Mathew Higbee Cuts And Runs When Finally Challenged On A Questionable Shakedown

from the do-his-clients-recognize-their-own-liability? dept

Last month, we wrote about a declaratory judgment lawsuit that had been filed against a client of Mathew Higbee. As we've discussed at length, Higbee runs "Higbee & Associates" which is one of the more active copyright trolls around these days, frequently sending threatening shakedown-style letters to people, and then having various "paralegals" demand insane sums of money. In some cases, it does appear that Higbee turns up actual cases of infringement (though, even in those cases, the amount he demands seems disconnected from anything regarding a reasonable fee). But, in way too many cases, the claims are highly questionable. The lawsuit mentioned last month represented just one of those cases -- involving a threat against a forum because one of its users had deeplinked a photographer's own uploaded image into the forum. There were many reasons why the threat was bogus, but as per the Higbee operation's MO, they kept demanding payment and dismissing any arguments for why the use was not infringing (and, relatedly, why it was against the incorrect target).

Paul Levy and Public Citizen filed for declaratory judgment that the use was non-infringing, and in the process, pondered publicly whether or not Higbee had warned his various clients that they might end up in court in response to Higbee's aggressive tactics. Apparently, in the case of photographer Quang-Tuan Luong, the photographer was not particularly happy about ending up in court, and Higbee and his client quickly agreed to cut and run, despite Higbee's insistence that he was ready to take this matter to court.

I gave Higbee a chance to withdraw his client’s claims; however, Higbee had previously told me that my arguments about non-liability for infringement in an identical case were “delusional,” so we decided to give Higbee a chance to explain to a judge in what way these defenses were delusional, that is, in response to an action for a declaratory judgment.

I confess that, in filing that lawsuit, I wondered whether Higbee had ever warned Luong that he would not necessarily get to make the final decision whether his demand would end up in litigation, in that the very aggressiveness of Higbee’s demand letters, coupled with persistent nagging from paralegals to offer a settlement or face immediate litigation, sets up his clients to be sued for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. That speculation proved prescient, because Higbee’s immediate response to the lawsuit was to offer to have his client covenant not to sue Schlossberg for infringement. Higbee also told me that he had offered to defend Luong against the declaratory judgment action for free.  It appears, however, that even such a generous offer was not enough to hold onto Luong as a copyright infringement claimant in this case. A settlement agreement has been signed; because there is no longer a case or controversy, the lawsuit has now been dismissed. 

Levy makes it clear, however, that he's actively looking for other such cases to challenge in court in response to Higbee's overaggressive demands:

Since that blog post, I have got wind of several other situations in which Higbee has claimed large amounts of damages against forum hosts.  We are considering which ones would make the best test cases.  

My last blog post about Higbee mentioned another case in which he had made a demand against the host of a forum about United States elections, where a user had posted a deep link to a photograph by another of Higbee’s stable of clients, Michael Grecco. Higbee has sued on Grecco’s behalf on a number of occasions, and Higbee told me that, unlike Luong, Grecco was a true believer who was looking for opportunities to pursue Higbee’s copyright theories in litigation.  Higbee said that he was going to be talking to Grecco to confirm that he wanted to litigate against the election forum. I could not help suspecting at the time that Higbee was blowing smoke to show what a tough guy he is.  That was a month ago, and yet so far as I can tell, Higbee has not yet got around to talking to his client about the subject. I have to wonder just who it is that wants to litigate Higbee’s legal theories.

Indeed, I have asked Higbee whether he warns his clients generally that they can be sued for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement even if they have never given Higbee authority to go to court on their behalf. He told me that he is too busy to address my questions.

