Miami Heat Owner Hit With $155,000 In Legal Fees After Losing His Bogus Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

from the costly-buffoonery dept

Mon, Sep 14th 2015 3:41pm — Tim Cushing

Miami Heat part-owner Ranaan Katz will be parting with a bit of his fortune because he is a censorious blowhard who doesn't know when to quit.

Back in 2012, Katz got all sensitive about a blog that posted some court documents he didn't want published. To add imagined insult to imagined injury, the blog also posted a less-than-flattering photo of Katz. This one, to be exact:

Katz first tried to sue the blogger for defamation. That didn't go especially well for the public figure, so his lawyers argued (unsuccessfully) that the owner of an NBA team was not a public figure. This didn't work either.

Katz tried a "fresh" approach -- one that has been used by others with similar censorious motivations. He went the copyright infringement route. He purchased the copyright to the unflattering picture and filed an infringement lawsuit against the blogger (and Google, which hosted the blog). He also threatened to sue the blogger's lawyers, because Ranaan Katz has yet to discover a hole he couldn't make bigger.

And, for some ungodly reason, he nearly won. His barefaced effort to use copyright protection as a blunt "shut the fuck up" weapon was humored by a lower court, which issued a ridiculously broad injunction against the blogger. But upon later review, the district court decided the use of the photo was clearly fair use.

Now, he's on the hook for $155,000 in legal fees -- something not always awarded to prevailing parties in copyright cases. But Katz's own actions pushed the culpability needle in his own direction, as Eric Goldman reports.

Last year, the court rejected Katz’s copyright claim:

"a reasonable trier of fact could reach only one conclusion: that Defendant’s use of the photograph was fair, and did not constitute copyright infringement…"

(Note: Katz has appealed that ruling to the 11th Circuit).

After that conclusion, unsurprisingly the court granted the 17 USC 505 fee shift to the defendant and awarded the defendant $152,433.68 in attorneys’ fees plus another $2,403.50 in costs.

The court doesn't care much for Katz's actions:

Plaintiff holds the copyright to an unflattering photograph of himself which Defendant published as part of highly critical blog articles she wrote about Plaintiff. Plaintiff purchased the photograph only after he realized Defendant’s use of it in her blog. Plaintiff’s purchase of the photograph was, from his perspective, to “stop this atrocity” of Defendant using the picture in her critical blog.

As explained by Magistrate Judge Chris M. McAliley in her Report and Recommendation recommending granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant:

Plaintiff is a businessman who testified that he considers the Photo “ugly” and “candid and embarrassing.” He does not claim to be a celebrity and does not claim Magriso’s (the original copyright holder’s) market as his own. Not surprisingly, Plaintiff has not tried to sell or license the Photo to anyone. Rather, Plaintiff testified that he obtained the Assignment of Copyright “[b]ecause I wanted to stop this atrocity.” (Plaintiff views the transfer of copyright as “a correction - correction of a mistake that happened.”). He has not used the Photo other than in this litigation, and has done so here to prevent its publication.

[...]

As Judge McAliley recognized in her Report and Recommendation, no reasonable fact finder could find for the Defendant. Plaintiff was privy to all the facts which led to summary judgment in Defendant’s favor from the outset of the litigation. He was fully aware when he filed the suit that he had no intent to profit from his copyright, nor was he a victim of any economic damages from Defendant’s use. The fact that the Court found three out of four factors weighed in favor of Defendant and the other was neutral clearly indicates that Plaintiff’s attempts to stymie Defendant’s speech are precisely what Section 107 is designed to protect against.

Even better, the court calls him out for using copyright as a weapon.

Instead of using the law for its intended purposes of fostering ideas and expression, Plaintiff obtained the photograph’s copyright solely for the purpose of suppressing Defendant’s free speech. Unsurprisingly, Plaintiff argues that protecting his rights under the Copyright Act was his sole motivation for filing this suit. [D.E. 187 at 13]. That assertion is rather dubious. Plaintiff has characterized this action as “just one battle” in a “malicious war.” [D.E. 187 at 1]. While Plaintiff might view it necessary to remove his unflattering picture to “stop this atrocity” [D.E. 148 at 23], he may not resort to abusive methods to do so.

Copyright as censorship. Only this time, someone's actually out a fair bit of cash for abusing the system. That, in and of itself, is an anomaly.

Katz v Chevaldina (PDF)Katz v Chevaldina (Text)

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: attorneys' fees, copyright, copyright as censorship, criticism, free speech, ranaan katz
Companies: miami heat

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2015 @ 3:48pm

Perhaps he should have been in the EU. Maybe he could have used that ridiculous 'right to be forgotten' rule and just vanished the stuff!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Katz's ass, 14 Sep 2015 @ 3:53pm

Wiping paper
Katz wipes his ass with thousand dollar bills, $155,000 will hurt him not one whit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheogorath (profile), 14 Sep 2015 @ 3:56pm

Copyright as censorship . Only this time, someone's actually out a fair bit of cash for abusing the system. That, in and of itself, is an anomaly.
Hopefully, this anomaly will become like those in which non-infringing works are taken down via automated processes. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2015 @ 4:08pm

Re:
He is jewish so he would have had dozens of other ridiculous laws to protect him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 14 Sep 2015 @ 4:43pm

"Atrocity."
I believe he can avoid such "atrocities" as this in the future merely by wearing a bag over his head when in public. I suspect this would similarly satisfy his detractors.

