New Newspaper Business Model: Create Compelling Graphic, Wait For Others To Use It... And Then Sue
from the righthaven-way dept
As a bunch of folks have been submitting, it appears that Righthaven's latest strategic shift is to sue a bunch of sites that posted a popular illustration that was published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The story had to do with the so-called "Vdara death ray." The Vdara hotel on the Strip in Vegas apparently was built in such a way that at certain points, the sun would reflect off of the building in a focused manner, down towards the guest pool area, and it actually singed one guest's hair. The story is the sort of thing that goes viral quickly, and became fodder for talk shows and comedians and such. And, not surprisingly, a variety of sites used the illustration that was published in the LVRJ to explain the "death ray." So, now, of course, Righthaven is suing a whole bunch of them. Considering that this is a story about the image, and we're commenting specifically on the image itself (not just the story), it seems likely that posting this particular image here is fair use -- though I will follow Wired's lead and use the version of the image that was from the lawsuit filing, rather than the original image:
Either way, with this new effort, it suggests increasing desperation on Righthaven's part. But, you can just see the next step should these cases actually lead to cash: just keep creating "viral" type images, wait until people highlight them, and then sue, sue, sue, until the world over learns to simply avoid the LVRJ or other Righthaven associated newspapers entirely.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, death ray, fair use, images, las vegas review-journal, vdara
Companies: righthaven, stephens media
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Julian Assange talks about Journalism today
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640
Don't miss it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Julian Assange talks about Journalism today
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40785274#40785274
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Julian Assange talks about Journalism today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Julian Assange talks about Journalism today
Yes its a little off topic but Its related to some of the topics what this website regularly writes about and IMHO I guess in this one case it should be allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Julian Assange talks about Journalism today
PS: [Please repost that very interesting and valuable link on the next wikileaks/Assange piece so that more people are likely to come across it.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes it does seem like this would benefit them
Sometimes damage amounts in lawsuits are like real estate depreciation. Legal, but not based on fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps though - someone should sue the hotel for unlicensed use of Intellectual Property stolen for the solar power folks?! /sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TOS and UA vesus copyright
I mentioned to Ms. Lynn that my TOS clearly state that any use of my sites denotes full acceptance of the TOS terms (if you don't agree leave now, etc...) but she quoted a criminal RICO case wherein the court decided using a site didn't submit the parties to any specific jurisdiction.
My response is that, (1) unless I am the poster of the content Righthaven would be suing over, I haven't contributed to the conduct, (2) my TOS terms say nothing about jurisdiction over anyone other than me. The terms state that any legal disputes concerning my sites will be litigated in the forum state of the site owner, meaning the terms define what jurisdiction I will be subject to and (3) after checking (Google, Bing, etc.), I found over 1.2 million individual sites and web pages that use the same verbiage I use in my TOS, sites that include EMI Music Group, Universal Studios, Oracle, IBM, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, General Motors, Stanford University, and so on and so on.
I quote (Oracle), "By any use of this Website, you agree to be bound by these Policies and Terms of Use..."
"Governing Law. These Terms are governed by the laws of the State of California and applicable U.S. Federal law without regard to choice of law rules or the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods. With respect to any disputes relating to these Terms, You agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the state courts of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara."
So what trumps what? Terms of Service or the Righthaven "Nevada only" argument? Any opinion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TOS and UA vesus copyright
Your TOS, if they're enforceable, do not affect third-parties like Righthaven since they never agreed to your TOS. If Righthaven is suing you for your poster's actions, the theory is either contributory infringement (knowledge plus material contribution on your part) or vicarious infringement (financial benefit plus right to supervise on your part). In either case, you are potentially liable for the actions of your users, and the fact that your users are bound by the TOS is irrelevant to whether or not Righthaven is.
The issue of whether or not Righthaven can sue an out-of-state defendant in Nevada would be governed by Nevada's long arm statute. Typically jurisdictional analysis requires a finding of purposeful availment and minimum contacts. The idea is that by you or your users taking actions that have an effect in Nevada, you are opening yourself up to liability in that state.
Hope this helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF?
You're saying that filling out some forms gives you rights that people who don't fill out the forms don't have? I guess I should have known this, living in the United States of Litigation as I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
You're saying that filling out some forms gives you rights that people who don't fill out the forms don't have?
That's not anything new. It's not giving you "rights," it's just protecting you via the law's safe harbors by having you comply with the conditions to get those safe harbors.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/15533611640/damn-good-reminder-if-you-run-a-bl og-register-for-dmca-protections.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see how fair use applies
Fair use is a big stretch in this case. As much as I hate the tactics of the LVRJ, I would side with the paper this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't see how fair use applies
This is the problem with copyrights et al. It's ultimately about quashing free speech, since most of what we communicate is what we've heard from others. That's rather the point of communication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because if it needs to be different then you only have 360 ways to do it and 180 probably wouldn't be of use LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It should have at least 2 rays bouncing off the building and showing their paths converging to path the idea of what it happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1) The "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: and again
1) The sunlight looks like some sort of gaseous jet rather than photons.
2) Good depictions of sunlight impinging upon an object much smaller than the sun, show multiple parallel "rays".
3) Text within the graphic states: "The solar reflection covers an approx 10 x 15 ft area which moves as the earth rotates."
---- I hope that 10 x 15 ft area moves as the earth rotates, because that would be a big problem if it didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the LVRJ ran an image of the hotel, and others just took that same full picture and ran it without permission, it would be a clear case of copyright violation.
Let's be clear here. TD hates Righthaven, and anything they do. All we get is hate. But this is a case where they are clearly right. Why even bring it up? They are right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now go back to embarrassing yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There are very, very few examples you will ever find of commercial use of a full image being fair use.
You can now go back to embarrassing yourself (and your mom.dad hybrid).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't agree
Not true. To survive an immediate MTD on proof grounds, Righthaven would have to prove they have proof of the most basic claims in a complaint to survive an MTD.
There is no way to substantiate a claim of infringement without their having used my site. Even if Righthaven itself used another party to obtain "proof" of infringement, that party (under terms of my TOS), have agreed to indemnify me of all legal disputes arising out of THEIR use of my sites.
There is no way around it for Righthaven or their clients. If they use my sites, they have agreed to the terms. Every page clearly states that. I will not be subjected to jurisdiction of any forum outside my own. Even if a Nevada district court chose to ignore the TOS usage contract, the federal court in my jurisdiction has repeatedly upheld TOS and, I predict, would never uphold/enforce a decision from another federal court that contradicts what they and the CA in my jurisdiction have established over years of case decision.
I know civil trial attorneys hate monkey-wrenches like this, but that is the real world for anyone who has been there and knows the truth. Been there and done that.
I have operated my sites since 2003 and survived five civil cases at the district level and two at the CA. One was won on FRCP "clear and specific statement" requirements and the rest on TOS validity and enforcement.
If Righthaven were to file against me in Nevada, as the forum owner, and not the original poster, I really don't care if they are awarded a million $$$. Good luck getting the local court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the judgment.
BTW, the complaint filed here, where TOS validity has been established for several years, would be devastating to their business model, and they would lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't agree
By the way, it cracks me up that you think a Nevada District Court judgment wouldn't be enforceable against you. Best of luck with that. And do you really not have a DMCA agent? Good luck with that too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Righthaven
[ link to this | view in chronology ]