Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/274750/00277-20040729-JibJab-Complaint
Timestamp: 2016-09-27 03:18:47
Document Index: 68194754

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 1331', '§ 2201', '§ 1391', '§ 2201', '§ 107', '§ 505']

00277-20040729 JibJab Complaint
BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28Cindy A. Cohn, Esq. (SBN 145997) Fred von Lohmann, Esq. (SBN 192657) Jason Schultz, Esq. (SBN 212600) ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 x108 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 Attorneys for Plaintiff JIBJAB MEDIA INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JIBJAB MEDIA INC., Plaintiff, v. LUDLOW MUSIC, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. __________ COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT MISUSE AND FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT (Jury Trial Demanded)
This is a civil action seeking damages and relief for copyright misuse and for
declaratory relief of non-infringement of copyright. 2. This case arises out of legal threats issued by the Defendant Ludlow Music, Inc.
(“Ludlow”) against Plaintiff JibJab Media Inc. (“JibJab”), namely threats of copyright litigation made against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s web hosting service in an attempt to stifle public access to and appreciation of Plaintiff’s artistic expression. These threats have jeopardized Plaintiff’s First Amendment-protected right to free speech and its right to disseminate that speech via its Internet hosting facilities. Plaintiff therefore seeks a judgment that its artistic expression is protected by the First Amendment and copyright’s fair use doctrine, before that expression is silenced by Defendant’s threats.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8. 5. 3.
PARTIES Plaintiff JibJab Media Inc. (“JibJab”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in the State of California, county of Los Angeles. 4. On information and belief, Ludlow Music, Inc. (“Ludlow”) is a New York
corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims pursuant to the
Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 and the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201). 6. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendant has sufficient
contacts with this district generally and, in particular, with the events herein alleged, that Defendant is subject to the exercise of jurisdiction of this court over its person and that venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 7. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that, based on the places of
businesses of the Plaintiff and Defendant, Plaintiff’s hosting service and/or on the national reach of Defendant, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims herein alleged occurred in this district and that Defendant and/or an agent of Defendant, may be found in this district. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO ALL COUNTS JIBJAB MEDIA JibJab Media Inc. is a small partnership between two brothers, Gregg and Evan
Spiridellis, located in Santa Monica, California. JibJab creates various artistic products for public consumption, from children’s books and toys to animated cartoons on its website, http://www.jibjab.com. 9. JibJab Media hosts its cartoons on computer servers run by AtomShockwave’s
hosting service AtomFilms, which is located in this district in San Francisco, California. It is through AtomFilms’ San Francisco-based servers and Internet connections that the public accesses JibJab’s work. 10. On July 9, 2004, JibJab released its most recent web animation, “This Land,” a -2-
parody of the classic Woody Guthrie song “This Land Is Your Land” (“the Guthrie Composition”). The animation features caricatures of President George W. Bush and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry slinging insults at one another to the tune of the Guthrie Composition. The insults and the surrounding context parody the themes of Guthrie’s original version along with the candidates. 11. The reaction to the “This Land” animation has been overwhelming. Hundreds of
thousands of Internet users have watched the video, passing links to its location onto friends and colleagues via email and word-of-mouth. The video raises a number of important issues about America, its democracy, and its politics in a humorous manner. The importance of these issues cannot be underestimated, especially in light of the upcoming presidential election. In fact, the video’s message has also become so newsworthy as to merit appearances on news and talk outlets such as Fox News, CNN, NBC Nightly News, Larry King Live, ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, The Today Show, and The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. 12. On July 20, 2004, Kathryn Ostien, Director of Copyright, Licensing & Royalties for
Defendant, sent a certified letter to Plaintiff accusing it and its “This Land” video of infringing the copyright in the Guthrie Composition. See Exhibit A. Specifically, the letter alleged: It has come to our attention that you are using an unauthorized parody version of the copyrighted work entitled THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND and have broadcast this parody illegally on your website Jibjab.com. … Use of this copyrighted composition without license or permission is unauthorized and is an infringement under the copyright laws of the United States. … Ludlow Music, Inc. reserves all rights under United States Copyright Laws in connection with this unlawful use and will exercise its rights to every extent of the law. 13. After Plaintiff’s counsel responded to this letter the following day, Plaintiff received
a second letter from Defendant’s litigation counsel, Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal on July 23, 2004, attached as Exhibit B. In relevant part, the letter stated:
