaties (Bearne), copyright claims are not required for something to be copyrighted. As soon a original expression is fixed (saved), it is covered by copyright laws.
I do believe, though, that fair use does apply in this instance.
Pwned!
Bam!
Well played. Surprised that they caved so quickly. I would have expected more bluster and chest beating from them.
Way to go Anthony!
Lucky for them. As I think all their lawyers were off duty today. And even when no legs are to be had to stand on, they do charge like wounded bulls.
Still, decent of Ms. Wilson and all those high powered types in the meeting that concocted this quaint move to provide a great excuse to keep things top of mind a bit longer.
Now, as a news medium that may need to feature imagery themselves, let’s ponder precedent….
Oy, you bloody American Yankee denialist bastard, stop breaking the law!! We’re a big powerful newspaper you know and we’ll sue your ass into the next century if you’re not careful!!
Good afternoon, my British friend, as it happens, I’m not breaking the law. It rather surprises me that you haven’t educated your employees in such crucial matters as copyright law, but there we are.
Oh bollocks, you’re right. Well, better watch out next time because we’ve got folks like you on our black list of nasty organisations.
Happy hunting, my British Friend.
As a lawyer I can tell you that’s about as short a legal confrontation you will ever see. Good job.
Under current legislation I don’t think you have to display a copyright disclaimer when publishing. Copyright is granted to the author automatically. It is common to display such a message – if only to help people know who is claiming copyright. But it’s not obligatory any more..
However, it’s an obvious ‘fair use’, so the Grauniad hasn’t got a leg to stand on. I wonder how many bloggers they managed to suppress? It was worth a try…
They remember the adage “There is no such thing as bad publicity”
Always educational on this wonderful site
Helen Wilson isn’t a lawyer, I suppose her role is to push over people willing to be pushed over. I presume her “will update our records accordingly” was to note you’re a Yank and not a pushover.
Well, you can’t criticise them for their polite manner and helpful response!
They’ve resorted to the same tactics with regard to the use of an image that they apply to their Global Warming/Climate Chage meme.
They’re just one big bully.
And the consequences are the same for both.
Bilious bastards…
Very likely Anthony’s point on ‘criticism and parody’ will go over her head with respect to the what was the original intent of the Guardian’s articles, trumpeting global warming.
From: Helen Wilson
…..
I am writing from the Guardian Syndication Department as it has been brought to our attention that you are displaying, ……
==================
She probably stays up late at night sets her clock early every morning to read WUWT. LOL
It was brought to her attention? ROFLMAO
Another dedicated reader!
Tsk … seems rather thin-skinned, especially since they were also receiving free advertising (though I suspect not the sort of advertising image they liked).
Brought to their attention … hmmmmm … probably from one of those equally thin-skinned climate activists with their “thou shall not criticize” mindset.
Some true colors coming out!
Anyone wonder how they will fit a copyright reference into a twitter feed and how long it will take them to do it?
Yes, their side has no trouble updating records.
Joe Public says: “They remember the adage “There is no such thing as bad publicity””
Exactly. The Grauniad, by backing and participating in the expedition in various forms, has itself become part of the news. Therefore, use of their photo is commentary, and, though not flattering, has called attention to them gratis. This is largely good for them. If they’d persisted, however, the situation would deteriorate and they’d look like proper ijjits, as if they were ashamed that they’d participated and wanted it covered up.
If the image was posted on Twitter, does that make Twitter the rights holder? The image may not even belong to the Guardian, depending upon Twitter’s terms of use.
Regardless, it’s still fair use.
REPLY: Actually, if you look at the bottom of Alok Jha’s Twitter feed for the image, [ http://twitter.com/GdnAntarctica/status/412977161323036672 ] it reads:
© 2014 Twitter About Help Ads info
I was saving that in case they didn’t get it the first time. – Anthony
I’ve asked this more than once — who’s paying for this debacle (the rescue)? The US is sending a Coast Guard ship to rescue the rescue ship, so now my tax dollars are being used to save people from their own foolishness. Do the American taxpayers get reimbursed?
The Guardian weren’t exactly copyright-compliant when splashing the NSA’s confidential (and copyrighted) information over their front pages courtesy of Edward Snowden!
Very likely, Helen Wilson was told to go after you by someone in upper management who didn’t enjoy the p*ss being taken out of them by the whole world.
With these arguments you can publish the entire content from the Guardian at WUWT every day without legal consequences.
However publishing the entire Guardian content at WUWT would seriously jeopardize visitor numbers because this news paper is serious crap (LOL).
The Left being what their behavior has shown them to be over the years, up being down, white being black and massive ice being incontrovertable proof of global warming, don’t be surprised if you hear from the Guardian’s legal department. They will be full of huff, puff and British indignation with arguments based on archaic English Law. Or perhaps they will call upon death for apostacy under Iranian law. The Left always has to have the last word.
