Friday, August 27, 2010

Ginny v. Maria: Hijacked Library or Safe Library in West Bend, WI

Ginny v. Maria.  Is their local public library hijacked or is it safe?  We report and add hyperlinks, you decide and add comments below.

Ginny Maziarka:
"Timeline Outlines Hijacking of Library"

Logo of
Eagle Forum of Wisconsin/Washington County
for which Ginny Maziarka is
President.
Over one year past the efforts of West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries to work with the West Bend Library, Young Adult librarian Kristin Pekoll, and Director Michael Tyree, let's re-visit the outcome: Children are exposed to sexually explicit materials in the young adult section of West Bend’s Community Memorial Library, and this won't be changing any time soon.

During last year's battle with our Library Board and the American Library Association (ALA), more than 1,500 citizens had voiced their concerns, requesting easy identification of such materials and appropriate placement in the adult section of our library; a request was made to place porn filtering software on our public computers.  This common sense approach to assisting parents was rejected; these requests were met with a resounding "no."

Our library board caved to the pressures of a national organization instead of meeting the requests of the community they serve.  The ALA went on to use West Bend as an example of its power over the people with a special invitation to our librarians and board members to share this victory at an annual conference.

In what appears to be a continued assertion of authority, the ALA gave $1,000 to Maria Hanrahan, founder of West Bend Parents for Free Speech, to help in the "fight."  What, in my opinion, appeared to be a bribe could very well be what sealed the deal and motivated others to gravitate toward the ALA.

Those who value our library, contribute to, support and regularly use the library should ponder this quote from a California group opposing Proposition 81 in 2006:  "The values espoused by the American Library Association are so divorced from the values of our community that we would seriously consider ... going back to the days of a city library under local control, rather than giving one thin dime to an institution controlled by an organization that believes in 'all materials for all patrons regardless of age.'"

West Bend would do well to take heed of the above verbiage and consider what has become of our fine library under the auspices of the ALA.

West Bend parents/taxpayers should take the time to educate themselves on what took place behind the scenes during the controversy by visiting http://westbend.pbworks.com/.  This same timeline is also entered into the archives at the Wisconsin Historical Library and is an extensive effort that has taken over a year to build.  It is filled with numerous emails and other forms of communication that have never been seen publicly, which will reveal the efforts of our library board members and librarians to raise their fist at the parents of West Bend.  The correspondence on this timeline includes conversations from city leadership such as Mayor Deiss, attorney Mary Schanning, attorney Warren Kraft, Nick Dobberstein, Barb Deters and more.

Most importantly, this timeline will also confirm the covert involvement of national organizations to oppress small communities, undermine community standards and push the liberal agenda of the American Library Association.

If you didn't believe it before, you'll believe it now.  West Bend's public library has been hijacked.  It is no longer a safe place for your children.  Families beware.  Take action to protect your children and the conservative values of the city you call home.

Ginny Maziarka is a local blogger, town of West Bend resident and president of Eagle Forum of WI/Washington County, formerly West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries.


Maria Hanrahan:
"Libraries Remain Free, Safe Places for Families"

Logo of
Friends of the West Bend Library
for which Maria Hanrahan is
Co-President. See update below.
In her recent Guestview in the Daily News, Ginny Maziarka suggests "covert" activities concerning the anti-censorship response to her March 2009 book challenge.  In case anyone is unclear about the details of the book challenge, Maziarka objected to lists of novels with homosexual characters and situations in the young adult section at West Bend Community Memorial Library.  Over time, she rephrased her complaint to concern material she believed was sexually explicit or inappropriate for the age group.  While she first called to ban or remove books, she later called for moving the books to the adult section of the library and labeling them as explicit.

