It really doesn’t matter much to me whether I get attention or not, at least unless it happens to embarrass someone to drop a lawsuit or something. Regardless of the publicity, what drives interest is the content and I’d rather focus on content than what result that content may cause.

I see the copy right issue more for sites like Istock Photo, where I do purchase many of the graphics I use on STD. Now, if ya’ll lift that and do something with it, I would expect trouble, (from Istock).

But if a candidate puts out a photo, and obviously is not expecting to make a profit from the photo, just looking for the photo to be further linked to and posted to further the campaign it seems to me the candidate’s cause is being furthered.

Now as for the satire, if it is done in very poor taste, that can help the canididate also with the “victim factor”.

As a matter of fact BVBL is attracting quite a bit of attention, by having these “big shot” attorneys all over the Blogs case. They are “Building Your Fame”…. furthering your cause by “bringing more eyeballs” to your opinions…. You’re not making all this stuff up are you?

This came from a site that is part of Feder’s official campaign. What am I supposed to do, write Judy and ask if she minds whether I create parodies based on the content of her campaign website? This is pretty silly.

Now if I managed to dig up somebody’s personal MySpace site or something, and wanted to use one of their pictures from there, I could see your point and the wisdom of an apology. That’s not the case here. If this bizarre candidate posts really bizarre pictures of herself on her campaign website, she’s just begging for someone to make use of them. If you’re going to be upset at anyone, blame her campaign manager for this whopper of a failure to effectively exercize oversight.

Tony the Tiger for Congress? I don’t think so.

Give it a break.

Oops! Didn’t mean to rub salt.

“Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work under a four-factor balancing test.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law

[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTS of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but TO SUPERSEDE the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy….

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research [comment - this is for the WORK, in this case, the photo, not the SUBJECT of the photo].

Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Revised July 2006

Assuming you’re the person making demands, I believe this does fit the definition of fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. I also question whether you have legal ownership of the material in question. Should you believe that you have the legal authority to make such demands, I would request that your counsel send a formal cease and desist request to me at the following address:

BVBL
Attn: Greg L
9702 Dublin Drive
Manassas, VA 20109

I would have included a pithy trademark comment, but I have more respect for you than that.

[Ed Note: comment edited to remove objectionable content]

“© This photo is public.

Uploaded on Jul 27, 2006

See for yourself at http://flickr.com/photos/judyfederforcongress , and yes, I checked!