Joel Beinin in the ‘pantheon’ of campus terrorism with Rachel Corrie and Sami al-Arian (photo: Rick E. Martin/SJ Mercury News)David Horowitz has never been known for his deft touch in the rough and tumble of intellectual and political debate. In other words, the guy’s a hatchet man out for the blood of the academic left. Horowitz reserves an especially fond place in his heart for those he deems enemies of Israel. Further, he reserves the choicest of choice places for Jewish critics of Israel. That’s why he chose to steal a picture of Stanford Middle East studies professor Joel Beinin and slap it on his hatchet job of a book, Campus Support for Terrorism.
In the process of publishing his pamphlet, he appropriated an image of Beinin without seeking permission from its owner. After Beinin saw his picture displayed as a leader of campus terror he contacted the photographer who owned it. The latter promptly assigned the image to Beinin which allowed him to sue Horowitz for copyright infringement. In case any of my readers believe this is a relatively minor matter not worthy of legal proceedings, I must say that at least twice people have appropriated pictures of me from this blog and used them at other websites to heap abuse upon me for my political views. In both cases, the images were removed. But in one of those cases I had to retain a copyright attorney to threaten the blogger’s publisher with a Digital Millennium Copyright infringement. And this cost me money, time and aggravation. So I know precisely what Beinin is going through and I’m with him 100% in this battle against gnaivishe (“thieving”) tabloid ideologues like Horowitz.
Here’s Horowitz’ pathetic response quoted in the NY Times:
[Horowitz] asserted that revised covers of the pamphlet in subsequent printings would not have the photograph.
But the picture, Mr. Horowitz said, is beside the point, adding, “The leftists claim to be concerned about the chilling of free speech, but think nothing of using the courts to chill speech.”
As for his first point, it is beside the point. The damage has been done to Beinin’s reputation. Subsequent printings which omit the offending photo cannot undue that damage. So Davey still has a little old problem that won’t go away just because he says he’s going to play nice in the future.
And don’t you just love Horowitz’s whining about violation of his own free speech rights via the lawsuit. Of course, the lawsuit has nothing to do with free speech. Horowitz is entitled to say any damn thing he wanted about Beinin (and he has I’m sure and probably mostly lies or distortions). But he’s not entitled to use an image owned by someone else without the owners permission if the owner objects to his use.
In a San Jose Mercury News article Horowitz attempts an alternate defense:
I didn’t say he was a terrorist. I said he supported terrorism,”
Big deal. Big difference! You see, in Horowitz’s alleged mind Beinin “supports terrorism” because he’s critical of Zionism and Israeli policies against the Palestinians. Beinin counts himself as an anti-Zionist, which I am not. But it’s a goddamn shame to let David Horowitz call Beinin a supporter of terrorism merely because he’s critical of Israel. I consider myself a progressive Zionist, but I am also critical of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. No doubt Horowitz would call me names as well. But neither Beinin, myself nor anyone else deserves such a base smear for having principled differences with Israel.
This exchange is also instructive:
“I consider Beinin to be a supporter of terrorism,” Horowitz said. “I know that he supports the Palestinian Liberation Organization. I am going to guess that he supports the Palestinian Authority, which is Hamas.”
Beinin responded: “As usual, Horowitz is either flat out wrong or makes arguments from innuendo. I have never said that I support the PLO or any of its constituent organizations. I have argued that the U.S. and Israel ought to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority, not because I support it but because it is the pragmatic way to make progress toward peace. I definitely do not support Hamas.”
And lest you dismiss Horowitz as a right-wing nutjob, consider this from the Mercury News story:
A nationally known writer and Republican firebrand, center president Horowitz is said to have the ear of Bush adviser Karl Rove and others in the White House.
Since Horowitz is a braggart and publicity hound who may’ve been the source of the information included in this quotation, we might doubt this statement. But it’s certainly possible or even likely that it’s true.
Finally, if Horowitz can accuse Beinin of being a campus terrorist I think it’s only fair that we accuse Horowitz of being an ideological terrorist. If the damn shoe fits let him wear it.
Your hypocrisy is astounding.