Maziarka suggests that I was influenced by a "bribe," since the group that I formed to oppose her library complaint, West Bend Parents for Free Speech, was designated as the recipient of a grant from the Freedom to Read Foundation.  What she failed to disclose regarding this startling bombshell was the timing of this grant.  I began my involvement in the library challenge in late March of 2009, was notified of the grant about a week into May, and the public Library Board meeting in which Maziarka's complaint was addressed was held on June 2.  If you do the math, you’ll note that this would have given my group maybe three weeks to go hog wild with our $1,000 "payoff."  In actuality, WBPFFS supporters used their own resources to pay for expenses incurred during the challenge.  Unlike Maziarka's group, West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries or their supporters, we did not choose to participate in paid newspaper or radio advertising to promote our viewpoint.  Other than a reimbursement request for approximately $180 for the cost of an open records request made by another WBPFFS member, we did not utilize the FTRF grant.  This ORR concerned email and other communication to and from members of the Common Council regarding the library controversy and the pending appointments of replacement members to the Library Board.

I became involved in the library challenge because I am committed to the belief that, as a parent, I have the right to decide what reading material is appropriate for me and for my children.  To suggest that I did it for remuneration or that I am a tool of the ALA is as preposterous as it is insulting.  Maziarka suggests that the Library Board did not work in the best interest of families by way of their unanimous vote to keep the young adult materials unlabeled and where they are.  In fact, parents retain the power they have always had:  to determine if and when their children should have library cards, to decide how, when and with how much supervision those library cards should be used, and to provide guidance and ground rules for what materials are acceptable in their households.

Maziarka says the library has been "hijacked" by the ALA, as if it is a subversive organization bent on taking power away from library patrons.  In fact, the American Library Association has always protected the rights of library patrons, including the Freedom to Read.  The FTRF was established to promote and defend freedom of expression and the right to read and listen to the ideas of others.  I believe that reading is among our greatest freedoms, and will continue to be vocal and vigilant about protecting that freedom.  I appreciate the work of the Freedom to Read Foundation, which helps to protect my right to read freely.  I hope Maziarka appreciates that this "hijacking" group works every day to protect her right to read freely as well.

Maria Hanrahan is a resident of the city of West Bend, founder of West Bend Parents for Free Speech and co-president of Friends of the West Bend Library.

UPDATE 1 SEP 2010:  Neither the Friends of the West Bend Library nor its logo is not connected in any way to SafeLibraries or to me, Dan Kleinman.  To the best of my knowledge, it is not connected in any way to Eagle Forum of WI/Washington County or to Ginny Maziarka.

38 comments:

  1. Note: the links provided within the content of my editorial (and, I assume, Ginny's) were selected by Dan Kleinman, Safe Libraries. They were selected because of his belief of relevance to the discussion. Readers should not view the links as an extension of my editorial, as they were chosen by someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Removed last comment due to foul language. Reprinting now with such language removed:

    Anonymous: Adding links like that is shady, Dan. You reprint others words with impunity, and then add links to fit your own agenda?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for writing, Maria.

    Response to Anonymous: I linked and reprinted opinions published in newspapers. Everyone knows paper newspapers do not contain hyperlinks.

    But, to be sure I was clear that I added the hyperlinks myself, I said so, right at the top, third sentence. Recall I said, "We report and hyperlink, you decide and add comments...."

    There's nothing "shady" here.

    Further, I listed Ginny first as her article was printed first. I listed Maria second as hers was a response to Ginny's. Ginny's has most hyperlinks because Ginny appeared first. Maria has fewer because I only made one hyperlink to the various sources.

    It is truly amazing that I could present information and provide no hint of favoritism in three small sentences, yet you write here anonymously calling me shady while you yourself use foul language.

    As a courtesy I removed the foul language and republished the rest. Besides, I know children read my blog. Next time I may just cut the whole foul-mouthed comment. I won't have time to continue to clean up your foul comments.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The "we report" statement could easily be misconstrued, as you write it immediately after saying "Ginny v. Maria. Is their local public library hijacked or is it safe?" The "we" could be taken to mean the blog owner, Ginny, and myself.

