Guns and Ammo Allegedly Threatens Gun Blog With Legal Action Over Taurus Curve Post
Guns and Ammo got the first industry hands on look at the Taurus Curve and posted up their write up on the new gun earlier this week.
The folks over at GunsSaveLife.com (similar name, but we’re not affiliated with them) weren’t too impressed with the initial design of the gun OR Guns and Ammo’s coverage of the firearm.
GunsSaveLife.com basically accused Guns and Ammo of writing a “puff piece” on the new gun. At least one Guns and Ammo editor didn’t like that.
The following message was allegedly sent to GunsSaveLife.com via Facebook:
Nov 20th, 8:17am
To Whom it May Concern,
Regarding your website’s illegal use of our photography and slanderous statements about our publication (Guns & Ammo), you have until Nov. 21, 2014 at 8 a.m. CT to remove all content from your website that was stolen and/or improperly quoting our publication.
If the material is not removed by that time, we will seek legal action immediately.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Online Shooting Editor
GunsSaveLife’s John Boch, responded to the request:
Dusty, you can call me John.
He said to call with any questions, so I did. I called him to get some specifics of how I slandered them in calling their story on the new Taurus gun what it was: a puff piece.
Dusty’s reply: “I’m going to have to defer to my publisher on that.”
Fair enough, Dusty.
Frankly, that G&A story was a disservice to their readers. I stand by what I wrote. Taurus’ new gun is dangerous and liable to get users killed or sued.
Little did I know Guns & Ammo would threaten to sue us for reporting the truth.
I told Dusty the piece wouldn’t be coming down now or tomorrow or anytime after that.
Guess I won’t be writing for Guns & Ammo anytime soon. Oh darn.
I’m certainly not an attorney (I don’t even play one on TV and I didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but it would seem that reviewing/criticizing Guns and Ammo’s review, including some of their copyrighted material, would be covered under the Fair Use Doctrine, which specifically covers the use of copyrighted materials in order to criticize said material.
It’s also pretty weird that a legal action threat would be made by an editor over social media. Normally those types of communications are made more officially by a company’s legal department and/or legal counsel. Also, normally, once legal action is threatened by any party, all future communications typically go through an attorney.
Definitely something interesting to keep an eye on. I really hate seeing the industry cannibalizing itself since we have so many external enemies.