text:
The post Can this gulf be bridged? appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
If you read the publishers' brief, the 11th Circuit decision that sent the case back to the District Court changed everything, and every one of those 70 excerpts found to be fair use at trial now must be labeled infringement. This is absurd, of course, and I don't actually believe that the publishers expect, or even hope, to win the point. They want a new ruling that they can appeal. In my opinion the publisher strategy has now shifted from an effort to "win" the case, as they understand what winning would mean, to a determination to keep it going, in order to profit from ongoing uncertainty in the academic community (and, possibly, to spend so much money that GSU is forced to give up).
On the other hand, the brief from Georgia State, filed last Friday, argues that all 70 of those challenged excerpts are still fair use. It seems likely that the actual outcome will be somewhere in the middle, and, to be fair to them, GSU does recognize this, by making a concession the publishers never make. For a number of excerpts where a digital license was shown to be available at the time of the trial, GSU argues that the available licenses were not "reasonable" because they force students to pay based on what they are getting access to, whether or not the specific excerpt is ever actually used. This is an interesting argument, tracking a long-standing complaint in academic libraries. If the court accepts it, it would dramatically restructure the licensing market. But GSU also seems to recognize that this is a stretch, and ends several of its analyses of specific excerpts by saying that the specific use "should be found to be fair if the Court finds the licensing scheme unreasonable, and unfair if the Court finds the licensing scheme reasonable." So it seems GSU is prepared for what I believe is the most likely outcome of this reconsideration on remand — a split between fair uses and ones that are not fair that is different than the original finding — probably with some more instances of infringement — but still a "split decision."
The availability of licenses is one of the interesting issues in these briefs. The publisher plaintiffs now argue that licenses were available, back in 2009, for those excerpts where the judge said no licenses were "reasonably available." They are continuing to try to introduce new evidence to this effect; which is something GSU vigorously opposes. But those of us who have been involved in e-reserves for a while remember clearly that such licenses were not available at all through the CCC from Cambridge University Press and only occasionally from Oxford. So what is this new evidence (which the publishers' brief says was not offered before because they were so surprised that it was being requested)? It is an affidavit from a VP at the CCC, and my best guess is that it would argue that licenses were "reasonably available" because it was possible, through the CCC system, to send a direct request to the publisher in those instances where standard licenses for digital excerpts were not offered. GSU argues that the evidence gathering phase of the case is over, a ruling about licenses has been made and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and the issue settled. A lot will depend on how Judge Evans views this issue; so far she has ruled against admitting new evidence.
Another controversy, about which I wrote before, involves whose incentive is at stake. The Court of Appeals wrote a lengthy discussion of the incentive for authors to write, and its importance for the fundamental purpose of copyright. To this they appended an odd sentence that says they are "primarily concerned… with [publisher's] incentive to publish." The publishers, of course, hang a lot of weigh on this phrase, and take it out of context to do so. GSU, on their side, make a rather forced argument intended to limit the impact of the sentence. Neither side can admit what I believe is the truth here: that that one sentence was inserted into an opinion where it does not fit because doing so was a condition of the dissenting judge for keeping his opinion as a "special concurrence" rather than the dissent it really was. If I am right, this compromise served the publishers well, since they can now cite the phrase from the actual opinion of the Court; it is seldom useful to cite a dissent, after all. So the publishers quote this phrase repeatedly and use it to argue that all of the factors really collapse into the fourth factor, and that any impact at all, no matter how small, on their markets or potential markets effectively eliminates fair use. Authors, and the reasons that academic authors write books and articles, do not appear in the publishers' analysis, as, indeed, they could not if the argument for publisher hegemony over scholarship is to be maintained.
GSU, as we have already seen, takes a more balanced approach. For the first factor, they discount the publishers' attempt to make "market substitution" a touchstone even at that point in the analysis, and focus instead on the 11th Circuit's affirmation that non-profit educational use favors fair use even when transformation is not found. The GSU brief fleshes this out nicely by discussing the purpose of copyright in relationship to scholarship and teaching. On the second factor, GSU discusses author incentives directly, which in my opinion is the core of the second factor, even though courts seldom recognize this. GSU also points out that the publishers have ignored the 11th Circuit's instruction, both here and in the third factor analysis, to apply a case-by-case inquiry to those factors; instead, the publishers assert that since every book contains some authorial opinion, the second factor always disfavors fair use, and that no amount is small enough to overcome the possibility of "market substitution." For their part, GSU introduces, albeit briefly, a discussion of the content of each excerpt (they are often surveys or summaries of research) for the discussion of factor two, and of the reason the specific amount was assigned, in regard to factor three.
As I said, these differences in approach lead to wildly different conclusions. Consider these paragraphs by which each side sums up its fair use analysis for each of the excerpts at issue:
The publishers end nearly every discussion of a specific passage with these words — "On remand, the Court should find no fair use as to this work because: (1) factor one favors fair use only slightly given the nontransformativeness of the use; (2) factor two favors Plaintiffs, given the evaluative/analytical nature of the material copied; (3) factor three favors Plaintiffs because even assuming narrow tailoring to Professor _____________'s pedagogical purpose, it is counterbalanced by the threat of market substitution, especially in light of the repeated use; and (4) factor four "strongly favors Plaintiffs," and is entitled to "relatively great weight," which tips the balance as to this work decidedly against fair use. "
On the other side, GSU closes many discussions (although there is more diversity in their analysis and their summations than in the publishers') this way — "Given the teaching purpose of the use, the nature of the work and the decidedly small amount used, the fact that this use did not supplant sales of the work, and the lack of digital licensing, the use of this narrowly tailored excerpt constituted fair use."
These are starkly contrasting visions of what is happening with these excerpts and with electronic reserves, as practiced at a great many universities, as a whole. It will be interesting, to say the least, to see how Judge Evans decides between such divergent views.
The post Can this gulf be bridged? appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The post An international perspective on statutory damages appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
Back in 2009, when the recording industry was actively suing its own customers for copyright infringement because of file-sharing, statutory damages were briefly a hot topic after juries returned million-dollar verdicts against ordinary individuals for downloading files the actual value of which was less than $100. At the time I wrote about this issue, and also linked to another lawyer's blog post which argued that these statutory damages were likely unconstitutional. Since the RIAA has taken its campaign for ever-stronger copyright enforcement and ever-steeper penalties in a different direction, there has been less conversation about these disproportionate penalties.
This week, however, a development in Europe has reminded me that we should not let this issue drop. Last week Poland's Constitutional Court released a ruling which effectively declares Poland's own take on statutory damages a violation of the Polish Constitution. Polish law, it seems, enacts the same policy of allowing increased damages, well beyond ordinary judicial remedies, for copyright infringement with a provision that allows tripling of the "respective remuneration that would have been due at the time of claiming it in exchange for the rights holder's consent for the use of the work" (see Article 79 of the English translation of Poland's copyright law here, on the WIPO site). What this essentially says is that triple the actual harm done (the amount the rights holder would have been due) can be awarded as a form of statutory damages. And the Polish Constitutional Court has now decided that that provision must be changed because it violates a constitutional provision ensuring equality of protection for property ownership. It seems they are concerned that the Polish copyright law gives a level of protection to copyrighted property that is much greater than other forms of property.
It is interesting to compare this situation to what we find in U.S. law. We do not, of course, have the same provision about equal protection for copyright ownership in our Constitution. The Constitutional case against statutory damages is made more on the grounds of due process, where the damages are so in excess of the harm that they are unreasonable, out of proportion, and unfair to defendants. Still, there is intuitive sense to the idea that copyrighted works are protected far more comprehensively and stringently than most other kinds of property, If this is true in Poland, and the Polish Court thinks it is, it is certainly even more the case in the U.S.
Consider two points. First, in the Jamie Thomas file sharing case, the relationship between the actual harm — it would have cost about $24 for her to buy the songs at issue — and the 1.9 million dollar verdict against her, was much more disproportional than the triple damages that concerned the Polish court. If a factor of 3 was too much for the Polish court to accept, a multiplier of nearly 800,000 ought to shock every U.S. court and every U.S. citizen. Second, it is important to notice the different types of parties involved in the Polish case; it involved a cable TV network that apparently rebroadcast some films without a license. So corporate entities were involved, and the Polish Court still felt that tripling the damages was unfair. Yet in the U.S. we have allow grossly more disproportionate damages to be awarded against private citizens.
The content industry often looks to Europe and to other international laws and agreements they can use to convince U.S. lawmakers to increase protection for copyrighted works. Here we have an international court pointing the other way; showing us in the U.S. how out of whack our copyright law has become in the area of statutory damages. Something tells me this will not be an example cited by the MPAA or the U.S. Trade Representative. But as Congress and the Copyright Office discusses reforming the copyright law, this finding from the Constitutional Court of Poland should shame us into looking at statutory damages here in America and recognizing that this is a problem in desperate need of remedy.
The post An international perspective on statutory damages appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The post This is a solution? appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
As Mike observes, the new CO report would mostly make a serious problem worse, in that it would make the use of orphan works more difficult rather than less. The idea of creating a registry for users to register their proposed use is positively Kafkaesque; the real need is to be able to better identify rights holders, not users. So why not provide incentives for rights holders to register, rather than creating a new registry that will probably not be used, since it is so counter-intuitive and will be unknown to the vast majority of putative users?
The Techdirt post correctly notes that the problem of orphan works increased exponentially after the U.S. made two changes in its law — the elimination of formalities and the extension of the copyright term of protect to life plus 70 years. These changes were made because the U.S. joined the Berne Convention and other international treaties on copyright in the 1980s, so reversing them would be very difficult. Still, the problem is world-wide, so maybe someday sanity will prevail at the WIPO and these issues will be addressed directly, instead of taking a kind of backwards approach that tries to solve a problem without addressing its root causes, which has the result of making things worse. See the suggestions I made several years ago for solving the "Berne Problem" here and here.