He also notes that another such declaratory judgment filing has been made against the very same Michael Grecco:

That case involves another demand letter from Higbee, this time to an indigent young man named Lee Golden who lives in Brooklyn with his parents and blogs about action movies.  Because Golden included a Grecco photograph of Xena the Warrior Princess, Higbee sent his typical aggressive  demand letter, setting $25,000 as the required payment to avoid being sued. Golden responded with a plaintive email, apologizing profusely, saying that he had no idea about copyright issues, that he had taken down the photo...own, returning to its demand for $25,000 and threatening to seek $30,000 or even $150,000 if the case had to be litigated. Higbee even sent a draft infringement complaint, threatening to make Golden defend himself in the Central District of California even though many of Higbee’s actual lawsuits are filed in the jurisdiction where the alleged infringer lives, perhaps because Higbee wants to avoid having to litigate personal jurisdiction.

But Golden’s counsel likely did not know this, so Strupinsky and his partner Joshua Lurie have filed suit on Golden's behalf in the Eastern District of New York, seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. We will see how anxious Michael Grecco is to litigate this case.

We see this again and again with copyright trolling operations. They often promise potential clients that this is a "no risk" way to make money. Just sign up and they'll scour the internet and you'll just sit back and receive the payments. Indeed, Higbee's site suggests just that:

Let a national copyright law firm take care of all of your copyright enforcement needs— from reverse image search to collecting payment. You pay nothing up front. We only get paid when you get paid. Best of all, by using us for reverse image search you will be eliminating the middle man and nearly doubling your profit.

His site also claims that he'll go to court for you "assuming you want us to" -- leaving out the risk of a declaratory judgment filing (and associated embarrassment for trying to shake down non-profits and personal websites of people with no money).

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolling, declaratory judgment, deep linking, embedding, mathew higbee, michael grecco, paul levy, quang-tuan luong
Companies: higbee and associates

European Court To Explore If Linking To Infringing Material Is Infringing

from the again dept

A couple of years ago in the Svensson case, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) made it clear (finally) that merely linking to content is not infringement. That was a case involving a news aggregator linking to official sources. However, in a new case that has been referred to the CJEU, the court will examine if links to unauthorized versions of content is infringing as well. The excellent IPKat has the details of the case which involves a blog that linked to some pre-publication Playboy photos in the Netherlands. A lower court had said that it wasn't copyright infringement, but still broke the law, by facilitating access. On appeal, the court found that the free speech concerns outweighed the copyright concerns. From the description by the lawyer representing the blogger ("Geen Stijl news"):

We lodged an appeal on behalf of Geen Stijl on a few grounds which was successful: the Court of Appeal had misapplied the 'quotation' exception in copyright law and did not sufficiently balance the freedom of speech versus copyright protection, as it indicated that 'only in exceptional circumstances' would the freedom of speech outweigh copyright protection, as freedom of speech concerns are taken into account in the law, in particular in the exceptions. The Supreme Court followed our reasoning that copyright is a fundamental right, but that the same goes for the freedom of speech, and that they thus should be considered on equal footing. The Court of Appeal should therefore have considered all relevant circumstances (among which is whether this is commercial speech or a news item) and not only exceptional circumstances. Never before has the freedom of speech been given so much weight in The Netherlands.

That's the good news. On the flip side, Sanoma, the Dutch publisher of Playboy, has appealed on its own, and that's the question that is going to the CJEU. It basically asks how to apply that earlier ruling saying linking is not infringing to a case in which the content being linked to is not authorized -- and whether it matters if the linker knew or should have known the content was infringing.

Given the scenario, this could become a rather important copyright case in Europe, considering how frequently people may end up linking to content that may be infringing.