    A more clear and accurate phrasing would be "Safe Libraries reports and adds hyperlinks".

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'll have to agree with you; it might have been better if I said "I report." It is a play on the slogan for Fox News, and it was intended to convey that I was merely reporting and adding hyperlinks.

    I do think it is a great value to have the two statements side by side for all to see. I follow these community issues nationwide and in no other community do you get such outspoken people so diametrically opposed for so long and so vocal about it.

    I have left out any commentary of my own, limiting the introduction to three sentences, just so people can use this blog post as a source for the information contained therein without having me say I side with one or the other. In other words, I hope this blog post helps you when you may wish to present people with both opinion pieces.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have asked Dan Kleinman to remove the logo for Friends of the West Bend Library from this post, since 1) he did not have permission to use it 2) it does not pertain to Ginny's editorial or mine, since it was not in existence when the library challenge was going on and 3) the only mention to the group is in the biographical tagline for my editorial.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Seriously? Is Maria telling you how to write your blog? I thought this was well done, Dan. Thanks for bringing the truth to light.

    ReplyDelete
  9. West Bend Citizen Advocate, thanks for writing, but please cut Maria some slack. Maria has not said my blog post is not well done, so far as I can see. Thanks for thanking me about bring truth to light, but all I did was publish two excellent opinion pieces and provide some hyperlinks.

    Now Maria.

    Thank you, Maria, for bringing this matter to my attention. For clarification, I added a caption to the logo saying, "Logo of Friends of the West Bend Library for which Maria Hanrahan is Co-President."

    When I wrote this blog post I was not aware that you were co-president of that organization. I was rather impressed when I read the tag line on your opinion piece. To help bring attention to your organization for positive reasons, and because you wrote what I just published while serving as co-president, I thought the logo would be perfect for this blog post. Certainly its use is legal under the circumstances. My other idea was Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots. You can see why the logo is better than the robots.

    So, while we are discussing this, congratulations on your position as co-president of the Friends of the West Bend Library. I could not find a link to that organization. Would you please tell me what it is so that I may add it to my original post?

    Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A website for the Friends group is being developed, so there currently is no link to provide.

    Thanks for adding the caption.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Certainly [the logo's] use is legal under the circumstances."

    Please provide your legal rationale for using a copyright-protected image on your blog without permission.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Marshwood, thanks for writing, but the question is not addressed to the topic of this blog post and otherwise has been resolved with Maria Hanrahan. Therefore, please find an answer at your local Wisconsin bar association.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Actually, I would love to hear your rationale as well. This comment notifies you to remove the logo from your post. It is protected by copyright and you do not have permission to use it. Fair use does not apply, as the logo was not used in the original editorial that you posted.

    This image should be removed from your website today, Aug. 31, 2010.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Maria, thanks for writing. Let me suggest you also contact your local Wisconsin bar association for legal assistance. Advise them of these facts:

    1) The graphic appears on a public web site here: Friends of the West Bend Library.

    2) That page includes, "Privacy Type: Open: All content is public."

    3) The graphic is part of the content that is open to the public.

    4) Neither the graphic nor any of the text on the page contains any notice of any ownership or reservation of rights pertaining to the graphic or anything else.

    5) The name associated with the graphic is "Maria" and the "Admins" are "Maria" and "Mary."

    6) The stated mission of the Friends of the West Bend Library includes that the Friends exists "to support and defend the library's mission of providing free and unrestricted access to materials and services."

    7) It is reasonable to assume that "free and unrestricted access" applies equally to all, including the content on the web page, especially where all material is marked as "public."

    8) Most material that has become open to the public without any reservation of rights becomes part of the public domain.

    Based upon the above facts and other facts not stated, the logo will stay.

    (Part 1 of 3 - Continued below…)

    ReplyDelete
  15. (… Continued from above)

    Based on your comments, it appears this is the first time the connection between you and your co-presidency of the Friends of the West Bend Library has been made public.

