If You Steal From Me, Don't Be Dumb Enough To Send Me The URL!
Last week, this woman, Jane Langdon, of http://www.sew-beautiful.us, sent me a press release crowing about how she knocks off Chanel and other designers. It may be legal, as long as she doesn't try to pass them off as actual Chanels, etc., but it certainly isn't moral to profit from the fruits of others' labors, so I wrote up a blog item criticizing her:
...I especially love your argument that your customers like it. I'm sure the guy who gets a stolen TV really cheaply from a fence is thrilled as well. DOES Chanel really know what you're doing? I doubt it. Let's see the letter from them about how THRILLED they are you're knocking off their goods, under their name, on your site.
On Langdon's site, I found many photos which appeared to be runway photos from the shows of the very designers she is knocking off. For example, she had a photo of a wedding dress, in which the model was clearly visible, with the words "Carmela Sutera" behind her. This same photo was in the current collection photos on Carmela Sutera's site!
Langdon also had photos up of Halle Berry, Kate Winslet, and Reese Witherspoon, faces and all, and what looked to be some other pretty famous models, and no photo credits near any of these pictures or any written grant of rights on the specific pages where they were used (like those little cutlines you see in magazines, crediting "Sygma," etc).
Still, Langdon insisted, most stridently, over and over, that she had the rights to all the photos on her site:
"EVERYTHING ON ALL OUR SITES IS LEGAL...All parties have been paid. There are NO copyright, trademark or patent infringments. PERIOD!"
She even said she'd consulted a lawyer about photo rights and permissions. (I sure hope she isn't paying over 20 cents an hour in legal fees!) Now, I know a little something about talent payments and photo usage, because, right out of college, I worked producing TV commercials for Ogilvy & Mather, a big New York ad agency. (I quit shortly after I nearly killed Eartha Kitt, who I was recording in Manchester, England, for a Hardees voiceover, by temporarily driving on the wrong side of the road with her in the car.)
There's this little thingie called the Lanham Act, which gives public figures a "right of publicity," meaning that you can't just post a news photo of Tom Cruise to sell your beer; you have to get permission. That's what allowed Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman to sue Sephora for over 15 million dollars for unauthorized use of their photos in a Sephora promotion. Likewise, Langdon isn't permitted by law to stick photos of stars on her site to sell knockoffs of what they're wearing.
Because I value and protect my own copyrights, I consider ignoring the apparent violation of others' akin to watching somebody's house get robbed and doing nothing. Or, actually, closer to home, it's like the woman on the tape I have from Whole Foods, of the guy doing a hit-and-run on my Honda Insight. A woman walking to her blithely watched the whole incident, but didn't do or say a thing, or leave a note. Creepy! I just wish her face were bigger on the tape! (More on that soon -- the slimebag who tried to get away with it, getting out of his car, looking at the damage on my car, looking to see if anybody was looking, and walking into the store, will be prosecuted in Santa Monica court in April.) I'm also trying to take him on Judge Judy, although I'm going to donate all talent payments to charity, so it doesn't seem I'm motivated by greed. My message: If you are unethical, think twice about being unethical, because you might be unethical to SOME JUSTICE FREAK LIKE ME!
Getting back to Langdon, I contacted a few of the people (or their representatives) whose photos were easily traceable; for example, Carmela Sutera's company. They were quite distressed at the use of the photo, thanked me profusely, and said they'd have their lawyer get in touch with her. Later, they told me they'd emailed her and gave her a week to take the photos down. She has -- theirs and the Angel Sanchez photo, apparently from one of Sanchez' runway shows.
Langdon has also removed the heads from the Halle Berry, Reese Witherspoon, and Kate Winslet photos -- which still does not necessarily mean she's within her rights to use them. If photographers have not been paid for use, and permission has not been granted by the stars, it's STEALING to post them. I emailed somebody I know who does some PR for Halle Berry, whom I'll probably see at dinner tomorrow night -- let's see what he says!