Filed Under: cjeu, copyright, deep linking, eucj, europe, european court of justice, geen stijl, infringement, linking, playboy, svensson
Companies: geen stijl, playboy, sanoma

Deep Linking Could Be Infringement In Germany If Website Puts Even Ridiculous Weak Attempts To Block It

from the anti-circumvention dept

We've pointed out numerous problems with anti-circumvention rules, which make it infringement to break pretty much any attempt at circumventing any type of content protection measures (even if not to infringe on the copyright). Sometimes courts realize how silly this is, such as a ruling from a few years ago in Europe, which noted that it's silly to consider such anti-circumvention rules reasonable if the technical protection measures are not considered "effective." In other words, if your protection scheme is laughable, it's silly to make it infringement to get around it. Apparently not all the courts in Europe have gotten this message yet. An anonymous reader points us to a case from a few months back in Germany, in which the court said that deep linking to content that had ridiculously weak measures to block deep-linking is still infringing (that link is a not so great Google translation of the original German -- though, the submitter gave a more complete explanation).

In this case, the content involved online maps, and the "protection measures" were that to visit a page with an actual map, you had to have a sessionID, that you would get as you visited the website. If you went to a deeper page without a sessionID, you would be redirected to the front page. Of course, it's not hard to actually provide the user with a sessionID, which one site did upon linking to these maps, meaning that visitors went straight to the deep-linked page, rather than being redirected to the home page. This is basically how the internet works. While the lower court properly rejected the copyright infringement claim as being ridiculous since the technical protection measures were so laughable, the higher court appeared to ignore all precedent on this matter, and said that as long as the site owner made any attempt whatsoever to block such deep linking, getting around those measures could represent infringement.

Filed Under: copyright, deep linking, drm, germany, session id

Major Icelandic Newspaper Says Aggregators Not Allowed

from the fair-'nuff dept

We're still confused by some news publications' war against those who send them traffic. We've already covered some newspapers choosing technical means of blocking aggregators, which is effective cutting off your nose to spite your face, but what about just claiming that it's illegal? That seems to be the plan of a major Icelandic newspaper, who has put up a new policy that bans " repeated and systematic" linking to the website (Boing Boing's coverage implies it bans all deep linking, but that does not appear to be the case). This definitely seems targeted at aggregators, but I'm really not sure how that makes much of a difference anyway. First off, blocking links seems like a silly way to go about running a media publication, but second, just declaring that it's not allowed doesn't make much sense. If you really don't know how to capitalize on incoming traffic, then just use technical means. Insisting "it's not allowed" when your webserver says "yes, it's allowed!" doesn't make much sense.

Filed Under: deep linking, iceland, linking, newspaper

Jones Day Abuses Trademark Law And Gets Its Way: Bullies Blockshopper Into Caving

from the terrible-news dept

Somehow we missed this news last week, but Consumerist alerts us to the very upsetting news that BlockShopper was forced to cave in and settle the absolutely ridiculous lawsuit filed against it by Jones Day. The lawsuit was a clear abuse of trademark law designed to silence a small company, and it looks like the judge did everything possible to help Jones Day achieve its goal. I've spoken with a few Jones Day lawyers who have admitted (quietly, of course) that they're embarrassed their firm did this, but the details of the story seem to get worse with each new step. One thing that seems clear, based on this: Jones Day is not a firm worth working with.

If you don't recall the details, Blockshopper is a pretty basic site. It would post news about people who had bought property in certain cities, including Chicago. All it was doing was publishing public information, based on government records, about who was buying property in certain neighborhoods. Apparently, two Jones Day lawyers purchased homes in a part of Chicago covered by Blockshopper. So it wrote about them, and included links to the Jones Day website, indicating that's where they worked. This was accurate, factual information found through public sources. It was not a violation of anyone's privacy, nor was it a violation of trademark law.

However, Jones Day, as a big bad law firm, apparently had no problem suing Blockshopper claiming that it was trademark infringement to link to the Jones Day website, in part because Blockshopper deep-linked the individual's names in the post to their profile pages on the Jones Day website. That is ridiculous by any standard, and an obvious abuse of trademark law. It is simply not a trademark violation to link to a company's website using its name or the name of an employee at the firm -- and the folks at Jones Day obviously know this. But since they are a huge law firm, they can pressure tiny websites to obey. Even worse... the judge in the case helped out. Rather than tossing out the case immediately and reprimanding Jones Day, the judge supposedly told the operator of Blockshopper:

"Do you know, young man, how much money it's going to cost you to defend yourselves against Jones Day?"

