WomenToWomen asks removal of links (7)
|
September 20, 2005 | |
Sender Information:
Concordia Partners (womentowomen.com)
Sent by: [Private]
SEO manager
Portland, ME, 04101, US
|
Recipient Information:
[Private]
Google, Inc.
Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA
Sent via: fax
Re: NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT1. Allegedly infringed materials: The copyrighted work at issue is the article copyrighted 2000, entitled "The Basics of Nutrition" which appears at
http://www.womentowomen.com/LIBnutritionalbasics.asp 2. Location of the material claimed to infringe copyright: http://www.21stcenturynutrition.net/highlight.php Observed 30 August, 2005 3. My contact information is as follows: Concordia Partners
[private], SEO manager
[private]@womentowomen.com
[private] F: [private]
[private] Portland, ME 04101 United States 4. The contact information of the allegedly infringing web page owner is as follows: [private] [private]@iol.ie 5. I have good faith belief that the use of the copyrighted materials described above on the allegedly infringing web page is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. 6. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
[private]
20 September 2005
|
| FAQ: Questions and Answers | |
[back to notice text]
Question: How do courts look at the context of a statement?
Answer: For a blog, a court would likely start with the general tenor, setting, and format of the blog, as well as the context of the links through which the user accessed the particular entry. Next the court would look at the specific context and content of the blog entry, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the blog's audience. Context is critical. For example, it was not libel for ESPN to caption a photo "Evel Knievel proves you're never too old to be a pimp," since it was (in context) "not intended as a criminal accusation, nor was it reasonably susceptible to such a literal interpretation. Ironically, it was most likely intended as a compliment." However, it would be defamatory to falsely assert "our dad's a pimp" or to accuse your dad of "dabbling in the pimptorial arts." (Real case, but the defendant sons succeeded in a truth defense).
|
|
 FAQ: Questions |
|
|
| More Like This Notice |
|
|
|
| Related News |
|
|
|
| Related Resources |
|
|
|
| Other Topics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ: Questions