OR-SEN: An Open Letter to Kari Chisholm

[ Cross-posted from NovickForSenate.org ]

On the recent attack website you launched for Jeff Merkley, novickinsultsdemocrats.com, you used a substantial amount of work that I, and others, created for the Novick campaign and claimed credit for it as your own. This work includes graphics, logo design, photography, and layout design.

[ Cross-posted from NovickForSenate.org ]

On the recent attack website you launched for Jeff Merkley, novickinsultsdemocrats.com, you used a substantial amount of work that I, and others, created for the Novick campaign and claimed credit for it as your own. This work includes graphics, logo design, photography, and layout design.

A quick look at the CSS file you are using (to the non-Web savvy, the CSS file is the program that controls the look and feel of a website) shows that it is an exact copy of the one I created for the Novick for Senate campaign. Here is a link to the CSS file you published, and here is a link to our published CSS file.

Yet despite copying and pasting my work onto your own server, you label the site as "Powered by Mandate Media." And in the comments on your blog BlueOregon.com on May 7, 2008 9:20:16 PM, you stated, in response to a question about who had built the website, "Yes, I built that one-page website."

No matter what field you work in, copying another person's work and publishing it as your own is an extraordinary violation of professional ethics. I ask you to immediately remove the content of this website and replace it with a public apology for your unprofessional conduct.

Sincerely,
Andrew Gorry
Online Director
Novick for Senate

•  non-issue

  I really think this is a non-issue.

  But it's always fun to try to make political hay out of whatever you've got on-hand.

  Did you talk to Kari before you posted this letter... or was it shotgunned out for the most perceived political gain?

  by bdupree on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:48:18 AM PDT

  •  clarification

    Ah, and one clarification: I believe this falls under fair-use criticism.

    by bdupree on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:49:05 AM PDT

    •  fair use?

      Using an entire CSS file isn't fair use; it's appropriation without credit.

      by torridjoe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:50:13 AM PDT

    •  Not "fair use"

      To claim someone's work as your own.  My understanding is that it has to be clear that you're using someone else's work.  

      Nowhere on Merkley's attack site does Chisholm give credit to the person who actually did the coding.  (Nor does he mention that he didn't do the coding.)

      by maloney on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:52:15 AM PDT

      •  Yep, attribution is pretty key

        Sometimes it is fair use to copy a huge hunk of stuff.  But pretending you wrote it when someone else wrote it -- that's plagarism.

        by neroden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:29:15 AM PDT

  •  Permission

    Did you talk to Kari before you posted this letter

    You mean like when Kari asked permission to use the CSS file and graphics? Get real.

    by darrelplant on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:18:25 AM PDT

  •  It's an issue

    Ben, it's possible that you don't understand the type or amount of work that goes into a site of this type. But you can't copy and paste my work on your site--work that took countless hours of my time--label it your own, and expect me to do nothing about it.

    Even in politics, there are ethics--especially between Democrats. Can you imagine how outraged you'd be if the NRSC made an exact copy of Merkley's website, and then changed all the text and put in new videos to make it an attack website on him?

    by la2tempe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:31:41 AM PDT

    •  Law requires doing something

      you can't copy and paste my work on your site--work that took countless hours of my time--label it your own, and expect me to do nothing about it.

      In fact, by law, doing nothing about it is an relinquishing of copyright.

      by MooseHB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:21:42 PM PDT

  •  It's an issue to me

    My partner and I penciled in time watch the debate on good ol' KATU, I believe it was, and read up on both (legitimate)candidates. We attended the recent debate at LBCC as well, looking for something to solidify a choice.

    Kari Chisholm's unethical "web behavior", coupled with Merkley's negative ad, not only gave me the confidence to choose a candidate, but also to throw a little cash Novick's campaign's way. What poor decision making on the part of Merkley's camp. I lost respect for them after this stunt, and that's a shame.

    by Jolene on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:00:02 PM PDT

•  As Somebody That Works In This Field

  it is straight out thief if true. Just because it is easy to do and happens all the time doesn't make it right.

  by webranding on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:52:15 AM PDT

  •  It's true!

    Check the links to see for yourself.

    by la2tempe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:34:50 AM PDT

  •  Image

    The thief didn't even change the file name of the image when he copied it to his server.

    by darrelplant on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:33:53 PM PDT

•  Rogue Donkey

  I'm sorry to say that Kari is a pretty bad actor and becoming toxic for his clients (which are legion). He's on the payroll of one of my Portland City Commissioners (now running for Mayor), my state Rep (now running for the state senate), my state Senator (now running for Secretary of State), my Rep in Congress (Bluemenauer, who voted for $50 Billion of occupation money) and Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley, who was recruited by Chuck Schumer to take out Steve Novick, an activist.

