Curator's note: In re the blog entry http://myrightwingdad.blogspot.com/2009/11/fw-from-no-bull-newsletter.html, MRWD rec'd the following note from an attorney in Australia. The matter has been turned over to the MRWD team of attorneys for further review, but I am inclined to remove the entry only because "3. Bull, Son & Schmidt has not produced a newsletter with the title 'Who Is Really Running The Show', or with the content posted in the Blog."
Bull,Son
Schmidt
LAWYER
Our Ref: MW:PD:290710
Monday, 7 December 2009
Copyright Agent
MyRightWingDad.net
BY EMAIL MyRightWingDad@gmail.com
Dear Sir/Madam
BULL, SON & SCHMIDT BREACH OF COPYRIGHT — BLOG: THE NO BULL
NEWSLETTER WHO'S REALLY RUNNING THE SHOW?
I refer to the blog located at
bull-newsletter.html posted 30 November 2009 (
-
the Blog") and report that:
1. Richard Arthur Schmidt, Christopher George Thomas Quilter, Danny John Marucci and
Mark Charles Whowell trading as Bull, Son & Schmidt Lawyers own all copyright in the
Bull, Son & Schmidt website located at www.bullson.com.au
registered no. 754272 (Australia) and No Bull Lawyers You Can Understand trade mark
registered no. 1124165 (Australia) and all No Bull newsletters.
2. Bull, Son & Schmidt does not publish online any of its No Bull newsletters but provides
its No Bull Newsletters on request to clients and other subscribers via e-mail and post.
3. Bull, Son & Schmidt has not produced a newsletter with the title "Who Is Really Running
The Show", or with the content posted in the Blog (copy attached).
4. Bull, Son & Schmidt has not provided MyRightWingDad.net with permission to use or
refer to the No Bull trade marks or to the No Bull newsletters.
5. I am authorised to act on behalf of Bull, Son & Schmidt Lawyers with respect to these
breaches of its intellectual property rights by the Blog.
6. I can provide copies of past No Bull newsletters if required on request.
7. Bull, Son & Schmidt requires that the Blog which infringes its copyright including the No
Bull newsletters is removed immediately.
8. l confirm that I have discussed the use of Bull, Son & Schmidt's intellectual property
rights in the Blog with my partners and in good faith and belief confirm that the material
contained in the Blog has not been authorised by any of the copyright owners.
Level 7, No.1 Chandos Street
Telephone: 02 9439 5299
Partners: Richard Schmidt B.A.(NSW) LL.B (SYD)
Accredited Specialists in:
PC Box 143
Facsimile: 02 9439 6756
Christopher Quilter B.Sc. LLB (Notary Public)
Business Law
St. Leona rds NSW 1590
Email: lawyer@bullson.com.au
Daniel Marucci B.Ec.LL.B.(Hons)
Family Law
Australia
DX 3304 St. Leonards
Mark Whowell B.Ec. LL.B. M.A.
ABN 97 305 816 284
Web: www.bullson.com.au
Senior Associate:Jan ins De Saxe B.A. LL.M.
Page 2
Page 2
Monday, 7 December 2009
9. I confirm the information in this notice is accurate and under penalty of perjury I am
authorised to act on behalf of Bull, Son & Schmidt Lawyers of whom copyright has been
infringed.
Please arrange for the immediate removal of the Blog.
Yours faithfully
BULL, SON & SCHMIDT
Mark Whowell
E-mail : whawell dhallson.com.au
Encl.
A letter to MRWD ....
12/17/2009 11:50:00 AM
|
|
This entry was posted on 12/17/2009 11:50:00 AM
You can follow any responses to this entry through
the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response,
or trackback from your own site.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
So I guess they did not write that article that a wingtard claimed they did.
They must be on Obama's payroll
Not surprised. I found their "No Bull" newsletter by typing it in Google. I don't blame them for wanting to have it removed from this, or any other, website with the content that was purported to be written by them. For shame to the jackass who wrote that RWF; of course, breaking laws in the name of their "cause" is ok, as in It's OK if You're A Republican (IOKIYAR).
That was the RWF that purported to be from Australian lawyers, but then went on to use words like "we the people," "our country" and so on.
So where's troll when we need him or her to defend this outright LIE?? Oh, guess the dozen PhD's make it hard to see lies from facts.
Who makes up this junk and forwards it?? Back to my broken record: funded by corporate interests and rightwing think tanks. "Believed" by idiotic teabaggers everywhere, no matter how many advanced degrees they have.
"intellectual" property. Har har.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm assuming "commentary" falls under fair use. Which is basically the point of this entire site.
1. I doubt they have full legal rights to the term "no bull" or even "no bull newsletter" as I produced various different newsletters and sites upon searching for the term online. However, the claim that it is written by Australian lawyers does narrow down the possibilities. Further, that particular forward has been reproduced on several websites, where it still remains.
2. Good to see that the RWF was false. It was already quite obvious that the writer of the piece was neither Australian nor a lawyer.
3. I don't think that the legal firm took the time to look at the blog or the context in which the forward was posted. The forward was posted on a blog which basically shows what forwards are being passed around and then in some ways looks to debunk them. I myself posted a comment stating that this couldn't have been written by the legal firm in question. I would double check with a lawyer, but when you look at this site and the context in which these forwards are posted, I'm pretty sure you're in the clear under "fair use" or something similar-- laws which may or may be different in Australia. Regardless, unless you're an Australian citizen posting from an Australian location, I doubt they'd be able to follow through with trying to hold you to Australian standards of copyright. Had you posted it and stated that it was true, it might be a different story.
Something else just occurred to me.
1. The claim on copyright infringement can only be made on content created (and owned) by you. In the very breath that the legal firm claims copyright infringement, they also claim that they did not produce the content in question. Therefore it would be impossible to infringe upon their copyright of the material (since they also claim in writing that the material isn't theirs). If you'd claimed that the material was true, that's another story. We'd be discussing possible libel.
2. The only area where they MIGHT claim infringement is in regard to the use of the title of their newsletter as is provided in the email. However, this can likely be easily averted with a simple disclaimer that states before (and/or after) the piece that the claim made by the email as to the publication of origin is false. Even so doing, you're avoiding any possible issues of libel. It has little if anything to do with copyright.
3. Simply referring to a business or publication that is trademarked is not a case of copyright, which is why you're able to do things like consumer product reviews. If I say, "Taco Bell is a fast food establishment," that is perfectly legal. As long as you stick to truth and/or opinion, you should be fine. In fact, some might find it helpful to see that the forward they got was in fact false and see proof of such.
According to the study, the most important tool for small businesses to succeed in 2010 is search engine marketing, while email marketing, public relations and social media cited as crucial for success.
23.8% of all small businesses reported that search engine marketing was the tool most needed for their business to succeed in 2010.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Post a Comment