YOu can just hear the “oomph” from the body blow you gave her!
In any case to me it seems uncertain whether Guardian actually owns the copyright. Since both the Guardian journalists are in the picture they obviously did not take the photograph. If they used a self-timer all is well, but if they got someone to press the stud, then he (or she) owns the copyright, unless he has signed an agreement specifically transferring the copyright to the Guardian (and it has to specify whether the transfer is specific for use by the Guardian, or if it also includes re-sale rights). I have provided photographs to US publishers, so I know the rigmarole.
If Anthony is bothered again by Guardian I suggest that he ask for proof of ownership, since the circumstances means that there is reasonable doubt about it.
You would suppose that someone with a newspaper would be aware of the Doctrine of Fair Use. Helen Wilson’s communication shows that the Guardian seems to be deficient in some of the fundamentals of news reporting.
A two-legged stool cannot stand. hee hee hee
Nice!
The Guardian sinks even further. At what point will it not be a newspaper at all.
Very nice work Anthony, I genuinely liked your response. I think copyright issues bring out the worst in drama litigants, I don’t see how you can copyright a word or phrase in common usage nor a font associated with it. They are desperate. Rather like the ship, stuck in ice.
I always thought copyright was to prevent other parties claiming your work as theirs.
No doubts here about who was responsible for that work. Nice one.
By whom, I wonder … the list of the usual suspects, worrywarts, bedwetters, warmists, busybodies, etc. come to mind …
.
I have noted your response and will update our records accordingly.
Silly girl. What records would that be ? Dana’s?
Note well. They all read these skeptic sites. All of them. The BBC, ABC, Guardian, Sierra club, Tyndal centre. You name it, they read the skeptic sites. It’s how they plan their strategies and tactics.
Ryan Maue started using the term “Polar Votex” about 2 weeks ago. Now, the BBC et al are all using it.
Ironic that the Guardian is propped up financially by a car magazine.
I wonder how long it can continue.
Nice riposte, Anthony. Do you suppose that the Guardian went after anyone else with these demands/threats? Or were you the lucky one-and-only?
Give The Guardian credit. Although their initial notice was misguided, they listened to feedback and revised their assessment. Quite professional.
I appreciate that WUWT is produced and hosted outside the jurisdiction of English Law (bearing in mind Scottish Law is also separate from English Law). So my next question is irrelevant in this particular context but does the “fair use” defence apply to English Law? If, for example, Bishop Hill used the photograph could they legitimately chase him? Again, there’s a potential jurisdiction problem as he’s based in Scotland. Why am I wasting time on hypothetical questions?
It should be illegal to mention the Guardian anywhere.
It was just a pot shot and only goes to show to what depths they will sink in their desperation to retain control of the narrative.
Once again the thin narrow minds of meritocracy demonstrate to the masses who and what they really are. Nice one…again.
Anthony:
So who raised the absurd issue to begin with.
“Give The Guardian credit. Although their initial notice was misguided, they listened to feedback and revised their assessment. Quite professional.”
I’d more give her/them ‘polite’, and throughout, yes.
Professional would have possibly been not trying it on in the first place.
Unless the intention was a threat as a punt.
Can’t say the effort/reward ration in PR terms alone stacks up.
@rabbit +1
“The ruling has important ramifications for anyone seeking to rush to distribute photos during such events as the horrific tragedy that’s occurring in Boston right now. Anyone who is employed by (or in any way represents) a major media outlet – and who publishes photos without the correct copyright attributions – risks potential legal action.”
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/copyright-in-photos-posted-to-twitter-28121/
“There’s also the tragic fact that photographers like Morel routinely publish their photos prior to having registered a claim in Washington. By failing to register prior to publication, the remedies for infringement are so limited as be rendered virtually meaningless under US law.”
The school yard bullies have changed form, shape, their look..but they are still the same. Yet at the same time, “I’ll HUFF (Huffington Post), and I’ll PUFF (the type of pieces the media writes about the things such as this antarctic adventure..) and I’ll BLOW your Blog down!” (Blowing, smoke, up…the chimney. NO they can’t do that…it will destroy the world! Oh wait, maybe THEY are the source of the GoreBull Warming? (I.e., lots of HOT AIR?)
Who is reading The Guardian ?
WUWT Blog Stats as of this comment
171,373,124 views
How many from those at the Guardian?
Free knowledge from WUWT University reaches even those too blind to see.
Curious George says: “It should be illegal to mention the Guardian anywhere.”
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you and then you win. ” – Gandhi (attributed)
I think we’re seeing the beginning of the fighting phase so the end is near – for THEM!
Anthony,
Did you notice Ms. Wilson’s title as a “Content Sales Manager’? The ‘Copyright Infringement’ subject line was simply a negative ‘Value Proposition’ intended elicit a prompt response to sell you a license.
