Source: http://www.dmlp.org/subject-area/fair-use
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:49:27+00:00

Document:
Here is a story that would be an excellent fact pattern for a media law exam. Copyright! DMCA! Libel! Oh my…Well, at least I hope it will be a topic of interest for the readers of this blog.
Gregory A. Blue, P.C.; Brager, Wexler Eagel & Squires, P.C.
On February 22, 2012, two attorneys and an associated law firm filed a class-action lawsuit against legal database companies West Publishing (proprietor of Westlaw) and Reed Elsevier (proprietor of LexisNexis). The plaintiffs allege that by including legal filings—such as motions, briefs, and memoranda—in their databases, the defendants are engaging in copyright infringement.
The complaint alleges that Westlaw and LexisNexis engage in "unabashed wholesale copying" of attorneys' copyrighted works, and also violate attorneys' distribution and derivative-work rights by maintaining the databases. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants' conduct does not "fall within any of the statutory exceptions to copyright infringement."
The complaint also argues that the case is properly handled as a class-action. Named plaintiff Edward White represents the subclass of attorneys who have registered copyrights in their legal documents; copies of White's copyright registrations are attached to the complaint. The other named plaintiff, Kenneth Elan, represents attorneys who have not registered their copyrights. The complaint alleges that between the two, the named plaintiffs adequately represent the class, defined as "all attorneys and law firms . . . authorized to practice law in the United States . . . that authored works . . . contained in the Defendants' searchable databases." The plaintiffs do not purport to represent any employees of any level of any government, nor do they represent the defendants' own companies and employees.
The complaint requests declaratory judgments of the defendants' copyright infringement, permanent injunctions, actual damages for all attorneys in the class, and, for attorneys that have registered their copyrights, statutory damages and disgorgement of defendants' profits.
Read more about White, et al. v. West Publishing Corporation, et al.
It’s been several months since we last checked up on Righthaven. How is everybody’s favorite copyright troll doing?
The Las Vegas copyright-trolling firm Righthaven told a Nevada federal judge Friday [September 9, 2011] it might file for bankruptcy protection, or cease operations altogether.
Non-profit media reform organization Free Press recently created a brief video related to its "Change the Channels" campaign, a campaign to resist what it calls the "covert consolidation" of media companies. The video included a critique of Jacksonville, Florida stations WAWS-TV (a Fox affiliate) and WTEV-TV (a CBS affiliate), who share a common website. The video was posted on YouTube.
Newport Television, LLC, a television station holding company that is the owner of WAWS-TV and the operator of WTEV-TV, sent Free Press a cease-and-desist letter on July 1, 2011, demanding that Free Press remove all WAWS and WTEV content from the video, including the stations' logos. Newport alleges that Free Press's use of the logos constitutes copyright infringement. The letter also suggests that use of the stations' logos was false and misleading. Newport further requested that YouTube remove the Free Press video under the notice-and-takedown procedures of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. YouTube complied with this takedown request on July 7.
On July 8 Free Press responded to Newport's letter, rejecting Newport's copyright claim and its suggestion that any of the material in the video was false or misleading. Free Press further asserted that the DMCA takedown filed by Newport was without merit, constituting tortious interference with contract and a unlawful misrepresentation under the DMCA. Free Press also asserts that they have filed a DMCA counter-notice with YouTube, demanding that the video be reinstated.
The issue is still pending.
Righthaven LLC v. BuzzFeed, Inc.
Kathryn Reed DeBord; Peter John Korneffel, Jr.
Righthaven LLC, a Las Vegas company, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against BuzzFeed, Inc. (the operator of an internet news website), Jonah Peretti (the founder and CEO of BuzzFeed and the registrant of the domain name buzzfeed.com), and Gavin Laessig (an employee of BuzzFeed). Righthaven alleges that the defendants reposted on the BuzzFeed website, without permission, a photograph of a TSA agent performing an enhanced pat-down check that was originally published in The Denver Post. In addition to seeking monetary damages, Righthaven has demanded that the court compel BuzzFeed’s domain name registrar to transfer control of the buzzfeed.com domain to Righthaven.
Defendants BuzzFeed and Peretti answered the complaint, denying Righthaven’s claims of copyright infringement and asserting numerous affirmative defenses to the complaint (including challenging Righthaven’s ownership of the copyright in the photo, claiming copyright abuse, asserting a lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants and a lack of proper venue in Colorado, and objecting to transfer of the buzzfeed.com domain name as a remedy beyond the scope of the Copyright Act). BuzzFeed and Mr. Peretti further asserted that valid service had not been made on the third defendant, Mr. Laessig.