Most hilariously, I got home late last night after a little Reason magazine drinks night out with Nick Gillespie, Matt Welch, Brian Doherty, and others, at Boardners, to find an email from Jane Langdon. In the subject line was the word "Disabled," which I guess is supposed to refer to me. I dunno, Jane, my fingers are working just fine on the keyboard, and they seem real tempted at the moment to type the word "Chanel" and the word "lawyer" into the keyboard, and fire off a little email. Something tells me they'd be keenly interested in discovering whether any of those photos on your suit page that appear to be from their runway shows are being used without rights being granted and proper payments being made!
In the body of Langdon's email was a link: It's ALL About Amy
At this link, Langdon, whose lawyer must work out of a barn in Wisconsin, posts this weak little diatribe about me, which I actually find quite hilarious. On a vitriol scale, it ranks right up there with being licked my by my 2.5 lb. dog. Quite frankly, this page is good for my ego. I'd always been a little envious of Cathy Seipp for having Troll Dolls and Onanism as her hardworking stalkers, and felt embarrassed that I'd been left out of the whole "I HATE YOU, I HATE YOU" stalker thing. I guess I'm in the big leagues now!
Moreover, I'm a huge free speech advocate, so I support all constitutionally protected speech, including any site anybody wants to put up to talk about what a buttwad I am. Democracy in action! Go to it, Jane! And, again, it kind of swells my head.
Of course, in this case, I'm especially amused by the accusation of libel. Langdon only knows to use the word libel because I explained that slander, which she first accused me of, refers to the spoken word, and libel pertains to the printed one. I also explained, several times, that you can't libel somebody with an opinion, but she seems a bit tenderheaded, and it appears she has yet to comprehend this intellectually weighty concept.
Finally, the legal i$$ue at hand: Langdon (and WHAT AN IDIOT!) posted copyrighted photos of me on her site; most of which were taken from my site, and some of which were taken from an anthropology site, of me presenting my paper on "How To Build A Better Meme," at the Human Behavior & Evolution Society Conference a few years ago at Rutgers. Outside of that one, these are mostly photos I own. Lots of them. Including a photo of my dog, which I took. Great respecter of rights that Langdon claims to be, she also posted a photo of part of Edvard Munch's "Scream," and a photo of one of those silly signs that says "Forget the dog...beware of the owner." Hmm, something tells me she didn't get rights to use those, either!
Luckily, my entertainment lawyer does not work out of a barn, but for a pretty huge Hollywood entertainment firm, and is in charge of the legal work for a TV network. Is she smart? Well, she went to college at age 16, and we're not talking community college, either, and she hasn't exactly been slouching around the house since then. When I spoke to her this morning, she called use of these photos "a slam-dunk copyright violation." I can sue this woman, according to a page she pointed me to from Cornell, and for MEGABUCKS!
...the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just.
(Hmm, maybe I'll own that apartment in Paris a little sooner than I'd been predicting!)
Moreover, as a public figure, by using these Langdon has infringed on my "right of publicity." Again, this is spelled out in the Lanham Act. Further, Langdon has posted a story by Duncan Campbell, owned by the Guardian. Hmm, something tells me our Janey didn't get rights to that either. "Disabled," huh? My fingers are getting all itchy to email again...something along the lines of L-E-G-A-L@G-U-A-R-D-I-A-N.U-K.
Jane, why don't we settle out of court? So much cheaper, and if your site reflects the quality of legal work you have available to you, I don't think it would behoove you to go to court against me. Propose an amount you'll pay for use of each photo, and I'll get back to you and let you know if I accept.
It seems Langdon isn't that smart, but really, how much of a brain do you need to see that I'm kind of a bad candidate to "play the dozens" with?
UPDATE, April 2, 2005: Comments are being closed on this entry to prevent Miss Langdon from commenting under the assumed names of real people (Allan from Ain't It Cool News was one, posted from Langdon's IP address). Sigh. It's so hard to get some people to behave ethically without constantly policing them!