The most troubling aspect of the Copyright Office's new report is the disdain with which it treats fair use. The U.S. is actually in a better position as far as uses of orphan works are concerned than most nations because our judges were wise enough to create this doctrine over 150 years ago. But today's Copyright Office thinks it knows better; it believes that fair use is "of limited utility" in solving the orphan works problem. Instead, we need more bureaucratic apparatus. Worse, to get to this position, the CO presents the HathiTrust case, with its strong affirmation of fair use, as being about "the digitization of millions of non-orphaned works" (p.42). This is ridiculous, of course; the HathiTrust corpus contains both orphan works and works for which rights holders can be identified. The CO seems to take the position that since specific uses of orphan works were not ultimately adjudicated in the HathiTrust case, that case is not relevant to the application of fair use to the orphan works problem. So although the report does recommend that any legislative "solution" to the orphan works problem should preserve the users' ability to rely on fair use, the CO does not seem to feel that fair use is very helpful. But that simply reflects the prejudice that the CO has about fair use, a prejudice that makes them an unreliable guide to copyright law in the U.S.
The post This is a solution? appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The post Who pays, and what are we paying for? appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
I wasn't at the Society for Scholarly Publishing's annual meeting in Virginia last week, but was able to follow some of the presentations and discussions via the #SSP2015 hashtag on Twitter and some followup blog posts. Something that caught my eye yesterday was a post on Medium by @CollabraOA titled "What exactly am I paying for?" that summarized a panel discussion at SSP on the topic of "How Much Does it Cost?" versus "What are you Getting for/doing with the Money?" An Overview and Discussion of the Open Access Journal Business Model, (lack of) Transparency, and What is Important for the Various Stakeholders.
The post has summaries (and links to slides) of the presentations by panelists Dan Morgan (University of California Press), Rebecca Kennison (K|N Consultants), Peter Binfield (PeerJ), and Robert Kiley (The Wellcome Trust), as well as links to other readings on the topic, such as this article from a couple of years ago titled "Open access: The true cost of science publishing" by Richard Van Noorden in Nature.
A few things from the summary of the panel discussion that stood out to me (excerpted or paraphrased here):
This discussion resonated with a different one that has been playing out among anthropologists in the past few weeks, regarding whether and when to transition the long established journals of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) to open access, a process that has already begun with the high profile Cultural Anthropology journal.
In an editorial in the February 2015 issue of American Anthropologist, the editor, Michael Chibnik, argued that while he "cannot disagree with the rhetoric of those advocating open access for American Anthropologist" he also could not see how to make the finances work without continuing to rely on the existing subscription model via a publisher like Wiley Blackwell. While admitting "I do not know all the details of the financial arrangements between AAA and WB" (see discussion about the lack of transparency explored in the panel mentioned above) he briefly outlines why several alternative funding models he has heard about are unlikely to work, concluding "The obstacles to AA becoming open access in the near future may be difficult to overcome."
This elicited several responses, from Martin Eve, who challenged many of the assertions in the piece, one by one; from the Board of the Society for Cultural Anthropology, who argued in a commentary titled "Open Access: A Collective Ecology for AAA Publishing in the Digital Age" that open access was the right thing to do despite the difficulties; and from Alex Golub, who wrote a blog post titled "Open access: What Cultural Anthropology gets right, and American Anthropologist gets wrong."
The Society for Cultural Anthropology commentary points out that research libraries are key stakeholders in the emerging OA landscape, and potential partners with scholarly societies for new models of scholarly publishing. Both SCA and Golub reference some new projects like Collabra, Open Library of the Humanities, Knowledge Unlatched, and SciELO, that, in Golub's words, "blur the distinction between journal, platform, and community the same way Duke Ellington blurred the boundary between composer, performer, and conductor" and are examples of "experiments to move beyond cold war publishing institutions."
It's not clear yet what financial models will ultimately prove successful and sustainable for scholarly publishing and scholarly societies going forward, but simply maintaining the status quo with its hidden and inflated costs and frequently vestigial practices is almost certainly not the answer. As Alex Golub concludes in his post:
The AAA wasn't always structured the way it is today, and it may not be structured this way in the future. The question now is whether the AAA can change quickly enough to be relevant, or whether institutions like the SCA are the true future of our discipline. These are issues tied up with a lot more than just publishing: The shrinking of academe, the growing role of nonacademic stakeholders in academic practices, and much besides. Does Cultural Anthropology face a lot of issues down the road? Absolutely. Is complete and total failure on the menu? Yes. But I reckon that in ten years when I sit down to reblog this post, we will look back on this debate and say: The people who did the right thing and took a leap of faith fared far better than the ones who clung to a broken solution. Cultural Anthropology acted like Netflix, while American Anthropologist acted like Blockbuster. Except, of course, no one will remember what Blockbuster was.
The post Who pays, and what are we paying for? appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The post A distinction without a difference appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
As I read one of the most recent messages from Dr. Alicia Wise of Elsevier, one key aspect of the new policy documents finally sunk in for me, and when I fully realized what Elsevier was doing, and what they clearly thought would be a welcome concession to the academics who create the content from which they make billions, my jaw dropped in amazement.
It appears that Elsevier is making a distinction between an author's personal website or blog and the repository at the institution where that author works. Authors are, I think, able to post final manuscripts to the former for public access, but posting to the latter must be restricted only to internal users for the duration of the newly-imposed embargo periods. In the four column chart that was included in their original announcement, this disparate treatment of repositories and other sites is illustrated in the "After Acceptance" column, where it says that "author manuscripts can be shared… [o]n personal websites or blogs," but that sharing must be done "privately" on institutional repositories. I think I missed this at first because the chart is so difficult to understand; it must be read from left to right and understood as cumulative, since by themselves the columns are incomplete and confusing. But, in their publicity campaign around these new rules, Elsevier is placing a lot of weight on this distinction.
In a way, I guess this situation is a little better than what I thought when I first saw the policy. But really, I think I must have missed the distinction at first because it was so improbable that Elsevier would really try to treat individual websites and IRs differently. Now that I fully understand that intention, it provides clear evidence of just how out of touch with the real conditions of academic work Elsevier has become.
Questions abound. Many scientists, for example, maintain lab websites, and their personal profiles are often subordinate to those sites. Articles are most often linked, in these situations, from the main lab website. Is this a personal website? Given the distinction Elsevier makes, I think it must be, but it is indicative of the fact that the real world does not conform to Elsevier's attempt to make a simple distinction between "the Internet we think is OK" and "the Internet we are still afraid of."
By the way, since the new policy allows authors to replace pre-prints on ArXive and RePEC — those two are specifically mentioned — with final author manuscripts, it is even clearer to see that this new policy is a direct attack on repositories, as the Chronicle of Higher Education perceives in this article. Elsevier seems to want to broaden its ongoing attack on repositories, shifting from a focus on just those campuses that have an open access policy to now inhibiting green self-archiving on all university campuses. But they are doing so using a distinction that ultimately makes no sense.
That distinction gets really messy when we try to apply it to the actual conditions of campus IT, something Elsevier apparently knows little about and did not consider as the wrote the new policy documents. I am reminded that, in a conversation unrelated to the Elsevier policy change, a librarian told me recently that her campus Counsel's Office had told her that she should treat the repository as an extension of faculty members' personal sites. Even before it was enshrined by Elsevier, this was clearly a distinction without a difference.
For one thing, when we consider how users access these copies of final authors' manuscripts, the line between a personal website and a repository vanishes entirely. In both cases the manuscript would reside on the same servers, or, at least, in the same "cloud." And our analytics tell us that most people find our repositories through an Internet search engine; they do not go through the "front door" of repository software. The result is that a manuscript will be found just as easily, in the same manner and by the same potential users, if it is on a personal website or in an institutional repository. A Google or Google Scholar search will still find the free copy, so trying to wall off institutional repositories is a truly foolish and futile move.
For many of our campuses, this effort becomes even more problematic as we adopt software that helps faculty members create and populate standardized web profiles. With this software – VIVO and Elements are examples that are becoming quite common — the open access copies that are presented on a faculty author's individual profile page actually "reside" in the repository. Elsevier apparently views these two "places" – the repository and the faculty web site – as if they really were different rooms in a building, and they could control access to one while making the other open to the public. But that is simply not how the Internet works. After 30 years of experience with hypertext, and with all the money at their disposal, one would think that Elsevier should have gained a better grasp on the technological conditions that prevail on the campuses where the content they publish is created and disseminated. But this policy seems written to facilitate feel-good press releases while still keeping the affordances of the Internet at bay, rather than to provide practical guidelines or address any of the actual needs of researchers.
The post A distinction without a difference appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The post From control to contempt appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
My colleague Paolo Mangiafico has suggested that what these new policies are really about is capturing the ecosystem for scholarly sharing under Elsevier's control. As Paolo points out, these new policies, which impose long embargo periods on do-it-yourself sharing by authors but offer limited opportunities to share articles when a link or API provided by Elsevier is used, should be seen alongside the company's purchase of Mendeley; both provide Elsevier an opportunity to capture data about how works are used and re-used, and both reflect an effort to grab the reins over scholarly sharing to ensure that it is more difficult to share outside of Elsevier's walled garden than it is inside that enclosure.
I deliberately quote Mr. Seeley's phrase about "their content" because it is characteristic of how publishers seem to think about what they publish. I believe it may even be a nearly unconscious gesture of denial of the evident fact that academic publishers rely on others — faculty authors, editors and reviewers — to do most of the work, while the publisher collects all of the profit and fights the authors for subsequent control of the works those authors have created. That denial must be resisted, however, because it is in that gesture that the desire for control becomes outright disrespect for the authors that publishing is supposed to serve.
Nowhere is this disrespect more evident than in publisher claims that the works they publish are "work made for hire," which means, in legal terms, that the publisher IS the author. The faculty member who puts pen to paper is completely erased from the transaction. To be clear, as far as I know Elsevier is not making such a claim with its new policies. But these work made for hire assertions are growing in academic publishing.
