"look, I totally believe there's more to come out about danny's death,
but I also believe in letting the actual facts emerge...
FYI, google blogger has a process in place for removing blogs that
contain copyright violators and I have commenced that process."
but I also believe in letting the actual facts emerge...
FYI, google blogger has a process in place for removing blogs that
contain copyright violators and I have commenced that process."
--Las Vegas writer Steve Friess
A note to our readers:
On Thursday, we contacted Steve Friess, a writer for the Las Vegas Weekly "alternative paper," after he wrote the umpteenth tribute to the late great Strip headliner Danny Gans. We asked simply why no one among the Vegas press corps had done any investigating into the story of how a decent, Born Again, athletic and seemingly healthy 52-year-old man could die suddenly in his bed, as Danny Gans did on Froday May 1st.
Steve Friess responded by posting on his blogsite a harange in which he called us, among other things, a "douche... asshole... (who) wants to know why the Pulitzer-winning media in Las Vegas isn't badgering the shit out of Gans' confidants and paramedics to get to the bottom of what killed the man."
When we posted stories on this unfortunate, unprofessional and very untoward sidebar to the story, we began to get haranguing emails from Mr. Friess, ordering us to remove photos we'd found of him online.
And even before we had the chance to evaluate his demands, not to mention remove the very newsworthy photos, Mr. Friess "commenced the process" of having this site shut down!
In the 48 hours to follow, events overtook this sad turn with the gossipy hysteric who until now has managed to freelance for some major publications, including the revelation that he claims a same-sex marriage with the executive producer at KVBC-TV News (his second non-binding marriage; the first "took place in 1999 in Sedona, Ariz., to a man I fell in love with at 20 and ended up splitting with at 30"), a marriage which, if you read this recent post, might explain his overreaction and absolutely vicious attack.
Bottom line: We've removed all photos that Mr. Friess claimed ownership to. But that's left us in a quandary: Most all the decent photos of Steve Friess were posted on the Internet by Steve Friess. We couldn't find many other shots on the Internet, forcing us to substitute ones like the one above.
So if you can point us to some good shots of Steve Friess, or him and Miles Smith, send them here. Just in case our investigation or his actions lead to another Steve Friess story.
For the record, here is the transcript of the email demands from the man whose livelihood depends on the First Amendment:
From: Steve FriessTo: TabloidBaby.com
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 16:33:22
Uh, hi. You're welcome to keep proving that you're insane and ridiculous and writing whatever you want about me, but you do not have the right to steal photographs from my website and publish them. Sorry. I know following proper legal procedures are a little out of the realm of your comprehension, but remove those photos that do not belong to you at once. By all means, keep going crazy. It's very funny to everyone. But the photos? You don't own them and you have no right to republish them.
Thanks,
Steve Friess
P.S. It's not libel to call someone names. That's what's called protected speech, as in an opinion. Plus, with every move you make, you prove the truth of what I'm saying about you. For instance, you acknowledged your admiration for Perez Hilton. Don't you have important work to do, like intruding on people in mourning and taking people's words out of context for maximum sensational effect?
From: Steve Friess
To: TabloidBaby.com
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 20:22:00
Yes. Norm corrected his misunderstanding. So where's the conspiracy?
Oh, that's right. In your brain. They're not you photos. Take them down now.
Sent from my iPod
From: Steve Friess
To: TabloidBaby.com
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 06:15:55
Wow. You really are sick. I'm the one who broke the fact that chip and danny pushed to get danny's marquee up while Roy horn was fighting for his life. This has never been a comfortable relationship. Read my blog and you'll see I get hot all the time over bad journalism, sometimes alittle hotter than is wise. In your case, it was this snotty conspiratorial pose and the inferences you were making that got me going. And everything since then has proved me right about you. There was something very wrong and disgusting about you and i've been shown to be correct more and more. I just forgot the adage about mudwrestling with pigs and all.
look, I totally believe there's more to come out about danny's death, but I also believe in letting the actual facts emerge and nothing actual will come out until scientists do their work. I know you see that as spoonfeeding because you don't care if a story is true. I get that. And that is why nobody in vegas ever heard of you before or cares what you write.
