Apparently the George Zimmerman defense team, namely Mark O’Mara, has touched somewhat of a nerve with their “announcement” of intent to subpoena school records, and social media platforms for information regarding the behavioral tendencies of Trayvon Martin.
It would appear the various legal representatives of Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton are attempting to extend their control, and financial gain, efforts as noted in this pdf attachment received via e-mail.
On March the 23rd The Huffington Post presented the following article about the Trayvon Martin shooting:
*Note the accompanying photograph (attributed to the Facebook Page of Tracy Martin) within the Huffington Post article.
The following day, March 24th, we outlined some of the false media narrative and biased “spin” within the Huffington Post article itself, in a discussion thread.
We specifically cited and credited The Huffington Post, and the accompanying picture as it was presented, as the subject matter of our criticism. The purpose of the discussion thread was education, criticism and comment as outlined not only in the title of the thread, but the entirety of the discussion example itself.
On June 13th, the image used by the Huffington Post, and shared in our discussion thread, was formally copyrighted by legal representatives and affiliations of the Trayvon family including Keesonga Gore Esq.; apparently to enforce copyright “infringment” claims.
*Note an image copyright exists from the moment any image is captured and does not need “formal declaration”.
I wonder if they submitted the same “notification” to HuffPo?
The entire construct of the discussion thread, cited and captured by the aforementioned legal notification, is structurally well within the guidelines of “fair use“.
Indeed, one could not easily imagine a more circumspect example of “fair use” as the entire construct of the thread and accompanying visual from the Huffington Post, was criticism, commentary and education to reflect the specific example of media bias within the Huffington Post article itself.
Hence the title of the discussion thread: “Deconstructing HuffPo’s Insufferable Propaganda Reporting on Trayvon Martin“. The discussion article subject was the “Huffington Post bias – Propaganda Reporting”, not Trayvon Martin.
Section 107 of the Copyright Act states:
[…] the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Source: 17 USC Section 107.
The image sourced by the Huffington Post, and cited in our critical analysis and article deconstruction, was also only a portion of the original work cited by this copyright claim. Another aspect reflecting “fair use”. The copyrighted image is apparently far more substantive.
The image itself is widely circulated and has been witnessed thousands of times in all manner of platforms and analysis regarding citations of the Trayvon Martin shooting.
I wonder how many of those platforms: Newspapers, videos, TV shows, discussion blogs, social media sites, internet searches, etc. Mr. Bogatin is contacting?
Indeed a Google Image Search of “Trayvon Martin Football” returns over 1.5 million hits. That’s a whole bunch of notifications. If that is their intent.
I wonder how that $1,000,000.00 Liberty Mutual insurance claim is going?