ODBA Member Can Chart New Legal Territory
By Greg L | 3 March 2008 | Blogs | 1 Comment
ODBA blog “Snapped Shot” got some premiere attention from instapundit lately as a result of the Associated Press’ (so far successful) attempt to shut the site down. While suffering a withering barrage of criticism for trying to shut down someone who was pointing out how AP photos are too frequently doctored or otherwise inaccurate depictions of the news, it seems that some folks are suggesting an interesting legal strategy to help defend Snapped Shot’s criticism.
The purpose of the use is aimed specifically at the purpose of the work - i.e., AP tries to pass off faked, altered, unrepresentative photos as their own little contribution to bending world opinion to support their philosophies, and SS points out how this is so.
- the nature of the copyrighted work is a photograph, disseminated to the world to support a story, or to simply show us “what’s happening.” If AP is intentionally showing us a false light, SS’s use is dead-on allowable.
- SS shows the entire photo - but that’s not the point. This provision is aimed at the guy who prints, not a quote or a selection of a book or article, but the entire book or article. In order to critique the false light being presented by a photo, SS must show the entire photo.
- finally, critique of the accuracy and the honesty of the AP photo will, if successful, have a negative effect on the market value of the photo, but this factor is always going to lose out if AP has to argue that they have a right to disseminate false stories and false impressions with their photos.
It would be rather cool to have an ODBA blogger expand copyright “fair use” protections. I think this is a good case, and Judicial Watch or the Electronic Frontier Foundation should pick this up and run with it. At the very least, discovery on this lawsuit would be fascinating. Who knows what attempts to fabricate news stories would be uncovered if a lawsuit was filed, and Brian Ledbetter’s attorneys had a chance to wade through the files at the Associated Press. I hope he has a chance to pursue this.
Regardless of a lawsuit, the negative press for AP has got to hurt. The last time BVBL was picked up by instapundit, I got up to 10,000 page views an hour which really put my server to the test. If this story got that kind of attention, which I’m sure it did, AP got a pretty big black eye today.
They deserve it.
UPDATE: To get an idea of how widespread the support is for Brian Ledbetter on this, check out this recent listing of blogs reporting on this at bydio.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
1 Comment
Views: 405
Loading ...
Sorry to be off topic, but Dolph had said something on 28 Feb that I felt really compelled to state an opinion about as a great injustice to the “other-side”. And I want people to read it and comment, so I’m bringing it forward in time. Everyone, as in the case of the topic of this current thread, builds an “image” of what they want they public to believe, either through deceit and manipulation, in the above case or stating only one side of an argumnent “as in a gender rights debate”. I think equal rights justice is also served by paying attention to the following injustice and then asking yourself if you really care. Your answer will determine if you are truely concerned for everyone’s welfare of just your own, gender, race, or ethnic group…
Dolph, a level playing field, cannot be had because not all humans are created “level”. We all have different abilities. The supreme court only guarantees, equal opportunities, not equal outcomes and results. A level playing field assumes everyone is equal in terms of skill and can compete at the same “level”, and “gender” should be a mandated advantage if your “numbers” are lower than the opposite gender. You cannot use one wrong to justify another wrong. Any PC handout or special consideration, protected minority status, etc is wrong, because instead of leveling the playing field it simply gives preference. It replaces people of all possible ranges of skills with people of “supplemented or preferred gender, racial, or ethnic group” skills based entirely on “numbers”. How can that possibly be a level playing field, unless you assume all people, i.e some women who claim this right to be equally smart? The problem is a social attitude one (I deserve more money and social benefits based on my gender, race, or ethnic group) Income and type of job is one of “choice” and level of education. The job you end up with is the job you choose, with it comes the salary you choose, and the results and entire human distribution over all the possible skill sets.
Michael said on 4 Mar 2008 at 11:02 pm:
I too support the female draft, and in all combat fields with all required to put their life on the line the same regardless of their gender. We are beginning thankfully to achieve that. No gender has a right to claim their life is more “special” or “precious” than another. The “Titanic” should never have happened the way it did. That one gender deserves more “life and liberty” than another is morally wrong. My daughters life is no more precious to me than my son’s life. I venture, equal opportunity is never claimed here, is it?
Also regarding the right or social requirement to pay the “bill” for dinner and a date, is equal opportunity claimed here as well? We will be free and “equal” when no more men are expected to be the “wallet” and “provider” for people to claim they deserve from another what they don’t earn for themselves, entirely based on gender. When this also is required, as well as the right of fathers to raise their children and receive child support equally, in “equal” numbers, not based on gender but on ability, skill and income, I will support the ERA.