DID HATCH USE STAR TRIBUNE PHOTO IN CAMPAIGN BROCHURE? #2
These are the guildlines for requesting permission from the Star Tribune to use a photo or article.
I can't determine if Hatch's brochure sourced the photo.
##
Permission to Reprint Articles and Photos
Material published in the Star Tribune newspaper and on startribune.com, including articles, photos, graphics and other content, is copyrighted by the Star Tribune and by other information providers who have licensed their content to the Star Tribune. You may not reproduce, republish or redistribute this material without the written permission of Star Tribune.
Star Tribune receives frequent requests for republishing articles and photos. If the request is for noncommercial purposes and meets the other rules established by Star Tribune, we will grant these requests.
Please note: Star Tribune cannot grant reprint permission for material from the Associated Press, the New York Times News Service, the Washington Post-Los Angeles Times News Services, features syndicates and other sources. You must contact those agencies directly to obtain permission from them. In some cases, we may be able to provide phone numbers of news services, syndicates and other newspapers. If you seek such information, please request it on the permission form. Contact information also is available in public libraries that have access to the Editor & Publisher Directory of Syndicated Services.
The permission form is for noncommercial use of material from Star Tribune, which means that you are not reselling the material or selling avertising in association with that content. In addition, you must agree to abide by these rules:
- An article or editorial must be republished in its entirety. Bylines and credit lines ("By John Smith, Star Tribune Staff Writer") must be retained. Photos and graphics must be reproduced as they were originally published in the Star Tribune newspaper. Digital alteration of a photo is absolutely forbidden.
- The original date of publication of the material in the Star Tribune newspaper must accompany the article.
- This language must be added at the end of the article: "Copyright 2003 Star Tribune. Republished with permission of Star Tribune, Minneapolis-St. Paul. No further republication or redistribution is permitted without the written consent of Star Tribune."
- Permission will NOT be granted to republish an article as a promotion piece to solicit new business, for fund raising or as a lobbying tool. Permission may be granted, however, if reprints will be distributed as information to existing customers or to potential customers who have requested additional information about an organization.
- Political candidates and political organizations will be granted permission to republish editorials from the Star Tribune newspaper. It must be explicit that the material appeared as an editorial in the Star Tribune newspaper. Political candidates and political organizations will NOT be granted permission to republish news articles from the News, Business, Sports and Features sections of the Star Tribune newspaper.
- For republication on another Web site: The credit line at the top of the article must be a hypertext link back to the Star Tribune's Web site at www.startribune.com. Under the credit line must be the date when the article was originally published in the Star Tribune newspaper or on the startribune.com Web site.
- For republication on a personal Web site: Star Tribune limits you to republishing a combination of 10 articles or photos at any one time.
12 Comments:
Minnesota Republican Watch doesn't allow comments, so I thought I would post here that Bill Walsh's wife, Donna, died last evening.
I bring up MRW because they mention him in a recent article on Governor Pawlenty's staff. I thought this would let them know that if they had any more plans for the story, maybe they could call off the dogs for a while so this guy can greive.
Please email me offline to discuss your comments.
MDE, I assume you have the permission from the Strib when you republish their stories, as you have done this countless times. I would never want to call you a hypocrite, so I'll give you the chance now to produce the letter or e-mail giving you permission. Feel free to forward it to me at dflblog@gmail.com. (I also think you should check your compliance on a number of those)
MDE,
were you talk to me or Toby about emailing you offline?
Toby,
Try googling "Fair Use Doctrine" and you might be suprised as to what you find. Although, as I stated in another post, reposting entire articles is usually a no - no. Especially, if no commentary is offered up. One could also argue that this is site is for commercial gain due to the fact that MDE sells products on his site, in which case, the fair use doctrine goes out the window. But obviously, the Strib's legal department has been here and and seen what is here. If they had a problem with it, they probably would have made mention of more than a single picture to her/him in there communications with him/her.
Party Opposite: Bill Walsh's wife did not die last evening.
Her name is not Donna, and damn you for posting this false information on Minnesota Democrats Exposed.
Abrogans,
The point that I was making was that MDE was calling out Mike Hatch for not following the Strib guidelines. "Fair Use" is hardly the entire article with highlighting as commentary, especially if MDE is just recycling the article. I'm sure the Strib doesn't really care, and neither do I, for that matter.
MDE,
Are you saying that Bill Walsh has a secret second wife who may or may not have recently passed away? More importantly, can you prove definitively that he doesn't have a secret second spouse? All that I'm saying is maybe one of his wives is named Donna. :)
My apologies to MDE, the Walshes and MRW.
It appreas I had my Walsh families confused. I meant absolutely no harm and I sincerely apologize for the mistake.
Thanks!
I mean it. Really. You just proved my point Pouty Operative. you spread false information, and you aren't culpable. You have no responsibility to say the truth, to check your sources because you face no penalty if you're wrong. You have no culpability, so no reason to make sure that what you say is right. If you post something incorrect, or exaggerated you're hidden behind the handy veil of anonymity on the internet. You don't have any penalty for being wrong.
Good job, and keep it up.
Sean Broom
Sean,
You certainly have every reason to think I have no penalty for my confusion over the information I received yesterday. But you are wrong.
I received an email from someone I know with the last name Walsh who referred to a Bill losing his wife. Because of obvious connections, I put the two together and assumed the person was Bill Walsh. Unfortunately and fortunately, I was horribly wrong.
But to say I come through this unscathed is incorrect and a hasty assumption on your part, because you assume that just because I am anonymous here means I am anonymous everywhere. Not that I begrudge you for thinking that, it would be unfair of me seeing as you would have had no idea of that.
Also, I feel great stupidity for myself that I spread false information about someone's life.
You have no responsibility to say the truth, to check your sources because you face no penalty if you're wrong.
What about all the non-sense you post that's wrong?
Still waiting for your definition of "fundamentalist", and answers to the questions about whether or not you think conservatives are stupid and if you think you're smarter than them.
But moreover, and it's not that hard John-- I'm culpable for what I do and say. If I were to write on here that I helped Tim Pawlenty hide to body of a coked-up hooker he accidentally killed, it would be me Sean Broom, who you could say was wrong. Who you could say, spread false information. Me. See thats easy. I put my name behind my words. If I'm wrong, it stands against me. Not against some anonymous screen name, but rather me. I don't spread things that are false warmed by the securirty blanket that is anonymity.
Whether you think its wrong or not is another argument in its entirety, but that argument is easy, because you think *I* am wrong. Not some stupid name like AnyonymousNorthernLiberalWankyDebator, rather Sean.
As for my definition of Fundamentalist, its easy, take a long look in the mirror, sniff your self and you've found out what I think a fundamentalist is.
Notice, I've never said christian fundamentalist, thats just something you've started screaming about yourself. So, do you play the victim game much John.
*sniff sniff*
I don't know about your second question as I never read it and don't know the context or situation. I think there are lots of very intelligent conservatives in this world. I enjoy a good go round with any of 'em.
Do I think I'm smarter than they are?
What kind of bullshit is this? I'm a moron John. A little shithead twenty something, no I don't think I am smarter than every conservative out there. And it's pretty clear I've gotten under your skin buddy, just relax, go eat children for lunch or something, and take a joke.
Sean
Post a Comment
<< Home