Righthaven Sues Reporter Who Wrote About Righthaven For Including Image From Its Lawsuit
from the righthaven-going-down dept
Wow, is Righthaven really pushing the limit these days. While early on the legal shakedown firm focused on suing unsophisticated blog and forum site owners, it seems to be picking battles lately with those who can fight back... and doing so on extremely shaky legal ground. We noted, for example, its last few lawsuits were against media giants including the Toronto Star and Citadel Communications, both of whom are large enough to employ lawyers who understand fair use and how to present a good fair use defense in court. Even so, in both cases, there was a sliver of a claim that those two uses were not fair use.However, Righthaven has finally really gone over the edge. It's filed a lawsuit so dumb it makes me wonder if they're not looking to get slammed in court. That's because it's sued reporter Eriq Gardner for infringement for an article he wrote for Ars Technica back in December about Righthaven's lawsuit against the Drudge Report. That lawsuit was about Righthaven's favorite lucky charm: a photo from the Denver Post of a TSA agent patting someone down that has appeared in a whole variety of places.
So, let's just start ticking off the many, many ways in which this was a really clueless move by Righthaven:
- First off, Eriq Gardner is unlikely to be a pushover on this topic. While he writes for a few different publications, I believe his main job is writing the Hollywood Reporter's legal blog, THR, Esq., where he covers a ton of copyright stories. This is someone who knows copyright law backwards and forwards.
- Second, it's odd that Righthaven is targeting Gardner directly, rather than Ars Technica (owned by Conde Nast). Steve Green (who is the guy to follow on Righthaven stories) over at the Las Vegas Sun suggests the lawsuit targeted Gardner rather than Ars Technica because Ars Technica has a registered DMCA agent. I'm not sure that actually applies here, though. Gardner's article wasn't a user submission/forum post, but a full article that I assume was officially commissioned by Ars. I don't see how going after Gardner directly makes any sense.
- The key issue: this is about as cut & dried a case of fair use as there ever was. Gardner was writing about Righthaven, and in the article, to demonstrate what Righthaven was suing about, he showed the image (from Righthaven's own legal filing) that showed Drudge using the image in question. Its use is for news reporting and it's commenting on the image's use in the lawsuit. If this isn't fair use, then fair use doesn't exist.
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, eriq gardner, fair use, righthaven
Companies: righthaven
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Could you please do a post on the McKinley Tariff?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps if they would stop suing for stupid reasons and actually do something intelligent, Mike would change his tune a bit.
Until then however...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let me be the first to yell....
I am sure you will let us know when the legal nastygram arrives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The answer is: A mere handful. And why? Unfair competitive practices, underhand tricks and political "support" ensure that the power will always rest on a small percentage of the population (like, less than 1%). So it's not surprising that we are always seeing the same players on the table.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anyone who works for RIghthaven is a subhuman POS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Anyone who works for RIghthaven is a subhuman POS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Anyone who works for RIghthaven is a subhuman POS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Anyone who works for RIghthaven is a subhuman POS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Anyone who works for RIghthaven is a subhuman POS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Way to completely and utterly miss the point of not only the various news items posted here, but the ENTIRE reason for the site to exist in the first place. Good job! You win "Clueless Shill Day" at techdirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Anyone who works for RIghthaven is a subhuman POS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Writer May Have Used a Public Document
If this is the case this has civil rights issues because it cuts to the heart of the publics access to public records.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Then I thought maybe they really are just that committed to their cause they can't see it rationally. They have become so focused and invested so much time and money that they won't back down even when it becomes clear they cannot win.
They are going to ride it all the way to the fireball at the end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Civil rights are subservient to copyright and existing business models. Ask anyone in the Obama administration.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pwn3d
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I know you are being facetious but not allowing the use of a public document because it may contain copyrighted material would render every public document concerning copyrights unusable because everyone of them contain the work in question as evidence. This would be unworkable and violate the public's right to access public records.
Righthaven cannot win this case and if this lawsuit is over the use of a public document they may face sanctions from the judge and have opened themselves up to all sorts of counter suits not just from this writer but civil rights and other organizations.