We are informed that Jib Jab Media, Inc. (“Jib Jab”) created and widely broadcast via the internet a derivative version of the Infringed [Guthrie] Composition…. As such, your clients’ conduct constitutes a blatant and willful copyright infringement which has caused, and continues to cause, our client substantial injury. … We therefore demand that Jib Jab immediately remove the Unauthorized Movie from all associated web-sites, and cease and desist from exploiting the work in any way…. In the event that we do not receive confirmation by July 30, 2004 that Jib Jab will comply with the foregoing, we may conclude that all steps short of litigation are exhausted. 14. As noted above, JibJab contracts with AtomShockwave to use its AtomFilms.com
website to host its artistic web material, including the “This Land” video. 15. On July 26, 2004, litigation counsel for Defendant sent yet another cease-and-desist
letter regarding the “This Land” video, this time to AtomShockwave. This letter also referred to the Guthrie Composition as “the Infringed Composition” and accused AtomShockwave of conduct constituting “blatant and willful copyright infringement.” Unless AtomShockwave conceded to Defendant’s demands by July 30, 2004, Ludlow’s litigation counsel stated it “may conclude that all steps short of litigation have been exhausted.” The letter to AtomShockwave is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 16. The July 20, July 23, and July 26, individually and collectively, caused great
apprehension and concern to JibJab that copyright litigation against it and its website hosting service was imminent, especially in light of the July 30, 2004 litigation deadline mentioned in all letters. COUNT I: DECLARATORY RELIEF OF NON-INFRINGEMENT 17. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates herein by reference the allegations in the
preceding paragraphs of this complaint. 18. JibJab contends that the creation and dissemination of its “This Land” video is a fair
use of the Guthrie Composition and therefore, not an infringement of the copyright in that composition. Among other reasons, JibJab believes that the video is a transformative parody of the Guthrie Composition and not a substitute for the original. Ludlow, on the other hand, believes JibJab’s parody to be an infringement. -4-
JibJab is informed and believes that the copyright on the Guthrie Composition has
expired or is invalid. 20. JibJab is informed and believes that any copyright held in the Guthrie Composition
is extremely limited because the majority of the melody of the Guthrie Composition is a derivative work of a song entitled “When the World’s On Fire” recorded by the Carter Family in 1930, ten years before the Guthrie Composition was written. 21. JibJab is currently distributing the “This Land” video and intends to continue doing
so for as long as there is public interest, at least through the November, 2004 presidential election. 22. Thus, there is a real and actual controversy between Plaintiff and Defendant
regarding whether the creation and/or dissemination of the “This Land” video constitutes copyright infringement. 23. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 57 for the purpose of determining and adjudicating questions of actual controversy between the parties. 24. Plaintiff contends that creation and distribution of the “This Land” video is lawful,
consistent with the Copyright Act of the United States of America, including those laws prohibiting infringement, laws protecting fair use and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and judicial decisions construing such laws, doctrines, and provisions. 25. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that the court determine and adjudge that the “This
Land” video is a non-infringing fair use of the Guthrie Composition and/or that the Guthrie Composition is no longer protected by copyright and is part of the public domain. COUNT II: MISUSE OF COPYRIGHT 26. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates herein by reference the allegations in the
preceding paragraphs of this complaint. 27. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief
alleges that Defendant’s motivation in demanding the removal of the “This Land” video from the Internet was not to protect any market for the Guthrie Composition as an allegedly copyrighted work or any other interest protected by copyright law, but instead to stifle free speech and artistic
commentary on the Guthrie Composition. 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief
alleges that Ludlow is using threats of copyright infringement to restrain JibJab’s free speech and artistic expression and as leverage to force its website service provider to restrict this speech from public access on the Internet. 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief
alleges that Ludlow knew or should have know that creation and dissemination of the “This Land” video constitutes a fair use of copyrighted material protected under 17 U.S.C. § 107, et seq. or is otherwise noninfringing. 30. Ludlow engaged in the misuse of its copyright, including in the letters of July 20,
23, and 26, by claiming that the creation and dissemination of the “This Land” video constituted copyright infringement when it knew that they did not. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgment for itself and all others similarly situated as follows: 1. A declaratory judgment that as it relates to the Defendant and the Guthrie Composition that: a) Creation of the “This Land” video is a non-infringing or fair use and therefore lawful under the Copyright Laws of the United States; b) Dissemination of the “This Land” video is a non-infringing or fair use and therefore lawful under the Copyright Laws of the United States; c) Hosting or providing colocation services for the “This Land” video is lawful; and d) Providing Internet services to others who host websites that host the “This Land” video is lawful. 2. The Guthrie Composition is no longer protected by copyright and/or is part of the public domain. 3. Damages for copyright misuse according to proof;
Judgment barring Defendants from enforcing any copyright in the Guthrie Composition unless and until their misuse has ceased;
Attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505, other provisions of the Copyright Act, or otherwise as allowed by law;
Plaintiff’s costs and disbursements within; and Such other and further relief as the Court shall find just and proper.
