Court Orders Twitter Reveal Anonymous Tweeter Over Sketchy Copyright Claim, Because That Tweeter Won't Show Up In Court
from the not-how-it's-supposed-to-work dept
Back in November we wrote about a very bizarre attempt to abuse copyright law to uncover who was behind a Twitter account, @CallMeMoneyBags. That account tweeted out various things mocking and shaming various extremely wealthy people, including billionaire Brian Sheth, a private equity bro. Some of the tweets in the fall of 2020 lightly mocked Sheth, including suggesting potential infidelity. The images themselves appeared to be social media-type photos of young women (or possibly just one young woman).
Sometime later, an organization called "Bayside Advisory LLC" showed up, claiming to hold the copyright on those images, and demanding Twitter take down the images -- which the company did. However, Bayside also tried to use the more controversial DMCA 512(h) subpoena process to try to uncover who was behind the MoneyBags account. That raised red flags with the legal team at Twitter, which is always careful not to give up someone's identity unless absolutely required to by law. Twitter moved to quash the subpoena, suggesting that -- given all of the context -- it seemed most likely that the person behind this effort was Sheth, who was trying to uncover the identify of an anonymous critic on social media, and not for any legitimate copyright reason.
Bayside, for its part, insists that it has no connection to Sheth at all, though it does not identify on whose behalf it actually acts. The company only registered the copyright on those photos well after MoneyBags posted them, meaning there's no real value in suing (if the registration happens after the supposed infringement, then you're limited to "actual damages" which, here, would be nothing). The only real reason for issuing the subpoena is to find out who MoneyBags really is. Bayside also claims that it "advises and partners with creators, artists, entrepreneurs to protect, promote, and champion creative expression. Bayside owns a catalog of photographs (the photographs are only a small part of the catalog) to exploit for those purposes."
That would have been more convincing if there was a long record of Bayside LLC registering similar copyrights, but, as we noted in our original article, there is not. It registered the photos in question... and those were the only registrations by Bayside until well after it sought the subpoena, at which point is suddenly registered some other unpublished photos.
We were dismayed at the time that the court did not grant Twitter's motion to quash. Instead, it said that to do a full "fair use" analysis, it needed to hear from MoneyBags directly, and ordered Twitter to notify the user that s/he should file a declaration with the court about the use of the photos. Twitter did, apparently, send the info to MoneyBags, but MoneyBags (very unfortunately) chose not to file with the court (it's unclear if anyone is even checking the MoneyBags account any more as it hasn't posted in a while).
Therefore, the court has said that since it can't conduct the proper fair use analysis, Twitter has to reveal who is behind the account.
Here, the court need not decide whether it is appropriate to use fair use as a proxy for the First Amendment analysis in a copyright infringement case involving an anonymous speaker, or whether to instead use the Highfields standard. This is because the speaker fails to meet either test on the current record.
On November 4, 2021, the court issued an order stating that “it lacks a well-developed record on which to base any ruling” on the issue of fair use. Nov. 4, 2021 Order 2; compare In re DMCA, 441 F. Supp. 3d at 884 (conducting fair use analysis where “[t]he record is well developed, and neither side contends that any evidence material to the fair use inquiry is missing,” noting “the salient evidence is not meaningfully disputed.”). The court determined that evidence of “the user’s purpose and intended meaning” in posting the tweets, which is relevant to the first and third factors of the fair use test, “is likely available only from the individual(s) who posted the tweets.” Moreover, it concluded, Twitter’s contentions about the purpose of the tweets was speculative. Nov. 4, 2021 Order 3. The court also noted that it lacked sufficient information to “balance ‘the magnitude of the harms that would be caused to the competing interests by a ruling in favor of [Bayside] and by a ruling in favor of [Twitter and the user of the @CallMeMoneyBags account]’” to the extent such a balancing was necessary, again finding that Twitter’s assertions on that point were speculative. Id. (quoting Art of Living Foundation v. Does, No. 10-cv-05022 LHK, 2011 WL 5444622, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (quoting Highfields, 385 F. Supp. 2d at 980)).
Therefore, the court ordered Twitter to immediately serve a copy of the November 4, 2021 Order and the parties’ briefing on the email address associated with the @CallMeMoneyBags account. The court gave the account user(s) until December 10, 2021 to make a special and anonymous appearance to file evidence regarding fair use and/or the harms that may result if the court denies the motion to quash. Nov. 4, 2021 Order 3-4. Twitter served the user(s) on November 8, 2021. [Docket No. 20.] No appearance has been made on behalf of any individual associated with the @CallMeMoneyBags account.
