New York Times Guards Its Valuable Content
I got a letter from the New York Times legal department last night, ordering me to remove the photos I used from articles I posted about. One was the post about John Powis and 208 Evergreen — in hindsight, it was stupid to use a photo by a reporter whose work I was poking fun at (and then whose name I screwed up). I also am in the habit of providing a more even-handed point of view than the standard evil-landlord/angelic-tenant meme, and since that is beyond the pale for those who prefer to toe the line despite all evidence, an outraged David Gonzalez seems to have sent his big corporate mommy to stomp on BushwickBK.com’s frail, budgetless neck. In the course of investigation, the staff lawyer must have noticed the lolita post, and they also ordered that photo removed.
I don’t want to get into an intellectual property discussion, but what’s clear is that NYT can link to this site for their content, but I can’t use photos from their articles that I am linking to and discussing. Somehow, certain collections of pixels and code are off limits, but others are fine for all. Also, considering our relatively small audience, of what value was this to the Times to have their expensive lawyers compose a letter to me and send it through email and USPS?
Old media FAIL.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I don’t get it. I thought use of copyrighted materials for commentary and non-financial gain was covered under fair use. How do Gothamist, Curbed, etc. get away with this?
October 1st, 2008 at 3:41 pm
brilliant…
PR wise did they really think that was a good idea? It makes them look ridiculous.
pretty ironic as far as mr. gonzales is concerned.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
MJ, I know they must all look the same to you but it’s G-O-N-Z-A-L-E-Z.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
yeah, Jeremy, are you turning a profit on this site these days? Otherwise what is their case? And even if you were using the vast gelt collected here for exorbitant murals and such, isn’t it still protected commentary? or am i too wide-eyed and innocent?
October 1st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
“I don’t get it. I thought use of copyrighted materials for commentary and non-financial gain was covered under fair use. How do Gothamist, Curbed, etc. get away with this?”
By not stepping on any toes.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Apparently the NY Times legal dept sucks as bad as its reporters! Oh, and that was such a one-sided story too. David, you really must write sometime about the underlying reason for all these building problems: rent stabilization.
Distressed buildings get that way due to chronic underinvestment in maintenance. Whose fault is this? Doesn’t matter, it happens. It happens because the law creates an perverse incentive for landlords to defer maintenance CAPEX. Rents cannot be raised, so the only way to make money is to run the building like a shithole. That’s bad by itself. It’s worse when this deferred maintenance continues until the building literally starts to fall apart and becomes dangerous. And it is when buildings reach this state that you notice and report on the problems. Trouble is, once it’s reached this point, there would be a negative return for any investor deploying private capital to fix the problem–unless you allow substantial rent increases. So please, it doesn’t help to blame the landlords once buildings have got to this deplorable point. You have only two options at this stage: (1) allow the private sector to raise the rent, permitting an adequate return on investment; or (2) have the city take control of the building and use public funds to repair it. That’s it. Those are your options.
You are doing a grave disservice to the working people of this city by implying that punishing the landlords will solve the problem. It will not. The good landlords will walk away, and you will be left with scumbag landlords managing distressed buildings. That is dangerous, and very, very wrong.
Oh, and of course, the best long-term solution is to not get into this situation in the first place. Abolish rent stabilization. Return to market incentives. Things do not have to be this way.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:52 pm
whoops… i’m gonna be in a hep of poop now.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Whether the NY Times has or has not any rights to repress Jeremy’s speech in this rather technical situation - and no matter where one comes down on the substantive issues at stake - the Gray Lady’s performance here has been an exercise in sheer stupidity. It almost makes the immortal Janet Carolla look good by comparison! I am sure that the Times will just love the wonderful PR they will derive from Jeremy’s terrific “Photo Removed by the NY Times’ legal staff” captions. I just hope this story gets picked up across the bloggasphere - and elsewhere.
Go Jeremy! - even though I don’t agree with you on this point.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:42 pm
You’re wrong here. Can’t use their content. Just can’t do it.
You’re selling ad space here. I see it - trying to make me buy wine and lofts and things I don’t need.
The legal department is a lawyer they have on retainer, and you got a form letter man. Granted, it will never go to court, but you’d lose here.
The way all those blogging websites get around it is - they don’t. They are very careful about what they use and what they don’t.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:48 pm
I am disgusted by intimidating, browbeating and downright harassing actions taken by the NY Times! And now I’m also very ashamed of being a longtime subscriber to the NY Times… since the mid 80’s. But, except for the few times that this website has lead me to a few of their articles, I’ve rarely read anything in the Times in awhile… because they suck! And tomorrow morning, I will FINALLY CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION. I will also be informing my neighbors and associates at work of my disgust for their actions towards this noble website. Jeremy, I join all others here in applauding this site and the fair posture you’ve taken in all of your references to other articles. I really like the way you’ve addressed this directly with us, Jeremy, and I also love the reactions. The Times has made a mistake here, there is no excuse for being a bully… and they should acknowledge it and apologize to you for it.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:54 pm
but here’s a place the law is still catching up with the technology
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:03 am
Dresden, I’m not “wrong” — you’re responding to the comments of others and confusing them with me. I am not a lawyer and do not doubt the Times’ legal rights here. I just think they need better judgment in locating targets, and my discussion of their articles is a benefit to them. They do, after all, have a plummeting readership.
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:04 am
“The way all those blogging websites get around it is - they don’t. They are very careful about what they use and what they don’t.”
How do the other website “get around it” when they take the photos in exactly the same manner Jeremy did and repost them on their sites that also have ads for things? Please explain.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 am
Jeremy doesn’t have a lawyer.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:55 am
We’re all sort of guilty of this, but number 8 is right. You can’t just take another picture that’s copyrighted by The Times and use it on your own site unless you are explicitly commenting on the photo itself. Otherwise, you run the risk of violating The Times’ IP.
Furthermore, The Times is under an obligation to protect their intellectual property rights, because if they don’t do so, they forfeit those IP rights. This letter is well within The Times’ rights under law, and your use of the photo in the context of this blog in the post you wrote was a violation of their rights in that photo. It sucks, but that’s the way our nation’s copyright laws work.
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Would it been better if he took a screen capture of the entire website with the article and the picture?
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I don’t think the issue here is rights at all but about the hilarity of the request in general… mountain… meet mole hill.
October 3rd, 2008 at 8:50 am
As i see it is “that some people get away with it while others don’t,” which is not by any law. By that I mean “copyright law is not black and white, it gets twisted.” The NYT is wrong!
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:47 am
The law here is still developing, and it’s mostly the AP who is setting the precedent. And they aren’t losing readership. For example:
The Associated Press has launched a legal action against Florida-based All Headline News….
AP Sues Viacom for Linking…………..
AP Sues Moreover and Verisign For Stories Copyright Infringement …