# Ashley Biden's Diary & Copyright
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [August 26, 2022, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392 "2022-08-26T13:11:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 15
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2022, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392/21 "2022-08-26T16:56:14Z")
I’ve read that the original defense that the confessed stealers used was that the diary was abandoned by Biden’s daughter in a home in Florida that she had stayed in several months before. This could have been what they also told Veritas. ??? I’m sure that a qualified defense attorney for Veritas could make a case that they relied on that statement in accepting the diary.
---
### Author:  [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2022, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392/22 "2022-08-26T17:01:30Z")
That’s still more hole than story. The only _veritably_ legitimate way for them to obtain the dairy was if Ms. Biden herself walked in and handed it over.
---
### Author:  [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2022, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392/23 "2022-08-26T17:02:33Z")
Mehhh
---
### Author:  [@ParallelLines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParallelLines)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2022, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392/24 "2022-08-26T18:15:35Z")
I agree it’s very thin, and absolutely agree with @Omar_Little that they’ll try to use it as an excuse, especially if they had the actual thieves sign a document indicating that they had obtained it legitimately.
Then they’ll use the fig leaf to plead to having failed to use good judgement / due diligence instead of stolen goods for a minor slap on the wrist.
IE - push all the blame on the ‘actual’ criminals and the most minor mea culpa for being made into dupes who were just trying to find the ‘truth’. And I’m sure the parties who did the actual purchasing for PV are getting thrown under the bus.
---
### Author:  [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)
#### Post date: [August 26, 2022, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392/25 "2022-08-26T18:23:08Z")
> [@Si\_Amigo](#):
>
> Social worker, activist and philanthropist indeed. Obviously there is dirt to dig up here, how is a social worker making more than $30K a year? She must be using her unscrupulous ties to shady underworld players in league with Hillary’s basement pizza shop! Stealing her diary is patriotic act I tell you!
If it turns out she has a _laptop_, Biden may have to resign in disgrace.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [August 27, 2022, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392/26 "2022-08-27T00:10:14Z")
[Moderating]
A stern reminder that we’re in FQ, here.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [August 27, 2022, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392/27 "2022-08-27T01:32:15Z")
Back on copyright.
Everything you put into permanent form is automatically copyright, and has been for a long time.
This is where it gets confusing. Your words are your own and nobody else can use them, subject to a doctrine called Fair Use. Four factors go into whether a use is considered Fair Use.
```
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
```
In everybody usage, what this means is that it’s too much trouble to stop people from quoting small bits of somebody else’s work. Opinion and commentary are usually considered educational, and nobody will ordinarily object to your quoting a bit from a tweet or a news story or a speech or a novel or an article etc. What are the boundaries? Nobody really knows: it’s so expensive to go to court hardly any copyright cases are heard.
Yet some people do object. What happens then? Your rights are very limited. You can ask that they remove the work or stop using it or whatever is applicable. You can get damages equal to the actual monetary damages that the infringement cost you. And that’s about it.
To get anything more than that you have to officially register the copyright with the Library of Congress. There’s a nominal fee, $45, for one work, although you can bunch a whole quarter’s worth of works together for, I think, $65. You have to give a copy of the work to the LoC. Doing so means you can file a lawsuit in federal court and receive statutory damages and attorney’s fees with a favorable verdict. That can be huge money.
Realistically, it is unimaginable that Ashley Biden registered her diary with LoC. She has no claims for actual damages. All she can do is tell people online to take it down by filing what’s known as a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) order. It’s upon her (or her attorneys) to find the infringers. That’s ridiculously expensive too so it’s usually only giant corporations who rigorously do so. Violators are subject to large penalties, which is why most people are overly cautious when it comes to a DMCA takedown, but the kind of people who would want to put Ashley’s diary online aren’t most people.
This is all overly simplified, but that’s why intellectual property lawyers make - and deserve - the big bucks.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [August 27, 2022, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392/28 "2022-08-27T02:07:53Z")
ISTM fair use is difficult with a Tweet. The whole Tweet, by its very nature, is so short it is near impossible to quote a snippet that makes sense. You pretty much have to quote the whole thing to make any sense.
Not sure how the courts regard that. I would think since Twitter is a public utterance you don’t have copyright over that. But, then, Martin Luther King Jr.'s family aggressively enforces copyright on the “I Have a Dream” speech which he gave in public.
So…I dunno.
---
### Author:  [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)
#### Post date: [August 27, 2022, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392/29 "2022-08-27T02:33:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> ISTM fair use is difficult with a Tweet. The whole Tweet, by its very nature, is so short it is near impossible to quote a snippet that makes sense. You pretty much have to quote the whole thing to make any sense.
With Tweets, there’s a built-in system for sharing and re-Tweeting things, so I expect you’d have a hard time arguing that there wasn’t at least an implied licence to copy and share tweets. I wouldn’t be surprised to find there’s actually a clause about such a license somewhere in the Twitter user agreement.
Now, were you to bundle up a bunch of tweets in a book to sell, then there may be an issue, but I expect it would be Twitter itself that would go after you.
Looks like I was right:
> [@](#):
>
> By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods now known or later developed (for clarity, these rights include, for example, curating, transforming, and translating). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, Retweet, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use. Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals, is made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services as the use of the Services by you is hereby agreed as being sufficient compensation for the Content and grant of rights herein.