As noted, “the burden of proving fair use is always on the putative infringer.” Lenz, 815 F.3d at 1153 (quotation omitted). On the current record and solely for the purpose of determining whether this subpoena should be quashed or enforced, the court is unable to conclude that @CallMeMoneyBags’s use of Bayside’s copyrighted photos constituted fair use because the anonymous speaker did not augment the record in order to meet their burden. The first factor looks to “whether and to what extent the new work is ‘transformative.’” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579. Relatedly, the third factor asks whether “the quantity and value of the materials used . . . are reasonable in relation to the purpose of the copying.” Id. at 586 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The tweets at issue consist of statements combined with Bayside’s photos along with hashtags that do not convey an obvious meaning. Without evidence regarding the purpose and meaning of the tweets, the court cannot say that @CallMeMoneyBags’s use of the photos was “transformative” or reasonable in relation to @CallMeMoneyBag’s purpose in posting the tweets. See, e.g., In re DMCA, 441 F. Supp. 3d at 884-85 (concluding that use of Jehovah’s Witness’s copyrighted materials was “transformative” given undisputed evidence that speaker used materials “for criticism and commentary in a manner fundamentally at odds with [the organization’s] original purpose,” placed materials “on a forum expressly dedicated to criticism of [the organization] by former members, succeeded in generating a number of comments” from other critics of the organization, “and declared that his sole purpose was to criticize the organization and spark discussion about it”).
Based on that lack of appearance, the court says that the "putative infringer has not met its burden of establishing fair use for the purpose of quashing the subpoena." And thus, Twitter must reveal who is behind the account.
This seems not just wrong on multiple levels, but dangerous. It means that the very wealthy can abuse copyright law to out anonymous critics in lots of cases, especially if those anonymous critics can't pay an expensive lawyer to explain the very basics of fair use to a court. The burden shifting here seems really, really wrong. It's an unfortunate result, and shows yet another way that copyright is used as a censorship tool to stifle and suppress criticism.
It's still not clear who is behind Bayside or exactly why they're doing this, but rest assured that this kind of abuse of copyright to intimidate and suppress criticism will not go unnoticed by others wealthy enough to abuse the law in similar ways.
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: anonymity, brian sheth, callmemoneybags, copyright, dmca, fair use, free speech, subpoena
Companies: bayside advisory, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
At this point, I’d like to ask our usual troll brigade—assuming they’re not still in winter hibernation, that is—to defend this usage of copyright law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let’s hope that the owner of the CallMeMoneyBags account lives outside the jurisdiction of the US. Or that he’s sufficiently good at computering that he can make it look like the account is owned by Bayside. Or better yet, Brian Sheth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Friday deep thoughts
Corona: Either
A. not everyone is going to get it
or
B. everyone already has it, or has had it
Living in a perpetual fear of death is not 'living' at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Friday deep thoughts
Your comment is off-topic and trolling. Considering the outcome of this court case, maybe I should sue you for copyright infringement to see who you really are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Friday deep thoughts
Corona: A beer that really has a bad rap at the moment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can this be appeal to a higher court?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Friday deep thoughts
As a legal entity my self that routinely posits A or B choices, their infringement of my post-post copyright on A. or B. choices is really buggin!
@Samuel Abram I'd like to join you in your suit against this so called Anonymous Coward & find out who they really are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Friday deep thoughts
Who's claiming everyone already has it? Usually I can tell where you idiots are getting your talking points from but that's the first time I've heard anyone claim that.
Hey, at least your off-topic drooling isn't just a regurgitation of stuff that was debunked a year ago, which is an improvement I guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Always. This was a district court ruling.
But for a truly higher court, the judges insist you bring your own weed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why do I get the feeling that Bayside doesn't actually own the copyright and registered it just to see if someone would come forward to claim otherwise. They pinkie swear not to have any association with Sheth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Who owns the copyright?
"Why do I get the feeling that Bayside doesn't actually own the copyright and registered it just to see if someone would come forward to claim otherwise"
Agreed. Nothing less than a full forensic analysis of Bayside will do. Preferably the type that results in leaving a Martian landscape afterwards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Friday deep thoughts
Or option C. It is the rhythm of the night.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lovely double-standards there
A company that is almost certainly run by or connected to the 'poor besmirched' rich goon is allowed to continue on without saying who exactly is pulling their strings, something which strikes me as very relevant, but the accused infringer has to be outed because they didn't lawyer up or couldn't afford to.
Ah copyright law wielded by idiot and/or corrupt judges, you so constantly provide evidence for why neither of you deserve any respect at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Friday deep thoughts
Would you like to join in as an amicus fatui brief (with myself as the fatuus)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Who owns the copyright?