Three years ago I wrote about an author agreement from Oxford University Press that claimed work made for hire over book chapters; that agreement is still in use as far as I am aware. At the time, I pointed out two reasons why I thought OUP might want to make that claim. First, if something is a work made for hire, the provision in U.S. copyright law that allows an author or her heirs to terminate any license or transfer after 35 years simply does not apply. More significantly, an open access license, such as is created by many university policies, probably is not effective if the work is considered made for hire. This should be pretty obvious, since our law employs the legal fiction that says the employer, not the actual writer, is the author from the very moment of creation in work made for hire situations. So we should read these claims, when we find them in author agreements, as pretty direct assaults on an author's ability to comply with an open access policy, no matter how much she may want to.
As disturbing as the Oxford agreement is, however, it should be said that it makes some legal sense. When a work is created by an independent contractor (and it is not clear to me if an academic author should be defined that way), there are only selected types of works that can even be considered work made for hire; one of them is "contribution[s] to a collective work." So a chapter in an edited book is at least plausible as a work made for hire, although the other requirement — an explicit agreement, which some courts have said must predate the creation of the work — may still not be met. In any case, the situation is much worse with the publication agreement from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), which was recently brought to my attention.
ASME takes as its motto the phrase "Setting the Standard," and with this publication agreement they may well set the standard for contemptuous maltreatment of their authors, many of whom are undoubtedly also members of the society. A couple of points should be noted here. First, the contract does claim that the works in question were prepared as work made for hire. It attempts to "back date" this claim by beginning with an "acknowledgement" that the paper was "specially ordered and commissioned as a work made for hire and, accordingly, ASME is the author of the Paper." This acknowledgement is almost certainly untrue in many, if not most, cases, especially since it appears to apply even to conference presentations, which are most certainly not "specially commissioned." The legal fiction behind work made for hire has been pushed into the realm of pure fantasy here.
What's more, later in the agreement the "author" agrees to waive all moral rights, which means that they surrender the right to be attributed as the author of the paper and to protect its integrity. Basically, an author who is foolish enough to sign this agreement has no relationship at all to the work, once the agreement is in place. They are given back a very limited set of permissions to use the work internally within their organization and to create some, but not all, forms of derivative works from it (they cannot produce or allow a translation, for example). Apparently ASME has recently started to disallow some students who publish with them to use the published paper as part of a dissertation, since most dissertations are now online and ASME does not permit the writer to deposit the article, even in such revised form, in an open repository.
To me, this agreement is the epitome of disrespect for scholarly authors. Your job, authors are told, is not to spread knowledge, not to teach, not to be part of a wider scholarly conversation. It is to produce content for us, which we will own and you will have nothing to say about. You are, as nearly as possible, just "chopped liver." It is mind-boggling to me that any self-respecting author would sign this blatant slap in their own face, and that a member-based organization could get away with demanding it. The best explanation I can think of is that most people do not read the agreements they sign. But authors — they are authors, darn it, in spite of the work for hire fiction — deserve more respect from publishers who rely on them for content (free content, in fact; the ASME agreement is explicit that writers are paid nothing and are responsible for their own expenses related to the paper). Indeed, authors should have more respect for themselves, and for the traditions of academic freedom, than to agree to this outlandish publication contract.
The post From control to contempt appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The post Learning how fair use works appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
If you came up with at least 170, the Copyright Office agrees with you. Last week they announced a fascinating new tool on the CO website, an index of fair use cases. That index contains summaries of approximately 170 cases, along with a search tool. The introductory message, however, acknowledges that the index is not complete, so those of you who thought there were more than 170 cases are almost certainly correct.
This index is potentially a very useful tool, and it also raises some interesting questions. I want to consider the questions first, than discuss how the new fair use index might be used by someone who wanted to learn more about how fair use works (which, by the way, is one of the avowed purposes behind its development).
Coverage is the obvious first question, and, as I said, the CO acknowledges that it is incomplete. Specifically, it seems heavily weighted toward more recent cases. There are only 11 cases listed in the index dating to before 1978, and two older cases (1940 and 1968) that are presented in my law school casebook on copyright as important fair use precedents are not included. So it looks like there are some pretty significant gaps, which one hopes the Copyright Office will address as it continues to develop this tool.
By the way, the issue of continuing development also brings up the question of why the C.O. thought this was a worthwhile investment. It looks useful, to be sure, but there are other sources for similar data, so it is a bit curious that the C.O. chose this among all its potential priorities.
To return to the issue of coverage, it is always important to ask which specific cases were chosen and how they are characterized. Of the 170 cases, there are 78 for which the result is listed as "Fair use not found," and 64 in which the C.O. says that fair use was found. The remaining 29 are listed as "Preliminary ruling, mixed result or remand." This last category is rather unhelpful. For example, the Authors Guild v. HathiTrust case is listed this way, even though it was a strong affirmation of fair use and the remand involved a fairly unimportant issue of standing. Even more surprising is the fact that this "mixed result" tag is applied to Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music, the "Oh Pretty Women" case from the Supreme Court that is at the heart of modern fair use jurisprudence. Again, this was a clear fair use win; the case was remanded only because that is what the Supreme Court usually does when it reverses a Court of Appeals' decision. So the representation of the holdings is technically accurate, it seems, but not as helpful as it might be in actually focusing on the fair use aspect; while some "mixed result" case genuinely were that — fair use was found on one issue but not for another — many of the remanded cases actually did involve a clear yea or nay about fair use, and it would be more helpful to categorize them that way.
A particularly useful feature of this index is the ability to limit the listings by jurisdiction (the Appellate Circuits) and by topic. For example, limited to just cases out of the Fourth Circuit, where I reside, I find that the Court has ruled on seven fair uses case and upheld fair use in six of them. The seventh was one of those genuinely mixed results, where one challenged use was held to be fair and another was not.
If we limit the subject area of the cases to those labeled "Education/Scholarship/Research," fair use seems to fare better than it does overall. In that category of 42 total cases there are 18 findings in favor of fair use and 16 rejections. Of the remaining 8 mixed results, at least two of them — the HathiTrust Case and the GSU case — should be seen as affirmations of fair use, even if the parameters of that use are still unsettled in GSU. So the impression many of us have that educational and scholarly uses are a bit more favored in the fair use analysis than other types of cases seems to be confirmed.
Things get more interesting when we look just at the Supreme Court in this index, and the issue of how cases are chosen is again highlighted. The index shows four fair use cases, with one holding in favor of fair use (Sony v. Universal Pictures), one mixed result (Campbell, as discussed above), and two rejections of fair use (Harper v. Nation and Stewart v. Abend). This last case, Stewart v. Abend, is actually almost never treated as a fair use case; while fair use was dismissed as a potential defense in the case, the real issue involved assignments of copyright and who could exercise the renewal right that existed at that time. And this case was remanded, just as Campbell was. So it is odd that Campbell, with its central finding in favor of fair use, is shown as a mixed result, while Stewart v. Abend, where fair use was tangential and there was also a remand, is tagged as a rejection of fair use. This suggests at least an unconscious bias against fair use findings.
A different listing of Supreme Court fair use cases, on the IP Watchdog site, includes several additional cases — nine, in all — but does not list Stewart v. Abend as one of them. Several of the cases included by IP Watchdog do not seem to me to really focus on fair use, so I am not saying that the C.O. has under-reported the cases. But the very different lists do suggest that it is a surprisingly subjective undertaking just to identify the cases that should be included in a fair use index.
Finally, the analysis provided in the C.O.'s case summaries needs to be considered carefully. To take one example, for the recent case of Kienitz v. Scoonie Nation, about which I wrote earlier this year, the short note about the holding ignores the thing that may be most significant about the case — the reluctance of Judge Frank Easterbrook to apply a "transformation" analysis to the fair use question (HT to my friend and colleague David Hansen for pointing this out). Again, this is not necessarily a problem, and the case summary of Kienitz at the Stanford Copyright & Fair Use site has a similar synopsis, but it is a reminder that these projects are always created by individuals with specific perspectives, viewpoints and limitations.
Even with all these caveats, I think the Copyright Office has created a useful tool, which can be used by those interested to learn a lot about how fair use is applied, especially by looking at the different categories. The Stanford site, linked above, and especially its own, much shorter list of cases, might usefully be used alongside the C.O. index. The Stanford descriptions are very tightly focused on the fair use issue, so reading them in conjunction with the C.O. summaries, with their attention to procedural matters that sometimes obscure the fair use holding, might produce a more balanced approach.
In any case, this new tool form the Copyright Office, and some of the tools that predate it, remind us that the best way to understand fair use, and to become comfortable with it, is too look closely at the cases, both in the aggregate and individually. This C.O. database offers a statistical perspective, as well as the ability to focus on parody, or music, or format-shifting, while the Stanford summaries emphasize in a few words the core of the fair use analysis. Both point the interested reader to full opinions, where the analysis can be understood in the context of all the facts. Combined in this way, these resources offer a terrific opportunity for librarians, authors, and others to dig deeply into the nuances of fair use.
The post Learning how fair use works appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The post Stepping back from sharing appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
For context, since 2004 Elsevier has allowed authors to self-archive the final accepted manuscripts of their articles in an institutional repository without delay. In 2012 they added a foolish and forgettable attempt to punish institutions that adopted an open access policy by purporting to revoke self-archiving rights from authors at such institutions. This was a vain effort to undermine OA policies; clearly Elsevier was hoping that their sanctions would discourage adoption. This did not prove to be the case. Faculty authors continued to vote for green open access as the default policy for scholarship. In just a week at the end of last month the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Penn State, and Dartmouth all adopted such policies.
Attempting to catch up to reality, Elsevier announced last week that it was doing away with its punitive restriction that applied only to authors whose institutions had the temerity to support open access. They now call that policy "complex" — it was really just ambiguous and unenforceable — and assert that they are "simplifying" matters for Elsevier authors. In reality they are simply punishing any authors who are foolish enough to publish under these terms.