I suspect the photo in question was loaded into an image recognition/web search/spider engine the Guardian uses (perhaps a subscribed cloud service) for all the content they possess the rights to. These kinds of “solutions” not only match the content with in a specified threshold, but also run a whois search on your domain, and send an automated form letter, such as the one you’ve posted.
Only after your response did Ms. Wilson likely lift a finger in effort, by taking you off her prospect list. Repeated “infringements” may warrant further investigation, but for now I’d speculate you’ve had a brush with the Guardian’s automated shakedown, ehhhhmmm sales department.
Dearest Helen Wilson,
In regards to the following which you wrote:
‘Please be mindful of the fact that if you wish to reproduce content, in full or in part, from whatever source, you need to secure the prior, written approval of the copyright owner, their publisher, or their agent. Failure to do so may involve legal action.’
Does the foregoing mean that we can no longer quote Thomas Jefferson since his survivors may claim heir to intellectual property rights? Does the foregoing mean that we can no longer quote Mark Twain, or Winston Churchill: one of whom was a writer; the other undoubtedly utilized the services of writers? Does the foregoing mean that we cannot caution people by quoting from the words of dictators or being critical of such people? Does the foregoing mean that we cannot urge caution about individuals or their plans by quoting or using images from those very same individuals since those very same individuals may not want us to caution others about what they, or their plans, have in store for us. Does the foregoing mean that we cannot mock people for behaving in ways that are precisely identical (I know that ‘precisely identical’ is sorta’ redundant but I’m trying to make a point) to the very behavior that they condemn others for and demand that they change? Does the foregoing mean that if someone says something that is grossly and completely (I’m trying to make a point) in error we cannot quote that which they said which was completely and grossly (I’m trying for variety) in error? Does the foregoing mean…
Very funny.
I suspect you have a much larger readership than the Guardian which only survives by indirect government subsidies from the BBC and gov. ‘job’ adverts.
Tom J says:
January 6, 2014 at 10:46 am
===========
You just ruined the lady’s day!
Maybe another Josh sketch in the making?
Well done. Lovely post. Most encouraging 🙂
When I had my kerfuffle with Van Morrison, youTube said copyright laws are different in different countries. So I reposted it on Vimeo.
and it continues, the gift keeps giving.
how come I never get threatened? 🙁 sniff.
Oddly enough, the Guardian is currently in the top 200 of world visited website. But this is probably down to the Edward Snowden papers.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/theguardian.com
You can see from the graph when they got to this position. About 2/3 of the way through 2013
Leon Brozyna says:
January 6, 2014 at 9:39 am
…
Brought to their attention … hmmmmm … probably from one of those equally thin-skinned climate activists with their “thou shall not criticize” mindset.
Nah. More likely an automated system flags images on the net that have strong similarities to images placed in a database. Google Picasa has a facility for searching for uses of an image. As noted by others a copyright notice is not required to assert copyright. Under US law, if you create it, you own it, unless you’ve sold the rights.
Now we know quis custodiet ipsos custodes. 😉
Roy Spencer says:
January 6, 2014 at 10:54 am
how come I never get threatened? 🙁 sniff.
====================
Maybe because the spaghetti graph of yours (I hope I’m correctly attributing this to you) is the final blow to the modeling scam which is the corner stone of the “Cause” and they hope for mercy. None is deserved.
This posted on the telegraph
lostnavigator
• an hour ago
How about including the CO2 breathed out by the extra two billions humans added to the world over recent years
Could this be the reason C02 is increasing????
Well played, Mawson.
Hanzan, fair use has to be limited. You cannot simply copy articles wholesale unless there is a purpose. For example, a line-by-line rebuttal would warrant copying an entire article. Pictures are much easier to use casually and get away with Fair Use. In this case, it is clearly applicable.
They spelled “Guardian” correctly, quite an achievement. They were known in UK satirical circles for years as the Gruniad because of the awful spelling, in their articles.
Fair Use is one of the benefits of the DMCA. Prior to this there were a significant number of nuisance copyright lawsuits going on.
An example of a nuisance is my 9/11 video. Youtube took it down because of a claim by “loose change”, the “troofer” idiots who somehow think they have a claim on everything related to September 11. After pointing out my public domain sources, and that “loose change” is equivalent to the brown smear on my shoes after walking through a cow pasture, they replaced it.
Another ongoing copyright issue is dashcam car crash videos. In my personal opinion they should all be public domain since they document happenings on public streets. Some disagree.
Bloke down the pub says:
January 6, 2014 at 9:51 am
Very likely, Helen Wilson was told to go after you by someone in upper management who didn’t enjoy the p*ss being taken out of them by the whole world.
The very neutral phraseology of the complaint suggests not only that, but also that Miss Wilson fully appreciated the futility of the task that she was obliged to undertake. Her response, neutrality itself, tacitly indicates that she is sad that she is obliged to work for morons. I suspect the she is a rather nice lady.