Posted by aalkon at March 31, 2005 9:13 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference If You Steal From Me, Don't Be Dumb Enough To Send Me The URL!:
» If You Steal From Me, Don't Be Dumb Enough To Send Me The URL! from If You Steal From Me, Don't Be Dumb Enough To Send Me The URL!
If You Steal From Me, ... [Read More]
Tracked on June 7, 2005 6:23 PM
Amy, you are in a battle with someone who has clearly combined the ethics of a snake with the brains of snail! A potent mix! She may call on the Rev Jesse Jackson (currently freed up for some new press activity) to play the I am disabled! card...
Posted by: Doug at March 31, 2005 10:39 AM
Hi Amy –
From what I can see on "It's All About Amy", this Jane Langdon person appears a bit unbalanced. (That is an "opinion", protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, right ?!(grin)) At any rate, she certainly seems to have taken a hearty dislike to you.
What this Jane Langdon person doesn't seem to understand is that it is terminally uncool to knock off (or "replicate" or just plain "copy") other peoples' designs, works, and ideas.
To gain a veneer of profundity this Langdon individual quotes Jean de la Bruyere ("It is the glory and the merit of some to write well, and of others not to write at all.")
Dear Jane Langdon: You should've kept reading. You would've found:
"Il n'y a au monde que deux manieres de s'elever, ou par sa propre industrie, ou par l'imbecilite des autres."
which is usually rendered as "There are but two ways of rising in the world: either by one's own industry or profiting by the foolishness of others."
Posted by: L'Amerloque at March 31, 2005 11:22 AM
Je vous aime, L'Amerloque!
Posted by: Amy Alkon at March 31, 2005 11:47 AM
Oopsy! Here's Reese Witherspoon again!
Jane, are you looking to meet more lawyers, or are you really *this* dim?
Posted by: Amy Alkon at March 31, 2005 11:54 AM
Hum. I generally like you and your writing, Amy, but here it looks like you're getting into an intellectual pissing match with an idiot. It doesn't make either of you look good. There are MUCH worse violators of intellectual property all over the internet. (Save yourself some angst and do NOT do a Google search for "mash-ups!")
Posted by: Frank at March 31, 2005 3:24 PM
Mash ups are not violations of intellectual property inasmuch as most of them are not sold, but are valid artistic reimaginings of various pop music forms. They are funny and entertaining, and not the same thing as what AA is railing against.
Posted by: John O at March 31, 2005 4:25 PM
Mashups are every bit the copyright violation as what Amy is ranting about. You don't have to SELL something to violate copyright. That's why you can't legally download DJ Dangermouse's Grey album.
For that matter, the Beastie Boys never paid for most of the samples on "Paul's Boutique" -- maybe Amy should go after them instead?
Posted by: Frank at March 31, 2005 4:54 PM
The violation here is her unapproved, unpaid use of my copyrighted photos - three of which I use as masthead photos for my column. There's also a violation under the Lanham Act, because I'm a public figure and have "right of publicity" of my photos. There's a link, read it if you're interested, I'm not interested in explaining it further.
I am totally cool with her calling me whatever names she wants as long as she doesn't libel me -- call me a baby-boiling serial killer or something. I am for free speech -- which is far different from copying photos off my site and using them without permission. I own those photos. This woman has no more right to take them and use them than she does to take your car without your permission. Why is that so hard for so many people to understand?
Posted by: Amy Alkon at March 31, 2005 6:05 PM
By the way, guys, the existence of some other cause to pursue does not have any bearing whatsoever on this one.
Dear Amy: go get 'em! As my late mother once said to me, "Never give an idiot the last word. Shut up."
I imagine some people post things without noticing that, hey, other people might notice them. It's only good business sense to shut up when the entire globe is or could be your customer, who is always right.
Posted by: Radwaste at March 31, 2005 7:09 PM
Amy has every right to sue this 'person' for libel and copyright infringement. Apparently Ms. Langdon didn't quite get the point about comments in print as she posted anonymously on my blog. Well maybe not. It could be hard to identify her.
She must have gone through Amy's site and emailed or posted to other blog hosts. What a nut!!