    It appears that your very first public action as co-president of the Friends of the West Bend Library is an attempt to suppress the speech of others with whom you disagree; besides me, you have asked Ginny to remove the graphic, and she did, apparently for reasons of pure comity.

    One of the reasons people like you claim for a reason to ignore the perfectly legal effort to keep children from inappropriate material is the false "slippery slope" argument. You know, if you keep x from children, y will be next. Well, I can use it too. If I remove the logo, removing your opinion piece will be next. Is this idle talk? No. I reprinted an article by Elizabeth Hovde entitled, "Sensible Censorship: Surfing for Porn Shouldn't Be a Public Library Service." She said, for example, "Limiting what's on the shelves -- or accessible on a public computer -- is not censorship. It's discretion."

    Result? 37 comments. Every last one of them, other than my responses, were an effort to get me to remove my re-publication of the article. This effort included one of your community informing the publisher of my re-publication.

    (Part 2 of 3 - Continuing with Part 3 below…)

    ReplyDelete
  16. (… Continued from above)

    Another of the people joining in on the effort to suppress the idea that it is discretion, not censorship, to keep inappropriate material from children, was you, Maria. You said, "How is anyone trying to curtail your free speech? YOU haven't said anything. You've merely copied and pasted someone else's article on your blog, without providing any commentary." If I were to remove the logo, wouldn't you then make that exact same claim here in an effort to get me to remove even more? I think so.

    By the way, this followup is a must read showing the legitimacy of what you and all other commenters sought to remove from the SafeLibraries blog: "Library Needn't Supply Pornography, Court Rules," by Elizabeth Hovde, The Oregonian, 7 May 2010.

    My take away from this whole thing is the true amazement at watching an ALA grantee make her first public action on behalf of the Friends of the West Bend Library be the attempt to suppress information that is in the public domain. And she's the co-president of the Friends of the West Bend Library. Co-president. And the ALA argues they have no control over local community libraries. And the suppression effort may have been to break the linkage between your accepting a $1000 ALA grant and your being co-president of the Friends organization (with "Miss West Bend," by the way). It's truly breath taking.

    (Part 3 of 3)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wow, you really don't know the first thing about copyright law or the fair use doctrine.

    When and were did you get your law degree?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I listed several facts. I made no legal conclusions, Marshwood.

    The issue here is not me or my legal degree. The issue here is Ginny v. Maria. They both made extraordinary statements directed at each other. This blog post and its comments are or should be directed to them and the issues they raised. Discuss that, not anything personal to me.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dan, you are a sneaky guy, trying to work your way around copyright law, but you are wrong. The website you found is a Facebook page, and the "Privacy Type" with all content referred to as public pertains to the Facebook page privacy settings; the page is available/public to all Facebook users. This does not mean the content is public domain.

    As you probably know, material is not public domain unless the owner/author/creator of the work specifically declares it so. Friends of the West Bend Library has not done this, on the Facebook page or elsewhere. You are in violation of copyright law by refusing to remove the logo from your site after being notified by a representative of the organization that owns this copyrighted image.

    You are wrong in your assumption that my request to remove the logo is my first public action as co-president of the Friends of the West Bend Library. I was elected co-president four and a half months ago, and have been involved in public Friends activities here in West Bend since then. Since you are in NJ and WI is a long way from there, I can imagine it may seem that this group just sprang out of nowhere. However, the group began to take shape last fall and officially and publicly began recruiting members in February of this year. Sorry you did not get the memo.

    I am not attempting to break the connection of my editorial to the Friends of the West Bend Library; after all, I did include the info of my co-presidency of the Friends group in the bio tagline of my article. I have no problem with you using that information, in the reprint of the editorial, here on your site. However, as previously stated, the logo image was not part of that article, it is NOT public domain, and it is protected by copyright. I know you are not a practicing attorney, but ask any lawyer and I'm sure they will tell you that if someone 1) tells you to remove material from your website because it is protected by copyright and 2) permission has not been granted to you, it is in your best interest to remove it. This is your third notice to do so.

