4 ms·

Catchy title, but: " I used their images/video to make a point. I can see how the video could fall under Fair Use" Frankly I don't see at all how that would f

by tinco 13y ago

Catchy title, but: " I used their images/video to make a point. I can see how the video could fall under Fair Use" Frankly I don't see at all how that would fall under Fair Use, and The Times is absolutely right to C&D him. Also, "A statement of fact about a company is not a copyright infringement." No, but a statement of fact about a company that is not backed by public data is slander. NYT doesn't even claim that the reference is copyright infringement, the author just assumes that. edit: ok, I actually thought he had put a demo website online in which he used the images, so it would look like the NYT's page (but with lorem ipsum for text or something) but he just made an educational video of it, I can see that could be fair use. So I retract my absolute statement. (as should be done with absolute statements in general! (absolutely)) I still think the 'hundreds of hours' remark isn't cool, but perhaps the law is on his side there too.

lucisferre 13y ago
Could you elaborate on how or why it doesn't fall under fair use, or is this just an angrily expressed opinion on the matter?
- mashmac2 13y ago
  Fair Use under US copyright isn't cut and dry, to say the least. Columbia University has released a checklist to determine if a use is 'fair' or not. http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/fair-use/fair-use-checklist/ http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/fair-use/fair-use-ch... Note: I don't think it's been challenged legally yet, but it's certainly a fair piece of policy and a strong guideline, from a professor who is very respected in the copyright law field.
e40 13y ago
No, but a statement of fact about a company that is not by public data is slander. That doesn't sound right. Sounds more like divulging a trade secret. Slander is telling an untruth about someone.
- tinco 13y ago
  How can it be divulging a trade secret when he isn't in on NYT's trade secrets? I think it's slander because he does not know how many hours NYT spent on making it, he could be totally wrong yet he is stating it as fact. Anyhow it's an unfair comparison because NYT actually had to come up with this idea, he just had to replicate it.
  - mattdeboard 13y ago
    I think it's slander because he does not know how many hours NYT spent on making it You're confusing the legal concept of "slander" with the concept of "perhaps being wrong". For extra irony, by your definition of slander, you're guilty of it simply by accusing this guy of being guilty of it. edit: Whoops, by posting this I too am guilty of slander by your definition.
    - D9u 13y ago
      Actually, slander is spoken. When dealing with print, the term is libel.
      - lazugod 13y ago
        Why is the difference meaningful?
        zbyszek 13y ago
        I presume because the relative permanence of the printed word relative to the spoken, leading to its potentially greater exposure.
      - mattdeboard 13y ago
        I was going to point that out but it seems like such a trifling point to make when there's not even any defamation at hand.
    - tinco 13y ago
gluejar 13y ago
The takedown was for a video of the making of a technical reconstruction of a news feature. It was not a takedown of the reconstruction of the news feature. It's a little bit like a takedown of a paper airplane made of the new york times.
palebluedot 13y ago
No, but a statement of fact about a company that is not by public data is slander. No it is not.
- tinco 13y ago
  Oh ok
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - stonemetal 13y ago
    slander is spoken, the term you are looking for is libel.
    - bspatafora 13y ago
      Here in the US, it's very difficult to prevail on a claim of either slander or libel (vis-a-vis many European countries), thanks to the First Amendment. While NYT Co may (may) be in the right regarding their first C&D, I would be shocked if they were to prevail on the second.
      - messick 13y ago
        It's harder in the US than many European companies, because it's not slander/libel if the information is true. However, if the information is false, than the Times could have a case.
        MertsA 13y ago
        Only if the defendant knew it was false when they wrote it. It's not too easy to prove that in a lot of cases.
      - stonemetal 13y ago
        That is pretty much what I thought too. To me the first seemed like over reach but understandable, the second is just silly.
betterunix 13y ago
The use of copyrighted material for criticism or comment (e.g. "to make a point") is, in fact, considered fair use: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 Additionally, the video was educational (it demonstrated how to create something), further bolstering the claim of fair use. The NYT is entirely out of line with the C&D, and it is particularly troubling that a newspaper -- which frequently engages in fair use, frequently reproducing material as part of their journalism and their criticism -- would send such a letter.
- newhouseb 13y ago
  IANAL, but scrollkit appears to actually be a startup (judging from their about page), meaning that the video was more along the lines of a demonstration video of a product or even a advertisement than an educational video. My understanding of the rational for "fair use" is use for the benefit of the public good and explicitly not for the commercial purposes, this seems to me to be very commercial.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    Look at the actual definition of fair use. There is no requirement that the use be non-commercial, only criteria that include whether or not the use was commercial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
- a_bonobo 13y ago
  I disagree, this video was educational about his product, so there was a commercial interest behind it. As such, this isn't a fair use case; there have been cases in the past where copy-shops copied parts of books for educational purposes, but because there was a commercial intent behind it US courts ruled that not to be fair use. See: Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc., 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996). http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/fair-use/case-summaries/ http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/fair-use/case-summar... Of course, that one sentence they told him later to take down is a different thing I can't understand.
Ma8ee 13y ago
> No, but a statement of fact about a company that is not backed by public data is slander. That is not enough. It also needs to be untrue and it needs to harm the reputation of the company.
- anotherbadlogin 13y ago
  Even that's not enough. You have to KNOW it's not true when you say or publish it.
jimray 13y ago
I'm not a lawyer and my understanding of fair use seems to be about as poor as everyone's. What Scrollkit did, though, was tacky, plain and simple. They built an impressive product but are using someone else's work to try to promote it[1]. Is that illegal? I doubt it. But it's tasteless. And the smarmy "we did this in an hour" attitude is not only off-putting, it stretches the truth to the point of breaking. Anyone who's followed a "build a blog in five minutes" demo knows there's more to building something than just scaffolding -- Andre Torrez probably [said it best](http://notes.torrez.org/2010/12/learn-to-program-in-24-hours.html http://notes.torrez.org/2010/12/learn-to-program-in-24-hours...). There are plenty of ways they could have demonstrated their product without resorting to this kind of shallow mimicry. "Have you been blown away by the incredible work like the New York Times' 'Snowfall' or Pitchfork's cover stories? Want to build something similar yourself? We'd like to show you scrollkit." And then do a demo video with your own photography and reporting. Tells the same story without the shiteating grin. As it stands right now, though, they just look like they're jumping on a trend using someone else's work. [1] Disclaimer: I have friends who work at the Times, including ones that worked on Snowfall.
tripzilch 13y ago
> No, but a statement of fact about a company that is not backed by public data is slander. whether slander or libel or whatever, this article states how much time NYT spent on it: http://source.mozillaopennews.org/en-US/articles/how-we-made-snow-fall/ http://source.mozillaopennews.org/en-US/articles/how-we-made... so much for backing it up. the author stating he did it in an hour, might be true or a boast, that's a claim about himself not the NYT, doesn't matter if it's true or not. i can see how they can ask him to remove the video (and the author complied), but I really don't get on what grounds they can ask him to remove all mentions of NYT from his site.