Posted by: Sheryl at March 31, 2005 7:18 PM
Amy Alkon = public figure? Puhleeze. You have way too much time on your hands, Amy.
Posted by: Brad at March 31, 2005 7:51 PM
Public enough to sue!
Posted by: Amy Alkon at March 31, 2005 8:07 PM
Well from what I can gather, her only real objective, is to have folks spend their time paying attention to her... and to that end, it would appear to be a master stroke.
I'd expect that if you met face to face, both would feel foolish for all the rancor and silliness. But i could of course be wrong.
Posted by: Wexpat at March 31, 2005 8:21 PM
While you do have the right to sue this woman--don't.
The pictures of Halle Berry et al don't belong on her site and I'm sure she'll take them down as soon as she finds someone smart to do it for her.
Otherwise, so what if she patterns her dresses after chanel or handbags after Louis Vuitton or whatever stupid designer's stupid product is popular simply because it costs a lot and was featured on Sex and the City? As long as she doesn't say it IS a Chanel or Vuitton, and as long as it looks like but isn't exactly the same, I think there is a place for this stuff. She's not taking sales away from these companies, because any woman who really wants Halle Berry's damn dress enough to buy it isn't going settle for a damn dress that looks like Halle Berry's damn dress. I don't think that Dominican who sold me a $5 Ronex has made a dent in Rolex's profits in the subsequent decade.
I've never known anyone who bought a real Vuitton handbag who didn't lose it or spill liquor all over it within 24 hours of buying one, anyway. Waste of $500 ($10,000? I don't know what overpriced shitty purses cost).
This whole thing seems to be getting blown way out of proportion. Your first e-mail was probably a bit of an overreaction, and she made the mistake of arguing with you about it even though she doesn't seem to have the mental chops to do so. Do you really want to begrudge this woman the $5000/year she uses to pay for basic cable and replace the cinder blocks that keep her trailer from tipping because she used a picture of your dog without asking you?
Being right is great, and it feels great because it is. But I think you're stepping into the realm of the righteous, here. And righteousness is generally a bad thing.
So don't sue her.
Unless you do it on Judge Judy, in which case, see if you can get her to give you an entire episode of lawsuits featuring Backhurt McKnockoff, shady hit and run guy and the rambler thief. Then see if you can get Louis Vuitton to sue me on Judge Judy for calling his handbags shitty.
Posted by: Little ted at April 1, 2005 12:15 AM
I have to concur with Ted. The minute you wrote that you just might get your Parisian apartment a little sooner with your lawsuit proceeds you stepped from the realm of the moral to the land of greed. I doubt your lawsuit is planned "en tout bien tout honneur".
Posted by: issy at April 1, 2005 5:16 AM
You two loons deserve each other. Maybe you should both get together for a hot threeway with Sy Sims.
Posted by: Mao See Tung at April 1, 2005 5:49 AM
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, Amy! I removed the website mainly because our email was so full of people saying how offensive & CREEPY" you are. Our mailbox was overloaded.
I will waste not another minute with you about your issues. We have to concentrate on own designs for a Paris Fashion Show soon. Perhaps we will see you there since you are such a "Fashionista."
Posted by: JANE LANGDON at April 1, 2005 7:09 AM
You removed the Web site because I rightly pegged you as the thief you are. Yes, you are, unquestionably, a THIEF, stealing my photos and posting them without permission.
You are also a moron. Sheryl Evans wrote me to tell me she'd gotten an anonymous post on her blog, accusing me of libel (a word which you only know because I told you the definition of slander) for calling your business practices creepy (which they are), and which is my opinion.
Idiot, you can't libel somebody with your opinion. To be defined as libelous, a statement must be false. An opinion cannot be false. I posted the definition of libel so you could get it through your thick, ethically challenged brain. Most hilariously, by posting on Sheryl's site accusing me of libel...and by posting your own page about me...you are (and were) libeling me! As somebody who has and must have a very high standard of presenting the truth, and only the truth in their work, you are actually engaging in quite defamatory speech, without proof. You can't actually call somebody libelous unless they actually libel you. Opinion is not libel. Opinion is not libel. Opinion is not libel. Buy a dictionary with some of those profits from the knockoffs of others' work.