    Your discussion of censorship is amusing; I am not trying to curtail your free speech, but your use of the Friends logo here has been made without consent and is copyright infringement.

    I do not know the identity of Miss West Bend of the Fear and Loathing in West Bend blog, but I do know the identity of my co-president (Mary Reilly-Kliss) and I highly doubt she is behind F&L.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Maria, only a few days ago you asked me to remove the logo for certain reasons. I responded by adding a caption to that logo to address your concerns. You were satisfied with that saying, "Thanks for adding the caption." You are welcome. That was your consent, even if only implicit.

    Later, after Marshwood commented and I responded, you echoed Marshwood and re-raised your initial claim. But you had already implicitly consented.

    Add these facts to those I previously provided.

    And I am not "a sneaky guy." I have no significant Facebook presence and know little about how it works. That said, anyone seeing the text that all is open to the public could reasonable believe that all is open to the public, particularly where no notice was provided otherwise and the authors where named as "Maria" and "Mary," leaving authorship almost completely unknown. And "Maria" and "Mary" supported "free and unrestricted access," no less.

    ReplyDelete
  21. As I said in a private email to you, This is your second notification to remove the Friends of the West Bend Library logo from your blog/website. My previous comment should not be taken as permission to use it. Permission was never granted to you, and the logo is protected by copyright.

    I told you my comment did not grant you permission, and even if you believe it did, any supposed permission has obviously been revoked by my subsequent requents to remove the logo. Argue as you might, you have no legal argument for keeping the logo on your website after being notified to remove it.

    At the time I thanked you for adding the caption, I was still unclear about whether or not I had the right to demand you remove it, and I was unable to research it at the time because of another commitment. Upon research, I learned I was well within my right to ask you to remove it, therefore I did.

    Again, I do not want to suppress the logo or info of my association with the group, but I do not want anyone to visit your website and read the blog post and mistakenly make a connection between the Friends group and Safe Libraries, Dan Kleinman, or Ginny Maziarka.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Maria, in respect of your legitimate concern, I have added "see update below" to the text of the logo's caption. Then, at the bottom of the blog post and not just in the comments, I have added the following:

    "UPDATE 1 SEP 2010: Neither the Friends of the West Bend Library nor its logo is not connected in any way to SafeLibraries or to me, Dan Kleinman. To the best of my knowledge, it is not connected in any way to Eagle Forum of WI/Washington County or to Ginny Maziarka."

    This should put an end to this kerfuffle.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Of all the "facts" you state to support your use of the logo in question, this one is perhaps the most incorrect and the most dangerous if you, apparently a trained lawyer, truly believe it:

    8) Most material that has become open to the public without any reservation of rights becomes part of the public domain.

    Anyone that has taken the most basic intellectual property class (or CLE) knows that one does not have to explicitly claim copyright protection for such protection to exist.

    Now, you might very well have a fair use argument, but nothing that you've stated indicates that's what you're trying to do in your justification. And simply adding some kind of disclaimer about who the logo represents means nothing in terms of its use from a copyright perspective.

    In the end, I don't see what value the particular logo adds to the post. You only include one logo from one of two groups that one of the parties is affiliated with. For what purpose? Why not balance the visual representation of the parties by including a logo from Ms. Maziarka's group?

    This is all quite puzzling.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dan, the only way to end this kerfuffle and the only way to NOT be in violation of copyright law is to REMOVE the logo completely from the post/blog/site. How many ways do I have to say this to make you understand?

    REMOVE THE LOGO. You do not have permission to use it. In any way, shape or form. In any capacity. For any reason. Updates, notations and disclaimers are NOT satisfactory and never will be. REMOVE THE FRIENDS LOGO.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Maria, Local_MLIS_Student asks, "Why not balance the visual representation of the parties by including a logo from Ms. Maziarka's group?" Good idea. So I have done so.