FYI, google blogger has a process in place for removing blogs that contain copyright violators and I have commenced that process. I've repeatedly told you to remove photos that don't belong to you. Funny how mr scandal goes silent, proving himself the coward he is, when faced with an actual and clear fact: they're not yours. You are stealing. Write what you want, I honestly don't care. But the photos are not yours to post. Is that so difficult to understand? And every time you post my demand for removal, you strengthen my legal case by admitting your disregard and mockery of the law.
Sent from my iPod
From: Steve Friess
To: TabloidBaby.com
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 11:01:23
Photos on my website are not pubic domain, you fool. Just like you don't know what libel law is. They're my property and you don't have a right to use them. So you bet actions are being taken. You can say what you wish, but violating copyrights is not a matter of free speech.
From: Steve Friess
To: TabloidBaby.com
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 11:11:19
Can't wait for you to prove what news value a picture of my partner or of me eating a piece of chocolate has. By your logic any photo of me and anyone i know that ever existed is news worthy and no copyright or intellectual property rights exist.
No, that's not how it works. Just like a major newspaper does not lose its copyright when it posts something online. Would you be able to steal a photo of the president off the times site just because he's famous? Even your idol perez knows better thanks to some lawsuits. Credit isn't enough.
This is the only topic on which I have anything to say to you. You're a journo the way my mother is an NFL linebacker.
Sent from my iPod
From: Steve Friess
To: TabloidBaby.com
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 16:06:14
From Facebook's TOS:
Sharing Your Content and Information You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how we share your content through your privacy and application settings. In order for us to use certain types of content and provide you with Facebook, you agree to the following...
(a) All but one, I believe, of the photos posted come from my website or blog, not Facebook. And according to the above, the moment I set my photos to private or remove them, Facebook loses any significant rights to them.
(b) I'm looking forward to you showing me the letter from Facebook in which they granted you permission to this material. The TOS does not make everything on Facebook public domain. It specifically says that FACEBOOK can license the material. Again, I don't give a damn what you write about me. You discredit yourself with every post you make. But the photos are my property and for the sixth or seventh time, please remove them.
-sf
6 comments:
these emails show steve to be completely reasonable and totally in favor of the first amendment. i'm not sure what you think you're proving. he's right. i kept waiting for something to embarrass him, so if you think something in these emails ought to embarrass him, you're as delusional as he says.
You are quick to post all of Steve's Comments but why not your emails back. You want your readers to take your side but as a journalist isn't it right to share both sides of the story.
i agree with the other two posters here. what you show is a consistent chain of Steve trying to assert his rights to copyright and you, inexplicably, refusing to do so day after day. How do you explain that?
On a related topic, nice work using that photo of Liberace. You're clearly obsessed with the fact that Steve is gay, what with all your various references to his sexual orientation and his book, etc. What's that about? You know how obvious that makes it obvious you've got a hang-up on that, right? Why else would a normal person attach a flamboyant photo of Liberace to a discussion of Steve Friess?
Amy,
Steve began demanding we remove photos that he may or may not have owned.
If you check the time codes of Steve's email chain, you'll see that he began action against us even before we had a chance to consult with our attorney.
We posted Steve's demands not criticize but to show how quickly we responded.
He made his demands on Friday.
We removed the photos on Sunday.
We used the Liberace photo because Liberace is a Las Vegas icon. He's also dressed in red white and blue. You know, "Three cheers for freedom of the press."
We don't care that Steve asked to have his photos removed. HE'S TRYING TO SHUT US DOWN.
Steve is a gay activist and is best known for his book, Gay Vegas. We've identified him by his work. There's no shame in that.
Steve is "married" to the executive producer of KVBC TV News, which poses a conflict of interest and provides context to his attacks against us, Amy.
That is the only way his sexuality comes into play here.
There is no shame in that. Many of us are gay. So what?
Hey tabloid baby, keep up the good work. You're asking the right questions. And you're entertaining the hell out of a lot of people by posting your emails from steve friess. He's a crazy dude and pretty much the laughing stock of anyone in the local media. He's been lucky and landed a few good gigs which gives him more credibility than he deserves. Of course he would deny you permission to run a photo of him. He likes to criticize others but he can't take criticism. I've met him and I know, dude is nuts.
How can anyone say Steve Friess refuses to accept criticism when he repeatedly writes in each of these emails that anyone is welcome to say whatever they wish about him???
Post a Comment