Copyright Troll Demands $8,500 From Rarely Visited Lindsay Lohan Fansite

from the that'll-win-fans dept

We've covered plenty of copyright trolling operations, and the Copyright Enforcement Group is one of the earliest to show up in the US, though there are few details as to who is actually behind it. We recently have been in contact with someone on the receiving end of a shakedown threat letter from CEG for their Lindsay Lohan fan page. The person who ran the site was, not surprisingly, a Lindsay Lohan fan, and tried to use the site to "promote the good things in Lindsay's life" rather than the typical schadenfreude surrounding Lohan these days. It was, in other words, the kind of site that Lindsay Lohan herself might appreciate. But it no longer exists, thanks to copyright trolling.

Like most fan sites, this one had some graphics, and the company that holds the copyright on those graphics, AKM Images, apparently hired CEG to start demanding cash from people, including the operator of this Lindsay Lohan fansite. Upon receiving the email, the owner of the site completely deleted it out of fear. However, he also saw that, according to Google analytics, the page that had the images had a grand total of nine pageviews from six unique visitors (and the operator of the site notes that one or two of the visits likely came from his own computer). In other words, even if the images were "infringing," you could make a pretty strong argument for either fair use or de minimis use.

The threat letter, of course, makes no mention of the details or possible defenses. It just says that each image requires a "settlement" fee of $500, and if you total up the 17 images (sent across two separate demand letters) that were hosted on the site, the owner is expected to pay $8,500.

It does seem likely that this individual did, in fact, post images without a license, though this is quite common across the internet. You could see a pretty strong fair use/de minimis use claim here, in that the site was non-commercial, was designed to help promote Lohan and was basically just a fan expressing appreciation. But, these days, expressing appreciation of someone famous can get you threat letters like this one (we've included one of the two threat letters below).

While there is, perhaps, an argument that the site infringed, the "harm" on the copyright holder is non-existent (there is no way this person would have paid to license such images). If I were a part of Lindsay Lohan's "publicity" team, at the very least I would probably look into paying off this settlement and supporting the site operator. In the meantime, it seems like actions like this could do a lot of harm to celebrities, as copyright trolls try to "crackdown" on fan sites, not only forcing many of those sites closed, but pissing off some of the celebs' biggest fans.

Filed Under: copyright troll, licensing, lindsay lohan, shakedown
Companies: akm images, copyright enforcement group

Lindsay Lohan's Lawyer's Loopy Legal Argument Laced With Lifted Language?

from the why-don't-you-come-to-your-senses dept

Now here's a weird one. THResq has a report concerning Lindsay Lohan's lawyer in her ridiculous case against the rapper Pitbull. That lawyer has now been accused of plagiarizing most of a recent filing which tried to argue that Pitbull's First Amendment rights weren't an issue in the case. If you don't remember, Lohan sued Pitbull because he had a lyric in a song that reads "I got it locked up like Lindsay Lohan." According to Lohan's lawyer, this violates her publicity rights under NY state law. Publicity rights, of course, are a relatively recent phenomenon, found in various states, that are now being abused widely by semi-famous people to try to stop others from talking about them.

Lohan's lawyers seem to be particularly enamored with using publicity rights claims in new and increasingly bizarre ways. She's sued E*Trade for one of its commercials that refers to a baby named Lindsay and says she's a "milkaholic." Despite no other connection to Lohan, her lawyer insisted this was a violation of her publicity rights. Then there was the time that she threatened the jewelry store from which she took a necklace, leading to her arrest. What was the threat about? Believe it or not, the claim was that the video store surveillance footage was a violation of her publicity rights. Yeah.

Either way, Pitbull's lawyers filed their motion to dismiss (pdf) not too long ago, arguing that Lohan failed to state a legitimate claim:

... the First Amendment bars her claims because the Song is protected artistic expression. Moreover, the incidental use of Ms. Lohan's name was not for advertising and trade purposes and therefore is not proscribed by Section 51 as a matter of plain and unmistakable law. Ms. Lohan's remaining causes of action are equally baseless, since she has not -- and cannot -- allege facts warranting injunctive relief, monetary damages for severe emotional trauma or a finding of unjust enrichment.

Honestly, this should be a pretty easy case to dismiss, and I'd be surprised if the judge let it go much further. However, Lohan's lawyer, Stephanie Ovadia responded to that with an opposition filing that rambles on bizarrely about a variety of topics from the First Amendment to publicity rights to trademark law to consciousness (seriously, see below), with little effort to actually explain what that has to do with the case. For example, there are random discussions of "non-verbal expression," tattoos, inciting lawless behavior, trademark infringement, celebrity look-alikes and whether or not any of that is covered by the First Amendment. Of course, absolutely none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the case at hand or the issues it raises. Nor does Ovadia even attempt to try to connect these issues to the case.

