Okay, so I’m doing a Red Anon here (sorry for the inside joke for all the newbies but my oldtimers will appreciate it). Anyone who has followed the blog for some years knows the result of trying to serve me with a cease and desist order on a story that is factually true. Unfortunately, Dr. Leslie Boozer wasn’t around the last time someone tried to do it.
So Boozer decided to have the attorney for the Fontana Unified School District Board of Trustees do her dirty work for her (isn’t that typical Chicago-style?). He sent me a cease and desist email yesterday demanding that I take down my stories and, best of all, insisting that the photo of her, which is on the FUSD website, is the district’s intellectual property and that I had no right to use it. “I will be providing notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to you and to examiner.com to preserve our right to sue you under copyright law for your infringement.”
Official photographic portraits are usually sent to me at my request but sometimes I get them through a CPRA request. Most agencies these days put them on their websites so they don’t have to be bothered with reporters constantly asking for them, such as the case with FUSD.
How is that the case you ask? I thought they were claiming copyright infringement?
Well, I sent an email last night under CPRA. I was asked this morning for clarification and made it clear I was looking for official portraits that are used for press releases, news stories and publicity. This is the response I received:
OK; just wanted to be sure those were the ones you were requesting. I’ve attached the jpg versions of the Board Members’ and Superintendent’s official portraits; they are also on our website at the following links:
The Associate Superintendents do not have official photographs or portraits, but photos of them are also on our website under the “District Office” tab from the homepage; here are the individual links:
In addition, all the portraits were sent to me, including the one I have been using. I just love it when attorneys think they can BS their way into scaring you. What part of “this belongs to the taxpayers not to you personally” do you not get? I guess when you are used to using taxpayer funds for your pleasure, you assume you are entitled. If you want control over everything you produce, start you own privately funded business. As long as you are using our money, we have the right to it.
And as to all his claims that this is all about $234 and defamatory. Well, he needs to look at Boozer’s expense accounts that amount to tens of thousands of dollars. Truth is an affirmative defense to defamation.
I have to say as an addendum, I find it really offensive that a public agency would spend money trying to quash the dissemination of public records. If you don’t want the public to know how much you spend at Starbucks, buy your coffee on your own dime.