Facts & email relevant to New York Times effort to suppress poet's work
Under the threat of legal action by the New York Times, a poet has suppressed five* pieces he posted online.
Brian Kim Stefans had created five* pieces that offered a kind of performative duet involving establishment media (the Times) and situationist rhetoric (Raoul Vaneigem). In his blog entry of Oct. 29, Stefans explained he'd been given a cease and desist order by the Times and 10 days to comply with it.
He has complied, replacing his work with an Mickey Mouse image and brief note. For a sense of what he does, here's a sample of his work that might suggest certain of its parodic qualities.
It should be noted that Stefans did not launch a new print publication that used the venerable Times template. He didn't try to sell his pieces. He didn't seek to compete with the Times or to hack into the Times' site. He simply employed elements of the paper to create performances, which he called detournements, in a virtual space.
I wrote to Stefans to make sure that this understanding of the situation was accurate.
He replied:
''Yes, that's accurate. You can also add that I didn't buy a URL that looked like a times URL -- say nytime.com -- but that it was always clearly part of my site. And Raoul Vaneigem is, at least in some circles, a very well known writer -- if I had used Ernest Hemingway it might have been more obvious...''
Stefans was originally contacted by the Times through an email from its legal department, signed by attorney Nancy Richman. Here's Ms. Richman asking Stefans to remove his work "from public display":
-----Original Message--
From: Nancy Richman/CORPHQ/NYTIMES [mailto:richmann@nytimes.com] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 6:15 PM To: bstefans@earthlink.net Subject: The New York Times home page
I am counsel to The New York Times Company, the owner of The New York Times on the Web at http://www.nytimes.com.
It has come to our attention that you have posted an altered version of the home page of the September 24, 2002 edition of nytimes.com at http://www/arras.net/blair_present-dossier.htm. While the page reproduces the nytimes.com template, including the day's advertisements, it replaces selected bylines and other features with content you have supplied. Most significantly, you have substantially changed the lead article to include long and rambling made-up quotes from British Prime Mininster Tony Blair regarding the need to act against Iraq, under the byline of Raoul Vaneigem.
The editors at the Times appreciate a good parody and would not take action against it. However, the subject matter of this particular page appears to be more serious in nature. Therefore, even though we are sure that your intent was non-malicious, we must inform you that your use of the Times's name, logos and home page design and layout constitutes trademark and copyright infringement.
While we respect your efforts to make a statement, we must ask that you do so in a manner that does not violate our proprietary rights, or the rights of our advertisers. Please remove the page from public display and confirm to us in writing within the next ten days that you will not use our home page in the future in this same way. If you would like to discuss this matter, please give me a call at 212-556-1760. Thank you for your cooperation.
(In an email to me, Stefans said: ''I'm not bothered by the Times so much as I'm bothered by the fact that they claim to be acting on behalf of their advertisers -- 'the rights of our advertisers' was one of the lines.'')
I then wrote to Nancy Richman as follows:
Dear Ms. Richman,
I am a journalist interested in the new tangle of intellectual property relations spawned by networked communication, and would appreciate your help in verifying or denying a piece of information.
It is my understanding that the NY Times has asked a poet, Brian Kim Stefans, to remove several pieces he created and posted on the Web. Mr. Stefans has posted an account of the facts here:
http://www.arras.net/weblog/000026.html
Ideally I would welcome both your confirmation that Mr. Stefans was indeed threatened with a cease and desist order, and an explanation of why the newspaper saw reason to have these works suppressed.
Very truly yours,
Thomas Matrullo
I also left a message on her voicemail, requesting confirmation of the facts and an opportunity to seek a better understanding of the Times' view of the issues. She responded this morning as follows:
-----Original Message--
From: Nancy Richman/CORPHQ/NYTIMES [mailto:richmann@nytimes.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:43 AM To: Tom Matrullo Subject: Re: Stefans confirmation
This is in response to your query.
The Times appreciates a good parody. In this case, it was not sufficiently apparent to us that this was a parody which is why we asked Mr. Stefans to remove it.
Regards,
Nancy Richman
To which I replied:
Dear Ms. Richman,
Thank you for this communication. If I may ask two follow-up questions:
1. What would have been your course of action had Mr. Stefans declined to comply?
2. What would be required for Mr. Stefans' piece to be sufficiently distinguishable from the New York Times and still fit the definition of "parody"?
Yours,
*I have been advised by Mr. Stefans that he actually had posted five of his Times pieces by the time he took them down at the behest of the newspaper.
That's it so far. Some further ruminations here. "News" as it happens.
Your thoughts welcome.
12:11:35 AM 
|