There are also just some outright bizarre parts in the filing:

The threshold of consciousness is the dividing line between something that can be processed by the conscious mind and something that enters the subconscious mind without any such processing. A hidden message is not intense enough to produce a sensation but has sufficient intensity to influence the behavior and mental processes of one's mind. The decisions the conscious mind makes are based upon the knowledge and reasoning skills one has developed through experience and education....

It goes on in the same manner for a few more sentences, never once even coming anywhere near a legal point, nor referencing any part of the case.

Pitbull's lawyers quickly hit back with a filing (pdf) and exhibit (pdf) of their own, noting that Lohan's filing doesn't actually address the pretty clear legal issues raised in their initial motion... and also pointing out that perhaps the reason the filing is so nonsensical is because nearly all of it is plagiarized from random web sources, which they highlight in a handy chart. That bizarre quoted text above apparently comes from the Thinkquest library, which appears to be a project of the Oracle Education Foundation, and whose content is "created by students around the world who have participated in a ThinkQuest Competition."

Other sources include a bunch of copied paragraphs from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression (who, I would guess, would likely come down on Pitbull's side in this case), the LA Times, the Association for Corporate Counsel's website, some presentation about publicity rights found on Docstoc, some law firm websites and a variety of other sources. I'm not a lawyer, but it's not hard to read the filing and wonder what the hell Ovadia was thinking. As THResq wonders, beyond helping to make sure that this case is unlikely to live much longer, the cutting-and-pasting throughout the legal filing might actually expose Lohan and Ovadia to copyright infringement charges themselves, especially from the law firms whose content was copied.

Update: Eriq Gardner, who wrote the THResq story has an update:

Reached for comment, Ovadia's office pointed the finger at Anand Ahuja, of counsel at the firm, who wrote the brief.

Ahuja was contacted too and says that he turned in "4 or 5 drafts to Stephanie, who looks like somehow by mistake submitted the first one."

He adds that typically his first draft includes footnotes and references and that it gets amended along the way, but that the submission was turned in past the judge's deadline, stripped of his footnotes, and that it was Ovadia's job to review it before signing and filing the document.

None of that makes Ovadia or her law firm look very good. First, I love the finger pointing between the two lawyers in the press. It's like reality TV inside a law firm. Second, Ovadia's name is on the filing. It doesn't matter if Ahuja wote it, she should have read it and realized that it was almost entirely nonsensical. Third, I don't know how they write "drafts" but cutting and pasting huge chunks of totally irrelevant information -- including a treatise on consciousness, just doesn't seem like a particularly reasonable practice.

Filed Under: copyright, lindsay lohan, pitbull, plagiarism, publicity rights, stephanie ovadia

Apparently You're Not An A-List Celebrity Unless You're Involved In Some Sort Of Bogus Defamation Lawsuit

from the defamation-law-gone-mad dept

Over the years, we've been threatened with defamation lawsuits more times than I'd like to recall, though nothing has ever come of any of them (even the latest threat, which seemed more likely to end up in court than others). Apparently, we're not alone. Filing highly questionable defamation lawsuits is apparently the hot new Hollywood trend.

Everyone who's someone is getting in on the action. Of course, almost all of these lawsuits are unlikely to get very far. Defamation of a public figure has to involve "actual malice" rather than just false statements, and it's pretty rare that any of the statements rise to that level. And, really, so many of the claims seem pretty ridiculous anyone, in that no one is actually taking them at face value. Take, for example, Lindsay Lohan's latest ridiculous defamation lawsuit against the rapper Pitbull for including the line: "I got locked up like Lindsay Lohan." Lohan's lawyers are claiming that such a "disparaging or defamatory" lyric is "destined to do irreparable harm." Seriously? Does no one put these things through a reality filter?

Of course, Lohan is also the celeb who once sued E*Trade for $100 million, because one of its commercials referenced a baby named "Lindsay," who was described as a "milkaholic." Nothing in the ad implied that this baby "Lindsay" had anything to do with Lohan. But she still sued.

Like certain other laws, the root cause of defamation laws seem to make a lot of sense. If someone is publishing or saying completely false things about you, shouldn't there be some form of recourse? But, as we see more and more of these ridiculous claims, I'm beginning to wonder if defamation law really makes much sense any more. It made a lot of sense when you had gatekeepers for getting information out to the world. If a newspaper lied about you and there was no way to get your response published, defamation lawsuits could help solve that. But, today, anyone can publish and anyone can speak up. In fact, there are stories all the time about "big bad things" that people or companies do to others.