She means thats your name on ” The Naughty List” for this years Greenpeace message from Santa
The Electronic Frontiers Foundation – EFF.org – works diligently against copyright trolls. A common MO is to convince their victims that financial might makes invincible right.
Somehow I don’t think it’s over. Even though it should be.
Just like the photoshopped image of the polar bear became the image of global warming fakery, the guardian is now the subject of ridicule and will be the poster child of Global Warming news fakery hence forth, the poster being the image itself.
The Guardian, what a pack of A-Holes.
Oh the layers of irony here. A phony claim of copyright infringement foiled by a citation of a phony legal authority.
HW: “I have noted your response and will update our records accordingly.”
Wonder what list you are being placed on. The Cheeky Yanks list, no doubt.
Anthony,
forgive the nitpick – your timeline is off somewhere:
However, great response.
Ah – no I see it now (timezones added):
Paraphrasing the Guardian: Bully & Bluff…..Bluster….Awwww, PiffleRot!
you’d think they would be aware enough to not draw more attention to themselves. I know, I know I am being sarcastic.
the prog / socialist /marxist has diminished brain function. they do not recognise threats in a helpful manner.
read this link to get the sad mental state of progs.
http://anonymousconservativ.ipage.com/blog/ read it all.
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
January 6, 2014 at 11:27 am
Oh the layers of irony here. A phony claim of copyright infringement foiled by a citation of a phony legal authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The legal authority is not phony.
An illuminating exchange. Is there any equivalent of fair use in Europe? I am writing a commentary type article for an endocrinology related journal in which I use a number of illustrative image to support a speculative hypothesis. I thought I needed to get permission from about 3-4 journals. Is there a European “fair use” to allow me to avoid having to do this?
Is it legal in the UK to falsely accuse one of copyright infringement?
Streisand effect. Your post of the letter contains a link to the story which will be visited again and again. I wonder if the Mawson family has a case for defamation by the Ship of Fools.
It seems to me that WUWT was reporting on current news within the scope of the stated purpose of the site as the header stipulates:
“Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology and recent news”
I would also suggest that the image was used for all of the above reasons, to wit:
life: they indeed trying to stay alive
nature: they were experiencing nature first hand
science: although perhaps questionable for this group, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt to their stated purpose
weather: again, they were experiencing weather first hand
climate change: deferring to their own mission statement
technology: or perhaps lack thereof
recent news: certainly recent and certainly news
UWT
Interesting job title she has – content manager – I know of others in the newspaper business who believe their business model is to provide content. I thought it was to sell advertising and any editorial content is to fill the spaces that the sales team can’t fill.
REPLY: Actually, if you look at the bottom of Alok Jha’s Twitter feed for the image, [ http://twitter.com/GdnAntarctica/status/412977161323036672 ] it reads:
© 2014 Twitter About Help Ads info
I was saving that in case they didn’t get it the first time. – Anthony
=========================================
Posted over the TWITTER copyright… and a company, who is not Twitter was jerking your chain about use of an item posted over Twitter’s Copyright…. <> You simply can not make this stuff up.
This is very funny indeed… Life is much funnier than comedy. Great rebut Sir!
“We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram” is a British reply to such legal bluster.
I have been wanting to use A lok Jha in a comment for some time. I’m Simple that way.
The “fair use” idea sounds interesting. Can an owner of a copyrighted work, make it well known to everybody, that they will never, under any circumstances, authorize anybody (outside themselves), to use ANY of their very substantial portfolio of copyrighted works, for ANY purpose whatsoever; no matter what ?? So don’t ask, but we will happily sell you a legal copy of any of our works, for a fair price, that you may ONLY use for your own personal enjoyment.
So they are saying, or will in detail, if you ask them, that no you may not even use your legally purchased copy of their work, for ANY of the usual “fair use” purposes. (educationally for example).
I ask because owners of the “far side” cartoons are very picky about their property, and won’t license its use for any purpose. I believe it was Larson’s personal wish, that his works not be so used.
I once paid good money ($75) for a very nice 8 x 10 or so print of a far side panel, which I had wanted to use in a lecture as a demonstration of the result of violating the Nyquist sampling criterion for sampled data systems. The FS people were very courteous in explaining their “no exceptions” policy, and understood my pupose also. So I happily paid for the panel, that I do show to visitors, sometimes; but I do wish I was able to use it. But I will honor their refusal; or I would never have purchased the print.
Climate “scientists” are masters at violating the Nyquist sampling criterion, in asserting actual relevance to any of their grossly under-sampled climate data plots. They under-sample to the point where even their purported “average” values, are corrupted by aliasing noise; specially when it comes to the spatial aspect of their data sampling; but even the temporal sampling is invalid. Maybe that’s why the results never make any sense.
