Comments on: Norton Attack Ad Improperly Taken From People’s Press Collective Video http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/07/norton-attack-ad-improperly-taken-from.html Bloggage and Original News Coverage From Colorado and Around the Country Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:13:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: The Cigar Briefing for Tuesday August 3, 2010 :: Scott K. James http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/07/norton-attack-ad-improperly-taken-from.html/comment-page-1/#comment-24796 The Cigar Briefing for Tuesday August 3, 2010 :: Scott K. James Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:27:13 +0000 [...] the material for their cheesy attack add from the People’s Press Collective? Yep – READ. Gees, not even the courtesy of a citation. By the way, the video on the PPC’s website puts [...] [...] the material for their cheesy attack add from the People’s Press Collective? Yep – READ. Gees, not even the courtesy of a citation. By the way, the video on the PPC’s website puts [...]

]]> By: Mike Niland http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/07/norton-attack-ad-improperly-taken-from.html/comment-page-1/#comment-24200 Mike Niland Sun, 01 Aug 2010 14:59:37 +0000 El Presidente, Since this post is still sticky, I think the issue is still unresolved. Since I'm neither a PPC contributor nor affiliated with Norton for Colorado, I think I can present a mutually beneficial solution. Putting this clip in the public domain would nullify the complaint and clarify licensing. Doing it through Creative Commons - the "CC0" license - could encourage contributors to license their work under the appropriate Creative Commons attribution licenses. The Creative Commons creates viral publicity for content creators: http://creativecommons.org/choose/ All of my writing online is licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is just a third-party proposal, and I'm not an attorney. I am involved with Volunteers for Jane Norton and I write the Gunbarrel Teleprompter. Mike El Presidente,

Since this post is still sticky, I think the issue is still unresolved.

Since I’m neither a PPC contributor nor affiliated with Norton for Colorado, I think I can present a mutually beneficial solution.

Putting this clip in the public domain would nullify the complaint and clarify licensing. Doing it through Creative Commons – the “CC0″ license – could encourage contributors to license their work under the appropriate Creative Commons attribution licenses.

The Creative Commons creates viral publicity for content creators: http://creativecommons.org/choose/

All of my writing online is licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

This is just a third-party proposal, and I’m not an attorney. I am involved with Volunteers for Jane Norton and I write the Gunbarrel Teleprompter.

Mike

]]> By: Donald E. L. Johnson http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/07/norton-attack-ad-improperly-taken-from.html/comment-page-1/#comment-24154 Donald E. L. Johnson Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:16:49 +0000 PPC not PPL. PPC not PPL.

]]> By: Donald E. L. Johnson http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/07/norton-attack-ad-improperly-taken-from.html/comment-page-1/#comment-24153 Donald E. L. Johnson Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:14:47 +0000 Just read the exchange of communications again. The PPC complaint and reply to Norton's attorney are all emotion and rhetoric. The Norton reply includes citations that support its case. PPC doesn't bother to reply with citations. I think Norton's on solid legal grounds. The original video has no market value and PPC is not claiming that anyone has paid it for permission to use the video. There is nothing creative in the video. It's not like having the NBA copyright the original play of its athletes, and it's not like copyrighting a film made by an individual or organization that wrote the script. PPL didn't even put on the party. As I've stated, I think Norton should have gotten permission for political reasons. It makes no sense to tick off PPL, which I'm probably doing now. But I think Norton's on solid legal ground and PPL would be foolish to sue and lose in court. I am not a lawyer, but I can read and form an opinion. I reserve the right to change my mind if someone comes up with a legal brief that convinces me to do so. Just read the exchange of communications again. The PPC complaint and reply to Norton’s attorney are all emotion and rhetoric. The Norton reply includes citations that support its case. PPC doesn’t bother to reply with citations.

I think Norton’s on solid legal grounds. The original video has no market value and PPC is not claiming that anyone has paid it for permission to use the video. There is nothing creative in the video. It’s not like having the NBA copyright the original play of its athletes, and it’s not like copyrighting a film made by an individual or organization that wrote the script. PPL didn’t even put on the party.