by tinco 13y ago

lucisferre 13y ago

Could you elaborate on how or why it doesn't fall under fair use, or is this just an angrily expressed opinion on the matter?

mashmac2 13y ago
Fair Use under US copyright isn't cut and dry, to say the least. Columbia University has released a checklist to determine if a use is 'fair' or not. http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/fair-use/fair-use-checklist/ http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/fair-use/fair-use-ch... Note: I don't think it's been challenged legally yet, but it's certainly a fair piece of policy and a strong guideline, from a professor who is very respected in the copyright law field.

e40 13y ago

No, but a statement of fact about a company that is not by public data is slander. That doesn't sound right. Sounds more like divulging a trade secret. Slander is telling an untruth about someone.

tinco 13y ago
How can it be divulging a trade secret when he isn't in on NYT's trade secrets? I think it's slander because he does not know how many hours NYT spent on making it, he could be totally wrong yet he is stating it as fact. Anyhow it's an unfair comparison because NYT actually had to come up with this idea, he just had to replicate it.
- mattdeboard 13y ago
  I think it's slander because he does not know how many hours NYT spent on making it You're confusing the legal concept of "slander" with the concept of "perhaps being wrong". For extra irony, by your definition of slander, you're guilty of it simply by accusing this guy of being guilty of it. edit: Whoops, by posting this I too am guilty of slander by your definition.
  - D9u 13y ago
    Actually, slander is spoken. When dealing with print, the term is libel.
    - lazugod 13y ago
      Why is the difference meaningful?
      - zbyszek 13y ago
        I presume because the relative permanence of the printed word relative to the spoken, leading to its potentially greater exposure.
    - mattdeboard 13y ago
      I was going to point that out but it seems like such a trifling point to make when there's not even any defamation at hand.
  - tinco 13y ago

gluejar 13y ago

The takedown was for a video of the making of a technical reconstruction of a news feature. It was not a takedown of the reconstruction of the news feature. It's a little bit like a takedown of a paper airplane made of the new york times.

