My short legal kerfuffle with The Guardian and #spiritofmawson

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

“We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram” is a British reply to such legal bluster.

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.