  When I started asking questions about Merkley's fitness given the fact that he caved into the GOP and voted to "acknowledge the courage of George W. Bush" Kari tuned immediately hostile. Eventually he banned me (and other Novick supporters) while claiming that his "the biggest blog in Oregon" (so he boasted) was a neutral water cooler for all of Oregon's progressives. Well, it's been clear to me (and the media) that BlueOregon.com is just a tool for Kari's clients. And it doesn't seem fair that he alone from the Oregon blogosphere gets to shill for the many politicians who pay him every week on KPOJ, the local Air America affiliate.

  by East Bank Thom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:53:31 AM PDT

  •  BlueO post primary...

    I wonder about BlueO's viability after the primary.

    It's been a good resource, but the really heavy handed approach during this primary makes me look less to BlueO as a place for discussion and more like a battleground.

    by maloney on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:00:13 AM PDT

    •  from blogosphere to blogosmear

      i think their reputation has been tarnished at least for the near term.  the thing is, though, kari chisholm and the mandadte blogosmear clearly see nothing wrong with this attack style of politics, so there's no reason to believe it will stop after the primary.

      by petrichor on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:03:44 AM PDT

      •  GOP

        There's always work on the Dark Side.

        by darrelplant on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:15:19 AM PDT

        •  Not even the GOP

          I've never seen the NRSC do anything like this with any of their attack websites.

          by la2tempe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:39:24 AM PDT

          •  Unseen

            That's not to say that it's never been done. There are a lot of races out there in the world, and I'd lay good odds that someone's done something like this before -- maybe not in Oregon -- but somewhere. People rip off stuff from web sites all the time; I've had to rein in commercial clients who had no compunction about telling me to grab images from some competitor's site or scan in a photo and tell them I wasn't going to do that kind of thing.

            Certainly, the ethical standard represented by Kari's rip-off site would be right at home in the Republican party.

            by darrelplant on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:32:03 PM PDT

      •  Hi EBT, or should I say Hans?

        At least Kari has the courage to not hide behind fake names.

        As for attack style politics - it's interesting that you'd characterize Novick's own words in such negative terms.

        Or is this about taking a page out of your own nonexistant ethical standard and you are just venting because you and Novick would both prefer the obscurity of information darkness over anyone knowing the whole truth about you?

        BTW, who is it that your are the campaign manager for? I keep forgetting...

        by Preemptive Karma on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:56:49 AM PDT

        •  i am not EBT

          and i work for no campaign.

          by petrichor on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:04:36 PM PDT

        •  Courage

          At least Kari has the courage to not hide behind fake names.

          Speak for yourself, "Preemptive Karma".

          What type of courage does it take to steal someone's code, and someone's photography work? That's just laziness.

          If Kari had put up the site using his own design and artwork, that would be one thing, but he's stealing other peoples' work -- not Novick's -- and claiming it as his own.

          by darrelplant on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:37:45 PM PDT

        •  Kevin, you're a gift

          n/t

          by East Bank Thom on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:45:25 AM PDT

•  that's pretty sloppy

  but totally expected from the merkley campaign at this point. no, they cannot sinkj too low.

  by petrichor on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:01:35 AM PDT

•  the original is good

  I just wanted to say, Andrew, that the YOUR website, the newly redesigned Novick site, is fantastic. I know nothing about this web design (although I know a bad one when I see it), but it's clear that you put a lot of work into Steve's.

  The bizarre thing about this hit website is that, since they're using your code I guess, they feature that great picture of Steve!

  by PdxRegina on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:12:52 AM PDT

  •  aw shucks (n/t)

    by la2tempe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:36:56 AM PDT

•  I'm not a copyright lawyer

  nor do I play one on TV, but I've spoken to two of them about this so far this morning, and they are in full agreement that there is a DMCA issue and potentially a conventional copyright issue.

  The "fair use" argument does not protect an infringer against a claim for this kind of theft of content.

  by vard on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:57:00 AM PDT

•  An iconoclast...

  ...running for the Senate. I like it. I already figured I was going to vote for Novick anyway, but now I'm sure.

  A couple of problems: He hasn't repented his "sins" and accepted Barack Obama as his personal savior, nor has he jumped on the "Obama is the ONLY one who can save America" bandwagon. Barack's awesome god is not going to like that one bit. I guess Novick is doomed to burn in Hell for all eternity. But as long as he kicks Gordon Smith's ass first...Besides, I'll be burning in Hell too, right along side of him, and for the exact same "sins".

  Thanks to Kari for giving me even more reasons to vote for Novick.

  by A Meat Beetle on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:00:13 PM PDT

•  My response...

  [tried to post this at NovickForSenate.com, but I'm not sure if comment moderation is turned on, or if just disappeared into a black hole...]

