Everyone.....PLEASE follow our copyright policy to avoid issues like this.

http://www.okctalk.com/bricktown-wired/5608-major-leaguers-opening-bricktown-club.html (http://www.okctalk.com/bricktown-wired/5608-major-leaguers-opening-bricktown-club.html)

Aren't you legally allowed to post a small portion of the article with a link to the rest of the story?

We have several attorneys on the site. Maybe one of them will chime in and clarify the issue.

It's largely unexplored territory legally speaking. So far, when an ISP gets a threatening letter with an attorney on the letterhead, they have simply pulled the plug on their customers rather than fight a costly legal battle.

Whether the website has the right to a fair use of the article or not is just not something that is cost effective to explore.

I always thought it was fine to do so, as long as you did the following:

1. mentioned the source of the article
2. mentioned the author of the source

IF I am wrong, then haven't most of us done something wrong?

I am a bit confused.

We have several attorneys on the site. Maybe one of them will chime in and clarify the issue.

I don't know this could have been done, but I did not make this post, really, I didn't

What gets me, is when this site was first started, and even long before that, I had verbal permission from folks at the Oklahoman, Journal Record AND OKCBUSINESS.com to repost their articles here. If they don't want their articles to be public, they shouldn't post them on their websites.

Because of the threat, we will comply with OKCBusiness.com. Personally, I think they're being ignorant jerks about this, especially after I had verbal permission from them to use their articles. It isn't like we were posting them without asking.

From now on, I guess, if you're going to reference one of their articles, just provide the link. It gives the same effect, without stepping on some witch's broom stick named Linda Meoli!

I'd love to have Linda Meoli personally post a rebuttal to this. For some reason, I highly doubt she will.

Maybe Linda didn't have a Valentine. ;)

Could explain the snippiness. lol

I encourage everyone to email her at lmeoli@okcbusiness.com (lmeoli@okcbusiness.com)

Give her a piece of your mind.

BTG:

It's my opinion that you're wrong. The actual definition of "fair use" (which is what we're talking about) is sketchy at best. What is and what isn't fair use is such a complex argument that it almost has to be taken on a case by case basis.

Here's a website that discusses fair use:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html

The article that was removed, in the way that it was written was probably not fair use.

Things that can help it become 'fair use' are criticism/comment on the article, if it is being used for parody, etc. Of course, that assumes that this ever gets to a judge/jury.

What upsets me is that I went to the effort to contact them several years ago and they didn't have a problem with what we were doing. And now they come and threaten Todd with a lawsuit? Boy, you're welcome for the free advertising you've been receiving.

"Gentlemen:
The article on your Web site, okctalk.com, entitled Major Leaguers To Open Nightclub In Bricktown, by Heidi Centrella, is a copyrighted story belonging to Parkway Publishing Co., LLC, doing business as OKCBusiness and okcbusiness.com. You did not seek permission from the corporation to reprint the story on your Web site.
We hereby demande that you immediately remove the article from your Web site. If the article is not removed from you site by Thursday, February 16th, we will seek legal means to have it removed.

Linda Meoli
Vice President, Operations
OKCBusiness"

First off Linda, we have ladies on here as well. I don't think the ladies on here enjoy being called gentlemen.

Anyhow, I'm really sorry that the house fell on your sister. I know it's still impacting you to this day.

I sent her a message - told her to check her spelling.

LOL! Good one Karried! :)

Just a reminder. I need everyone's help in emailing this chick:

lmeoli@okcbusiness.com (lmeoli@okcbusiness.com)

Okay everyone, let's not be petty about this. She chose to be ugly...let's not stoop to her level and do the same. Don't email her. It's not worth it.

I can probably dig up the old Blue Ribbon Award....LOL.

Good one Todd!

Okay everyone, let's not be petty about this. She chose to be ugly...let's not stoop to her level and do the same. Don't email her. It's not worth it.

Sometimes in this world you have to stick up for yourself. There are ways of doing it without getting ugly. I wasn't recommending sending nasty emails. I was merely recommending that people email her to voice their opinions. That's what democracy in America is all about.