Here, you say, “I must say that at least twice people have appropriated pictures of me from this blog and used them at other websites to heap abuse upon me for my political views. In both cases, the images were removed. But in one of those cases I had to retain a copyright attorney to threaten the blogger’s publisher with a Digital Millennium Copyright infringement. And this cost me money, time and aggravation.”
Then, a few posts down, you violate copyright law by posting pictures from a Dr. Seuss book.
You’re fine with invoking laws when they benefit you, but when they inconenience you, you have no problem blatantly breaking the law. This sounds a lot like a certain POTUS… You’re ridiculous relativism makes all liberals look bad, which is a shame.
For three yrs, Josh has been ‘stalking’ this blog. But he’s a particular kind of stalker. Not a threatening stalker. Just an annoying one. He’s only interested in one thing as far as this blog is concerned. He wants to tell the world, & wag his finger at me for allegedly “stealing” images and featuring them here. He’s done it five or six times before and now returns like a broken record.
Hypocrisy indeed. I’ve argued before that my posting of images is well within the terms of the Fair Use provision of the copyright statutes. First, I always credit the owner of the image to the extent that I can determine that. The Dr. Seuss image you refer to is in my post about Oh, The Places You’ll Go. I used the image from the Amazon site. Amazon uses the image to help sell the book. I displayed the image in order to give my readers a sense of the book so that they might consider buying it. Amazon’s purpose in displaying the image is very similar to mine.
A Fair Use claim is enhanced if you change the image in some significant way (resizing is but one possible way to do this) so it is ‘transformed’ from its original form. I almost always resize images for the smaller display necessary for a blog format and I radically reduced the image size of the original at the Amazon site. Fair Use can be invoked if you are not damaging the commercial “value” of the work you are using which I certainly am not by displaying it here. Also, you must make no commercial use of the work which I am not. Uses of works for educational or research purposes are also permitted under Fair Use. The entire purpose of this blog and this post is to educate the public about the social, political and constitutional issues that are important to me. Again, I’m covered under Fair Use. Another pt. Josh neglects to mention is that I prominently say in my Terms of Use that any copyright holder who objects to my display of their work has only to let me know this & I will willingly remove the work. If Amazon or the Seuss estate doesn’t like my use I will take it down immediately. No fuss, no muss, no bother. Only Josh is bothered, poor fella.
What surprises me is that Josh did not object to the image displaying in this post. Now that I’ve credited the photographer he probably will. But to anticipate his objection…fer chrissake, this is a picture of a book jacket! It’s not a work of art. If I owned the damn booklet I could take the picture myself & post it here w/o violating copyright. Unless, that is, David Horowitz wanted to come after me for violating his copyright of the booklet. But that’d be a laugh since he violated copyright first by using Beinin’s image on its cover.
Finally, Josh Barkin does not get to determine whether or not I’m violating copyright laws. Whether a use is permitted under the Fair Use provision is a complicated and technical legal issue, which only a judge can decide. As far as I know, Josh isn’t a judge. So until he is, we’ll give his opinion the weight it deserves…
What poor Josh neglects to mention is that with the image from Dr. Seuss I also featured a link to buy the book from Amazon. Anyone who does so will be actually supporting the Seuss estate and Amazon. So that post and this blog are actually sustaining the authors and musicians whose work I feature here. Copyright is meant to protect owners from misuse and commercial appropriation of their work, neither of which I’m guilty of here. In fact, I’m promoting sales of the book in question by displaying the image along with the link.
I’m afraid, Josh, that you’re only making yourself look bad by being a simpering, pouting copyright stalker. And this is your & my final word on the subject. Post a reply here & it will be deleted and you will be banned for a period of time from posting comments at all.
Richard – copyright is one of the legal mechanism employed to protect Israel’s reputation on Wikipedia. You can be prevented from the use of paraphrase (because that’s not what the “Reliable Source” has said) and you’ll not be able to quote, because it’s said to be “breach of copyright”. Meanwhile, revolting lies will be inserted from blogs. Trivial (and in many cases, really unpleasant) pro-Israel blogs will get a soothing article eg the article on Masada2000 (which is not currently actually hosted anywhere!) has more people saying they feel honoured to be on the SHIT list than it has people saying how disgusting and threatening it is. Needless to say, if you were lucky enough to have a Wikipedia page it would be full of personal smears against you. But I’m sure you know that.