Two major features of this retreat from openness need to be highlighted. First, it imposes an embargo of at least one year on all self-archiving of final authors' manuscripts, and those embargoes can be as long as four years. Second, when the time finally does roll around when an author can make her own work available through an institutional repository, Elsevier now dictates how that access is to be controlled, mandating the most restrictive form of Creative Commons license, the CC-BY-NC-ND license for all green open access.
These embargoes are the principal feature of this new policy, and they are both complicated and draconian. Far from making life simpler for authors, they now must navigate through several web pages to finally find the list of different embargo periods. The list itself is 50 pages long, since each journal has its own embargo, but an effort to greatly extend the default expectation is obvious. Many U.S. and European journals have embargoes of 24, 36 and even 48 months. There are lots of 12 month embargoes, and one suspects that that delay is imposed because those journals that are deposited in PubMed Central, for which 12 months is the maximum embargo permitted. Now that maximum embargo is also being imposed on individual authors. For many others an even longer embargo, which is entirely unsupported by any evidence that it is needed to maintain journal viability, is now the rule. And there is a handful of journals, all from Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East, as far as I can see, where no embargo is imposed; I wonder if that is the result of country-specific rules or simply a cynical calculation of the actual frequency of self-archiving from those journals.
The other effort to micromanage self-archiving in this new policy is the requirement that all authors who persevere and wish, after the embargo period, to deposit their final manuscript in a repository, must apply a non-commercial and no derivative works limitation on the license for each article. This, of course, further limits the usefulness of these articles for real sharing and scholarly advancement. It is one more way in which the new policy is exactly a reverse of what Elsevier calls it; it is a retreat from sharing and an effort to hamstring the movement toward more open scholarship.
The rapid growth of open access policies at U.S. institutions and around the world suggests that more and more scholarly authors want to make their work as accessible as possible. Elsevier is pushing hard in the opposite direction, trying to delay and restrict scholarly sharing as much as they can. It seems clear that they are hoping to control the terms of such sharing, in order to both restrict it putative impact on their business model and ultimately to turn it to their profit, if possible. This latter goal may be a bigger threat to open access than the details of embargoes and licenses are. In any case, it is time, I believe, to look again at the boycott of Elsevier that was undertaken by many scholarly authors a few years ago; with this new salvo fired against the values of open scholarship, it is even more impossible to imagine a responsible author deciding to publish with Elsevier.
The post Stepping back from sharing appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The post Copyright follies appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
But let's be honest. There is also a lot of nonsense in the copyright world. The idea of "owning" creative expression just makes some folks go a little nuts, and some pretty absurd claims get made about copyright (monkey selfies, anyone?). So here is a quick review of some recent bizarre cases, although by the end of it we will have the opportunity to review some important principles about copyright law.
Perhaps a good place to begin is with the claim by descendants of Nazi Propaganda Minister Joesph Goebbels that they are entitled to licensing fees for quotes from Goebbels' diaries that are used in a new biography of him. One of the strangest things about this case is that it may well be a valid claim, although there is some dispute over who actually is the copyright holder, since most assets of the Nazi leaders were seized by the Allies after the war. But the very fact that it is being raised suggests some interesting questions. How much money would make it worthwhile to publicly identify oneself as a descendant of one of the worlds most vilified war criminals, an architect of the "final solution?" And will there be a fair use/fair dealing defense raised, as the blog Techdirt has suggested? It certainly seems like we should avoid a situation where a war criminal's family would be in a position to censor a biography of him, which would be one possibility if they were found to hold copyright. Random House seems mostly to assert the "no money to a war criminal" defense against the claim, but it is worth remembering that copyright is not only about money, it is about control.
Just before publishing this post I saw an excellent analysis of the issue of royalties for ex-Nazi's or these descendants here, in Inside Higher Ed.
Another development this past week was the filing by John Deere in regard to a proposed exception to DMCA anti-circumvention rules in which they claimed that the software in a tractor is only licensed to a consumer, not owned by them. It was inevitable that such a claim would be made eventually, and I predicted it somewhat eerily in this post from last year (substituting John Deere for Ford). John Deere wants to sell you a tractor, and they are fine with you using it as you wish, unless you decide to modify the software. At that point they assert that you, the purchasers, only have an implied license to use the software and that anti-circumvention rules would prevent modification, and should continue to do so. What makes this claim more dangerous than absurd is that it raises the idea of new limitations on what we mean by ownership. We thought that the doctrine of First Sale was sufficient to protect the traditional idea of ownership in regard to copyrighted material, but the DMCA, and the desire of some companies to suppress competition, has changed that. What new and un-imagined restrictions on my use of the tractor in my driveway might be down the line from John Deere? We are getting ever closer to the point where our courts will need to develop clear guidelines about what it means to own a machine that incorporates copyrighted material. In the meantime, I would think twice before I "bought" a John Deere tractor; I like to know what I am getting for my money, and John Deere seems to think they can upend my reasonable expectations whenever it suits them.
Most readers are likely already familiar with the next of the follies I want to discuss: the claim made on behalf of the bystander who filmed the police shooting of Walter Scott in South Carolina that he, the bystander, is entitled to a licensing fee — apparently as much as $10,000 — every time the media replays the video. There are two especially troubling aspects of this claim. The first is the absurd misunderstanding that leads to a statement that the fair use "period" has "expired" for this video. There is not a time limit on fair use, of course. It seems to me that a few people are confusing fair use, a statutory boundary on copyright that lasts as long as the rights do, with the so-called "hot news" doctrine. The latter was the creation of courts, is of uncertain application, and was largely preempted by the 1976 copyright act. In fact, the hot news doctrine was a limit on the exclusivity that a news organization could have over its report of newsworthy events, so the doctrine acted in the reverse of how it is being asserted, under the wrong name, in the Scott shooting video case. Fair use continues to exist in spite of the lapse of time, and only a very poorly-advised news organization would accept this idiotic argument.
Which brings me to the most troubling aspect of this case, the apparent fact that the New York Times agrees that fair use can expire. According to the Forbes report linked above, the NYT claimed that "copyright experts" agreed that this alleged fair use period has passed. They quote a lawyer for the Copyright Clearance Center (hardly a disinterested party) whose argument, while using temporal language, can only sensibly refer to the specific conditions surrounding a particular use (i.e. whether the use is for the purpose of news reporting or not). I wonder if the CCC can cite any case law for this proposition that fair use can expire? If not, then they and the NY Times are just spreading FUD which, at least for the Times, is unexpected and reprehensible.
Finally, I want to briefly comment on this story about a former researcher who is suing his former post-doctoral adviser at Brown University for having published an article that they apparently wrote together without giving authorship credit to the former post-doc. There are complicated details to the case, and I would not like to offer an opinion about who is right or wrong in the overall dispute. But the controversy raises one issue that I do want to comment on: the situation between joint authors. So much of the scholarship produced today is written by multiple authors — I recently saw an article with 102 listed authors — that it is increasingly important to understand a couple of points.
First, to qualify as a joint author in the copyright sense, each author must contribute protectable expression to the preparation of the overall work. That means that some, at least, of those 102 authors are not co-owners of the copyright because their contributions did not involve the creation of protectable expression. We don't worry too much about this distinction in the academic world, but it could be an issue if a dispute over publication arises, as it has in the Brown University case described above.
Second, it is important to understand that each co-owner of the copyright, each joint author, is entitled to exercise the rights in the copyright bundle independently. That means that one author can conceivably authorize publication without the permission of the other authors, as seems to have happened in this situation. On the copyright issue, at least, it seems clear that the post-doc cannot object to publication simply because the article he worked on with others was published by one of them without his knowledge or consent. The author who published would be obligated to account to all co-authors for any profits from the publication, but it would not be infringement to simply publish the article without consent from the others.
This precise situation, also involving a dispute about how authors were listed, was considered by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 1987 in a case called Weinstein v. the University of Illinois, and the panel of judges, two of whom were themselves well-known academics, came to the same conclusion — no infringement when one co-owner of the copyright publishes without permission from the others. So whatever the other details are in the Brown case, a copyright claim against the former adviser from one of his co-authors is unlikely to be successful. This is why it is so important (especially in cases like this involving commercial sponsorship) for all of the authors to agree together about the use and publication of any intellectual property that arises from the project. That sort of agreement, worked out calmly and in advance of any conflict, is still the best way to avoid being involved in any copyright follies.
The post Copyright follies appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
The post Steps toward a new GSU ruling appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>
Last week, District Court Judge Orinda Evans dismissed the motion to reopen the record and issued an order about briefing the court on what a new analysis of fair use for the original excerpts considered in the trial should look like. Judge Evans wrote that "It does not make sense at this juncture to spend months, probably longer, on what considerations might govern if Plaintiffs prove they are entitled to injunctive relief by virtue of the claimed 2009 infringements." The motion is dismissed without prejudice, meaning that the plaintiffs can renew it at a more appropriate time, although I must admit that I do not see what that would mean if the case is to go forward on the original set of readings.
It appears that once again the publishers have failed in an effort to broaden the scope of the case beyond the item-by-item fair use analysis that has already been done and to possibly reintroduce some of the broad principles that they really want, which have so far been rejected at every stage. Now Judge Evans has explicitly told them, in her scheduling order, that what is required is "consideration and reevaluation of each of the individual claims" in order to redetermine "in each instance… whether defendants' use was a fair use under 17 U.S.C. section 107." Her schedule for the briefs is tight, with an end of the briefing now scheduled just two and a half months from now. Presumably we would still have a long wait while Judge Evans applies revised reasoning about fair use to each of the individual excerpts, but it looks a bit more like that is what is going to happen.