GrandMaMa,

Since I set your account up manually my computer saved your cookie. I did not realize when I posted I was logged in under your username.

GrandMaMa,

Since I set your account up manually my computer saved your cookie. I did not realize when I posted I was logged in under your username.

That's hilarious. :D

Thank you so much for your explaination! I get into enough trouble on my own, don't need any help...LOL

GrandMaMa,

Since I set your account up manually my computer saved your cookie. I did not realize when I posted I was logged in under your username.

Darn those cookies:

http://www.yenra.com/chocolate-chip-cookies/chocolate-chip-cookies.jpg

Whoops......could this be a copyrighted image? Better check it out. Don't want to be sued you know.

You are too funny!

Okay everyone, let's not be petty about this. She chose to be ugly...let's not stoop to her level and do the same. Don't email her. It's not worth it.
I agree with you, sweetdaisy.

Don't harass OKC Business. They run a good publication, and they've got to pay their bills. It's okay to quote from their stories, and to steer people to their site. They just don't want the stories they spend money to gather to end up out in the public domain, where they make no money for their efforts. I've never understood this internet desire to ignore intellectual property rights. Maybe OKC Talk could make an arrangement with OKC Business on this matter that would benefit both sites.
How is this any different than when Todd sought financial support to keep this site alive?

FWIW, I agree with downtownguy. There's nothing wrong with a copyright holder protecting their interest. They could have emailed the ISP instead of the administrator. If that had happened, we would all be getting connection errors about now.

FWIW, I agreed with OKCBusiness.com in my original post that the article should not have been posted. I think most of the negative sentiment is based on how the situation was handled.

Most of the negative sentiment from my end is that they accused us of copyright infrigement when I had received permission to post their articles. That's what ticks me off. Also, instead of coming out and threatening a law suit, they could've handled this differently.

To be honest with you, their attitude has cost them business. I'll be cancelling my subscription next time around, and renewing by subscription with the JR.

Don't harass OKC Business. They run a good publication, and they've got to pay their bills. It's okay to quote from their stories, and to steer people to their site. They just don't want the stories they spend money to gather to end up out in the public domain, where they make no money for their efforts. I've never understood this internet desire to ignore intellectual property rights. Maybe OKC Talk could make an arrangement with OKC Business on this matter that would benefit both sites.
How is this any different than when Todd sought financial support to keep this site alive?

I don't think anyone ever said to harass OKCBusiness.

Again, the issue was that they shouldn't have granted permission to us, if they were going to turn right around and threaten us.

Anyways, there's a way around it. We simply post the link and not the story. I personally don't see what the difference is, anyhow.

I have emailed her before.. about subscription issues. Let's just say, she is not the correct person to be in the position she is in. Very unbusiness-like. She did not even try to keep me a happy customer.

So, what if there subscription is dirty cheap compared to JR. I did not see anything about getting treated like trailer trash when I paid them their money.

I wish I could find out who she actually answers to?

Email the editor.

When in doubt, go straight to the top.

Email the editor.

When in doubt, go straight to the top.


Exactly what I did. Still waiting for a response.

Maybe the lady was on her cycle. You never know. Those estrogen surges do some funky stuff to women.

I do think they have medicine for that kind of stuff now. She needs to consider taking it.

One thing to consider. Are you sure the comment was really from her? Anyone could've said they were her and emailed that. OKCTalk does have a few enemies.

Maybe the lady was on her cycle. You never know. Those estrogen surges do some funky stuff to women.

I do think they have medicine for that kind of stuff now. She needs to consider taking it. That's just patently offensive and sexist. But, I guess, I shouldn't be surprised.
.

I can probably dig up the old Blue Ribbon Award....LOL.

http://www.scstatefair.org/images/misc/blue-ribbon.jpg

Presented to Linda! First prize for rudest OKCTalk reader.

That's just patently offensive and sexist. But, I guess, I shouldn't be surprised.
.

Hey guys have cycles too, you know.

