John Paul Vranesevich

This page was last updated on July 24, 2014.

In case you’re wondering why I spent time doing a piece about Mr. Vranesevich, drop down nine paragraphs and you’ll find out it was because he publicly accused me of being a hypocrite and a thief. As was the case with another local/national pundit, I don’t take personal attacks lightly. I published the original version of this piece in 2012. I wrote this update to include Mr. Vranesevich’s claims about Beaver County Sheriff George David.

Referring to himself simply as “John Paul,” John Paul Vranesevich is the self-described founder of BeaverCountian.com. Pictures of John Vranesevich here and here compared with pictures of “John Paul” on BeaverCountian.com confirm Mr. Vranesevich and John Paul are one and the same. According to a Beaver County Times (BCT) article (“Art gallery coming to Beaver?”, 6/4/08), Mr. Vranesevich changed his surname to Paul but the article does not say when or why. It’s not clear if Mr. Vranesevich went through the change-of-legal-name process or if he simply goes by John Paul. That is, is the surname Paul or Vranesevich on his voter registration, Social Security card, driver’s license, airplane ticket, and so on? Things like domain name registration, trademark registration, company incorporation, etc. are currently under the name Vranesevich. The art gallery (Inspirosity) to which the aforementioned BCT article referred closed after only about eight months in operation.

In April 2009, Mr. Vranesevich (as John Paul) wrote a letter-to-the-editor entitled “Segway a welcome addition for police.” According to a BCT pundit, the Beaver Police Department sold the Segway in November 2012.

Regardless of the name Mr. Vranesevich uses or the fields he enters, controversy – not the good kind – appears to follow him. “Google” “John Vranesevich” and you’re flooded with quite a few unflattering postings. Some examples going back to the late-1990s are attrition.org (charlatans), CyberWire Dispatch, Forbes.com, and Slashdot. During the short life of his art gallery, at least two artists who displayed at Inspirosity claimed Mr. Vranesevich “[did] not pay artists for sold paintings.” In fairness, some pieces paint Mr. Vranesevich a little differently. I have no idea how much – bad or good - of these pieces is accurate.

In his current endeavor, Mr. Vranesevich routinely ends up becoming part of the “news” stories he writes. The most prominent of these incidents to date was Mr. Vranesevich’s charge that, among other things, Beaver County Sheriff George David threatened him with a gun. A jury acquitted Mr. David of all charges. Commenting on Mr. David’s acquittal, Mr. Vranesevich wrote, “While I am obviously disappointed with today’s jury verdict, I respect their decision in this matter. I have been covering the courts for years now and have never seen a juror who hasn’t treated this most serious and solemn process with anything but the attention it deserves. … I did not find justice.” Translation: “I have to appear gracious and compliment the jury, but they were wrong.” At least in public, Mr. Vranesevich treated this difference of opinion better than one he has with State Rep. Jim Christiana (R-15). Mr. Vranesevich once referred to Mr. Christiana as “a coward” because their positions on same-sex marriage differ.

I mentioned above a 2008 BCT article claimed Mr. Vranesevich changed his surname. It appears that article – likely relying on Mr. Vranesevich’s input – was in error. Throughout Mr. David’s 2014 trial, all coverage referred to the surname Vranesevich, not Paul.

Mr. Vranesevich’s current project, the Beaver Countian, appears to be a “one-man band” consisting of himself, a self-described “citizen journalist” and “muckraker.” With the exception of op-ed pieces written by authors not affiliated with the Beaver Countian, to date I’ve seen no bylines for anyone but Mr. Vranesevich (as John Paul) and it appears he does all the technical work. In an apparent attempt to hide that fact, in his articles Mr. Vranesevich refers to himself as “the Beaver Countian,” “us,” and “we.” If I’m correct, I have no idea why Mr. Vranesevich would want to deceive his readers, customers, and advertisers on this point. In September 2012, a Beaver Countian want ad read, “Attention Beaver Countians with unique insights and itchy keyboard fingers! We’re currently in the market for freelance writers (and maybe even a photographer) to help us report on local happenings.” The ad was rerun at least once (June 2013) and I haven’t seen anything to indicate Mr. Vranesevich hired anyone. In fairness, though, I don’t subscribe to the Beaver Countian’s “premium” content so perhaps Mr. Vranesevich saves his hired talent for paying readers.

Though we exchanged e-mail and Facebook comments, I don’t know Mr. Vranesevich personally. Here’s a chronology of my experience with Mr. Vranesevich, all before I knew his full name.