I don't think he knows what that word means. Rumor has it there were multi-million souls floating about Europe about seventy years ago who could've enlightened him.

It's amazing that anyone could be as full of himself as this. A *mildly* unflattering photo taken in public, then used to portray his likeness on a similarly unflattering blog, is justification for him to stamp out free speech.

Now, it's multiplied by the Streisand Effect. Good job, fathead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanA, 14 Sep 2015 @ 5:06pm

Re: Re:
If you are going to be a racist dickbag at least have the gonads to post under your name or a consistent pseudonym so that the rest of us can shuffle away uncomfortably whenever you are in the room.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2015 @ 5:14pm

The 1% with 99% of the money, and lawyers that are the spawn of Lucifer. They make me physically ill. Just a bunch of thin skinned crybabies. The war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terror, now a war on the 99%. How about we have a war on wars. I should have the problems this guy has, poor guy, probably just needs an enema.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2015 @ 5:47pm

Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheogorath (profile), 14 Sep 2015 @ 5:52pm

Re:
Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is abused.
FTFY. After all, this article is about copyright law being enforced. Furthermore, it was written by Tim Cushing, not Mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2015 @ 6:11pm

If you are going to sue someone then you should have to put up the money for the defence. You will just need to figure the cost of the defence into the amount you are suing for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2015 @ 6:15pm

Re: Wiping paper
Considering their current numismatic value, wiping your ass with thousand dollar bills is considerably more expensive than it sounds.

http://www.ebay.com/bhp/1000-dollar-bill

Going for about 2.3 times face value.

See also wikipedia.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2015 @ 6:17pm

Re:
Harder to do with copyright infringement cases. You've only really got two choices:

Real damages, and statutory damages. ... and legal expenses on top of the lot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dparadis (profile), 14 Sep 2015 @ 6:23pm

Wow
I didn't know Lionel Hutz, Esq., was now a copyright lawyer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2015 @ 6:58pm

Re:
Well this is a great example of the curbing of copyright abuse. So yeah good job defending a total choad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JoeCool (profile), 14 Sep 2015 @ 7:05pm

Re: Re:
It's a running gag - some anonymous coward posts that EXACT line for every single article posted here. It's basically pre-trolling the trolls. The fact that it's posted even when the article has nothing to do with copyright is part of the gag.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cpt kangarooski, 14 Sep 2015 @ 7:35pm

Re: Wow
Actually, Lionel Hutz is a surprisingly competent copyright lawyer!

In episode 8F08, "Flaming Moe's," Homer asks him whether the recipe for a novelty drink can be copyrighted. Hutz correctly answers that it cannot be. (It could be patented, but Hutz doesn't get into that)

In episode 3F16, "The Day the Violence Died," Hutz represents Chester J. Lampwick, who created the cartoon character Itchy in a film made in 1919, but was cheated by studio owner Roger Meyers Sr. Hutz (and Bart) show that Lampwick was actually the author, winning an $800 billion dollar judgment. Of course, Hutz screws himself, having demanded a fee up front, even though he was asked to take the case on contingency. But at least he can fall back on his side jobs repairing shoes or selling real estate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ehud (profile), 14 Sep 2015 @ 8:35pm

Recurrent typo
"Raanan" is his name. "Ranaan" is how it's referred to in this article...

E
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheogorath (profile), 14 Sep 2015 @ 8:38pm

Re: Re: Re:
The fact that it's posted even when the article has nothing to do with copyright is part of the gag.
Title of the article: Miami Heat Owner Hit With $155,000 In Legal Fees After Losing His Bogus Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
You were saying?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JoeCool (profile), 15 Sep 2015 @ 12:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I meant in general. In this case, it's chiding Mike even though Tim wrote it. Same thing - it's part of the gag.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2015 @ 12:42am

Re: Re:
Agreed. It's old.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2015 @ 12:45am

Re: "Atrocity."
The photo is one that any number of tougher-skinned, nimbler public personalities could have played for laughs. It's fine. It's funny. If I were him I'd put it on my website.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2015 @ 12:47am

So basically the previous judge said "Katz wins because he's more important than you and I don't care anyway", while the district judge says "I'll properly apply the law because this Katz guy won't have anything on me in a million years". AmIRiteGuise? /s

But honestly, being friends/acquaintances with a judge or being "too big to fall" in your state is no excuse for improper application of the law. Especially when precedent already exists. You know... *cough*journalism & free speech*cough* Yeah...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2015 @ 4:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering the vitriol average_joe has been known to post, somehow I doubt it. The idiot well and truly believes the nonsense he relentlessly spams.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2015 @ 12:04pm

I think in the EU the 'right to be forgotten' should be universal.
Google deletes all links related to you, you lose citizenship (and passport) and National Insurance number (equivalent to SSN) along with your bank accounts, property deeds, employment contract and right to welfare.....

Forgotten instantly and completely....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JoeCool (profile), 15 Sep 2015 @ 12:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps he does, but it's reached the point where it's now a running gag no matter what he believes. In fact, if he still believes it, the gag is on him. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]