palebluedot 13y ago

No, but a statement of fact about a company that is not by public data is slander. No it is not.

tinco 13y ago
Oh ok
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- stonemetal 13y ago
  slander is spoken, the term you are looking for is libel.
  - bspatafora 13y ago
    Here in the US, it's very difficult to prevail on a claim of either slander or libel (vis-a-vis many European countries), thanks to the First Amendment. While NYT Co may (may) be in the right regarding their first C&D, I would be shocked if they were to prevail on the second.
    - messick 13y ago
      It's harder in the US than many European companies, because it's not slander/libel if the information is true. However, if the information is false, than the Times could have a case.
      - MertsA 13y ago
        Only if the defendant knew it was false when they wrote it. It's not too easy to prove that in a lot of cases.
    - stonemetal 13y ago
      That is pretty much what I thought too. To me the first seemed like over reach but understandable, the second is just silly.

betterunix 13y ago

The use of copyrighted material for criticism or comment (e.g. "to make a point") is, in fact, considered fair use: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 Additionally, the video was educational (it demonstrated how to create something), further bolstering the claim of fair use. The NYT is entirely out of line with the C&D, and it is particularly troubling that a newspaper -- which frequently engages in fair use, frequently reproducing material as part of their journalism and their criticism -- would send such a letter.

newhouseb 13y ago
IANAL, but scrollkit appears to actually be a startup (judging from their about page), meaning that the video was more along the lines of a demonstration video of a product or even a advertisement than an educational video. My understanding of the rational for "fair use" is use for the benefit of the public good and explicitly not for the commercial purposes, this seems to me to be very commercial.
- betterunix 13y ago
  Look at the actual definition of fair use. There is no requirement that the use be non-commercial, only criteria that include whether or not the use was commercial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
a_bonobo 13y ago
I disagree, this video was educational about his product, so there was a commercial interest behind it. As such, this isn't a fair use case; there have been cases in the past where copy-shops copied parts of books for educational purposes, but because there was a commercial intent behind it US courts ruled that not to be fair use. See: Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc., 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996). http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/fair-use/case-summaries/ http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/fair-use/case-summar... Of course, that one sentence they told him later to take down is a different thing I can't understand.

Ma8ee 13y ago

> No, but a statement of fact about a company that is not backed by public data is slander. That is not enough. It also needs to be untrue and it needs to harm the reputation of the company.

anotherbadlogin 13y ago
Even that's not enough. You have to KNOW it's not true when you say or publish it.

jimray 13y ago

I'm not a lawyer and my understanding of fair use seems to be about as poor as everyone's. What Scrollkit did, though, was tacky, plain and simple. They built an impressive product but are using someone else's work to try to promote it[1]. Is that illegal? I doubt it. But it's tasteless. And the smarmy "we did this in an hour" attitude is not only off-putting, it stretches the truth to the point of breaking. Anyone who's followed a "build a blog in five minutes" demo knows there's more to building something than just scaffolding -- Andre Torrez probably [said it best](http://notes.torrez.org/2010/12/learn-to-program-in-24-hours.html http://notes.torrez.org/2010/12/learn-to-program-in-24-hours...). There are plenty of ways they could have demonstrated their product without resorting to this kind of shallow mimicry. "Have you been blown away by the incredible work like the New York Times' 'Snowfall' or Pitchfork's cover stories? Want to build something similar yourself? We'd like to show you scrollkit." And then do a demo video with your own photography and reporting. Tells the same story without the shiteating grin. As it stands right now, though, they just look like they're jumping on a trend using someone else's work. [1] Disclaimer: I have friends who work at the Times, including ones that worked on Snowfall.

tripzilch 13y ago

> No, but a statement of fact about a company that is not backed by public data is slander. whether slander or libel or whatever, this article states how much time NYT spent on it: http://source.mozillaopennews.org/en-US/articles/how-we-made-snow-fall/ http://source.mozillaopennews.org/en-US/articles/how-we-made... so much for backing it up. the author stating he did it in an hour, might be true or a boast, that's a claim about himself not the NYT, doesn't matter if it's true or not. i can see how they can ask him to remove the video (and the author complied), but I really don't get on what grounds they can ask him to remove all mentions of NYT from his site.