This strikes me as an act of desperation on Righthaven's part.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pwn3d
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Tarriff-tard!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Pwn3d
From:
To: mmccue@lrlaw.com
Subject: Swinger Events
Cc: gibson@lbbslaw.com, mberg@lbbslaw.com, rgibson@lbbslaw.com
We understand that the event to begin tomorrow previously scheduled to be held at Mandalay Bay may now be scheduled to be held at MGM. Please call me to discuss: 499-3791.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pwn3d
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Pwn3d
702-527-5900 Righthaven
702-527-5909 Righthaven fax
702-869-0660 Home
702-445-6909 Home 2 (fax?)
702-499-4966 Cell
702-334-7402 (Cell?)
7278 Silver Charm Ct Las Vegas NV 89131-4129
The Vermin Swarm:
Joseph Chu jchu@righthaven.com
Charles Coons ccoons@righthaven.com
jcoons@righthaven.com,
Raisha Gibson rgibson@righthaven.com,
iodunze@righthaven.com,
apieroni@righthaven.com,
Steven Ganim sganim@righthaven.com
Shawn A Mangano shawn@manganolaw.com 702-638-4788, 702-304-0432 office, 702-922-3851 fax
Jodi Donetta Lowry jdlowry@dickinsonwrite.com 702-541-7891 office, 702-541-5899 fax, 702-767-4087 personal or cell
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Pwn3d
[ link to this | view in thread ]
UPDATE
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/copyright-troll-righthavens-epic-blund er-a-lawsuit-targeting-ars.ars
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UPDATE
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I'm sure this is a case of them being paid regardless of what they do....
I think this is more a case of lawyers looking for billable hours regardless of the merits of the case of the chances of success.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Really funny thing is that last time I posted a story that was a week old, the above AC made a crack about how late I was on the story...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Contact Colorado Federal Court
Clerk's Office
Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, Room A105
901 19th Street
Denver, Colorado 80294-3589
Civil Division: (303) 844-3433
Criminal Division: (303) 844-2115
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Righthaven's List of Other Screwups
Righthaven has sued the very source of a story that was published on the Las Vegas Review Journal.
They have twice sued the wrong people.
They have sued the Toronto Star that is an AP affiliate that more than likely had permission from the Denver Post.
They have managed to actually dilute the copyright protections they claim to “enforce”. It has been ruled fair use that an entire article can be copied in some situations thanks to Righthaven.
They have yet to win a single case in court apart from some default judgments where the defendant simply never showed up. They have yet to earn a single penny based on the merits of a case but only from strong-arming and intimidating their victims into settling.
They can’t find two of their defendants and since they could not be served with a court summons the cases were thrown out.
They had the unmitigated gall to complain to a federal judge that the defendant’s attorneys in the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) were engaged in “litigation overkill” and that their actions were running up legal fees.
They asked a South Carolina Lawyer to send them advance notice if and when the lawyer files a counter-suit. The SC Lawyer smacked them down by telling them he would give them the same courtesy that Righthaven gave his client when they refused to send a take-down letter before proceeding with a lawsuit.
Their lawsuits claim they have suffered “irreparable damages” but have yet to identify exactly what these “damages” are.
They have yet to be awarded a single web-site domain name even though they use this to coerce people into settling and has no basis in copyright law.
They have sued Brian Hill who they cannot collect from even if they win. (which they won’t)
They have by far the worst website on the planet that consists only of a single large jpeg image that takes up the entire screen. Apparently this “technology company” has no one who knows how to set up a website.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Contact Colorado Federal Court
Courthouses don't decide what to do because folks phone them with suggestions. I'm curious, though. What precisely did Righthaven do that warrants sanction? Gardner has a great defense, but it's just that, a defense. The lawsuit was not frivolous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Contact Colorado Federal Court
"With Rule 11 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(b3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(3) On the Court's Initiative.
On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b)."
The court can impose sanctions against a party on their own initiative if Rule 11(b) has been violated.
This lawsuit was frivolous because it was based entirely on faulty and unverified evidence. Rigthhaven filed a lawsuit based on an court document that was so obvious we were discussing it yesterday on the Las Vegas Sun comments. It is absurd to think Righthaven didn't recognize this as a court filing particularly since it was their own.
The court needs to slap them with sanctions and review every case they have filed including the ones they received settlements to verify if a lawsuits were even warranted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Anyone who works for RIghthaven is a subhuman POS
Troll harder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Contact Colorado Federal Court
[ link to this | view in thread ]