The post Steps toward a new GSU ruling appeared first on Scholarly Communications @ Duke.]]>


text:
Joan Rivers Zings Foes, Old & New
|On Jon Gosselin, to Page Six: "I'm disgusted by him. Here's a guy with eight kids who runs off to 'find himself' -- well, he should have found himself a condom."
|On Brooke Shields, to TMZ: "I'd love to roast Brooke Shields. Michael's dearest friend. She hasn't seen him since 1993! ... It's called face time." (Referring to Shields' eulogy at Michael Jackson's memorial service.)
|On Jay Leno, to the TV Critics Association: "I think it's brilliant that Leno is at 10 p.m. because America can get bored more easily and go to sleep earlier ... It will be nice for the Midwest because their crops will be greener."
Joan Rivers Snapshots
Getty Images
Getty Images
Getty Images
Getty Images
Getty Images
Getty Images
Getty Images
Getty Images
- Filed under:
- Celebrity Fights -
- Gut Reactions -
- TV News -
- Sunday 09 AugustBy Jenee
Nice to see Joan being her usual, classless self.
- Sunday 09 AugustBy traisy
she is right on about Brooke shields. what a phony brooke is.
- Sunday 09 AugustBy jackluss
to gff: stop advertising on this site, you dummy.this must be your cheap business you are trying people out of money!
- Sunday 09 AugustBy turnipgirl
Oh boy, Joan. Big deal, they are having a roast for her. A roast is the final sign that your career is in the pits.
- Sunday 09 AugustBy Mea
Joan Rivers is still not funny. She may get older, but wiser and funnier just are not happening for her.
- Sunday 09 AugustBy Pepper
One of these days she will fall through that big mouth of hers and break her neck.
- Sunday 09 AugustBy Pissed
Joan Rivers has a lot of balls (at least she looks like she should?) giving somebody sh_t??? She's got cast iron for a face and poses with queers dressed up like women!!! Get a grip Joan cause it's all you'll ever get with a face like yours!!!!
- Sunday 09 AugustBy kshe763571
What a pathetic existence JR has now. Perhaps she could replace Heath Ledger in the Batman series...
- Thursday 20 AugustBy Barbara
Ever heard the old adage "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" Joan?
For an old lady who won't face up to her age. I don't think you've got any right to point out other peoples shortcomings.
...not to mention the fact that you've built a career from just being down right nasty. Meanness isn't funny, it's cruel and pathetic. You're a very sad excuse for a person.
- Sunday 09 AugustBy Rhonda
She has ALWAYS been and ALWAYS will be a sad example of women! She disgusts me!
- Sunday 09 AugustBy Margali
Shouldn't she be out terrorizing Gotham City?
- Sunday 09 AugustBy TOOTSIE
rIVERS CAN BE FULNNY VERY VERY HARSH BUT FUNNY BUT HER DAUGHTER WHO TRIES TO BE LIKE HER IS A VOLGAR HATEFUL WOMAN BOY IS SHE STUCK ON HERSELF jOAN IS A COMIC THIS ONE TRIES TO BE LIKE HER BUT MISSES THE POINT ENTIRELY SHE IS THE CLOSEST I HAVE EVER COME TO A WITCH WHAT A MOUTH
- Sunday 09 AugustBy Jamie
Joan Rivers is the same person she's always been. If you don't like her,don't watch. Actually, the comments she made were pretty funny,especially about Leno. I never did get what the obsession with this guy was. I'd rather watch Dave,Conan,even Craig Ferguson. They're all funnier than Leno.
- Sunday 09 AugustBy jeets
Joan is one operation away from looking like Michael Jackson did.
- Sunday 09 August
Joan Rivers is white filth.
- Sunday 09 AugustBy bill
....I do have to say though ...her comment about Brooke Shields is 'right on' . How can you get in front of a camera and cry and act up the way she did at M. J.'s funeral ..She calles herself a 'best friend' etc and etc......Best friends see each other (i think) a little more than one time in eight years...when you live close. Brother , what an actress.
- Sunday 09 AugustBy (:
yeah, she totally reminds me of my mother considering im black and all, youre probably a middle aged fat dude who has no life and no date so you sit here criticizing people.
and sorry if my " salutation " is wrong.
i wasnt saying i had perfect grammar. i was saying that its ironic how you can feel the need to call someone "stupid" and not even know how to spell it.
- Thursday 13 AugustBy bu4ick
Hello C: Sup dude?
Sorry if I offended I also found it ironic someone would critize someone else's spelling when that person's spelling was equally bad.
That's like an arsonist lighting a balze then complaining to the Fire Chief that the fire is too hot.
I'm sure your mother is a wonderful person who loves you and bought you spelling books when you were young - and you probably just ate the pages.
Please don't take my comments personal "dude." Remember Jesus died to take away your sins, not your brains. Use them. They're the nest where your future is hatched. Bad spelling can be a real door-slammer.
- Wednesday 23 SeptemberBy Suzy
Look at all the 'fan mail' Joan Rivers is receiving
on this message board! I remember seeing, Ms. Rivers for the first time in the '70s.. She was an idiot with a tight face then and she's an idiot with a tighter face now! I couldn't get over how open and honest she was re: her facelifts even back
then! According to Joan she was tormented in school
for being so ugly, so she took it upon herself to show the world that there was more to Joan Rivers than, just her looks. She was a comedian. Not a bad
one, but she picked on everyone, even back then from Liz Taylor to Milton Berle. Joan's only daughter, Melissa Rivers is the product of Joan and her late, husband, I believe his name was Edgar. He did himself in by committing suicide. I don't mean to be cruel, but like Joan is, I will. Edgar, her husband must have been so fed up with looking at her everyday, and realizing what an ugly
witch she was and how very mean she was that he felt there was no way out. Why pay alimony to the witch? I knew many people who killed themselves and one of them was my brother's ex-wife b/c her ex-husband couldn't take it anymore from my ex SIL.
I think she was trying to make my brother take his own life also. Too bad she didn't succeed with my brother - long frickin story with my brother, but he's as mean, if not more mean than Joan Freaking Rivers!
- Wednesday 30 SeptemberBy teeball
Love her,she would be a hoot to get high with,,,
Jennifer Aniston
Is it Brad(ley) and Jen take 2? Jen was spotted out on the town with dreamboat ...
Paris Hilton
After Fairly Legal actress, Sarah Shahi, laid into Paris via Twitter for almost...
Kate Middleton
Kate Middleton is officially a princess. She walked the aisle in an Alexander...
Denise Richards
According to Denise, she's not sure that her estranged ex is completely sober....
Popeater Hot Topics
- Real Housewives of Orange County Recap: Drunken Vicki Gunvalson, Castmates "Whoop It Up" In Tahiti
- Margot Robbie, Cara Delevingne Join the Pink Hair Gang: See Hollywood's Biggest Beauty Trend in Action!
- Gwen Stefani, Gavin Rossdale's Shocking Split: "This Was a Long Time Coming"
- 'Law & Order' stars share their favorite memories
- Eminem replaced pill addiction with exercise after weighing in at 230 lbs
- FOX411's star snaps of the day
Sites We Love
- 'Law & Order' stars share their favorite memories
- Eminem replaced pill addiction with exercise after weighing in at 230 lbs
- More From Foxnews.com
- Watch New Girl Star Jake Johnson Try and Fail at Parkour
- Brazilian Dog Refuses to Leave Hospital Caring for Ailing Owner, Even After Owner Dies
- More From PEOPLE.com
- BREAKING NEWS - Gwen Stefani Files For Divorce From Gavin Rossdale
- EXCLUSIVE PHOTOS - Miranda Kerr And Snapchat Billionaire Boyfriend Evan Spiegel Go For A Day Date In Malibu
- More From x17online.com
- Zac Efron Joining One Direction? Watch The Perfect 'Drag Me Down' Video
- Gwen Stefani & Gavin Rossdale: Separate Bedrooms & Trust Issues In Final Years
- More From Hollywoodlife.com

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Maoists torch dumpers, rollers of construction firm
Last Updated: Saturday, May 15, 2010 - 09:26
Patna: Maoists have torched two dumpers and as many rollers of a road construction company in Bihar`s Gaya district, police said Saturday.
Armed rebels late Friday attacked the temporary office of a construction firm near Sherghati in Gaya, about 100 km from here, police said.
They set on fire dumpers and rollers, creating panic among the company`s employees.
Maoists apparently targeted the construction company to extort money, police said.
A case has been filed and search operations are on to trace the Maoists.
First Published: Saturday, May 15, 2010 - 09:26
More from India
More from World
More from Sports
More from Entertaiment
- 6 leaders were in contact with Dawood Ibrahim till 26/11: Report
- Rameswaram waits to give final salute to Dr Abdul Kalam
- DNA analysis of Yakub Memon's final moments in Nagpur Jail
- SC order on Yakub Memon huge disappointment, setback: Owaisi
- Last rites of Gurdaspur attack martyr Baljit Singh in Kapurthala
- APJ Abdul Kalam's funeral to be held in Rameswaram; PM Modi to attend
- Yakub Memon hanged in Nagpur jail: As it happened
- Has President Pranab Mukherjee rejected Yakub Memon's mercy plea?
- SC refuses stay on Yakub Memon's hanging: As it happened
- Yakub Memon's body handed over to family, tight security in Mumbai


text:
Patti Vasquez Comes To Comedy Works Larimer Square 8/20-22
Comedy Works is pleased to announce that PATTI VASQUEZ will perform at the Comedy Works Larimer Square: Thursday August 20 8:00 PM $12.00, Friday August 21 8:00 PM / 10:00 PM $20.00, Saturday August 22 6:30 PM / 8:30 PM / 10:30 PM $20.00
Click here to watch Patti: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4buKBWCmLk
Patti Vasquez, a Chicago native, got her start in comedy after leaving graduate school at Northwestern University to work as an emcee at Zanies Comedy Club. While she disappointed her parents by never completing her PhD in history, she has gone on to write and star in three hit one-woman shows: Pregnant Party Girl: From Stolis to Stirrups, Mamacita: Tales of a Diaper Diva and Tequila and Shamrocks: Every Flower Has Her Roots. Her film debut came when fellow Chicagoan Jeff Garlin cast her in the motion picture I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With. As a regular guest on the wildly popular The Bob and Tom Show, Vasquez has reached a whole new audience. She enjoys performing across the country as part of The Bob and Tom Comedy All-Stars.