I'm not surprised in the least by your continuing disingenuousness (look it up in the new dictionary). The reason you took your site down is that I can sue your thieving ass blind for use of my photos without my permission. It is, plain and simple, theft.
Mao See Whomever you are, if somebody breaks into your house and has a party or steals your TV, I hope somebody has the same blasé attitude about the thieves. Intellectual property is property, just like any other piece of property.
Like Carmela Sutera, I put a great deal of work into my work, and nobody has the right to take any creative work of mine and use it without payment or permission. Jane, you are a despicable person and I can't tell you how inspired I am to get on the phone with Chanel's lawyer this morning to tell them to take a peek at your Web site and see if any unpermitted photos from their collections are up there. Again, while it's legal for you to continue your sleazy business of profiting from others' work, it is disgusting, and anyone who values creators and their right to profit from their own work, will agree with me.
Sure, there are plenty of moral relativists out there, and I don't care how many people think it's just dandy if you profit from Carmela Sutera's hard work designing dresses by knocking off a copy for a fraction of the cost. It's wrong. Wrong. Big surprise that your standard of ethics is whether other people think it's right.
If you use my photos again, thief, consider yourself warned.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 1, 2005 7:46 AM
O, f'r Chrissake, 7th Ave has a long history of knocking off big designers. It's a fashion tradition as honored and time-worn as making women feelling uncomfortable about who they are so they feel compelled to buy some instantly-obsolescing, overpriced frock.
And it's so good of you, Amy, to stand up for those so bereft of legal resources. People like Halle Berry. We Shall Overcome!
I don't quite know why you're Crusading against this particular miscreant with all the other injustices in the world.
The Copyright Issue is interesting and complicated. Whole new areas of creative expression have been opened up thanks to the new ease in quoting other work (as has been noted above). And modern and post-modern art would be nowhere without it.
Fair Use probably covers most of this, as I believe perhaps it does Ms. Langdon's appropriation of your immensely valuable dog photos.
That said, of course you're correct about the unauthorized use of anyone's likeness or product TO SELL OR OTHERWISE COMMERICALLY PROFIT FROM.
I will also say that as misguided as you may be on this one, and as much fun as it is to give you a hard time I am a reader of this page so there must be stuff I like about it. And, I am disgusted by the page Ms. Langdon put up. There really is no reason for that degree of ad hominem attack (whereas the degree I employ is wryly gentlemanly).
Ms. Langdon clearly is a crackpot with too much time on her sewing machine gnarled hands But maybe you should find something better to do too, Amy
Posted by: Mao See Tung at April 1, 2005 8:08 AM
Mao with the knock-off Little Red Book writes:
I don't quite know why you're Crusading against this particular miscreant with all the other injustices in the world.
Have you been back in your caves rewriting doctrine? "Let one thousand faux flowers bloom?"
Amy has argued for/against a vast number of issues and causes... how can you call this a "Crusade" and suggest that she is focused on this one person?
Posted by: Doug at April 1, 2005 8:42 AM
Ahh to add to the excitement:
Maybe Amy is a public figure? She is getting some level of press.
Posted by: alex the sea turtle at April 1, 2005 8:54 AM
Hi Amy –
The Langdon is obviously living in never-never land, and, in my opinion, is turning out to be a real bee ess artist to boot.
Let me see if I've got this right: The Langdon, notorious for knocking off Chanel designs and pocketing the money (and being proud of it, cf her website), and who furthermore appears to be demonstrably casual (for want of a better word) about copyrighted images, is
a) coming to Chanel's baliwick,
b) to show off her "own designs",
c) under her own name ("Jane Langdon", "Natasha" or "Autumn Langdon" or whomever)
d) in a "Paris Fashion Show" ?