> **[X Terms of Service](https://twitter.com/en/tos)**
>
> Read X's Terms of Service to understand the rules governing your access of all Twitter services.
---
### Author:  [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)
#### Post date: [August 27, 2022, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392/30 "2022-08-27T02:43:27Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> Not sure how the courts regard that. I would think since Twitter is a public utterance you don’t have copyright over that. But, then, Martin Luther King Jr.'s family aggressively enforces copyright on the “I Have a Dream” speech which he gave in public. -
I expect there’s a written form somewhere. As good an orator as he was, I highly doubt he made it up on the spot. And the film itself would be under copyright at the moment of creation.
---
### Author:  [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)
#### Post date: [August 27, 2022, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392/31 "2022-08-27T02:51:30Z")
IIRC, it was a written speech, but he did improvise parts of it.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [August 27, 2022, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392/32 "2022-08-27T02:57:35Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#):
>
> The whole Tweet, by its very nature, is so short it is near impossible to quote a snippet that makes sense.
I’m pretty sure that tweet copyright hasn’t been tested in court.
But poems and song lyrics have. Just try getting a publisher to allow you to use a snippet, however short, without permission.
The online world and the legal world intersect, but nobody knows what the boundaries are - or should be.
> [@Horatius](#):
>
> Looks like I was right:
Those terms of service look very much like those of the Dope. Anybody can copy posts here in full, and the owners can use those posts in any way, but nobody can use them in other places without explicit permission from the copyright owner, i.e. you. Nowhere in that lawyerese is there any right for you to copy tweets outside of Fair Use.
> [@running\_coach](#):
>
> And the film itself would be under copyright at the moment of creation.
Not in 1965 it wasn’t. That didn’t appear until the Copyright Act of 1976.
---
### Author:  [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)
#### Post date: [August 27, 2022, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392/33 "2022-08-27T03:04:56Z")
> [@BigT](#):
>
> IIRC, it was a written speech, but he did improvise parts of it.
yes, at the prompting of Mahlia Jackson:
> **[Mahalia Jackson prompts Martin Luther King Jr. to improvise "I Have a Dream"...](https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mahalia-jackson-the-queen-of-gospel-puts-her-stamp-on-the-march-on-washington)**
>
> If the legendary gospel vocalist Mahalia Jackson had been somewhere other than the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on August 28, 1963, her place in history would still have been assured purely on the basis of her musical legacy. But it is almost...
> Recalling a theme she had heard him use in earlier speeches, Jackson said out loud to Martin Luther King Jr., from behind the podium on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, “Tell them about the dream, Martin.” And at that moment, as can be seen in films of the speech, Dr. King leaves his prepared notes behind to improvise the entire next section of his speech—the historic section that famously begins “And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream….”
---
### Author:  [@echoreply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/echoreply)
#### Post date: [August 27, 2022, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392/34 "2022-08-27T05:27:27Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#):
>
> this means is that it’s too much trouble to stop people from quoting small bits of somebody else’s work. Opinion and commentary are usually considered educational, and nobody will ordinarily object to your quoting a bit from a tweet or a news story or a speech or a novel or an article etc. What are the boundaries? Nobody really knows: it’s so expensive to go to court hardly any copyright cases are heard.
Fair use doesn’t exist because it’s too much trouble to stop (though many copyright maxamilists would like to do away with it), but rather because fair use is good for society. Fair use acts as a pressure relief valve to reconcile the inherent conflict between copyright and freedom of speech/press.
The boundaries are described in the guides you post above, but each case must be considered in context and on its own merits, which is what happens in court. That is why it can be impossible to say if any particular instance is fair use until it’s gone to trial.
Related to the OP:
How does the stolen diary compare to a case like the pentagon papers? There the documents were stolen, but the press did not commit a crime by using them and publishing them. The government generally doesn’t get copyright, so that’s a difference, but leaving that aside…
The New York Times received the stolen papers, and they are clearly journalists. The papers were also clearly of public interest. Calling Project Veritas journalists is generous, and the public interest in the diaries is weak. However, I don’t feel comfortable letting the government decide who is a journalist, and what exactly is news worthy.
---
### Author:  [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)
#### Post date: [August 27, 2022, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392/35 "2022-08-27T05:56:29Z")
> [@echoreply](#):
>
> The New York Times received the stolen papers, and they are clearly journalists. The papers were also clearly of public interest. Calling Project Veritas journalists is generous, and the public interest in the diaries is weak. However, I don’t feel comfortable letting the government decide who is a journalist, and what exactly is news worthy.
Of course, physical possession of the diaries is the crime at issue.
Quoting the diaries simply proves they have (or had) them.
Then the whole discussion above of fair use applies. For example, you could report (to make up a topic at random) her explanation why Hawaiian pizza is an abomination, maybe even quote a few passages - particularly if you intersperse them with criticism. But if you basically copy the entire 20-page chapter on why she thinks so, and a very limited critique alongside, then you are obviously violating copyright.
(I can quote a few lines of Monty Python, maybe even a dozen or two lines of a skit, but I cannot publish the entire script of the movie… _Blessed are the cheesemakers._ )
What’s the line? The line is not sharp, it’s fuzzy and impossible to demarcate, yet it moves, and also depends on a judge, jury, and possibly an appeal court.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashley-bidens-diary-copyright/970392.md?page=1)