On February 2, 2011, I received an e-mail note from Mr. Vranesevich (as John Paul) soliciting my business, inviting me “to move [my] website over to the BeaverCountian.” Concluding with “Keep up the good work,” I assumed Mr. Vranesevich was familiar with TheBirdsEyeView.us. This is important because at the time I had been writing my critiques (more than 3,500) for over seven years using the same methodology and style as I do now and Mr. Vranesevich apparently had no problem with that approach. Neither did anyone else. I did not reply to Mr. Vranesevich.

Let’s fast-forward six months. In August 2011, Mr. Vranesevich (as John Paul) and I had a dust-up over a critique I published about a piece on his website written by State Rep. Jesse White (D-46). The style and length of my critiques don’t lend themselves to most website comment facilities. In those cases, when I add a comment it includes a link to the full critique on my website. I don’t do it often, but I’ve done it on other websites with no complaints. In fact, I did this a few weeks before on BeaverCountian.com regarding another Rep. White (aka Ashley Jackson) piece with no complaint from Mr. Vranesevich. In this case, however, Mr. Vranesevich was very agitated and publicly accused me of hypocrisy, trying to get free advertising, and stealing his content. Apparently unaware and/or dismissive of “fair use” law, Mr. Vranesevich repeatedly claimed I stole his work. In the “you can’t make this up” category, you’ll find in the middle of calling me a thief Mr. Vranesevich appeared to indicate he still wanted my business! You can find the back-and-forth on my Facebook wall, but I reproduced it below for your convenience. At one point, Mr. Vranesevich wrote, “[he was] beginning to sense a teaching opportunity.” Though he was correct, I don’t believe the “teaching opportunity” went as Mr. Vranesevich hoped. Unfortunately, despite his comment “[he would] leave [my] spam so people can see hypocrisy first hand,” Mr. Vranesevich soon thereafter scrubbed the entire dialog from BeaverCountian.com. This would not be Mr. Vranesevich’s last website cleaning as you will read below.

Incredibly, about six weeks after accusing me of hypocrisy and theft, Mr. Vranesevich sent me the following e-mail note.

“Hey there Mr. Cox, John Paul here from BeaverCountian.com

“I read your site regularly, and noticed you had us listed on your ‘enemies’ page. As a strong conservative voice in the area, I’d love to hear your opinion on what steps you think we could take to be more balanced in our reporting or coverage.

“My sincere goal is to create a marketplace of ideas for Beaver County which provides voice to as many different perspectives as possible. Any input you may have on ways we could achieve that would be greatly helpful and appreciated.

“Your thoughts would remain between us.

“Thanks much for your time.”

It seemed odd, and maybe it’s just me, but I would not solicit “input” or “opinion” from someone I believe is a hypocrite and a thief. My guess is the “Your thoughts would remain between us” comment was an attempt to get me to write something in private I would not write for public consumption. I learned a long time ago nothing is “off the record” and not to write or say anything I wouldn’t want to appear on the front page of a newspaper. It also helps that my public comments reflect my true beliefs. I politely replied, “No thanks.” The “‘enemies’ page” to which Mr. Vranesevich referred is the “Lefty links” (aka “Know your enemy”) page on my website.

Less than 15 hours after I published (on my site only) a critique of a Vranesevich (as John Paul) piece entitled “Monday Musings Volume 8,” Mr. Vranesevich removed the article from his website. I don’t know if the scrubbing had anything to do with the critique.

Below is the Facebook dialog I mentioned above.

John Paul - August 9, 2011 at 10:04pm

Lol. First you steal the article and post it on your own website, then you spam that website on here? All in the name of promoting your conservative ideologies? Ever heard of copyright or intellectual property rights? They're kind of two important concepts when it comes to capitalism and the free market. I'll leave your spam so people can see hypocrisy first hand.

Laurence Cox - August 10, 2011 at 7:34am [RWC note: Laurence is my brother. Though he occasionally provides comments as he did here, Laurence is not involved with TheBirdsEyeView.]

Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

John Paul - August 10, 2011 at 10:04am

If you believe that copying an entire article and interspersing a few rants within it qualify as "fair use", you have a lot to learn about a lot of things. I wasn't going to make an issue of this, but perhaps I should. I'm beginning to sense a teaching opportunity.