Sitrep from the Aurora Australis:
The fog is persisting but there have been a few really awesome icebergs for us to look at when there have been breaks in the fog. It is now snowing. It is a real treat to look out my porthole and see fluffy snowflakes. The swell has picked up today and the ship is moving rhythmically across the undulating sea. Final preparations are occurring for Part 2 of the Casey resupply. Passengers have been briefed on the proposed plan and our new passengers had a quick overview of a Casey resupply. We are once again making good time and expect to arrive at Casey tomorrow night. Last night’s presentation was about the filming of emperor penguins for the television BBC series Spy in a Huddle. This was presented by one of our watercraft operators who spent over a year at Dumont d’Urville on this project. It was interesting to get an insight into what it takes to capture good quality and usable material. Happy birthday to our Captain, Murray Doyle. Cheers Leanne and Mark
I presume the plans are to keep the “new” passengers away from a bunch of irate scientists at Casey.
george e. smith says:
January 6, 2014 at 12:38 pm
If you teach in the US you can use it:
Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.
The US rules on copyright are probably the fairest in the world (other that the time extensions in the laws – from 14 years to practically indefinite).
The Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge chimes in:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Cambridge-University-researcher-Robert-Headland-says-Akademik-Shokalskiy-expedition-was-on-the-cheap-20140105134404.htm
I would have given them the proverbial finger and responded “See you in court, [redacted to avoid sinbin]hole!” Your problem, Anthony, is you have too much class!
@Bob Maclean
…If, for example, Bishop Hill used the photograph could they legitimately chase him?…
I think there is a confusion between civil and criminal law here. The way civil law works is that the Grauniad (or anyone) can chase anyone at any time. I could sue you for, oh, say, breach of promise if I wanted. All I would need is some money to start the case. However, with no grounds or evidence I would be very unlikely to win. Similarly, the Grauniad can sue AW for copyright breach at any time. They have threatened to do so over this publication, AW has given then a taste of his defence, and they have backed down.
Incidentally, The Grauniad is so called because one day the paper (famous for misprints) actually printed it’s own name like that – not on the front page, but as a page header to one of the inside pages.
John Law says: January 6, 2014 at 11:13 am
Couldn’t help noticing the typo in your comment (missing ‘a’)! The Guradian’s curse strikes again.
The Grauniad (John Law please note – GRAUNIAD) is allegedly bankrupt. What do rats do when cornered?
China’s trapped icebreaker preparing for breakout amid uncertain conditions:
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/835984.shtml#.UssZULTO2So
“The Guardian sinks even further. At what point will it not be a newspaper at all.”
Honey, that train left the station a long time ago.
Note that disgraceful rag,
CLAIMS : to champion liberty with it’s Wikileaks & Snowden type stories.
ACTIONS : The most anti-free speech British media group
with – 1. it’s ironically named Comment is Free.. The hyper censored readers comments.
2. constant bully of alternative views (political correctness angle etc.)
3.A serious article on whether skeptical views should be suppressed
4. and now attemts to censor satire.
5. Any evidence they have done same to activist websites using similarly tweeted photos .. No of course they didn’t.
The UK also has a ‘fair usage’ clause in the copyright act. In the UK it is called ‘fair dealing’, and there is a good summary of it on Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing_in_United_Kingdom_law
And it works too, because I used it against a large UK publisher.
Just an observation, Anthony… From her email signature it looks like Ms. Wilson is in Sales, not Legal. This could be the cause of her “rolling over” so quickly. Being in the Sales Dept., perhaps her job is to extract a license fee from people that re-use content (either change your website, or pay a little fee)? Maybe they have a department / small group of people that look for this kind of thing (looks like “Syndication” from her email signature?)
Anyways, it would explain why she folded so fast – no fee to be garnered from fair use.
I say, sir! Well played!
You took your stance, the Grauniad fast bowler came steaming in and bowled a seemingly rather nasty googly. With your accustomed aplomb you stepped back and cracked the ball straight over the bowler’s head, equidistant twixt long-on and long-off, clean over the boundary for a damned decent six.
Better played than anything the English Team have done in their recent and most lamentable Test Tour down Under.
(Think cricket.)
It doesn’t add up –
i think this is a later report…& u won’t find it on BBC, Guardian or Fairfax, who have shown no interest in the fate of the crews of the Xue Long or Akademik Shokalskiy for days:
7 Jan: South China Morning Post: Stephen Chen: Ships stay stranded as wind falters
The Chinese Antarctic icebreaker Xue Long, or Snow Dragon, remains trapped by ice after favourable winds failed to arrive.
Xu Ting, deputy leader of the exploration team onboard the ship, said no action could be taken yesterday.
“[The weather] is still dominated by southeastern winds, and the ice nearby [the ship] is still very dense,” he told China National Radio. The crew had expected a westerly wind to arrive today, but the wind now does not appear strong enough…
The US Coastguard icebreaker Polar Star, which was on its way to resupply the US Antarctic research station at McMurdo Sound, cut short a visit to Sydney on Saturday to assist the two stranded vessels and is expected to arrive early next week.
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1399314/ships-stay-stranded-wind-falters
greetings to the crews of both ships & best wishes.
Anthony.
Get in there my son.
Luvverly Jubberly
Very Funny, Anthony. I loved “update our records accordingly”. I would say that you have blown her out of the water with legal gunfire.
We are superior! We are the invincibles. We are members of the elite of the elite. We are the g people. (Please note little ‘g’.) Thanks Anthony for your efforts to expose them for what they are not.
Given that this picture was taken in Antarctica on a scientific expedition, I believe it is bound by the Antarctic Treaty Article 3 1c – scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and made freely available.
The Guardian is attempting to violate an international treaty.
It Doesn’t Add Up @ 12:41 pm
Fortunately for Turney and his gaggle the Casey base doesn’t have a tree for its scientists to throw a rope over.
Total victory will be achieved when you receive advice that Helen Wilson has been sent for counselling but “I … will update our records accordingly” sounds like a ceasefire notification pending surrender.
WUWT is an educational website. Gurdian is a state sponsored propaganda outlet. Let the Striesand effect continue.
Fools venture only where fools go.
In previous cases I have been told by attorneys that in the U. S. copyright must be enforced by the copyright holder. Failure to attempt to enforce it means loss of copyright. Thus, letters to anyone who may even be remotely thought to be breaking the copyright.
Lapdog media pushing censorship: the turkeys who love Christmas.
given the Guardian website dedicates a section to Dana & company, and calls it “ClimateConsensus-the 97%”, it’s clear they lack a sense of humour:
7 Jan: Guardian: Dana Nuccitelli: The Weekly Standard’s Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media’s climate failures
The Weekly Standard suggests we should gamble our future on the climate scientist who’s been the wrongest, longest
PHOTO CAPTION: The Weekly Standard’s Lindzen article was puffier than a drag from a cigarette – which Lindzen also denies cause cancer. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian
The conservative media may currently be the single biggest roadblock to addressing the threat posed by human-caused climate change…
Make no mistake about it; Lindzen has made a career of being wrong about climate science…
In my extensive research into Richard Lindzen’s climate papers and talks, I’ve never been able to find an instance where he ***predicted how global temperatures would change in the future, other than to say in 1989,
“I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small,”…
Today’s conservative media outlets are rarely willing to consider the scenario in which 97 percent of climate scientists and peer-reviewed research are correct…
(THE BIG FINALE)This Weekly Standard article exemplifies the problem with today’s conservative media, as they ironically help stick us with government greenhouse gas regulations rather than encouraging a potentially more effective free market approach favored by economists, including conservative ones.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
it looks like the Left are giving you the finger too, Dana:
China’s CNOOC to abandon wind, biofuels – source
BEIJING, Jan 6 (Reuters) – State-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC) is shutting down part of its renewable energy business, a company source said on Monday, as it looks to sell its wind and biofuels projects and shift its focus to coal-to-gas…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3548629?&ref=searchlist
reality:
6 Jan: Bloomberg: Dirtiest Coal’s Rebirth in Europe Flattens Medieval Towns
By Stefan Nicola and Ladka Bauerova
Across the continent’s mining belt, from Germany to Poland and the Czech Republic, utilities such as Vattenfall AB, CEZ AS and PGE SA are expanding open-pit mines that produce lignite…
The projects go against the grain of European Union rules limiting emissions and pushing cleaner energy. Alarmed at power prices about double U.S. levels, policy makers are allowing the expansion of coal mines that were scaled back in the past two decades, stirring a backlash in the targeted communities…
Lignite demand worldwide is forecast to rise as much as 5.4 percent by 2020, according to the International Energy Agency. At the same time, it estimates consumption must fall 10 percent over that period to achieve goals endorsed by EU and world leaders to hold global warming to 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century…
(LOL) Lignite’s revival is concentrating attention on the drawbacks of the fossil fuel and may actually bolster support for renewables such as wind and solar power, according to Barry O’Flynn, a director in the environmental finance and clean technology team at Ernst & Young LLP…
Now, Poland, which gets almost 90 percent of its electricity from coal, is stepping up use of the fuel as a way of ensuring energy security and maintaining employment in some of the nation’s poorest regions…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-06/dirtiest-coal-s-rebirth-in-europe-flattens-medieval-towns.html
Well Mr watts, the guardianistas read your blog. Who would have thunk it? 🙂
The Guardian? I wouldn’t wipe my arse with it.
And they say no one at the Guardian can read…
An image does not have to have a copyright notice on it. Your fair use claim is likely valid but your claims about the image being on twitter and the images not having a copyright notice are invalid and irrelevant.