Her perspective on family and relationships, including stories about growing up in a multi-ethnic American family, balances the rest of her act, which exposes the truths about pregnancy and shares the comic moments of marriage and raising children.
Advance tickets are available. Please call 303 595 3637 or purchase tickets at www.comedyworks.com
About Author
- New York Philharmonic Set for Residency in Santa Barbara This Summer
- Music Mountain Welcomes Penderecki String Quartet & More This Weekend
- Houston Symphony Performs Score of BACK TO THE FUTURE to Celebrate 30th Anniversary Tonight
- Rite of Summer Music Festival Presents Free Concerts with Imani Winds Today
- Michael Feinstein Joins Pasadena POPS for THE SINATRA PROJECT Tonight
- Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra Perform DISTANT WORLDS Concert Tonight
- Grammy Winner Sheryl Crow to Perform at The Hollywood Bowl This August
- Cooperstown Summer Music Festival to Feature Four Concerts This August
- Pacific Symphony Announces Special Offer for Summer Group Tickets
- Music Mountain to Present Harlem String Quartet with Francine Kay & More, 8/22-23


text:
Report: 2 dead, 22 hurt when tent collapses at New Hampshire fairgrounds in...
Retired Arizona teacher has many second career out of volunteering at...
'I Am Cait' star Caitlyn Jenner has admitted she isn't ready to "expose"...
LETTER - As part of his election campaign in 2008, Stephen Harper promised...
Obama: Power plant limits most important step US has taken to combat...
COLLINGWOOD – It's 5:59 a.m.
In one minute thousands of people across the Georgian Triangle will wake up. For many, their alarms are set to radios and they will awake to the same soft, familiar voice saying:
"Welcome to The Morning Flight, I'm John Nichols."
Nichols is an institution. Since 1971 - that's 41 years - he's been behind the microphone at The Peak 95.1 FM in Collingwood.
Dec. 21 will be his last day on the air. He will host the annual Christmas draw - a fundraiser for Collingwood General and Marine Hospital. He started the draw 32 years ago.
Nichols was born in Tay Township and raised on a dairy farm.
As a young boy, Nichols never intended to get into radio.
"It was a by chance thing," he said. "What I was hoping to do was become a vet. I wasn't good in math, I was good in sciences, but not math."
Nichols saw an advertisement for Bell Canada, looking for technicians. He took the test, passed it, but later discovered he was colour blind and was not hired.
Around this same time, Nicholls was plying his trade as a rock n' roller.
"I was in a rock 'n roll group and I was always listening to the Chum AM station," he said.
He heard an advertisement for a new broadcasting school and it changed his life.
"I was in the very first class, graduated and the rest is history," he said.
It's 9:30 a.m., and Nichols is in the second floor studio of 95.1 The Peak FM, formerly known as CKCB. He just finished an episode of the Chats program -which he says is his favourite part of the job - where he interviews local residents about community events and happenings.
It's rare, he says, that someone in radio stays in one place for decades.
"It's probably unheard of," he adds.
Nichols spent his first two years in radio in Cornwall before heading to Sudbury for seven months.
He worked at CKBB in Barrie, doing the mid-day show, which was broadcast on CKCB.
In 1972, a job opening for a morning show host in Collingwood came up. He jumped at the opportunity.
"I hadn't planned on staying but the fishing was good, the skiing was good, people were fantastic. Best place in the world to live, so I dropped anchor and I've been here 41 years," he said.
He's seen a lot of changes in radio. He has two computer monitors on his desk, which list songs and upcoming advertising spots.
They weren't there 40 years ago.
When he started, he used records, 45s and sometimes cassettes.
"I never took computer in school," he said. "It was a pretty steep learning curve."
What's kept him in the area for more than four decades?
The people.
"I wasn't interested in being in a big market. I like meeting people and when you go to a big market, you kind of lose touch with people," he said. "When I was down on the main street, people would walk right in the front door in the morning, walk right into the studio, hand me in a coffee and shoot the breeze for a while."
Nichols said he likes running his mouth and was able to make a career out of it.
"That's about it in a nutshell," Nichols said. "I like meeting people, I like talking to people. It drives my wife crazy because I go into the food store and I get stopped in every aisle by somebody that I know in town and inevitably we get talking."
Being the voice of Collingwood comes with a responsibility. He recalls one winter when Collingwood was snowed in.
"The town was shut down for three days. You could not move around anywhere. The only way you could move around was snowmobile," he said.
For those three days, Nichols was on the air, working with local ham radio operators to get people food and supplies.
"For those three days, I was on from morning until night," he said. "We were central. We were the hub of the information communications in the area."
In the community, he's more than a voice, he's also a face.
In 1980, he started the annual Christmas draw, which has raised thousands for the Collingwood General & Marine Hospital.
He was a co-founder of the Georgian Triangle Anglers Association back when he co-owned Great Lakes Guns and Tackle.
This year, he's the honorary co-chair of the Collingwood Christmas Cheer campaign.
Nichols says he's got some great stories from his 41-year-career but when asked, one particular night in Georgetown pops into his head.
He was broadcasting a junior hockey game between the Collingwood Shipbuilders and the Georgetown Raiders with former mayor Joe Sheffer.
"They didn't have a broadcast booth so we were up on top of the flat surface that covers the entrance way for the Zamboni," Nichols recalls. "The Georgetown Raiders were followed by a biker club - some unruly looking guys. They were all mass in the stands that night. One little guy wanted to be large and in charge. He's mouthing off at us and because he knows that we're broadcasting he tries to work his way in between the railing and where I was broadcasting to block my view, meanwhile cursing a blue streak. This is going over the air like crazy."
Nichols said it didn't stop there.
"Big Joe Sheffer grabbed a hold of him to move him away and all of the bikers stormed us. A lot of the Collingwood people who were there as fans, they came to our rescue and it was the biggest donnybrook you've ever seen," he said.
Nichols has been married for 43 years and lives in Nottawa. He has two daughters and says they will likely keep him busy during his retirement. He also plans to do a lot of volunteer work.
It will be difficult to get out of a 40-year-old routine that saw him getting up at 4 a.m. everyday.
But he'll get used to it.
"It will be nice to sleep into six," he said.
Maybe it was when you ran out of breath simply walking up a few flights of stairs. Perhaps it was...
Michele Hall of Mortgage Intelligence in Barrie is a licenced mortgage broker who has helped...
Barn to Be Wild owner Michelle Tudhope wears multiple hats running her small artisan shop just...
The Seckler Team of Mike and Veronica Seckler at Incentive Realty Inc., Brokerage in Barrie knows...
Michele Hall of Mortgage Intelligence in Barrie, Ontario, knows that carrying a mortgage along...
The Barrie Olive Oil Company is providing a real boost to health in the most incredibly delicious...
Buy The Shores of Georgian Bay Realty in Midland, Ontario, knows the dream of many people is to...
The success of Buy The Shores of Georgian Bay Realty team in Midland, Ontario, is no accident; it...
Georgian Radiology is pleased to announce the opening of our newest clinic in the Little Lake...
In addition to paying child support, contribution to "Extraordinary Expenses" or "Section 7...
Do you know smoking cigarettes increases risk for permanent hearing loss?
We are all aware of the...
Anytime Fitness in Wasaga Beach, Ontario, is a full service fitness centre, accessible by members...
At Dalton Timmis Insurance in Midland, we know that as a condominium owner, you have many...
Home ownership is something most of us dream about, but for some, it will never be possible without...
Do you know that even with screening, adolescent hearing loss is missed?
Current recommendations...
Entertaining Interiors in Port Carling and Barrie, Ontario, wants to help transform a space in...
Bring your friends, family, or co-workers to the Barrie Olive Oil Company in Barrie, Ontario, for...
Eleven North Marine Services Inc. , in Orillia, Ontario, is happy to share a lifetime of boating...
Parkbridge Lifestyle Communities , based in Wasaga Beach, Ontario, knows that nearing retirement...
51% off 3 Oil Changes
Up to 69% off Oil Changes and More
Horseshoe Adventure Park
50% off English Gifts and Treats
Up to 56% off Massages
73% off a Crossfit Membership
Up to 46% off Sailing for 2 in Barrie
50% off a Sailing Lesson


text:
A project of People For the American Way dedicated to monitoring and exposing the activities of the right-wing movement. Learn More >
Ted Cruz 'Honored' To Go Hunting With Steve King
Texas senator and likely 2016 presidential candidate Ted Cruz has made a notable friend in Iowa: Rep. Steve King. The Des Moines Register reports that Cruz has accepted King's invitation to go pheasant hunting on the opening day of the hunting season next month, and was "honored to have received the invite."
"Yes, we are confirmed for a hunt with King," Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said in an email Friday to the Des Moines Register. "The senator has enjoyed getting to know him and work with him on important issues before Congress. He's honored to have received the invite."
Prior to the 2012 Iowa Republican presidential caucuses, King hosted former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum twice for bird hunting at Iowa game preserves and Texas Gov. Rick Perry on one occasion. The Iowa congressman said in an interview on Thursday he hopes to shape the debate for the 2016 GOP presidential contest by serving as a "guardrail of constitutional conservatism."
Cruz's proud association with King is another sign that the Texan has no plans to moderate his positions in advance of a presidential run. King earned rebukes from his party leadership last month when he insisted that most young undocumented immigrants are drug runners with "calves the size of cantaloupes because they've been hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert." He has also compared immigrants to dogs.
Cruz has been one of the most outspoken opponents of the Senate's bipartisan immigration proposal.
