Liberals [possibly] committing fraud to go after Sarah Palin

[Knightskye]

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/21/palin-haters-to-release-lookalike-attack-book-on-nov-17/
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/10/leftists-going-to-release-palin-hit-piece-going-rouge-on-same-day-as-her-book-launch/

Look at these two book covers:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/palin-rouge.jpg

First, on the "Going Rouge" cover, it seems like 'Sarah Palin' is the name of the author.
Second, I don't know where they got the picture for it.
Finally, the layout seems like it was purposely designed to copy the "Going Rogue" cover.

Anyone know copyright/intellectual property law?

[EndDaFed]

Much to do about nothing. Copyright? Should it really take precedent over speech?

[robmpreston]

Who cares? Palin is scum.

[coyote_sprit]

It would fall under Parody and be covered under Fair Use.

[angelatc]

It would fall under Parody and be covered under Fair Use.

Except that it clearly isn't a parody. It's a collection of essays.

I think Sarah's publisher should sue ASAP to get a cease and desist order. The title is identical at first glance, and the cover and lettering is clearly meant to confuse buyers. An inability to easily distinguish the original from the derivative has always been grounds for legitimate copyright infringement action, and that's clearly what they're going for here.

[angelatc]

Who cares? Palin is scum.

Are you actually prepared to stand there and say that we shouldn't be concerned about injustices unless they happen to people we agree with? That's the same crap that's brought us this mess we're in these days.

[klamath]

Don't care for Palin but that is fraud. I hope she sues.

[angelatc]

Don't care for Palin but that is fraud. I hope she sues.

Reading the comments, it seems that the book is only a paperback from a vanity publisher. As in - they don't print them until somebody buys one.

[coyote_sprit]

Except that it clearly isn't a parody. It's a collection of essays.

I think Sarah's publisher should sue ASAP to get a cease and desist order. The title is identical at first glance, and the cover and lettering is clearly meant to confuse buyers. An inability to easily distinguish the original from the derivative has always been grounds for legitimate copyright infringement action, and that's clearly what they're going for here.

I still see it as a parody about Sarah Palin written by Going Rouge.

[angelatc]

I still see it as a parody about Sarah Palin written by Going Rouge.

Parody is defined by Dictionary.com as: "a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing" The author of "Going Rouge" hasn't produced a satirical work. It's a collection of essays.

But that aside, parody is only protected as long as the work is easily distinguishable from the original. This doesn't meet that test.

ETA - I'm totally wrong: http://volokh.com/2009/10/22/going-rogue-going-rouge/

There is is!

[heavenlyboy34]

I see enough differences in layout, style, fontography, etc, to consider the parody an "original work" in the legal sense. I only took an overview of copyright law in school-perhaps Collins or someone can explain the technicalities.

[Knightskye]

Much to do about nothing. Copyright? Should it really take precedent over speech?

How about fraud? "Liberty and justice for all."

[EndDaFed]

How about fraud? "Liberty and justice for all."

Title is different. Content is different. The cover is different. It's clearly not Palin's book.

Would a reasonable thinking person mistake a subtitle "Sarah Palin An American Nightmare" as the work of Sarah Palin?

At the bottom of the parody book is the following, "Edited by Richard Kim & Betsy Reed". You can't see it in the OP's linked to article.

http://www.orbooks.com/

[Todd]

Who cares? Palin is scum.

:rolleyes:

You desperately need to read First they came. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...)

[EndDaFed]

There is another book with a similar title.

http://www.goingrouge.net/