“Back of the Net” Anthony. Nice one
* a football/soccer term for the benefit our our American readers
Gail Combs says:
January 6, 2014 at 11:49 am
I didn’t say the legal description was wrong; I said Wikipedia as an authority was phony. I use it myself because it is very handy. But try appearing in a legal pleading and citing Wikipedia on the proper application of any aspect of the law and see how far you get.
Stephen Richards says:
January 6, 2014 at 10:10 am
I have noted your response and will update our records accordingly.
Silly girl. What records would that be ? Dana’s?
Sounds like you are unfamiliar with formal exchanges Stephen. The phrase general means ‘fair enough, I will update the relevant papers” if the response is just ‘noted’ it means the opposite. It’s basic UK civil service terminology.
David Harrington says:
January 6, 2014 at 2:26 pm
““Back of the Net” Anthony. Nice one
* a football/soccer term for the benefit our our American readers”
Yes, as Toby Charles used to say with very little emotion and simply as a matter of fact, ” Oh, it’s in the back of the net”.
They only care because they are not winning the AGW argument.
Wow! Nicely done Anthony.
The representative of that fine rag, The Guardian, had not bothered to read the applicable law?
This ship-of-fools effect is worst than I thought!
(Apologies if this has already been covered in the long comments thread)
There is nothing in Helen Wilson’s response that necessarily indicates your legal kerfuffle with the Guardian is as brief as it ought to be. “I have noted your response and will update our records accordingly” is corporate boilerplate. It merely indicates that your response is entered into their legal record for possible future action. No backing down implied.
If they try a “our image is covered by UK copyright law, which the US recognises in international treaty” angle (and chase WordPress), here is an online fact sheet that might help you fend that off:
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others
Actual law:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/part/I/chapter/III
It would be incredibly stupid, petty and spiteful for the Guardian to pursue this claim. I suggest you prepare yourself accordingly…
Well played Sir. I think you just might have made another convert.
I’d take it down and have Josh draw you up a replacement.
I’m disappointed that “wizened Harpy Hag Propaganda Enabler” wasn’t worked in there somewhere under the widely recognized ‘Forrest Gump Precedent’ : “_________ is as _________ does.”
Nice one Anthony, if you had “the Grauniad” written on the banner, they would have taken you for every penny!
Meh. Lawyers gotta lawyer. ;->
Like a baws!
Geez, if it was that easy to convince her.
You should have gone for the double and told her about the global warming faud her site promotes.
“I have noted your response and will update our records accordingly.”……Oooooh creepy. Isn’t that a line from a Borg in a Star Trek episode. How they assimilate information to use against you later. That’s what it sounds like to me. Watch your back Jean-Luc…er Anthony.
““update our records accordingly”.
My response would be:
Dear Helen,
You are a twat.
Regards
Adam.
Helen’s LinkedIn profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/helen-wilson/45/8b0/951
She’s just a kid, doing what her masters told her to do. I think her masters see that there are consequences to taking on a widely read resource such as WUWT.
BTW, this response was excellent and probably Q takes Pawn, Checkmate:
Loved the straightforward, erudite, educational, but nonetheless, tongue lashing you gave the Guardian. It’s like a parent who has said to a recalcitrant teen who has insisted on his right to jump off the roof of the house to the trampoline below, “Because I said so, that’s why!”
Love it. 4 marks.
Just asking. Does the Guardian hold patents over banana and peanut butter milkshakes?
Wishing you all “sreken bozhik” on the day of the Macedonian Orthodox Christmas.
To be fair… I think a girl/woman who signs herself simply “Helen” is signalling that she is on your side, Anthony, and I suspect she was deliberately sending up her bosses.
Thanks for the article, Anthony.
It would also be instructive for the likes of Helen Wilson to inform herself on the liability of her employers when making what could be seen as vexatious claims. (Lord Monckton may chime in with his two bobs’ worth on the relevant legal processes in the UK.)
Helen should have first checked the page to which she provided the link to verify that it was in breach of Copyright and that the Copyright was actually owned by her employer.
Her linked-in profile says that she has 6 years’ experience in the field. She is no “newb”.
She should have known that her claim of Copyright was invalid and that there was no breach of Copyright as fair use provisions establish limited rights to copy. She should have been prepared to apologise.
She didn’t.
She also failed to make money from trying to sell stuff that her employer didn’t own.
Very nice of the Guardian to recognize when it has been told a fib, and jumped on the task of demanding the offense be removed, when it wasn’t an offense, and they they were, in fact, fed BS by someone wanting to have them screw with you. Cheers!
If one takes a good look at the flag, one may ask: “When did The Guardian lay claim to the Antarctica?” And/or: “When was the flag registered as a trade mark or design?”
Notice that there is no “Fair Use” in Germany.
EU also plans to outlaw criticism of its policies; see new working paper on their server:
„A European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance“;
(Link: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revframework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf )
European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation.
HELP!!!