I can't imagine the local heat, not to mention the customs service, the tax authorities, representatives from the Comité Colbert (one of the very heavily funded French quality organizations watching so that Baccarat, Lalique, Saint-Laurent and, yes, Chanel, are not "knocked off" or "replicated") and other interested parties not attending her "Paris Fashion Show", once the word gets around. (smile)
The word will get around, obviously, since The Langdon will undoubtedly massmail the fashion media, at the very least, so as to make a big splash in the Paris pond. One might even see an American paper with, perhaps, a headline on the order of: "Midwest Knockoff Queen To Show On Paris Runway Next Week".
Waitaminit: perhaps she's talking about a "Paris Fashion Show" in Paris, Illinois or Paris, Kentucky or Paris, Missouri or Paris, Texas or Paris, Tennessee ? That would be more in character, eh ?
Posted by: L'Amerloque at April 1, 2005 9:10 AM
Heh heh...quite right, Amerloque.
Here's the note I sent to Michael Fishbein at FishbowlLA:
Hey, Michael, I think you didn't read what I wrote too closely. I thought her Web site was hilarious. I totally support her right (and she does have the right) to quote me and even to create a website that says "I think Amy Alkon is a buttwad" all over the page, or whatever else she wants to say about me (providing it's her opinion, not libel). What she can't do is steal photos from me -- including several of the masthead photos from my column. Is it uncool of me to stand up for my own and other people's intellectual property rights? So be it. Talk to Brian Sutera, from Carmela Sutera and see how sanguine he feels about the photo Jane Langdon cribbed from their Web site, from their current collections, so she could sell a knockoff of Carmela Sutera's design at a fraction of the cost. (It's since been taken down.) Halle Berry might be famous, but she, too, has rights. I'd defend yours if somebody sent me a press release crowing about violating them, and I defend hers, too. It's just the right thing to do.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 1, 2005 9:29 AM
Hey, Amy, I agree with Ted and Issy.
It's like when Perry DeH offered to break Troll Dolls' kneecaps for me. But like they sort of say in westerns, some kneecaps just aren't worth breaking.
What I've begun to realize lately is that we need to understand who our peers are -- and are not -- and react accordingly. That's why I almost never respond to the Martini Republic stuff, for instance. (I say, almost never, because to completely ignore them seems too cruel.)
Posted by: Cathy Seipp at April 1, 2005 9:54 AM
Posted by: Sicilicide at April 1, 2005 10:39 AM
I wouldn't go to France anytime soon if I were you
Posted by: Frenchy at April 2, 2005 9:25 AM
READ MY LIPS...
OUR OWN DESIGNS Will Be In the Paris, France Fashion Show.
They have already been accepted.
Posted by: Jane Langdon at April 2, 2005 11:02 AM
Really? Which fashion show would that be? And when?
Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 2, 2005 11:04 AM
Langdon, SHUT UP and quit while you are not being SUED. If you care so little about Amy Alkon STOP POSTING about your stupid designer imposter (or whatever you call it) shit.
Posted by: Little ted at April 2, 2005 12:31 PM
Interesting page she has about you, Amy. The text itself seem almost innocuous. Without the nasty pics of you, I'd almost be willing to believe that she's sincere.
Posted by: Patrick, The Goddess Fan at April 2, 2005 12:57 PM
"READ MY LIPS...
OUR OWN DESIGNS Will Be In the Paris, France Fashion Show. "
Posted by: Sheryl at April 2, 2005 8:05 PM
Gosh – a representative from this Jane Langdon company, the Chanel knockoff specialists, might be in Paris, France, under the "Langdon" name, to show "our own designs" (sic) ?
This might be a valuable opportunity for him/her to experience the French justice system at first hand, while the investigations into just whose "designs" they really are takes place, given the "Langdon" company's history. That could take years and years, while the rep(s) is(are) held in "preventive detention".
This should be very interesting indeed. Ooohhh la la, as the French say.
Posted by: L'Amerloque at April 2, 2005 10:33 PM
Regarding SEW BEAUTIFUL.