In an age where most of the gatekeepers are disappearing, it seems like the answer to defamatory speech should really be "more speech," in all but the most extreme cases. Instead, even though the "actual malice" standard should forestall most of these suits, we get dozens of such lawsuits that seem to be because someone's feelings are hurt. That's not what defamation law is about, and it seems more like such lawsuits should qualify for anti-SLAPP sanctions, as they too often appear to be attempts to get someone saying something that's "not nice" to shut up.

Filed Under: celebrities, defamation, lindsay lohan

Lindsay Lohan Claims Surveillance Tape Of Her Stealing Necklace Violates Her Publicity Rights

from the might-want-to-rethink-that-one... dept

Lindsay Lohan is no stranger to questionable publicity rights claims. After all, she sued E*Trade, because the company had a commercial with a baby named Lindsay, who was described as a "milkaholic," and she insisted that this was meant to be a reference to her (something no one else actually thought). The latest is that Lindsay, who's facing time in jail for stealing a necklace, is apparently so upset that the jewelry store surveillance video of her stealing the necklace has been released, and shown on Entertainment Tonight, that she's threatening to sue the jewelry store where it was taken, suggesting it was an abuse of her publicity rights. Of course, core to her argument is the idea that the store sold the tape, but the store denies this. Even if it were true that the store sold the tape, it's difficult to see how there's a legitimate publicity rights claim here. But, of course, with publicity rights still being a new and somewhat untested area of law, you could actually see a judge buying such a ridiculous claim.

Filed Under: lindsay lohan, publicity rights, surveillance tape, theft

E*Trade Settles Lindsay Lohan's Milkaholic Lawsuit

from the who-paid-whom? dept

Earlier this year, we discussed the absolutely ridiculous lawsuit that Lindsay Lohan filed against E*Trade, because one of its commercials involving babies talking to each other mentioned another baby, named Lindsay, who is referred to as a "milkaholic." There's nothing in that commercial that implies the "Lindsay" in question is Lindsay Lohan. The name itself is quite popular, with approximately 250,000 Lindsays around these days. But, still, Lohan's lawyers claimed that it was a right of publicity violation. And, while we were looking forward to the trial, it appears Lohan has some bigger issues to deal with, and somehow has worked out a "settlement" with E*Trade on the case, with the report being that E*Trade actually paid up some money. If that's true, it would almost certainly be for a tiny amount (less than what it would cost the lawyers if the lawsuit were to move forward). Perhaps she can put that spare change to use by paying for some new lawyers.

Filed Under: babies, lawsuits, lindsay lohan, milkaholic
Companies: etrade

If Lindsay Lohan Deserves Any Money From E*Trade, It's Probably For Making Its Ad So Popular

from the milkaholics-anonymous dept

A few weeks ago, we wrote about Lindsay Lohan's bizarre lawsuit against E*Trade over a commercial with a talking baby named Lindsay that Lohan insisted was actually supposed to be her... mainly due to a reference to her being a "milkaholic." This resulted in a series of interesting points -- including the fact that many, many, many people who saw the commercial made absolutely no association with Lohan at all, especially given that Lindsay is a decently popular name. But, many people also wondered if this was really some bizarre marketing scheme for both E*Trade and Lohan -- and if that's true, then it worked. m3mnoch points out that the commercial in question shot to the top of the "most viewed online commercial" list. I doubt that E*Trade will owe any money to Lohan for the lawsuit, but perhaps it should pay up for the "ad placement."

Filed Under: ads, commercial, lawsuits, lindsay lohan, streisand effect
Companies: etrade

Lindsay Lohan Sues E*Trade For $100 Million; Says Baby Was Based On Her

from the well,-who's-a-baby-now dept

If you thought the guy suing because he thought Hurt Locker was based on his life story (but also made him look bad) was going too far, here's an even more ridiculous lawsuit. Dave Barnes was the first of a few of you to alert us to the news that actress Lindsay Lohan is suing E*Trade for $100 million, claiming that one of the babies used in its famous "talking babies" commercials was based on her. The baby -- which was named Lindsay -- is shown as being a "boyfriend-stealing, milkaholic" baby. And, for that, Lindsay say she deserves $100 million in "pain and suffering." I'm trying to decide which makes someone seem more like a baby: a commercial with a silly "milkaholic" baby, or a humorless multi-millionaire starlet suing a financial firm for $100 million over a silly commercial that has talking babies, because she can't take a joke.

Filed Under: babies, lawsuits, lindsay lohan
Companies: etrade