I have created the line —
Global warming is to the NY TImes what space aliens are to The National Enquirer.
I would like to do a British version but my knowledge of British newspapers is limited.
Global warming is to the Guardian what space aliens are to ____________.
Could kind Brit help me fill in the blank?
This could also be applied to the BBC
Global warming is to the BBC what space aliens are to _____________.
Eugene WR Gallun
Chris Huhne has the most notorious record at the Guardian. 😉
Stephen Brown says:
January 6, 2014 at 1:13 pm
I say, sir! Well played!
You took your stance, the Grauniad fast bowler came steaming in and bowled a seemingly rather nasty googly.
A pedant writes:- No sir, it was either the Grauniad’s leg spinner who bowled the googly or the fast bowler bowled a bouncer. However, I do agree whole heartedly about AW’s response.
On a more serious note, having worked in the same building as the Grauniad, I did have the occasional contact with their office people, mainly on the fire escape stairs during the many fire alarm practices. They are all pretty normal people, just earning a crust. I tend to agree that Helen Wilson was probably leaned on by one of the political commissars in the organisation.
This was posted recently at the blog Turney posted to defend himself at Nature:
http://www.nature.com/news/this-was-no-antarctic-pleasure-cruise-1.14466
“This was a quest, not a scientific expedition. Like most quests, it was searching for an illusion and led by an illusionist. Like most quests it is not at all clear the expedition got where they thought they were going. As in a classic quest, the leader even got the party into pointless danger. But even by quest standards, this was more of a frolic than a serious trek. Monty Python’s “Holy Grail” comes to mind, but instead of being led by King Arthur, it was led by the Penguin. I hope the journalists, children and others easily impressed were well entertained.”
“I have noted your response and will update our records accordingly.” I bet they update them upwards to make warming look worse than it is.
I would have expect that the legal dept. at the Guardian would have been advised of this issues first, and then had the lady send a scripted e-mail to Anthony. It would be fair to assume they clearly knew the legal situation and wanted to shake up Anthony a bit, which backfired.
Nice job Anthony!
Private Eye in 1971 famously saw off a vexatious lawsuit, Arkell v. Pressdram.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye#Litigation
The Gruniad attempting to further ‘the cause’ through ignorance and twisting of established laws (including scientific ones) to squash embarrassing debate? Sadly for them, copyright law is not hypothetical.
CRS, DrPH says:
January 6, 2014 at 7:03 pm
CRS, DrPH says:
January 6, 2014 at 7:03 pm
Helen’s LinkedIn profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/helen-wilson/45/8b0/951
She’s just a kid, doing what her masters told her to do. I think her masters see that there are consequences to taking on a widely read resource such as WUWT.
—-
I also think that at least one person there is aware of the Streisand effect.
The Guardian has been very sensitive over the expedition, or tourist jaunt as some might call it.. On December 30 I suggested in their comments column that it would be wise to prepare to evacuate the passengers. Separately I suggested that “Global Warmists Ice-Bound” might make a good headline. That contribution was rejected by their “moderators”. Sadly the Guardian is so locked into the “veracity” of the IPCC agenda that no criticism of the panels views is permitted, humorous or not.
richard says:
January 6, 2014 at 10:14 am
Ironic that the Guardian is propped up financially by a car magazine.
I wonder how long it can continue.
===============================================================
And propped up by its parent group being registered in the Cayman Islands. The Guardian is a very strong critic of tax avoidance. Except when done by The Guardian Media Group.
Dr T G Watkins says:
January 6, 2014 at 10:49 am
“Very funny.
I suspect you have a much larger readership than the Guardian which only survives by indirect government subsidies from the BBC and gov. ‘job’ adverts.”
Not quite! More like direct subsidies from “Auto Trader.”
Adam says:
January 6, 2014 at 6:48 pm
““update our records accordingly”.
My response would be:
Dear Helen,
You are a twat.
Regards
Adam.
That could be dangerous. In the UK “twat” is a euphemism with sexual implications!
Eugene WR Gallun says: Global warming is to the Guardian what space aliens are to ____________.
I would suggest the Daily Sport (“London Bus Found On The Moon” etc).
“In the UK “twat” is a euphemism with sexual implications!”
In practice that actually seems more of a US usage (on those occasions when it is used). In the UK it is very common parlance, and usually used to refer to someone (usually male) as something like a cross between a twit and a prat – but meant with more contempt and derision.
The term has quite drifted from its origin, so much so that our prime minister appeared to be completely unaware. It is almost suitable for general polite society (the PM certainly thought so!), and the fact that the political correctness / feminist mob aren’t particularly interested in it is a sure sign of its normality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twat
.
Admad 12:50pm
Thank you — Global warming is to the Guardian what space aliens are to the Daily Sport.
Eugene WR Gallun
The #SpitonMawson Kops karry on. But the feet in the mouths make it harder to expectorate.
Heh!