I have 22 wonderful suits and evening gowns created by Ms. Langdon. Their work is by far better than any Chanel, Dior or the many other expensive clothing designers I have in my closet. I can easily pay for expensive designer labels, but like to have clothing custom fitted.
I find it appalling that all of you are being so nasty to this lovely woman. I have had famous designers make clothing for me and found the experience lacking in personal attention even though the prices were high. Dealing with Jane has been heavenly and their attionion to details is outstanding.
The names you have called her and the reference to Nazi is classless. Get out the soap and wash you mouths!
Posted by: Giselle Hermes at April 3, 2005 10:24 AM
I agree with Giselle. Your comments about Langdon are bitter. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF, AMY?
Bet you have nothing. If you do, POST IT!
Posted by: anon at April 3, 2005 10:27 AM
Apparently Others Think AMY Should GET A LIFE.
From HOLLYWOOD Fishbowl LA
"The Exciting Lives of Los Angeles Freelance Writers, Part 284
Wow, Amy Alkon sure has a lot of time on her hands. And she sure knows impressive people, like someone "who does some PR for Halle Berry, whom [she'll] probably see at dinner tomorrow night" and her lawyer who works "for a pretty huge Hollywood entertainment firm, and is in charge of the legal work for a TV network," both of whom she's going to sic on a disabled seamstress in Wisconsin who, unlike Alkon, is unaware of various finer points of intellectual property law. Be sure to check out the image on her site of the devil poking Alkon with a pitchfork.
(If Amy sues me for quoting from her website without permission, I'll be having a garage sale on Sunday. Pick up rare Go-Betweens records and out-of-print Erving Goffman books at bargain prices.)
UPDATE: Langdon has taken down the page with the purportedly copyright-infringing Alkon photos. A victory for intellectual property patriots against the vicious syndicate of crippled, impoverished manual piece-work laborers in Wisconsin college towns!"
mediabistro.com inc., call (212) 929-2588 or email firstname.lastname@example.org
MEDIA BISTRO is a registered trademark of Laurel Touby.
Amy WHERE IS YOUR PROOF about Jane? Also exactly who are these poeple you are "probably" having dinner with? What lawyer? Name names. PROOF, PROOF, AMY!
Posted by: anon at April 3, 2005 10:37 AM
Amy Appears To Be A MINOR Player.
Amy Alkon, The Advice Goddess
171 Pier Avenue, #280
Santa Monica, California 90405
Phone: (310) 306-6160
Amy Alkon's column, "The Advice Goddess," appears in over 100 minor papers across the U.S. and Canada -- usually in personals or classifieds, where it's been shown to attract swarms of readers.
© Copyright 2005 AAN
What are some of the minor newspapers you are in?
Posted by: Kate Windsor at April 3, 2005 10:49 AM
THIS POST WAS ERASED by Amy, as it was posted by Jane Langdon, not Allan, from Jane Langdon's email address, 126.96.36.199. Sleazy, huh?
Posted by: Allan at April 3, 2005 11:00 AM
Among others, I saw Michael who writes FishbowlLA at dinner, in fact, and we had a good laugh about this. For your information, he agrees with me that what Langdon is doing is wrong -- he was just teasing me about caring, same as Cathy Seipp advised.
Oh, hilariously, to you idiots out there who don't know about IP addresses, they show up on my MT log -- and they show that Giselle is the same person as "anon" and "anon" and "Kate Windsor" directly below her...AND the same person as Jane Langdon herself! Here's your IP address Jane:
188.8.131.52 (yours, and anon's, and Kate Windsor's, and Giselle Hermes'!)
Yes, Jane, our self-proclaimed terribly honest and ethical knockoff artist, is posting under various and sundry assumed names on my Web site. You know, Jane, you are so pathetic, I really feel sorry for you. Can't you get a book on ethics or something? It would be a much better use of your time to read one instead of attacking me for attacking you for being unethical.
Moreoever, Ms. Langdon, you should be a little careful about entering France. They aren't quite so sanguine as we are about allowing copying of a designer's work.