    I moved the Friends logo down to the first paragraph of your opinion and added the Eagle logo near the top, in the first paragraph of Ginny's opinion.

    I am making every effort to be as even handed as possible on this particular blog post. So the idea of including both logos was a good one, even if Ginny's logo has nothing to do with the library controversy as it is not library related.

    I truly am sorry you did not take the proper steps to protect your rights in the logo, as is evident from the facts of this case or lack thereof. I suppose a remedy would be to create a new logo and protect it properly from the start. I am not joking now when I say perhaps you can use some of the ALA's $1000 grant to obtain an attorney to ensure this kind of thing does not happen again. Really, I'm sorry.

    There are lots of times when people save some money by avoiding legal assistance, and this seems to be one of them. Please consider seeing an attorney for the proper protection of your next logo.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sir, re-read your copyright law. The logo is automatically protected under copyright. One doesn't need to assert anything.

    Your inability to recognize - or do some quick research to confirm - this fundamental legal fact places doubt on all your other "legal" analyses.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Marshwood, I told you before, the issue here is not me or my legal acumen. The issue here is Ginny v. Maria. They both made extraordinary statements directed at each other. This blog post and its comments are or should be directed to them and the issues they raised. Discuss that, not anything personal to me.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dan, while I object to the fact that you refused to remove the logo, I am now satisfied with where the logo appears in your blog post. Before, it actually appeared closer to the title of Ginny's editorial than mine, but now the logo is distinctly located with my editorial.

    However, the comments here make it clear that you do not understand (or at least acknowledge) copyright law basics. Please see US Copyright in General FAQ. Please note the following concerning copyright:

    When is my work protected?
    Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.


    Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
    No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created.


    Copyright also exists even when copyright notice is not given. I'm not sure what your discussion of consulting an attorney to protect the logo has to do with anything, as copyright existed the moment the artwork was created, and exists even if the copyright is unregistered.

    Your blatant refusal to honor my request to remove the logo clearly indicates your stubborn disregard for copyright law and for the wishes of the group that owns the rights to that logo.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Back to the matter at hand. Your statement that Ginny and I both made extraordinary statements directed at each other is misleading. I believe Ginny's statements were directed to the community, and my personal opinion is that the comments were made in an attempt to damage my credibility (bribe comment, etc.) My statements were not "directed at" Ginny; instead, my editorial refuted her statements and provided factual information concerning Ginny's allegations (bribe, covert activity, ALA "hijacking", etc.) to the community.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Maria, I am telling you as an outsider that the West Bend library story is unique precisely because of the constant and direct manner in which people from different sides confront each other as they do, and thereby confront the community, as you pointed out. I know of no other community like West Bend in this regard. It really is fascinating to see. That's why Pew Research Center found it more alluring than the controversial arrest of Henry Louis Gates. That's why your local paper wrote a story about the hot tempers in West Bend.

    I am happy you are now satisfied with the manner and placement of the two logos. The point is to improve the readability of the opinions by adding pictures. To the extent I help bring attention to your organization, that is a bonus; indeed, send me the URL when it is official. Thanks to the input of the commenters here, I have improved the article in this regard.

    As to copyright, I am aware of what you said, but my including the graphics as I have and for the purpose I have and given the facts such as they are, including identifying the author of the logo only by a first name, does not violate that common law copyright. I have not disregarded copyright law, and your saying I have is a legal conclusion you are not in a position to make. Actually, I have made an excellent suggestion to get a little help from an attorney so you won't make the same mistakes.

    I am happy I did not cave to your multiple demands made in just a few days. They were overbroad, to say the least.

    It is constantly pointed out that libraries must use the least restrictive means to effect the intended protection of children. The same goes here. Placing the two logos as I have represents the least restrictive means to comply with your demands. Now you are satisfied, I am satisfied, and the public gets an improved product.

