November 20, 2010

It is worth noting . . .

That the online fair use summary Gawker linked to when they sarcastically mocked Palin's legal knowledge* actually refers to this case [Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises] specifically in discussing when something is and is not fair use.
Whoops. (And it's an extremely famous copyright decision.)

Yet another contribution to Palin's martyrdom/persecution complex.

Via Wise Law Blog.

* "Sarah: If you're reading this — and if you are, welcome! — you may want to take a moment to familiarize yourself with the law."

1 comment:

Free Lunch said...

If the embargo was violated, either for other news organizations or because some DC bookstore wanted to sell a few extra books, there is a good chance that Gawker is in the clear. It's much harder for them to defend themselves if they clearly broke the publisher's rules or someone else in the chain of custody did.