Open Letter Department: "Andrew, you ignorant slut."

[ambitious_wench]

To: Andrew Sullivan, Gay Conservative Blogger, aka "Sully the Pooh".

Dear Andrew;

From time to time, I've read your blog. It was on the recommendation of a good friend of mine, when I asked her for a conservative blog that really made her think. She's a liberal, you see. Me, I'm a lesbian-feminist-bleeding-heart-liberal*, and tend to avoid conservative blogs in general because they make my blood boil. Mostly time constraints prevent me from reading you more often now. I'm a photographer living in Yosemite Valley.

I was prompted to write to you today because you quoted my friend Ginmar's writing without her permission. That's just plain rude as hell, Andrew. It may possibly be illegal as well. You owe her a public apology. Just because she gave Ali Eteraz permission to quote does not give you permission. Be a decent human being and admit your mistake and apologize.

BTW, I spent 9 years in the Navy, in the years before Tailhook. I've earned my right to criticize the Bush regime. He's a liar and a homophobe and if you think he wouldn't sign a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, you're gullible and naive.

Sincerely,
Edie
*Godwin's law states that the first person to draw an analogy to Nazis looses the discussion; call me a "feminazi" at the risk of your intellectual credibility. Secondly, I'll be glad when I'm just a bleeding-heart liberal again, instead of being called a traitor for opposing "Our Leader's Glorious Plan to Expand the American Empire".

Comments

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Er... maybe I've missed something specific to this case, but quoting other people's writing without asking first is fairly commonplace around here, whether it's me quoting George Pell, or you quoting the Writer's Almanac.

Unless ginmar has actually indicated that she's unhappy about being quoted by Sullivan (with acknowledgement, in the form of a link to her journal), I think you might be jumping the gun on this.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

You have. She is. Specifically, she only gave one person permission to use it on their blog. She friends-locked that bit of writing, and she has in the past stated that she doesn't want to be quoted without permission.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

she has in the past stated that she doesn't want to be quoted without permission.

If Sullivan was aware of that and quoted her anyway, that's certainly bad manners. But AFAIK he's not a long-term reader, and may not have had any reason to be aware of those posts. Eteraz does introduce it with "I finally have her permission to share some of her writing", and that is a pretty big hint if one's paying attention, but it's not as clear-cut as the 'terms and conditions' attached to the Writer's Almanac site:

"This site contains intellectual property owned by Minnesota Public Radio and others. No material from MPR Online or any Web site owned, operated, licensed, or controlled by MPR Online, Minnesota Public Radio, or any of its related, affiliated or subsidiary companies (collectively, "MPR"), may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, without the prior written permission of MPR, except that you may download one copy of the materials on any single computer for your personal, noncommercial home use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices. Modification of the materials or use of the materials for any other purpose is a violation of MPR's copyright and other proprietary rights."

For that matter, the Sydney Archdiocese page which I quoted extensively here has a fairly similar warning (though that one does have a 'fair use' clause; I think those particular posts would count, but I wouldn't swear to it).

If she's unhappy about being quoted without permission, then he certainly ought to take it down. But AFAICT, that happened because he made the same assumption that you and I make on a fairly regular basis. What makes our manners better than his, other than luck in who we're quoting?

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

Mea culpa on the Writer's Almanac, Art. Taking it down forthwith. I hadn't read the TOC on Writer's Almanac.

I still think what he did was wrong. I'm also struggling with his use of it--I get the distinct impression he's trying to paint the Iraq war heavy on the rose-tinting. That bothers me because if he bothered to actually read her Live Journal, he would realize that his twee use of "Know hope" at the end of the post was pretty useless. Hope is pretty much gone out of Iraq at this point, and failing fast in my neck of the woods. Of course there is no law against presenting the war as one sees it. He's entitled to his opinion. But by the gods, it is morally wrong to use her writing out of context to do so, and it is illegal to use her writings without her expressed permission.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

I'm also struggling with his use of it--I get the distinct impression he's trying to paint the Iraq war heavy on the rose-tinting.

I think he is, yes... and I had a suspicion that that, more than the quoting-without-permission, was what got you annoyed at him. Hence my nitpicking above.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'll cop to that as well. I find it worse than the shady legality of it. Which is why I said to be a decent human being and apologize rather than try to use legal threats. IANAL and all.

I don't think he will, though. I'm so used to being ignored, I don't expect anything different. I'm a nobody on the intarwub. Why the hell should he listen to me? *shrug*

But thanks for helping me clarify my thoughts, Art. You're a mensch.

[docjeff.livejournal.com]

Fair use dictates one can quote a portion of a work. Mr. Sullivan quoted what seems to be the whole thing so he's definitely guilty of copyright violation.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Fair use dictates one can quote a portion of a work.

That's not strictly true. Although a lot of people use rules of thumb like "10% or one chapter", fair use does not guarantee the right to quote a certain portion of a work, and it doesn't automatically forbid quoting the entire thing either. The amount copied is only one of four considerations that together determine fair use; depending on the other three, copying the whole of the original might count as 'fair use', or copying 1% might be a violation.

I suspect Sullivan's post wouldn't be counted as fair use, but I'm not a lawyer.

[deor.livejournal.com]

Wow! Someone else knowledgable jumped in with the proper information before I could go into it. Lederhosen, I hereby dub thee with the honorary title "Librarian for a Day".

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

I shall treasure it! Do I get to shush people?