Plaintiffs hereby request a jury trial for all issues triable by jury including, but not limited to, those issues and claims set forth in any amended complaint or consolidated action. DATED: July 29, 2004 By Cindy A. Cohn, Esq. (SBN 145997) Fred von Lohmann, Esq. (SBN 192657) Jason Schultz, Esq. (SBN 212600) ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 x112 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993
Attorneys for Plaintiff JIBJAB MEDIA INC.
00277-20040729 JibJab Complaint by legalmatters314 viewsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedHard Drive v Doesby johnhenrylawyerScholz Design, Inc. v. Sard Custom Homes, LLCby Ray DowdMacellari v. Carroll et al - Document No. 17by Justia.comComplaintby pauloverhauserRighthaven vs. DiBiase Answering Briefby ExtortionLetterInfo.com12-Cv-08333 Pietz Response Exhibits Only - Doc117by Mark Haney5.0 Memorandum in Oppositionby Copyright Anti-Bullying Act (CABA Law)12-10535-WGYby barzilay123Amended Defence Financeby hknopfTest Powerpoint fileby thezoneBMI v. Kenny's order.pdfby Mark H. JaffeslidesC10by komalj15Copyright Laws in Indiaby Vardhaman PandeyDecision Osment Models v Mikesby mschwimmerGrand Canyon Resort Corporation v. Grand Canyon West Ranch, LLCby Ryan Gile, Esq.Visual Impact Films dba Transpack v. Athalon Sportgear - trade dress complaint.pdfby Mark H. JaffeKilimanjaro Corp v New Regencyby jlweinsteinDr. JKL Ltd. v. HPC IT Educ. Ctr. Copyright MDJby Northern District of California Blog00071-20040930 Diebold SJ Orderby legalmattersIO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. - Document No. 34by Justia.comDigital Concealment Systems v. HyperStealth Biotechnology Corp.by PredatorBDU.com LocatI Global Holdings v Pacific Imperial Railroad Complaintby believethingswetbby jring6118US Copyright Office: petersby copyrightJoint Case Management Conference Statement - Document 19by copyrightclerkArista-Limewire 0[1]by bryandb@gmailNELLOM v. ROLANDS et al - Document No. 2by Justia.comLaws of copyright and the "read/write" culture enabled by digital technologies.by GlobalGirlKSimilar to 00277-20040729 JibJab ComplaintHard Drive v DoesScholz Design, Inc. v. Sard Custom Homes, LLCMacellari v. Carroll et al - Document No. 17ComplaintRighthaven vs. DiBiase Answering Brief12-Cv-08333 Pietz Response Exhibits Only - Doc1175.0 Memorandum in Opposition12-10535-WGYAmended Defence FinanceTest Powerpoint fileBMI v. Kenny's order.pdfslidesC10Copyright Laws in IndiaDecision Osment Models v MikesGrand Canyon Resort Corporation v. Grand Canyon West Ranch, LLCVisual Impact Films dba Transpack v. Athalon Sportgear - trade dress complaint.pdfKilimanjaro Corp v New RegencyDr. JKL Ltd. v. HPC IT Educ. Ctr. Copyright MDJ00071-20040930 Diebold SJ OrderIO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. - Document No. 34Digital Concealment Systems v. HyperStealth Biotechnology Corp.LocatI Global Holdings v Pacific Imperial Railroad ComplaintwetbUS Copyright OfficeJoint Case Management Conference Statement - Document 19Arista-Limewire 0[1]NELLOM v. ROLANDS et al - Document No. 2Laws of copyright and the "read/write" culture enabled by digital technologies.B.D.a. Breweries and ... vs Cruickshank and Co. Ltd. and ... on 30 July, 1993MalibuMedia Complaint