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
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.