Filed Under
People:Steve King , Ted Cruz
Share this post
Related Items
Trending Topics
RWW Social Media
Most Popular
Donald Trump Would Consider Tapping Sarah Palin For Future Trump Administration
7/28/15 @ 12:50pm
Jerome Corsi 'Exposes' Hillary Clinton's Lesbian Muslim Brotherhood Conspiracy
7/21/15 @ 1:30pm
Ben Carson: 'The Whole Purpose' Of Planned Parenthood Is To 'Eliminate Black People'
7/20/15 @ 12:15pm
Fox News Lectures Late Sandra Bland After Praising Armed Standoff At Bundy Ranch
7/24/15 @ 2:20pm
Shoebat: Gays Must Be Put To Death Before Turning Boy Scouts 'Into A Nazi-Like Gay Youth Club'
7/24/15 @ 10:10am


text:
All Schools
(9) All Schools
(9) High Schools
(1) High Schools
(1) Elementary Schools
(9) Elementary Schools
(9) Preschools
(8) Preschools
(8) Public Schools
(12) Public Schools
(9) All Schools
(9) High Schools
(1) High Schools
(1) Elementary Schools
(9) Elementary Schools
(9) Preschools
(8) Preschools
(8) Public Schools
(12) Public Schools
There are 9 private schools in West Bend, WI, serving 1,549 students.
Minority enrollment is 2% of the student body, which is less than the WI state average of 28%.
The student:teacher ratio of 14:1 is higher than the state private school average of 13:1.
West Bend, Wisconsin Private Schools
- School Location Grades Students
West Bend777 S Indiana Ave
West Bend, WI 53095
(262)334-7881(Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod)Gr. PK-8 | 257 students
West Bend230 N 8th Ave
West Bend, WI 53095
(262)338-1148(Roman Catholic)Gr. PK-8 | 368 students
West Bend1701 Vogt Drive
West Bend, WI 53095
(262)334-5300Gr. NS-K | 111 students
West Bend529 Hawthorn Dr
West Bend, WI 53095
(262)334-7142(Roman Catholic)Gr. PK-8 | 401 students
West Bend899 S 6th Ave
West Bend, WI 53095
(262)334-5077(Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod)Gr. PK-8 | 202 students
West Bend415 Roosevelt Dr
West Bend, WI 53090
(262)338-5602(Roman Catholic)Gr. PK-8 | 113 students
West Bend515 E Washington St
West Bend, WI 53095
(262)335-3337Alternative SchoolGr. 8-11 | 5 students
West Bend1268 Pleasant Valley Rd
West Bend, WI 53095
(262)675-6627(Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod)Gr. PK-8 | 65 students
West Bend1110 E Decorah Rd
West Bend, WI 53095
(262)338-3281(Assembly of God)Gr. PK-2 | 27 students
Area Statistics
Rental Market Monitor
Recent Articles
Updated July 12, 2015
Many parents tend to dismiss the idea of sending their children to private school without exploring it in depth. We explore this and several more related subjects.
When it comes to choosing a private school, there are so many choices to consider that the project can be a huge challenge to most of us. We offer some help and advice to help you get started.
Sending your child to a foreign language school makes good sense when you have been posted to this country from abroad and in other circumstances as well.


text:
- 56 Pins
Related Boards
12 Spring Wreaths. Festive door decor ideas in honor of Spring or Easter.
Decor Ideas, Doors Decor, Easter Wreaths, Parties Ideas, Spring Wreaths, Festivals Doors, 12 Spring, Easter Ideas, White Tulip
Paige's Party Ideas » Easter Wreaths and Door Decor
12 Spring Wreaths. Festive door decor ideas in honor of Spring or Easter. #Easter #Idea
12 Spring Wreaths. i love the watering can with flowers and a bow! maybe white tulips and a yellow bow? yes!
Easter Wreaths and Door Decor
Flower Pretzel Bites for a delicious Sweet and Salty snack. For more great dessert recipes follow us at www.pinterest.com...
Desserts Recipes, Flowers Pretzels, Easter Spr, Sisters Crafts, Yummy Flowers, Easter Desserts, Flowers Bites, Pretzels Bites, Easter Ideas
50 Easy And Tasty Easter Desserts To Pamper Your Family With!
Flower bites
4/4/15-- Emily and I made these today to share on Easter tomorrow. Super easy, cute and yummy!!! Flower Pretzel Bites for a delicious Sweet and Salty snack.
Flower Pretzel Bites for a delicious Sweet and Salty snack. For more great dessert recipes follow us at http://www.pinterest.com/2SistersCraft/
Flower Pretzel Bites - Two Sisters Crafting
Awesome Spring And Easter Ideas to Spruce Up Your Porch | Family Holiday
Moss Letters, Country Wreaths, Front Doors, Green Wreaths, Fall Wreaths, Neutral Wreaths, Wreaths Ideas, Spring Wreaths, Summer Wreath
Spring wreath with moss letter
I should spend more time thinking about wreaths. I have a red front door for crying out loud! The "Louisa" Wreath :) Intricate Designed Wreath with Simple Neutral Green Pallette, French Country Wreath, With Moss, Burlap and Hydrangeas
Spring Wreath Idea?? -- French Country Wreath, With Moss, Burlap and Hydrangeas
The "Louisa" Wreath :) Intricate Designed Summer Wreath with Neutral Green Pallette, French Country Wreath, With Moss, Burlap and Hydrangeas
neutral wreath
Green Wreath
Fall wreath (colors would work well with my front door, no letter though)
Easy Easter Carrot Rice Krispies Treats
Idea, Easter Carrots, Kids Food Crafts, Frugal Coupon, Rice Krispies Treats, Coupon Living, Carrots Rice, Rice Krispie Treats, Easy Easter
Easy Easter Carrot Rice Krispies Treats - 3 Ingredients. Kids Food Craft on Frugal Coupon LIving. Easter Snack. Easter Recipe. Kids Food Idea.
Easy Easter Carrot Rice Krispies Treats - 3 Ingredients
Cinnabunnies – Cinnamon Roll Easter Bunnies – Fun Easter Recipe for Kids
Cinnamon Rolls Bunnies, Bunnies Cinnamon Rolls, Fun Easter, Easter Recipes, For Kids, Cinnabunni Cinnamon, Easter Bunnies, Rolls Easter, Bunnies Fun
Cinnabunnies – Cinnamon Roll Bunnies –
Easter bunny cinnamon rolls
Books Pages, Plastic Eggs, Easter Diy, Een Krant, Kan Doen, Allema Met, Easter Eggs, Newspaper Eggs, Easter Ideas
newspaper eggs. cover plastic eggs, and you can keep them forever
Easter ideas
book page easter eggs
Forcing bulbs, gardening indoors, container gardening, force to bloom
Force Bulbs, Gardens Ideas, Green Thumb, Water Gardens, Flowers Bulbs, Alternative Gardn, Growing Bulbs, Growing Flowers, Gardens Indoor
How to Grow flower Bulbs in water. garden indoor / outdoor plants flower
How to grow flower bulbs in water garden diy gardening gardening images garden photos garden ideas diy garden diy garden ideas flower bulbs
Forcing bulbs, gardening indoors, container gardening, force to bloom...
for woman: Alternative Gardning - growing bulbs indoors all y...
Easter Wreath Easter Decoration Spring Wreath by ElegantWreath
Springtim Wreaths, Fashion Style, Purple Tulip, Decoration, Easter Decor, Easter Wreaths, Decor Spring, Wreaths Easter, Spring Wreaths
Easter Wreath Easter Decoration Spring Wreath by ElegantWreath pretty purple tulips :)
Easter Pallet Art, How To Create A Mini-Pallet Sign For Easter by Design, Dining + Diapers, DIY Easter Sign, Bunny Art, Bunny Sign, Easter Decor
Paintings Sticks, Bunnies Art, Pallets Art, Bunnies Pallets, Pallets Signs, Diy Easter, Easter Bunnies, Easter Decor, Easter Pallets
DIY Easter Pallet Sign | Dining + Diapers
DIY Easter Pallet Art. could also use paint sticks
DIY Easter Bunny Pallet Art by DDD #easter #decor
free high resolution printables
Thrifty Abod, Free Vintage, Birds Eggs, Frames, Vintage Botanical Prints, Vintage Birds, Natural Decor, Colors Birds, Free Printable
Can print these and frame it
vintage bird egg print
Free Vintage Botanical Prints - The Thrifty Abode
free printables
colorful birds eggs
Science and nature decor
simple ♥
Decor Ideas, Easter Centerpieces, Simple Centerpieces, Easter Spr, Easter Bunnies, Tables Centerpieces, Easter Decor, Tables Decor, Spring East
table centerpiece
Pretty Easter decor idea ~ willow basket with moss, raffia, silk flowers, eggs and of course, an Easter Bunny!
Easter decor | Easy Easter Table Decoration Photograph | Easter-table-decor
Easter centerpiece
simple centerpiece
How To Create A Mini-Pallet Sign For Easter
Pallets Art, Bunnies Art, Silhouette Cameo Projects, Diy Easter, Easter Crafts, Minis Pallets Signs, Easter Pallets, Wood Pallets, Easter Ideas
Silhouette Cameo Projects - Design, Dining + Diapers
Easter Ideas
Easter Pallet Art -- Mini Pallet Sign
DIY easter crafts DIY Easter Pallet Art DIY easter crafts
Easter Pallet Art, How To Create A Mini-Pallet Sign For Easter by Design, Dining + Diapers, DIY Easter Sign, Bunny Art, Bunny Sign, Easter D...
DIY::Easter Bunny Wood Pallet Art
Creative "Try"als: Burlap Bunny with Pattern
Bunnies Tutorials, Burlap Bunnies, Creative Tryal, Bunnies Wpattern, Easter Spr, Cute Bunnies, Bunnies Patterns, Bunnies W Patterns, Kids Rooms
Burlap bunny pattern
bunny tutorial
Burlap Bunny with Pattern - Cute bunny project for easter or for kids room.