  Andrew --

  First, let me apologize for the tardy reply.  I was offline all day today at a family function.  Of course, I probably would have seen this sooner if you'd bothered to email me your "open letter" - but oh well.

  Second, I apologize to you if anyone mis-perceived the design as being created by me.  In fact, when the site first went up, I didn't have any credit line on it at all - and only added the usual "powered by" line when questions were raised about who created it.  I'm certainly not interested in hiding my identity nor taking credit for other people's work.  I probably should have thought more carefully about the exact credit line used.

  Third, it should be fairly clear to most observers that the site design of NovickInsultsDemocrats.com is a parody of NovickForSenate.com.  I'm certainly not a lawyer of any sort, but I've always enjoyed the history of the great free-speech case Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose (more commonly known as Two Live Crew vs. Roy Orbison) in which the Supreme Court held that parody is protected under fair use.

  I've changed the credit line on the site to read: "This site is a parody of NovickForSenate.com.  Hosted by Mandate Media."  I think that's a clear way to describe it.

  I'm really looking forward to the end of the primary season, when we can all get back to aiming our fire at Gordon Smith.  I hope you'll let me buy you beer or two sometime this summer.

  -kari.

  p.s.  I'm pretty sure that's the state seal in the header of the real Novick site.  You might consider removing it, per state law.

  by karichisholm on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:49:09 AM PDT

  •  Kari, caught in the cookie jar

    Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 28, 2007 11:04:04 AM

    p.s. The Google Reader thing was a glitch. It's now fixed. The "author" of the posts should read as "BlueOregon.com" - not any one individual.

    -----------------------------------------------

    Charlie Burr writes on Aug 29th, 2007 10:21am

    The "in the news" pieces are meant to be neutral, or neutral from a progressive voice, but they're actually not totally anonymous. If you click on the RSS feed button on the upper right side of the Blue Oregon home page, you can see who penned what, even as it's listed as "elsewhere" or "in the news".

    Kari, in covering your tracks, you forgot to clue in your co-editor.

    I'd say the damage you've done your clients is already done, but I see some of them ramping up their negative attacks (with ground support from your blog, Blue0), so perhaps there's an acre of earth you and your surrogates (Hi Kev) haven't yet scorched.

    by East Bank Thom on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:01:25 AM PDT

  •  Flag

    I already asked that question - it's actually a portion of the state flag. The state seal has another thin band around it, then a thick band where "1859" and "State of Oregon" are printed, then another thin band around that.

    by jsimonis on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:36:06 PM PDT

    •  Another swing and a miss for Team Merkley

      Kari, even though you now disclaim your (Merkley funded) attack website as a "parody," it still doesn't absolve you from stealing content. I'm no lawyer, so "stealing" is perhaps too harsh. Unethical, then.

      Unanswered questions:

      East Bank Thom  writes on May 6th, 2008 10:28am
      comment 8 | Respond

      Oh Kari...

      If you're going to offer up "answers" at least address the questions.

      "when will you finally stop forgetting to disclose your paid relationships"

      Answer: Never. (I have to admit, today when that guy called into KPOJ right after you and busted ya for not disclosing being on Merkley's payroll... I chuckled...)

      "why did you go behind the backs of your co-editors"

      Answer: Because Kari is the chief cook and salad spinner over at BO. It's no longer the neutral water cooler that I used to know and love and post on. It's lost all credibility.
      Archive photo found! (second pic down)

      by East Bank Thom on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:14:23 PM PDT

  •  Re: My response...

    I'm really looking forward to the end of the primary season, when we can all get back to aiming our fire at Gordon Smith. I hope you'll let me buy you beer or two sometime this summer.

    -kari.

    p.s. I'm pretty sure that's the state seal in the header of the real Novick site. You might consider removing it, per state law.

    Well, that's the first time in my life that someone offered to buy me a beer while falsely accusing me of violating state law.

    The image in the top bar of the Novick for Senate website isn't taken from the state seal, it's taken from the state flag. There are no restrictions on use of the Oregon state flag, as I was told when I called the office of the Oregon Secretary of State to clear it with them before I launched the site.

    Andrew Gorry
    Online Director
    Novick for Senate

    by la2tempe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:28:00 PM PDT

    •  Fair enough.

      Given that the state seal is what's on the state flag, that's probably a distinction without a difference - given the close cropping... but obviously, the Secretary of State has the final word.

      by karichisholm on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:55:14 AM PDT

      •  Is this supposed to qualify as an apology?

        So now the Mandate-Merkley machine is reduced to attacking our Democratic secretary of state, calling his decision "a distinction without a difference."

        Is there no (false) attack that Merk&Co won't stoop to?

        by East Bank Thom on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:23:45 AM PDT

•  not nice

  another passive aggressive "apology"...grow up Kari.

  by EuroF on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:11:41 PM PDT