As I’ve stated, I think Norton should have gotten permission for political reasons. It makes no sense to tick off PPL, which I’m probably doing now. But I think Norton’s on solid legal ground and PPL would be foolish to sue and lose in court. I am not a lawyer, but I can read and form an opinion.

I reserve the right to change my mind if someone comes up with a legal brief that convinces me to do so.

]]> By: Laura Victoria http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/07/norton-attack-ad-improperly-taken-from.html/comment-page-1/#comment-24042 Laura Victoria Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:08:46 +0000 Michael Espinoza: No, that's not what they were saying. What I reported was simply the campaing's explanation for the lack of attribution. Michael Espinoza: No, that’s not what they were saying. What I reported was simply the campaing’s explanation for the lack of attribution.

]]> By: Miguel Espinoza http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/07/norton-attack-ad-improperly-taken-from.html/comment-page-1/#comment-24038 Miguel Espinoza Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:39:57 +0000 @Laura--So what Norton's campaign--and Penry in particular--is saying is that they stole from PPC to protect PPC? @Laura–So what Norton’s campaign–and Penry in particular–is saying is that they stole from PPC to protect PPC?

]]> By: Clarence http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/07/norton-attack-ad-improperly-taken-from.html/comment-page-1/#comment-24025 Clarence Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:08:44 +0000 Always hilarious when dumb-ass thieves try to justify. There’s really no argument. Always hilarious when dumb-ass thieves try to justify. There’s really no argument.

]]> By: airbus http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/07/norton-attack-ad-improperly-taken-from.html/comment-page-1/#comment-24004 airbus Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:31:40 +0000 Fair use is legal where you point counterpoint to an issue or candidate. You can use an entire video if you are doing a parody of the content. If you are claiming the original work used to be yours, that would be a copywrite infringement Fair use is legal where you point counterpoint to an issue or candidate. You can use an entire video if you are doing a parody of the content. If you are claiming the original work used to be yours, that would be a copywrite infringement

]]> By: Harry http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/07/norton-attack-ad-improperly-taken-from.html/comment-page-1/#comment-23993 Harry Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:01:00 +0000 Donald: Honesty does not have a deadline. Plagiarism is what this is. Copyright law provides that the work was the property of PPC. Taking it without the permission of its owner is theft. If you want to appologize for the behavior of McInnis and Norton, have at it. If this was an oversight and they acted mistakenly and in good faith as you postulate, they could take it down as requested. They have not. This is not the first instance of Norton stealing the work of others. Her initial announcement was lifted from Gerry Ford. Norton, like McInnis is a crook. Some may say but they are conservative crooks so it is ok to support them. Personally, I don't support and associate myself with crooks, but I leave that to your sense of ritht and wrong. Donald:
Honesty does not have a deadline.
Plagiarism is what this is. Copyright law provides that the work was the property of PPC. Taking it without the permission of its owner is theft.

If you want to appologize for the behavior of McInnis and Norton, have at it.

If this was an oversight and they acted mistakenly and in good faith as you postulate, they could take it down as requested. They have not.

This is not the first instance of Norton stealing the work of others. Her initial announcement was lifted from Gerry Ford.

Norton, like McInnis is a crook. Some may say but they are conservative crooks so it is ok to support them. Personally, I don’t support and associate myself with crooks, but I leave that to your sense of ritht and wrong.

]]> By: Cindy L. http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/07/norton-attack-ad-improperly-taken-from.html/comment-page-1/#comment-23983 Cindy L. Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:08:07 +0000 Donald you are just making excuses for the Norton campaign. This is not rocket science and one of the first things a campaign learns is the legal side of operation. And you are not helping matters by stating it's just a mere copyright infringement. If you were the author you'd be hopping mad. Donald you are just making excuses for the Norton campaign. This is not rocket science and one of the first things a campaign learns is the legal side of operation. And you are not helping matters by stating it’s just a mere copyright infringement. If you were the author you’d be hopping mad.

]]>