Defendants BuzzFeed and Peretti also filed a class action counterclaim against Righthaven based upon its filing suit for copyright infringement in at least 275 cases, primarily in Nevada and Colorado. The counterclaim seeks a declaratory judgment that the class/counterclaim plaintiffs’ use of the alleged copyrighted works was fair use and an injunction against Righthaven filing additional copyright lawsuits. The counterclaim also includes claims for abuse of process and violation of Colorado’s unfair and deceptive trade practices statute, C.R.S. § 6-1-105, based upon Righthaven’s litigation history. Specifically, the counterclaim alleges that Righthaven (1) failed to send the class/counterclaim plaintiffs any notice and takedown communication prior to filing suit, (2) sought relief to which it knew it was not entitled by seeking locking and transfer of domain names, (3) asserted ownership of copyrights that it did not own, (4) failed to investigate or adequately allege personal jurisdiction over the class plaintiffs, (5) failed to investigate whether the challenged uses of the copyrights were fair use, and (6) abused the legal system by using the threat of statutory damages and injunctive relief to extract monetary settlements.
5/19/2011: After the filing of BuzzFeed’s answer and counterclaim, the court stayed the action (as well as all other Righthaven litigation in the District of Colorado) in response to a motion to dismiss in another Righthaven case in the district (Righthaven LLC v. Wolf et al., No. 1:2011-cv-00830) raising questions of subject matter jurisdiction.
Read more about Righthaven LLC v. BuzzFeed, Inc.
Two legal developments in Nevada and Colorado last week make Righthaven (previous post here) a textbook example of how not to win a lawsuit. In their cases against the Democratic Underground (of which details can be found in the CMLP legal threats database) and Brian Hill (whose case filings are available on Scribd), Righthaven appears to be suing without owning the copyright and picking a fight with the judge handling dozens of still-pending cases, respectively.
On June 28, 2010, Righthaven LLC, a Las Vegas company associated with Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the website company Vote for the Worst ("VFTW") LLC and two of its managers, David Della Terza and Nathan Palmer. Righthaven sued VFTW after a user posted a Las Vegas Review-Journal article on the site's forum.
On August 16, 2010, VFTW moved to dismiss. VFTW argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction because none of the defendants are residents of or have sufficient contacts with Nevada. The court denied VFTW's motion on March 30, 2011.
VFTW filed an answer on April 13, 2011, asserting defenses of fair use, lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction, and innocent infringement.
4/17/2011 - VFTW filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based on the recently-unsealed agreement that purported to assign Stephens Media's copyright in various content to Righthaven. Hoehn argued that the agreement, which was unsealed by the court hearing Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC, shows that Righthaven lacks the standing to sue because Righthaven was not the exclusive holder of any rights in the copyrighted material at issue in the lawsuit. Under Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entm’t, Inc., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005), a plaintiff must be the exclusive holder in a copyright to sue. Under the unsealed agreement, Stephens Media retained exclusive rights in the works, thereby preventing Righthaven from being able to sue on the copyright.
Is Righthaven Harming the News Industry?
What really is happening here is a realization of the infringement community that the days of merely receiving a takedown letter are over, and that people will have a means to protect their ownership rights. Like you're taught in grammar school, it's not right to take someone else's work, whether it's cheating or plagiarizing. Whether the Internet permits you to do it, that doesn't make it right.
Read more about Is Righthaven Harming the News Industry?
Righthaven LLC, a Las Vegas company associated with Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Wayne Hoehn. Righthaven alleged that Hoehn copied an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal without permission and posted it to the forums of the website Madjack Sports.
In his answer, Hoehn argued that his use of the article was protected as fair use, and that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case, as Hoehn is a Kentucky resident, the website in question is hosted in California, and his comments concerned matters in California and Illinois.
Hoehn filed a motion for summary judgment on February 2, 2011, arguing that his copying of the article was for a transformative purpose and educational use. As such, Hoehn wrote, his copying is protected as fair use and as Righthaven failed to show otherwise, he is entitled to summary judgment. In its response, Righthaven argued that there are too many genuine issues of fact regarding Hoehn's copying to warrant summary judgment, and that Hoehn's copying was not fair use.
3/24/2011 - Hoehn filed a response to Righthaven's opposition to his motion for summary judgment, arguing that the court has all the facts it needs to rule on summary judgment. Hoehn's substantive argument relies heavily on U.S. District Judge James Mahan's March 18 decision to dismiss another Righthaven lawsuit, Righthaven LLC v. Center for Intercultural Organizing, on fair use grounds. In that case, the defendant copied an entire article for educational purposes. Hoehn argued that the facts of his case are analogous, and therefore deserving of the same fair use protection.
4/17/2011 - Hoehn filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based on the recently-unsealed agreement that purported to assign Stephens Media's copyright in various content to Righthaven. Hoehn argued that the agreement, which was unsealed by the court hearing Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC, shows that Righthaven lacks the standing to sue because Righthaven was not the exclusive holder of any rights in the copyrighted material at issue in the lawsuit. Under Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entm’t, Inc., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005), a plaintiff must be the exclusive holder in a copyright to sue. Under the unsealed agreement, Stephens Media retained exclusive rights in the works, thereby preventing Righthaven from being able to sue on the copyright.
6/20/2011 - Court granted Defendant's Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Summary Judgement.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.