Okay everyone, let's not be petty about this. She chose to be ugly...let's not stoop to her level and do the same. Don't email her. It's not worth it.


I agree with you sweetdaisy. We shouldn't stoop to their level.

Its possible that the original complaint came from the Parkway Publishing Co. to OKCBusiness.

I agree that she was completely unprofessional and very rude about this situation, but I don't agree with sending her emails and being "unprofessional", too. I think Todd should've just emailed her back with an apology for the oversight of the person who posted, and addressed the situation with her. In addition Patrick, if you have this agreement with OKCBusiness, then you should email her and tell her so, while including the name of the person you'd had the agreement with.

It's business, and IMHO, we shouldn't take this so personally.

I agree that she was completely unprofessional and very rude about this situation, but I don't agree with sending her emails and being "unprofessional", too. I think Todd should've just emailed her back with an apology for the oversight of the person who posted, and addressed the situation with her. In addition Patrick, if you have this agreement with OKCBusiness, then you should email her and tell her so, while including the name of the person you'd had the agreement with.

It's business, and IMHO, we shouldn't take this so personally.

I completely agree that we should not stoop to her level, and send nasty hate email or anything.

Todd did email her back with an apology and a statement that the post would be removed. I then told Todd that was unncessary because we had received permission from them.

I have emailed OKCBusiness and so far my emails have gone unanswered.

Again, what upsets me is that she could've nicely asked us to remove the article and explained the situation. Instead, she demands that it be removed, and threatens legal action if it isn't removed....this all after we had permission from them, and have been reposting their articles for years now.

Still, as I said, that's no reason to repay rudeness with rudeness. I don't recommend that at all.

As I said before, if you do choose to email her, use respect in stating your opinions.

It's important to point out....agression gets you nowhere in life.....assertiveness is key.

Presented to Linda! First prize for rudest OKCTalk reader.
People may not like what she said, but her email was not rude. It was straightforward and certainly didn't convey any "warm-fuzzies," but it was not rude.

By maligning her in this thread, OKCTalk members are the ones guilty being rude.
.

Dude, read the email. She asked that the article be removed by a certain date, or she was going to seek legal action. That's pretty rude, if you ask me. She could've been nicer about it and simply asked that the article be removed, and explained her reasoning. Then, if it wasn't removed, she could've gotten ugly. Instead she chose to get ugly. Screw her.

That's not being rude. That's making a legal demand based on copyright protections. It's business. If you think that's rude, stay out of business.

Dude, read the email. She asked that the article be removed by a certain date, or she was going to seek legal action. That's pretty rude, if you ask me. She could've been nicer about it and simply asked that the article be removed, and explained her reasoning. Then, if it wasn't removed, she could've gotten ugly. Instead she chose to get ugly. Screw her.

It's called a demands letter. I write one every once in awhile. They aren't meant to to sound friendly and congenial. There's nothing friendly and congenial about demanding that someone do X or you'll file a lawsuit.

Either you're just being argumentative or you honestly don't know the significance of the letter.

That's not being rude. That's making a legal demand based on copyright protections. It's business. If you think that's rude, stay out of business.

Supposedly, Patrick, Todd, or whomever, had permission. Before she sent the nasty email, she should've gotten her facts straight. Copyright protections were taken care of. Looks to me like she was just being a jack ass about it.

The question is, with whom did Patrick have this verbal agreement?

Is this thread really serving a purpose? I ask that the moderators remove it.

The verbal permissions are normally worth the paper they are written on — nothing. Copyright permission should ALWAYS be in writing — ALWAYS. Copyright protection is serious business and the penalties can be steep. Todd has a very clear copyright policy in the Terms of Service and those who choose to violate it put Todd and this website in jeopardy.

She was well within her legal right and right to good business practice to make such a demand. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong. And just because she didn't it the legal way doesn't make her a jack ass.

The juvenile responses to her rightful, legal demand point to the true Jack asses.

The question is, with whom did Patrick have this verbal agreement?