    So my "blatant refusal to honor [your] request to remove the logo [that] clearly indicates [my] stubborn disregard" of this or that was really just the application of the same standard people having your point of view constantly demand. Indeed, COPA was found unconstitutional for this very reason--because filters represented a less restrictive means than what COPA required. I just complied with that standard and prevented yet another double standard. No "blatant refusal" was involved.

    So, can we be friends now?

    ReplyDelete
  31. "As to copyright, I am aware of what you said, but my including the graphics as I have and for the purpose I have and given the facts such as they are, including identifying the author of the logo only by a first name, does not violate that common law copyright. I have not disregarded copyright law, and your saying I have is a legal conclusion you are not in a position to make."

    I think it's now clear this is a legal conclusion that you are not in a position to make. I truly hope no one relies on your legal advice in the future. And that's not a personal attack, but a genuine fear.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dan, you need to stop making assumptions. You seem to claim you are not in violation of copyright law because you indentified the author of the logo...? You do not know who created the logo. The logo was uploaded onto the Friends of the West Bend Library Facebook page by me. That doesn't mean I created it; I didn't. Neither did my co-president. A community member with talents in the area of graphic arts created it for the Friends group and the logo (and copyright for it) now belongs to the Friends.

    You never acquired permission to use it, and using a copyright protected work (common law/unregistered or not) without permission puts you in violation. I'm not going to waste time at this point contacting an attorney about your violation, but I do enjoy watching you feebly defend your actions. As MLIS said, I hope no one relies on your legal advice.

    Dan, I can't imagine a world where we'd ever be friends, but I do so enjoy sparring with you. Rock 'Em Sock 'Em. (I win.)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Maria, I am certain if we were to meet we would get along very well.

    As to the logo issue, you have revealed more facts that further sink your case. 1) You are not the author. 2) The author is not publicly known. 3) The only publicly known authorship is falsely named "Maria."

    No rights are violated where the author is not made public, where the author is misrepresented as someone else, and where the other facts already discussed apply. No violation occurred given these new facts and the previous ones. Instead, the Friends have failed to properly protect the mark. That's a shame, but it's your problem for failing to do so, not my problem for using such a logo.

    That said, I agree you are a winner.

    MLIS loves me. He never fails to ignore the issues and make ad hominem comments. At a certain point it becomes monotonous yet entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Instead, the Friends have failed to properly protect the mark. "

    Again, you utterly fail to understand copyright law. Amazing.

    And that's not an ad hominem, but a direct commentary on your claimed expertise as an attorney.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Cute, Local_MLIS_Student. The strawman argument. I never "claimed expertise as an attorney." Quite the contrary, and that's why I stuck to listing the facts. And you are no expert on copyright law, unless, of course, you were named Local_ESQ_Student.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Where is the straw man argument?

    You claim here that you are (or were in 2007) a practicing patent attorney. It is frightening to think you were giving legal advice on issues related to intellectual property given you complete lack of understanding of how copyright works.

    Numerous times you were informed on this thread that one does not need to proactively claim or assert copyright; it is automatically granted on eligible content.

    Why do you refuse to acknowledge this legal fact? Should I pull the case law for you?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Copyright and patent law are completely different. What's not different is your continuing effort to attack the messenger.

    I agree it is automatically granted, but it may be lost subsequently depending on various conditions, possibly including certain actions or inactions that may be present in the instant matter.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Duh, I'm well aware that copyright and patents are different. But both are part of the legal framework of intellectual property, and presumably you took at least one class on IP generally in law school (where was that, again?).

    None of those 8 things you enumerate have any bearing on whether the logo (or anything, for that matter) has copyright protection.

    Your stubbornness doesn't make you right. Just foolish, I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete

Comments of a personal nature, trolling, and linkspam may be removed.