The Vice-President [sic] of the Tulsa World has threatened legal action against Michael D. Bates of BatesLine for "reproduc[ing] (in whole or in part) articles and/or editorials" and for allegedly "inappropriately" link[ing his] blog to Tulsa World content:
Dear Mr. Bates:
I am writing on behalf of World Publishing Company, publisher of the Tulsa World. We have recently learned that your website, www.Batesline.com, has reproduced (in whole or in part) articles and/or editorials from the Tulsa World newspaper or has inappropriately linked your website to Tulsa World content.
The Tulsa World copyrights its entire newspaper and specifically each of the articles and/or editorials at issue. The reproduction of any articles and/or editorials (in whole or in part) on your website or linking your website to Tulsa World content is without the permission of the Tulsa World and constitutes an intentional infringement of the Tulsa World's copyright and other rights to the exclusive use and distribution of the copyrighted materials.
Therefore, we hereby demand that you immediately remove any Tulsa World material from your website, to include unauthorized links to our website, and cease and desist from any further use or dissemination of our copyrighted content. If you desire to use (in whole or in part) any of the content of our newspaper, you must first obtain written permission before that use. If you fail to comply with his demand, the Tulsa World will take whatever legal action is necessary to assure compliance, Additionally, we will pursue all other legal remedies, including seeking damages that may have resulted as a result of this infringement.
We look forward to your immediate response and cooperation in this matter. Please acknowledge your compliance by signing below and returning to me.
Sincerely,
(signed)
John R. Bair
Vice-President [sic]
Tulsa World
Bates posts, "excerpting copyrighted material for the purpose of criticism is covered by the fair use exemption, and linking to content cannot be a copyright violation because nothing is actually copied."
At Outside The Beltway, James Joyner posts some worthwhile, cautionary considerations concerning the fair use doctrine.
The Tulsa World is making a huge mistake here. Bates' "criticism" of the Tulsa World doesn't harm the newspaper. It probably adds to the World's readership. Someday the mainstream media will figure out there is a synergy between blogs and the old media. Usually this is good for both blogs and the old media blogs comment on. In the case of the Tulsa World's threatening BatesLine, the World will be the loser. The so-called newspaper should have welcomed every on-line mention it received from Bates and others. I sure it will not like how it is going to be seen in the blogosphere now.
At Slant Point, Scott Sala posts that "if this is a sign of a trend where big media barricade themselves from criticism in an effort to project their unopposed viewpoints, big media is indeed is more trouble than we thought."
Michelle Malkin sums up this kerfuflle posting, "If the MSM can't beat bloggers, they'll sue 'em."
At Confederate Yankee, Bob Owens calls the Tulsa World's threat a heavy handed attempt to stifle free speech.
At Snapshot, George Gaskell predicts the main stream media will call for some kind of journalism licensing scheme to lock the competition [I think he is referring to people like us] out.
At A Dusty Life, Douglas Ott makes a terrific point with the title of his post "Old Media is Afraid of Dying."
At Wizbang, Kevin Aylward posts the terrific e-mail he sent to Mr. Bair.
In his letter to Mr. Bair, Kevin explains why the Tulsa World's attempt to muzzle Bates is important to the blogoshpere:
Even though you are only targeting a couple small weblogs, when you attempt to silence them you attempt to silence us all.
Comments