To be real honest with you, it's been so long ago since I spoke with those folks, I honestly don't know. I just know at the time, I contacted them, the Journal Record, and The Oklahoman. All gave the go ahead.

That's all beside the point though. She made a request and we honored her request. I don't see the need to discuss this any further.

The verbal permissions are normally worth the paper they are written on — nothing. Copyright permission should ALWAYS be in writing — ALWAYS. Copyright protection is serious business and the penalties can be steep. Todd has a very clear copyright policy in the Terms of Service and those who choose to violate it put Todd and this website in jeopardy.

She was well within her legal right and right to good business practice to make such a demand. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong. And just because she didn't it the legal way doesn't make her a jack ass.

The juvenile responses to her rightful, legal demand point to the true Jack asses.

Exactly the reason we responded to their request.

The juvenile responses to her rightful, legal demand point to the true Jack asses.

You're calling me a Jack ass here. You're bold lettering points specifically to me, but you're calling everyone who has made a statement disagreeing with Linda a Jack ass. Last time I checked, calling someone on this site a name is a violation of the TOS. I'll be reporting this post to the moderators and Todd.

Keep in mind that when reporting the post that you should include yourself in the report for slanderous comments you made toward others in your own posts. I was simply borrowing your language.

Deleted duplicate post.

Keep in mind that when reporting the post that you should include yourself in the report for slanderous comments you made toward others in your own posts. I was simply borrowing your language.

Slanderous comments? Where? I'm entitled to call her a jack ass, just as I'm entitled to call Brad Henry, George Bush, etc. Jack asses. But, I shouldn't call you a jack ass, at least not publicly on this site.

There is no difference. She is not a public figure. You called her a jack ass on a public site. I simply pointed that mirror right back toward you.

Public figure or not, it doesn't matter. It isn't illegal to call someone a name in real life. The only place it's not acceptable is on message boards like this one. For example, I think the CEO of Six Flags is a real jerk for moving the HQ to New York.

Do you have any idea what slander means? It means making a false claim against someone that ruins their reputation. Has nothing to do with name calling. IF I said that Linda was sleeping around with so and so, then that would be slander.

The only place it's not acceptable is on message boards like this one. That's correct. It's not acceptable. You did it to Linda, very directly by name. I used your own words in kind in making a general statement, but taking a dig by bolding the author of the original statement.

I was incorrect in one thing, though. It was not slander; slander is oral statements. It's libel, which is written statements.

Here's a little tip from "Dancing with Lawyers (http://dancingwithlawyers.com/freeinfo/libel.shtml)":




Defamation is written or spoken injury to a person or organization's reputation. Libel is the written act of defamation, vs. slander, the oral act of defamation.

You often hear "Truth is the perfect defense against libel." A curious notion, not entirely supported by what goes on in the courts. Truth is a very good defense. It may prove an unshakable defense if you have $50,000 for lawyers to defend it. If you don't feel like being on the frontier of legal theory, you should build a somewhat better defense. Add on these concepts:

Avoid the impression of malice.

State the facts, and then state your opinion separately. This keeps things clear in your mind.

All wrong: "My neighbor John Smith is a stinking lush." This is wildly defamatory: an unproven, judgmental ("stinking" and "lush" instead of "alcoholic") statement about a private individual.

Getting better: "Governor Smith consumed 14 glasses of whiskey last night at The Watering Hole Bar. In my opinion he's an alcoholic." The proof is a bit hazy – getting drunk once does not prove alcoholism – but a governor is a public figure with less protection than John Smith, you have clearly separated fact from opinion, and there is no particular evidence of malice.

Pretty safe: "Governor Smith consumed 14 glasses of whiskey last night at The Watering Hole Bar. I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's an alcoholic." This is entirely fact, with no clear evidence of malice, about a public figure.

Do you have any idea what slander means? It means making a false claim against someone that ruins their reputation. Has nothing to do with name calling. IF I said that Linda was sleeping around with so and so, then that would be slander.
So why did you get your feathers in a ruffle and report the post?