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
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.