She first mentioned it on her massively popular radio show (read: podcast), advising "gnats" and people who've been "plumbing" her bio, like me, might be getting a BIG BILL from the photographer that took the Glamour Shot-style pics that adorn her site.
Those of us who are running "blossoming hate sites and hate diaries" (her words), like John Brown, may be in violation of the photographer's copyright to the pictures.
Those "gnats" who launch "hate attacks" on Ms. Marsh may be cruisin' for a legal bruisin'.
According to a new post at her site, "that they stole copyrighted photos may come back to haunt them, however, because if the photographers find out their agents will indeed pounce."
Holy shit! I hope attorneys don't POUNCE on me!
I'm not that interested in the legal questions here. Though the risk of pouncing lawyers hired by Glamour Shot dudes is slight and the odds against them getting a penny out of John Brown or slim, I am going to remove all actual photos of Taylor Marsh from this site. That should make her happy!
Instead, I want to tell you a story about copyrighted photos...
Once upon a time, there was a right-wing freaky-ass blogger named Debbie Schlussel. One day, a Reagan Democrat blogger named Taylor Marsh wrote a post about this Schlussel character. Debbie got pissed off, because Taylor didn't agree with her. In her pissy fit, Debbie DEMANDED THAT MARSH REMOVE THE COPYRIGHTED IMAGES used to illustrate the post. She THREATENED MARSH WITH A LAWSUIT! What did Taylor Marsh do?
Taylor removed the offending images (and they were offending, ba-da-dum!). She also wrote this response:
I've spoken to my lawyer (my big brother) today, as well as a First Amendment attorney who's familiar with these types of things, thanks to a referral from another progressive. In addition, my brother also spoke to a copyright lawyer. It remains to be seen if bloggers are protected for "fair use" with photos used in reporting stories, because much of what we're seen to do is opinion, criticism and comment. However, as regular readers know, I actually do reporting and have broken stories before. Regardless, the minute I used Ms. Schlussel's picture, well, I've said it all already.
Frankly, the publicity of a lawsuit would be great. As for what Schlussel will get, good luck. But talk about a frivolous lawsuit.
You've got to wonder if Ms. Schlussel is trying to intimidate me, or if she is trying to squelch my right to free speech. I can't know for sure, but the inherent threat of a lawsuit seems to be focused on doing both, however unsuccessfully. Or maybe she thinks I'm stupid? Pity.
Now THAT'S AWESOME! I agree completely!
Hey Taylor, why do you think your photographer's attempts at squeezing dough from ol' John Brown would be successful? Is he gonna pounce on those copyrighted images of you on Google? Just wondering. You sung a very different tune when you were on the other end of this crap, don't you think?What else did Taylor do? She replaced the photo of Schlussel with a hastily-drawn replacement.
I don't usually agree with Marsh, but this time I think she was on to something.
I've replaced those ultra-valuable copyrighted images that put me at risk of litigation with my own portraits of Taylor Marsh.
I had no choice.
Oh, and I hope Marsh and the Marshans don't take offense. After all, everyone LOVED the idea when Debbie Schlussel threatened litigation. I'm just following the leader...
Technorati Tags: taylor marsh, marsh, photos, copyright, bullshit, litigation, john brown, fucked up Del.icio.us Tags: taylor marsh, marsh, photos, copyright, bullshit, litigation, john brown, fucked up Furl Tags: taylor marsh, marsh, photos, copyright, bullshit, litigation, john brown, fucked up