Search Maine Yellow Pages 

Stand for Marriage Maine rejects NPR claims

Submitted by Matt Wickenheiser on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 10:56
in

The Stand for Marriage Maine campaign today issued a statement rejecting claims that it violated National Public Radio’s copyright by using content from a radio show in its latest TV ads.

“Yesterday we received a letter from a staff lawyer with NPR asserting that an advertisement by the Yes on 1 campaign violated NPR’s copyright and demanded that we cease airing the ad. This is a ridiculous and frivolous complaint,” wrote Marc Mutty, chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine, in a statement. “There has been no copyright violation against NPR or anyone else. As is made clear in the attached letter from our legal counsel, Stand For Marriage Maine has the absolute right to use news clips aired on NPR in our advertisement. This is a protected exercise of the First Amendment of the US Constitution and is expressly contemplated as “fair use” in our nation’s copyright laws.”

In an Oct. 20 letter to NPR’s legal counsel, Stand for Marriage Maine’s Indiana-based law firm, Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom asserts that no permission was required to use pieces of an NPR story titled, “Massachusetts Schools Grapple with Including Gay & Lesbian Relationships in Sex Education,” which aired on an episode of NPR’s “All Things Considered” on Sept. 13, 2004.

NPR on Tuesday sent cease and desist letters to Stand for Marriage Maine and its public relations consultant, Schubert Flint, claiming their copyright had been violated. Schubert Flint rejected the claim on Tuesday.

Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom said today the use of the audio content was protected.

“(Stand for Marriage Maine’s) use is not a commercial use, but as an issue advocacy advertisement it is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the fair use doctrine of the Copyright Act,” the attorneys wrote.

They cited legal cases including National Rifle Association of America v. Handgun Control Federation of Ohio and Hustler Magazine v. Moral Majority.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Jennifer Davenport on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 06:22.
HAHAHAHHAHAHHA grasping for straws and their lawyers are too. Forget that it has a POINT! All everyone wants to worry about is shoving it under the rug. What you don't know won't hurt you? Continue to live in your lil bubble, I am voting YES ON 1!!!!!!
Submitted by Steve Baltis on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 22:32.
Hello Jennie, The Yin and the Yang, that's why one should vote yes on question 1, and, more simply, for the respect of the natural marriage of opposites. For this is precisely what has brought you here. This respect, for the unyielding condition of humanity, is precisely what provides you the ability to make a silly argument that literally thousands of independently evolving cultures have disregarded throughout the ages of history. And, I might add, they have done so with sound, empirical and fundamental reasoning. You see, it's rather simple, a collection of homosexual relationships are not naturally capable of building a human community. Think about it, take away artificial insemination and what do you have? Well, you have a collection of homosexual relationships that produce no offspring...no family...no community. They are only capable of undertaking the care of the surplus young produced by heterosexuals. I would suggest you try reading the Tao Te Ching...for starters. Delusional, contemporary western thought, which grossly disrespects our longstanding, limited human condition, will most assuredly be defeated...the teeth of time, and indeed human biology, are ultimately against you.....sorry….and more importantly, good luck with the choices you have made.
Submitted by Jennie smith on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 16:26.
Submitted by Mitchell Owens on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 16:39.

let's all vote and have the people of maine decide.  then will this issue please DIE because frankly, though I'm voting Yes, I really don't care either way on how the vote comes up.

 

Then why not vote No?  :)

 

And yes, Matt P, I laughed out loud when I saw the Hustler case as part of their justification.

Submitted by Maggiesway on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 16:23.
"This is a ridiculous and frivolous complaint" ++ And we all know just how frivolous and ridiculous Public Radio behaves....just a bunch of old sillies. Why is it that everyone else is wrong, in all these accusations, and Stand for Marriage (NOT Stand for Morals) is always right????
Submitted by A BC on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 16:23.

I just love the false advertising SFM is putting out there. Like the two teachers that talk about public schools, even though they work at a private, religious school? Yeah.

Submitted by Mitchell Owens on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 15:39.

let's all vote and have the people of maine decide.  then will this issue please DIE because frankly, though I'm voting Yes, I really don't care either way on how the vote comes up.

 

Submitted by A BC on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 16:25.

If you don't care how the vote goes, then why even vote? If you really did not care you would obstain yourself from pushing to either side. I know I would rather have less people vote than people who just don't care.

Submitted by T Bo on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 14:54.
Geez, does Stand for Maine Marriage have anyone from Maine working for them? Its funded from out of state, ads from out of State, management from out of State and now their law firm is from out of State? Makes you wonder why they have such a close interest in what we do up here doesn't it?
Submitted by Maggiesway on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 16:27.
T Bo, this is Maine workers of Equality Maine vs out of state hired guns, paid for by money from the Catholic and Morman churches. It's still possible that No on 1 may lose, but at least we'll have peace of mind knowing we were acting WITH Maine people FOR Maine people.
Submitted by sharon mann on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 14:23.
Stand for Shame continues it's all out assault on our families using stolen material. Some Moral High ground.
Submitted by Ron Dexter on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 12:56.

Just because it's legal, doesn't it make it right.

Submitted by Matt Pelletier on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 12:25.

anyone else note the irony of a group claiming that gay marrige will be bad for the moral fibers of Maine is using a case won by Larry Flint and Hustler magazine?

Submitted by ellen wrey on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 04:43.

In several online editions this story appears just above or below one about the church that provides the leadership and a lot of the funding for this campaign finally (after decades of criminal enabling) admitting to the long term pedophilia of a priest they had protected.

So it is not at all surprising that these people are now acting in a manner that is clearly morally bankrupt. Their current actions are consistent with their past behavior.

Submitted by S T on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 12:02.

It would appear that Yes on 1 is getting desperate.

Submitted by Maggiesway on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 16:25.
It does look that way doesn't it? With good reason, when you start out lying and then only increase the deceit and manipulation of truth, you are forever chasing your tail trying to catch up with yourself.
Submitted by Randy Hagan on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 12:00.

And I'd accept the Fair Use clause of US Copyright Law over your petty whining. It doesn't matter what you want to happen; the Stand for Marriage folks are well within accepted case law. NPR was stretching when it asserted use of its own publicly-broadcasted content was a copyright violation.

Anyone can send a letter asserting their rights. It's another thing to prove them. As a defender of mass media, NPR overstepped its copyright protection on this issue. I too hope that NPR (attempts to) sue their a$$es. It'll simply reinforce existing case law.

Submitted by ellen wrey on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 04:39.

Fair use requires a causal or modified (i.e a satire) use of material only. The SFM use of NPR's work is the primary basis of their ad. It does not meet the legal limitations allowed under fair use.

Even Larry Flint didn't use an argument this morally bankrupt.

Submitted by ellen wrey on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 19:16.

The Fair Use doctrine does not allow an entity to use copywritten materials as the primary basis of their own production.  That is exactly what Stand For (my) Marriage (only) has done.

It is a clear violation and they will lose in court, but they are so unethical that they don't care because the courts probably won't act soon enough to stop them.

Submitted by Terry Wood on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 11:45.

  Stand for Marriage says its lawyer says it isn't in violation of copyright law, but NPRs lawyer says it is......I would believe the lawyer from NPR before the low life lawyer under contract to Stand For Marriage and the Catholic Church.

Submitted by Jay Cee on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 11:25.

I hope NPR sues their a$$es