DIY Tulip/Floral arrangement..
Floral Centerpieces, Flowers Centerpieces, Flowers Display, Flowers Arrangements, Tables Centerpieces, Floral Arrangements, Tables Flowers, Center Pieces, Diy Centerpieces
DIY table flower arrangements
DIY: Easy Table Flower Centerpiece
Pretty flower arrangement DIY centerpiece
So perfect for any flower arrangement! Excellent idea for an Easter table centerpiece.
How to create a great flower display
use wide bowls to create great floral arrangements... not these flowers. But like the idea of the bowl for center pieces maybe?
Flower Arrangements in a bowl ~ a simple, easy way to make this gorgeous floral centerpiece take its place at your table.
use wide bowls to create great floral arrangements. Technique for arranging flowers/ making own floral centerpiece.
Coloring Eggs - Use Shaving Cream and food coloring (dark colors) - roll in shaving cream let sit, wipe off. Very Cool!
Remember This, Food Colors, Food Coloring, Easter Eggs, Swirls, Rolls, Dark Colors, Paper Plates, Shaving Cream
Marbled Easter eggs- 1. Spread cheap white shaving cream in a cookie sheet 2. Apply drops of neon food coloring across surface 3. Use toothpicks to swirl colors around 4. Roll the dried, cooled hardboiled eggs in the colorful cream (use disposable kitchen gloves to reduce the tattoo effect) 5. Allow to set for 3-4 minutes on a paper plate 6. Wipe off shaving cream with paper toweling 7. Rinse! Voila! Beautiful marbleized eggs, done quickly
book page egg wreath
Idea, Plastic Eggs, Books Pages Wreaths, Book Page Wreath, Easter Decor, Book Pages, Entir Wreaths, Easter Eggs, Eggs Wreaths
Easter egg book page wreath
Book Page Wreath Egg | roe 1 year ago book page egg wreath
Easter? Plastic Eggs?
Pretty arrangement
Easter Centerpieces, Easter Table, Easter Decor, Easter Eggs, Floral Arrangements, Flower, Center Piece, Cookies Jars, Easter Ideas
Cookie Jar, Dyed Easter Eggs, Flowers for Easter Centerpiece (Roses, Gerbera Daisies, Tulips, Hyacinth, Bells of Ireland)
Fill a vase with eggs! too cute Easter egg flower arrangement... floral center piece...
(link) Easy Easter Decorations ~ Get ideas for easy Easter decorating, including Easter centerpieces, Easter table settings and decorating tips for simple Easter eggs. PICTURE: colored hard-boiled eggs with floral arrangement (roses, gerbera daisies, tulips, hyacinths and bells of Ireland)
Flowers & Eggs Arrangement (16 Easter Ideas For Your Home)
Easter Wreath
Wreaths Spring, Spring Flower, Floral Decor, Easter Bunnies, Front Doors, Easter Wreaths, Bunnies Wreaths, Spring Wreaths, Floral Wreaths
Easter Wreath Conni Cottontail Bunny Wreath Bright Colorful Spring Door Wreath Floral Decoration
Easter bunny and flower wreath, spring wreathes!
i really like how unusual this wreath is, i want to try to make it. floral wreath with bunny and ribbon.
Easter Wreath, Spring Wreaths, Bunny Wreath, Conni, Spring Door Wreath, Easter Decoration, Front Door Wreath
Bright Spring Flower Wreath (minus the bunny)
Love the basket ♥
Deni Window, Bunnies Baskets, Easterspr, Vintage Easter Baskets, Spring Decor, Easter Spr, Easter Theme, Easter Vignettes, Primitive Easter Decor Baskets
Sweet Bunny Basket!
Paper Mache Eggs
Decor Eggs, Mache Easter, Apothecaries Vase, Floral Patterns, Beautiful Eggs, Easter Decor, Easter Eggs, Easter Baskets, Gorgeous Eggs
gorgeous eggs that truly dazzle
Large Boxed Paper Mache Eggs $29.97 A wonderful addition to Easter baskets and holiday displays, our Large Boxed Paper Mache Eggs are hand decorated in springtime pastels and delicate flowers.
Beautiful eggs
decorative eggs for the apothecary vase
floral patterns
Paper Mache Easter Eggs
Easter decor - lovely ornate pattern
Easter_Bunny Pouches_DIY Template_Easy, cute, just lovely and upbeat with that extra special touch. Use in Easter baskets or for special treats/gifts as party favors, table gifts, etc. The direct link to the original bunny pouch post template: http://mermag.blogspot.com/2012/03/easy-bunny-candy-pouch.html
Felt Bunny Bags - so easy to make!
Crafts Ideas, Treats Bags, Goodies Bags, Felt Bunnies, Easter Bunnies, Easter Bunny, Easter Treats, Easterbunni, Bunnies Bags
DIY Felt Bunny Bags - so easy to make! {Easter Craft Idea} {Party Favor Idea}
Easter bunny pouches DIY - cute idea for stashing those yummy Easter treats!
Easter bunny goodie bags
so lovely -- Easter bunny treat bags. free pattern from mermag
Felt Bunny Bags #easter #bunny #feltbunny
felt bunny treat pouches by supergail, via Flickr | #Easter #Easterdecoration #decoration #craft #Eastercraft #EasterBunnies #Easterwrapping
Bunny Bark
Easter Spr, Easter Bunnies, Easter Gift, Bunnies Cookies, Easter Bark, Easter Treats, Cookies Bark, Spring East, Bunnies Bark
Bunny cookie bark - fun Easter treat
Easter Bunny Cookie Bark by yourhomebasedmom, via Flickr #easter #bark #candy
Easter Bunny Bark - candy & cookie bark
How cute is this??? Bunny cookie bark. Makes such a great little Easter gift wrapped in cellophane and ribbon!
pink tulips wreath
Black Doors, Tulip Wreaths, Summer Wreaths, Spring Summer, Front Doors, Easter Wreaths, Spring Wreaths, Flower, Pink Tulip
Pink Tulip Spring Summer Wreath by Daulhouseshop on Etsy. My favorite flower!
pink tulips wreath - Easter wreath spring wreath front door spring decor
Love this Spring or Easter Wreath! Pink tulips against the black door look amazing!
How Cute!
Treats Bags, Easter Smore, Peeps Smore, Gifts Ideas, Cute Ideas, Easter Gifts, Graham Crackers, Easter Treats, Easter Ideas
Easter treat bag- for my K4 students. Cute Idea
Easter Smores! Cute Easter treat bag
Easter idea for friends!What a cute idea! Little goodie bags for Easter friends! Peeps smores. A graham cracker, peep and mini Hershey Bar!
Peeps Smores. cute little Easter gift idea or basket filler.
This is a cute idea and would make a fun Easter gift! To put together these Easter Bunny Smores you will need: Peeps, Chocolate Bars, Graham Crackers, and Treat Bags The Tag Reads: *Place chocolate on graham cracker half *Place peep on top of chocolate *Microwave 10-15 seconds & watch *Top off with other graham cracker half & enjoy the gooey goodness. Your one of my favorite Peeps Happy Easter!
Cute chicks!


text:
9,200 Views
By GamerLiveTV
566 Views
By CelebTV
274 Views
By CelebTV
Terrell Owens, Alyssa Milano and More Celebs Pa... [HD]
267 Views
By CelebTV
The 7 Sexiest Video Game Girls - Nixie Pixel Ge... [HD]
21,835 Views
By Revision3
Playboy Party Girl: Porn Convention
896,649 Views
By Playboy
Fast Times At Ridgemont High (1982): First Sex
205,566 Views
By AnyClip
58,773 Views
By Desimad
20,567 Views
By Desimad
5,773 Views
By Desimad
Vegas On Demand - Wild Sexy Vegas Pool Party!
1,538 Views
By hulu
Tulisa Celebrates Sexiest Woman Award Win With... [HD]
1,427 Views
By SplashNews
Katrina Kaif the Sexiest Woman in the World!
10,803 Views
Hot Celebrities Attend Gloden Globes Pre-party
1,959 Views
China Reports Kim Jong Un Named 'Sexiest Man Al...
141 Views
By Muzu
Deepika Padukone : World's Sexiest Woman
8,068 Views
FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World
3,821 Views
By Muzu
788 Views
CelebTV - Playboy Party at Bud Light Hotel With...
23 Views
By hulu
Hrithik Roshan Voted the SEXIEST Asian Man
973 Views
Robert Pattinson: The SEXIEST Man Alive Again [HD]
89 Views
Mila Kunis - Sexiest Woman Alive on Esquire Mag... [HD]
11,956 Views
Cheech & Chong's Next Movie (1980): Sitting in...
1,630 Views
By AnyClip
The Lost Weekend (1945): Party Invitation
182 Views
By AnyClip
Party Girl - Midsummer Night's Dream 2010 [HD]
10,796 Views
By Playboy
Charlize Theron Hosts the Launch Party for RAGE [HD]
2,895 Views
SoundMojo - Top 10 Sexiest Female Singers: Mode...
175 Views
By hulu
11,211 Views
By Desimad
Access Hollywood - Maxim Hot 100 Party
349 Views
By hulu
Insecticidal (2005): Hot Party
4,624 Views
By AnyClip
Entertainment Tonight - TV's Biggest Stars Talk...
42 Views
By hulu
dirtycameraman :- last night i went to a rave party which was the sexiest indian party ever seen. There was girl in red dress and she was too hot to handle plzz guys enjoy this video and ask for more such craps!
Husband wife jokes have always been around but never like this. Watch the reason why marriage is an advantage for a guy Desimad.com style.
Vinay Pathak shared a juicy kiss with co-actor Anuj Chaudhary in the film Straight. Watch sexy, naughty, bitchy IJs Russhita and Anokhee give you the latest scoop on Bollywood only on Desimad.com