Check out this page:
When they stop Jane at the border, perhaps she'll think fondly of our time together in blogland.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 3, 2005 11:01 AM
Why Does AMY GET So Much HATE Mail?
Jim Treacher on hate mail:
Amy Alkon's got a serial hate-letter-writer with some sort of fetish for bodily eruptions. She gets all the best hate mail. Mine just says the same two or three things over and over again, slightly reworded each time. There's no poetry, like "The acidity that bleeds out of your offal is ultimately more sad than anything," or "... hence the pus that permeates your spittle amidst your weekly printed rants." I mean, that's just beautiful. Make an effort, people!
Posted by: Anon at April 3, 2005 11:11 AM
And we are all here in da barn with da cows at Jane's laughing at you Amy. DA!
Posted by: Anon at April 3, 2005 11:19 AM
Jane, read above. Here you are again, posting as "anon" from the same IP address as Jane Langdon and all the rest directly above. You are a busy little girl. Shouldn't you be reading fashion magazines so you can profit from copying others' work instead of attacking me? I have to go to work now, so I'll leave you to your various and sundry postings under all these various and sundry assumed names. Jane doing something dishonest? As Captain Renault would say, I'm shocked...shocked!
In my business, hate mail is a good thing. People get angriest when you speak the truth -- when you, for example, say that men aren't all that interested in fat ladies, and fat ladies should diet and exercise to keep their husbands (there's a campaign against me for that one right now -- a women's studies' prof gave her class an assignment to try to get me fired from the paper in their area that runs me).
Search results for: 184.108.40.206
Charter Communications CHARTER-NET-6BLK ( NET-68-112-0-0-1 )
220.127.116.11 - 18.104.22.168
Charter Communications MZMN-WI-68-118-156 ( NET-68-118-156-0-1 )
22.214.171.124 - 126.96.36.199
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2005-04-02 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 3, 2005 11:19 AM
Eeeuw, creepy, it turns out Allan is also Jane Langdon! She's taking the identity of a real person who posts on my blog and posting under his name. And attacking Cathy, too!
Allan Unregistered Commenter
I don't hate you Amy. I... View all comments on this entry If You Steal From Me, Don't Be Dumb Enough To Send Me The URL! 2005-04-03 11:00:11
View all comments from this IP address 188.8.131.52
Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 3, 2005 11:23 AM
She did it down to the Allan's email address!
Jane, I realize you're pretty dumb, but does it not occur to you that there might be something wrong with this? I'm going to erase the supposed post by "Allan" above, since he didn't post it.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 3, 2005 11:25 AM
Hi Amy –
>>184.108.40.206 (yours, and anon's,
>>and Kate Windsor's, and Giselle Hermes'!)
Giselle Hermes" ? I suppose we'll be hearing from others of the same ilk: Joe Kenzo, Debbie Dior, Grace Givenchy, Yoko Miyake, Pauline Cardin, Kathy Saint Laurent. All friends and satisfied clients of The Langdon, without a doubt. (smile)
Posted by: L'Amerloque at April 3, 2005 11:32 AM
Heh heh...indeed. In fact, it was use of the name Hermes that led me to look up the IP. The probably with people who are dishonest is that they are often extremely unclever; hence, they are often caught in their dishonesty. I must get writing, but here's a little note I just wrote poor Miss Langdon, who seems to post wildly without checking above her postings to notice that she's been caught in her attempted deception:
Look, I understand you'd rather do anything but explore your own lack of ethics, but your IP address shows up each time you post on my blog. I erased the post you put up under Allan's name. Does it occur to you that that's kind of unethical as well? I would suggest that you discontinue your campaign against me, and focus on what I attacked you for initially: your moribund ethics. I have nothing against you personally. I just think you're ethically creepy. Personally, I feel sorry for you, especially since you'll probably end up in jail in France, because they don't allow people to copy Chanel (or any other designer) and profit from it.
PLEASE NOTE: I've been forced to close comments on this entry -- I can't have Miss Langdon misappropriating real people's identities and posting under their names.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 3, 2005 11:35 AM