Photograph of the mysterious "TreasureForce Commander" (pending copyright release). J. Hutton Pulitzer, aka "TreasureForce Commander," didn't like my post from yesterday. His reaction wasn't to argue with the content, however, but to say I was making unfair use of his copyrighted material by quoting him. On his Copper Culture Artifacts, Finds, Discussion and Debate page on Facebook, he said my "quotes are over the 'allowable length' for using in 'other media' without a release" and he requested that I formally ask him for permission.
I'm not going to do that, because I'm not inclined to think I did anything improper. I believe I'm covered under "fair use," which "is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism" (source). My website is not commercial (I'm not selling anything, let alone producing a product that will compete monetarily with whatever it is Pulitzer is doing), and the post was clearly for the purposes of commentary and criticism. I transcribed 184 words (said in a little over a minute) from a 39 minute interview containing who-knows-how many thousands of words. I used the quote to create something new. I attributed the quote. These are all standard things that researchers, scholars, and reporters do. I'm not a lawyer, and Pulitzer isn't either to the best of my knowledge. I told him to have his lawyer contact me if he really thinks I've done something improper. I'm more than happy to fix a mistake if I've made one (it wouldn't be the first time), but I'm not going to take Pulitzer's word for it that I actually have made one. I don't think I have.
The funny thing here is how quickly he reached for the legal card as a defense to criticism. As far as I know, I didn't misquote him - he said what he said and I wrote it down. Assuming he stands by what he said, you would think he would be happy to be quoted. Am I missing something? Isn't getting attention the whole idea? He likes to brag about how many listeners he has, so I would guess that more listeners would be a good thing. I'm sure he didn't like the overall tone of the post, which was critical. But rather than respond to the substance he supposes he can compel me to change my work by refusing to give me permission to quote him. He purports to be leading a discussion of ideas, but doesn't want to be quoted without permission: so much for the "raging debate" we're all supposed to be having! Can you imagine if scientists did that ("I didn't like your critique of my paper, so I'm not giving you permission to quote me"), or politicians ("you don't agree with what I said on the radio, so I'm not giving you permission to quote me")? That's why we have a thing called "fair use."
Another funny thing: if page views and "likes" are any indication, yesterday's "When To Break Off the Engagement" post was one of the most popular things I've written on this blog. In the 30 hours since I first posted it, it has been "liked" 155 times and viewed 625 times. Those aren't big numbers by internet standards, but they're big numbers for my blog. And, I will note, they are good numbers compared to the number of "plays" and "likes" of Pulitzer's interview with Zimmerman, which has been available for 21 days: as of this writing, that interview has been played 488 times and "liked" twice. Half of those likes, incidentally, are by a mysterious figure that goes by the screen name of TreasureForce Commander.
I'm not going to do that, because I'm not inclined to think I did anything improper. I believe I'm covered under "fair use," which "is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism" (source). My website is not commercial (I'm not selling anything, let alone producing a product that will compete monetarily with whatever it is Pulitzer is doing), and the post was clearly for the purposes of commentary and criticism. I transcribed 184 words (said in a little over a minute) from a 39 minute interview containing who-knows-how many thousands of words. I used the quote to create something new. I attributed the quote. These are all standard things that researchers, scholars, and reporters do. I'm not a lawyer, and Pulitzer isn't either to the best of my knowledge. I told him to have his lawyer contact me if he really thinks I've done something improper. I'm more than happy to fix a mistake if I've made one (it wouldn't be the first time), but I'm not going to take Pulitzer's word for it that I actually have made one. I don't think I have.
The funny thing here is how quickly he reached for the legal card as a defense to criticism. As far as I know, I didn't misquote him - he said what he said and I wrote it down. Assuming he stands by what he said, you would think he would be happy to be quoted. Am I missing something? Isn't getting attention the whole idea? He likes to brag about how many listeners he has, so I would guess that more listeners would be a good thing. I'm sure he didn't like the overall tone of the post, which was critical. But rather than respond to the substance he supposes he can compel me to change my work by refusing to give me permission to quote him. He purports to be leading a discussion of ideas, but doesn't want to be quoted without permission: so much for the "raging debate" we're all supposed to be having! Can you imagine if scientists did that ("I didn't like your critique of my paper, so I'm not giving you permission to quote me"), or politicians ("you don't agree with what I said on the radio, so I'm not giving you permission to quote me")? That's why we have a thing called "fair use."
Another funny thing: if page views and "likes" are any indication, yesterday's "When To Break Off the Engagement" post was one of the most popular things I've written on this blog. In the 30 hours since I first posted it, it has been "liked" 155 times and viewed 625 times. Those aren't big numbers by internet standards, but they're big numbers for my blog. And, I will note, they are good numbers compared to the number of "plays" and "likes" of Pulitzer's interview with Zimmerman, which has been available for 21 days: as of this writing, that interview has been played 488 times and "liked" twice. Half of those likes, incidentally, are by a mysterious figure that goes by the screen name of TreasureForce Commander.
RSS Feed
