Gawker loses round with Palin

(CBS/ AP) A federal judge on Saturday ordered the website Gawker to pull down unauthorized excerpts from Sarah Palin’s forthcoming book, “America By Heart,” until a hearing scheduled for Nov. 30, reports Politico. U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Griesa signed a two-page order telling Gawker to take down the excerpts Saturday. “Gawker is temporarily retrained and enjoined from continuing to distribute, publish or otherwise transmit pages,” said Griesa. The link to Gawker’s scoop, “Sarah Palin’s New Book: Leaked Excerpts,” is currently broken.

Palin’s Publisher Sues Gawker over Book Excerpts Gawker defended its action in a post Thursday titled “Sarah Palin is Mad at Us for Leaking Pages From Her Book” and addressed a message to “Sarah” telling her to read pages about fair use under copyright law. “Or skip the totally boring reading and call one of your lawyers,” the post said. “They’ll walk you through it.” Palin’s publisher, HarperCollins filed a lawsuit Friday in Federal Court in Manhattan against Gawker Media asking that the company be banned from what it terms “further copyright infringement” and that Gawker deliver the source material to the publisher so it can be destroyed. HarperCollins is also seeking financial damages. In response, Palin tweeted, “Isn’t that illegal?” Gawker Media LLC couldn’t immediately be reached for comment Saturday but appeared to have removed the images from its site.

See the order here.

Advertisements

16 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Dusty
    Nov 21, 2010 @ 12:31:07

    Maybe not- check this out http://tinyurl.com/26649q8 The images and page still lives.
    Enjoy

    Reply

  2. Emily Peacock
    Nov 21, 2010 @ 13:20:52

    It lives in Google cache and it’s being Twittered all over the Universe as we speak. Unless they shut down Teh InnerNet™, the page lives.

    Reply

  3. Sarah breaks custody laws for Tripp-- will she be held accountable
    Nov 21, 2010 @ 13:47:17

    or in contempt?

    Does that part in Bristol and Levi’s custody agreement mean nothing, that part about neither party disparaging each other or having the little guy around anyone who disparages the other to anyone whether or not he is around? If she is so self righteous about the law, maybe Boob Job needs to stop slamming her ex almost son in love. And make her daughter knock it off, too.

    Why aren’t Chuck n’ Sal talking some sense into her about the mouths of their grand daughters? Did she get this way from THEM?

    Reply

  4. Syrin
    Nov 21, 2010 @ 14:24:05

    Something I need to become more informed on is ‘copyright law’.
    I would think that a relationship between a ‘publisher and author’ would be contractual. So, how is that contract or law being broken with a party who is not under contract? That used to be called getting the ‘SCOOP’.. Honestly, I believe that’s exactly what Gawker provided..

    Reply

  5. Tom
    Nov 21, 2010 @ 15:04:13

    Didn’t someone say they saw the book already on sale the other day? If the book was available when Gawker posted the pages then they wouldn’t have violated copywrite laws if the book was publicly available, correct? I know it’s supposed to be released this Tues but the person who said they say the book available made a point to say they didn’t know why the big release date was being advertised when this obviously wasn’t the case.

    Reply

    • Syrin
      Nov 21, 2010 @ 15:23:46

      Yes, I’ve heard that it’s on sale at Walmart and Target through this weekend. I also see NewsMax is giving them away for $5.95 shipping, Right now! I was told that sometimes big distributors who buy mass qualities, again, as a contractual agreement are able to pre sell to start the countdown to the best seller list. It’s so convenient to be a honest and thoughtful Christian Conservative and have a staff of lawyers to stir up crap, I mean contention, when there may not even be any. It’s all for her false personal narrative..

      Reply

  6. Martha
    Nov 21, 2010 @ 15:58:43

    Syrin,

    Just go to PalinGates to see the scanned photo’s of the book’s pages, and they “broke” the story first.

    No mention of suing them however, as it will bring up too many questions of Palin’s faked pregnancy.

    That is ample defense for Gawker, I would think, that they weren’t the first to quote the book, others are posting actual pictures of the book’s pages and continue to do so.

    So WHY is Gawker being singled out??

    http://palingates.blogspot.com/

    Reply

  7. pamela
    Nov 21, 2010 @ 16:02:03

    This is not a loss; it is SOP to remove allegedly infringing material until the court can adjudicate it. Given the whole purpose of Gawker is satire / parody, the allegation of copyright infringement has no merit. Publishing pages in advance of publication is fair use. Happens all the time. Also, in order to collect damages, the publisher must prove “loss.” I doubt they can given how much free publicity they got from Gawker’s stunt. Frivolous lawsuit from a representatives of a candidate who would limit your ability to file suits of this kind. IOKIYAR

    Reply

  8. Syrin
    Nov 21, 2010 @ 16:13:08

    As is my MO, I’ve found it handy to re-post articles that chronical this womans dealings with the press in their entiriety.
    ….arrow down a couple posts
    Because Palin has been successful in bullying media and publications where they have either gone back and deleted parts of the original as in a WSJ peice that had an Alaskan legislator proclaim that indeed Palin was guilty of Abuse of Power and could be impeached… Anyone remember that? WHEN MEDIA TRIES TO GET CLOSE..She retaliates with a false righteuos anger about her privacy and how her rights are being violated! When it’s Palin who is violating and setting a precident for reverse of the First amendment..She thinks it’s to protect her rambling idiotic speech, but it’s truely to protect political speech no matter what ideals are talked about. .. She thought it ws just a matter of calling someone at their home and having a underling tell me to STOP BLOGGING and that I should be ashamed of myself if I don’t.. Nothing has changed, except the suing part. You’d think Gawker would have lawyers to counter this suit..

    Reply

    • Helen
      Nov 21, 2010 @ 16:17:34

      I’ll never forget the New York Times censoring the letter to the editor from Andrea Faye Friedman after Sarah Palin attacked ‘The Family Guy’.

      It’s a good thing Palingates published the entire letter and exposed the NYT.

      Reply

  9. Helen
    Nov 21, 2010 @ 16:13:31

    Syrin, copyright law allows for something like “fair use”, which basically restricts reproduction of copyright material to a percentage, for the use of things like education, study and commentary/criticism. Teachers are generally very familiar with it because of their hand-outs.

    Since I couldn’t make myself read Sarah Palin’s dribbling – even if I were paid – I don’t know whether Gawker will be deemed to have fallen within the guidelines. Certainly, the judge didn’t stir himself to determine it.

    I believe Gawker had a strategy for doing what they did – after all, those pages were up for a few days before the interim order, certainly long enough for them to have served their purpose – and folks had plenty of opportunity to see what a work of garbage the book is.

    The bigger crime is paying good money for something like that.

    Reply

  10. WakeUpAmerica
    Nov 21, 2010 @ 17:32:11

    Your most recent post isn’t posting. I get an error message when I try to connect from Gryphen’s blog.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Syrin From Wasilla’s Stats

%d bloggers like this: