Hi, Coates-
I understand that he's asked me not to post the parody of his recent cartoon, but there are a number of other premises that have to be taken into account, and this is my take based on having both been in and seen this exact situation a number of times as both a satirist and investigative journalist and being necessarily familiar with both the relevant legal precedent and ethical considerations:
1. Even the original cartoon itself would be both legal and ethical for me to reproduce at this point under Fair Use insomuch as that it illustrates a news story. The popular blog Sadly, No!, for instance, does this all the time when taking shots at other conservative output like the comic strip Day by Day.
2. The parody version in which I have replaced the original text with my own is perfectly legal and ethical for me to print - again, Sadly, No! does has done this exact thing on a number of occasions, as have other blogs and outlets, including Atrios (run by Professor Duncan Black). Usually the original artist does not even bother complaining as he has no grounds to prevent it, legally or ethically.
3. The parody version, which I originally sent to three individuals as described in my article, becomes all the more ethical (even approaching necessary) for me to post when the artist himself had publicly made characterizations regarding the nature of what I'd done in the parody, which is to say it becomes that more news worthy and clearly relevant to my story, which of course hinges largely on that parody and the reaction it received from both McCain and the artist; readers should be able to see what has been discussed at such length.
4. I have every right both as a journalist and as a public figure who has been characterized in public to defend myself from his characterizations. Before I posted the parody in public, the artist had publicly referred to it as containing libelous material against R.S. McCain; by making the parody available to my readers, I demonstrated that I have done no such thing, but rather simply made reference to known facts about McCain.
5. Aside from the legal considerations, other factors come into play. For instance, this same artist published a private e-mail exchange between the two of us without asking permission, which is also legal on his part but certainly provocative, particularly as he and his partner made it clear to me that their intention was to somehow damage my career. Meanwhile, the exchange in question concerned this very parody, further providing me with reason to provide the full context to my readers.
I've done my due diligence by consulting with my entertainment lawyer, Mirna Hariz, who actually laughed when the situation was explained to her. All in all, the fellow has absolutely no grounds whatsoever - as he even admitted in yet another e-mail to me last night - to demand that I take down a parody of his work which is the subject of both my article and his own dishonest blog post. He himself initiated the public discussion of this parody, and, again, characterized it in a way intended to portray me as having libeled another journalist. I have also explained to him that he may contact my lawyer if he'd like, but he has not done so and almost certainly never will, as he knows perfectly well that he has no legal case, and ought to know very well that he is not in the right on this one. I have already explained this to him at greater length than he deserves.
So, that's my take on the situation. Let me know if I've failed to convince you.
Thanks,
Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY
512-560-2302
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Coates Bateman
<cfbateman@publicpostinc.com> wrote:
morning,
so, i saw you post follow up.
what's your take on this based on one premise: it's his work and he's asking that you not post it
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
andrea spiegel <andreaitis@trueslant.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Subject: Fwd: Content issue
To: coates <
coates@trueslant.com>
fyi...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
<webmaster@jbyp.tfmostudios.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Subject: Content issue
To:
privacy@trueslant.comOne of your bloggers, Barrett Brown, in a recent post, used a piece of artwork. I am the person who drew that art. Mr Brown took exception to the content, copied the artwork, then altered parts of it (as an insult to me, as he admitted in an e-mail), and posted it as his own work on your site.
Mr. Brown never had permission to use my art, or edit it, or post it, nor did he seek that permission, nor will I give that permission.
I have informed him that he needs to remove this image from his site. I have not sought the advice of an attorney as yet, and perhaps there is nothing I can do from a legal aspect, but I sincerely hope that True/Slant is not the type of publication that would condone such behavior.
It should also be noted that, in his posts on his site, he is implying that he will sue me. Apparently for objecting to his theft of my artwork.
I am willing to submit proof on request that this is my artwork; I have the original drawings, which I scanned on my own computer, then edited and colored in Photoshop. Likewise, I have all the pertinent files.
Please give this your immediate attention.
Thank you,
Steve Elmore aka TFMo
--
andrea spiegel
true/slant
chief product officer
c: 703.862.9438
e:
andreaitis@trueslant.comhttp://trueslant.com/
digital me:
twitter -
twitter.com/andreaitisfacebook -
http://tinyurl.com/andreaitis
linkedin -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaitis
--
coates bateman
true/slant
executive director, content & programming
c: 732.403.1229
e:
coates@trueslant.com
http://trueslant.com/