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
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.