This could turn out to be a popcorn fest style lawyer dumpster fire that we all love to watch. I really hope this gets investigated...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Internet missed its chance here..... can you imagine how the court would've reacted if it had received a flood of letters, all claiming to be the account holder for CallMeMoneyBags?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They do.
They paid off a couple small time photographers to obtain the rights...
Although if the person the the photos hired the photographer wouldn't that make it work for hire & the model would own the photos?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wait until the lawyers figure out that Twitter not only has email addresses but also apple ids, facebook but also phone numbers that they can be compelled to turn over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Friday deep thoughts
Did you know that COVID can cause brain damage?
I don't think that's a problem that you need to worry about though...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
giggles
Don't mind me, was reading the discord.
This site run by an "other authority"!!
Also entertained that I recognize Twitters lawyer, when last I saw her I was suggesting the firm take up a collection to buy her a very nice bottle of wine for having to deal with Tiff's lolsuit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What's missing
What's missing is an analysis of whether the LLC honestly owns the copyright to the photos. One would expect to see the provenance of the photos, the photographer, and the process of making and registering them; if in fact they did not take the photos and did not buy the rights (presumably for the exact images claimed as infringing) that would be a fraud on the court, and no lawyer would stoop to that...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another week...
...another reason to abolish copyright. That being said, it would be interesting to see what info does Twitter actually have on their users, assuming the user in question wasn't posting under their actual legal name. For example, do they have anything more than their IP address (which leads nowhere) and maybe phone number for 2FA (which may be a prepaid and as such also lead nowhere).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I get it, in an "I am Spartacus" moment, or in a funnier way, an "I'm Brian!" moment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Friday deep thoughts
No need, we're vaxxed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'Stop living in fear!' said the person cowering in terror
As arguments go it's a pretty funny one since to the extent that people are 'living in fear' it's largely due to the pro-plague assholes who are so terrified of needles and/or so self-centered that they can't be bothered to take a few shots keeping the pandemic alive and well.
So terrified of a non-existent threat that they keep a very real, very deadly one active, talk about an own-goal of an argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Internet = company has the information. To track down to another company that also naturally has the information. Everyone claiming they defend privacy while they maintain all that information forever, so they can give it away to the first guy who cares to buy a court. Computers are inherently fascist and everything else is LIES. Always has been.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Another week...
Well thats the thing...
You no longer can start an account without giving them a cell phone number & wackjobs, like me, believe that they've been doing "ooppsie" timeouts where its just faster to give them the cell phone number & serve a short timeout rather than to wait for support to actually review the questionable timeout to get the numbers from older users.
Then one would have to real a buncha TOS to see what info Apple or Google (or whatever other platforms you can use to create an account) gives to Twitter and what Twitter provides them with.
Of course none of the services is ever very straight forward with what information they share with their 'partners' and what information goes in each direction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
.. and so is my wife!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Give them a week or so thereabouts. These days they don't show up on articles featuring copyright behaving badly unless they're absolutely certain no one will reply to their attempts to get the last word.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"These days they don't show up on articles featuring copyright behaving badly unless they're absolutely certain no one will reply to their attempts to get the last word."
Huh. Means they've finally managed to learn something.
Granted, after ten years or more worth of having every one of their insane assertions countered by dozens of saner people, factual reality, and in some cases, their own incoherent arguments I just wish they'd learned a better lesson than just "Never assert anything where anyone could respond".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday deep thoughts
I thought the "Useful Idiot" brief was more journalist terminology. That shit's gone legal now? 😱
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Another week...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The "Appeal"
On January 7, filed a motion for reconsideration of the order and asking for a new judge. They listed five main points of disagreement with the order by the Magistrate Judge:
In re DMCA § 512(h) Subpoena to Twitter, Inc. (4:20-mc-80214), Docket 22
On January 11, the same Magistrate Judge who signed the December 29 order agreed to the reassignment and rehearing.
Docket 23
And now there is a call for additional amici briefs as the schedule for going forward is as follows:
• February 18, 2022 – Amicus briefs in support of Twitter due;
• March 11, 2022 – Bayside’s response / opposition due;
• April 4, 2022 – Amicus briefs in support of Bayside or amicus briefs that do not support either party due;
• April 25, 2022 – Twitter’s reply due;
• May 12, 2022 – Hearing.
Docket 26
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Who owns the copyright?
Popcorn indeed, as Twitter asked for and got a rehearing under a new judge with a schedule inviting amici.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The "Appeal"
From Docket 22.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Are you facing qbo login intuit issues while logging in to the company file? Go through the post to get fixes for resolving the same.
https://qasolved.com/login-problems-of-quickbooks-online-on-chrome/
[ link to this | view in thread ]