Robin Cox - August 10, 2011 at 2:15pm

Mr. Paul, thank you for your comments. I’ve been writing critiques in this format for a little over seven years and you are the first person to assert those critiques violated the fair use doctrine. I completely credit the sources, provide links to those sources, don’t reproduce a source unless I’m critiquing the piece, and don’t attempt to supersede those sources. I think it’s fairly clear our websites aren’t competitors by any stretch of the imagination. Further, my website has been, is, and always will be a noncommercial undertaking funded solely by my own time and representing no entity but me. As for what you called “spam,” I link to my site because websites tend to limit the length of a comment. While making an assertion can be done in a few words, a critique/rebuttal – whether a person agrees with it or not – usually requires more space.

Finally, does this mean you rescind your February “invitation to move [my] website over to the BeaverCountian?” It’s too bad you didn’t mention your concerns back then when you told me to “keep up the good work!”

Laurence Cox - August 10, 2011 at 8:37pm

Well as a distinguished expert in journalism, you might want to find an opportunity to teach people about the evil of sentences that end in prepositions.

Yeah that was a cheap shot, I know. But why would you be so sensitive to somebody else critiquing the excellent viewpoint expressed by Mr. White? That said I strongly suspect that you would have an exceedingly hard time trying to make the case that a citizen's partisan critique of an elected official's partisan op-ed piece is anything but fair use.

If the purpose of your website (or Mr. White's op-ed piece) is to preach to the holders of just one viewpoint then you've missed the mark. Those guys are already "won over". If you (or Mr. White) want to win over people with opposing views then you have to be open to their criticism. And understand that one man's "rant" is another man's reasoned viewpoint.

John Paul - August 10, 2011 at 10:29pm

I'm not upset about someone "critiquing a viewpoint" I'm upset about someone "stealing content."

I have invited many people from the area with very diverse viewpoints to contribute in any number of ways (as Mr. Cox attested to above). Certainly, this platform I've been creating also provides many opportunities for others in the area to promote their own individual endeavors as well.

This has nothing to do with competing points of view or public discourse and everything to do with theft. The Beaver Countain takes an enormous amount of time, energy and resources to produce. I have no intention of allowing someone to dilute those efforts under some absurd "fair use" claim. If Mr. Cox would like to provide commentary, he can refer his readers to this article via link before his retort instead of copy/pasting the entire copyrighted work to his own website.

If Mr. Cox would like to use this platform to promote his own site so a larger audience can be exposed to his opinions, I certainly welcome that as well. We even have tutorials online to show people how they may promote their own efforts free of charge using the Beaver Countian:

http://beavercountian.com/advertise-free

Robin Cox - August 11, 2011 at 3:09pm

Mr. Paul, this likely will be my final post on this topic to appear on your website.

First, I’ll address a side issue. You wrote, “This has nothing to do with competing points of view or public discourse.” Correct or not, this assertion would be more credible had you not made a big deal of my “conservative ideologies” in your first post and because of them accused me of “hypocrisy.” When I find people reproduce my work (not very often), I have no problem as long as they credit my website and don’t claim the work as their own. I don’t see the hypocrisy.

Now to the alleged central issue. I think it’s clear my use of Mr. White’s column is “fair use” under the law, but what if it weren’t? You wrote, “The Beaver Countain takes an enormous amount of time, energy and resources to produce.” That’s fine, but other than posting the subject opinion on your website, Mr. White’s piece is not a Beaver Countian work product. The column, which Mr. White published on his campaign website as of yesterday (8/10/11) with no apparent mention of your website as the source, is presented as the sole work of Mr. White. (Note: Links in Mr. White’s piece on his website don’t exist in your version.) Mr. White, a sitting PA state representative and identified as such, wrote the piece. The content of his pieces on his website and yours cover Mr. White’s official actions and/or positions as a state representative. Given the content of his columns and his identification as a state representative, I think it would be difficult to claim Mr. White wrote his pieces as a private citizen.

According to the Citizen Media Law Project’s “Primer on Copyright Liability and Fair Use,” “works by the U.S. Government are not copyrightable, 17 U.S.C. § 105, which includes ‘work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties.’ 17 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, not only may you freely copy documents and other material produced by the federal government, but also the texts of speeches by government officials made in their official capacities.” According to CENDI.gov, this holds even if the work is published on a non-government website, with the possible exception of when “the publisher has made original and creative contributions to the published work.” In that case, “It depends.” To date, neither you nor Mr. White has claimed Beaver Countian “made original and creative contributions” to his piece. While the cited laws specifically address the federal government, I’d be surprised if PA law differed in this area. The bottom line is, Mr. White’s opinion pieces appear not to be copyrightable.