In other words, the judge wanted Blockshopper to cave. The case started to get some public attention, and a bunch of public interest groups, including Public Knowledge and the EFF filed briefs with the court. At this point Jones Day should have backed down and perhaps issued an apology for abusing trademark law to shut up Blockshopper. Instead, it asked the judge to not even allow the briefs from those groups, saying that because those briefs sided with one party, they were not legit. Apparently Jones Day is unaware that most amici briefs are favoring one side or the other. Stunningly, the judge agreed with Jones Day and refused to even look at the submitted briefs, and also refused to dismiss the case.

As we noted at the time, this would significantly increase the likelihood of Blockshopper settling, because it would (as the judge had noted originally) get expensive quickly. And, indeed, that's exactly what appears to have happened. Blockshopper has agreed to change the way it links to Jones Day, no longer using any anchor text other than the URL itself. As Slate explains:

Instead of posting "Tiedt is an associate," the site will write "Tiedt (http://www.jonesday.com/jtiedt/) is an associate."

There is simply no legal rationale for Blockshopper to agree to this. There is only the fact that it was going to get expensive to fight such a lawsuit and the judge seemed to clearly favor Jones Day, based on the events so far. Illinois does have a (relatively new) anti-SLAPP law, but it seems like we could definitely use stronger anti-SLAPP rules to stop this sort of abuse of the law to bully small websites. Anyway, you can see the "agreement" below, where Blockshopper agrees that it will not embed deep links to Jones Day's website:

Filed Under: deep linking, linking, trademark
Companies: blockshopper, jones day

Spain Recognizes That Deep Linking To Infringing Content Is Not Infringing

from the a-good-ruling dept

While other countries are still going back and forth on whether or not just linking to infringing content should be seen as infringing as well, an appeals court in Spain has upheld a lower court ruling that merely linking to infringing content is not infringing itself. This makes a lot of sense, as putting up links to content controlled by others should never be seen as a crime, especially when the linking party might not have any idea whether or not the linked content is infringing, and when that content could potentially change. Either way, this is a good ruling for various torrent tracker sites, since all they are doing is linking to content, rather than hosting any themselves.

Filed Under: copyright, deep linking, infringement, liability, spain

Why Is Business Week Telling People They Can't Link To Its Site?

from the you-got-me dept

We've been linking to Business Week's website for many, many years here on Techdirt. A quick search shows a long list of posts that all link to articles on the Business Week site. In fact, Business Week has hired a PR firm that has often sent us stories, requesting that we write posts to them. I actually found it rather amusing that a publication would have PR people to try to get more buzz about its own articles -- but those PR people were always friendly, and some of the links they sent were actually quite good. Yet, apparently, someone didn't make this clear to other folks at Business Week. Mathew Ingram points us to a post by SmugMug's CEO, who claims that Business Week demanded he take down a link to a story about his company, pointing to this user agreement that forbids deep-linking, among other things. In the past, we've seen other sites make such claims, though none have been shown to be legal. You simply can't forbid someone from linking to you, no matter how much you might wish to do so. It's rather surprising that a site like BusinessWeek.com would have such a policy in place (especially while actively seeking such links from others) and even more surprising that someone there would move to enforce such a policy. In the meantime, if they would prefer it, we can stop linking to Business Week.

Filed Under: deep linking, links, user agreements
Companies: business week

Yahoo China Found Guilty Of Copyright Infringement For Linking To MP3s

from the how-dare-they! dept

A while back, we had pointed out that the success of a few Chinese search engines wasn't necessarily that they were any better than their counterparts -- but that because they were pretty explicit in helping people find downloadable music. Baidu was famous for this -- and we wondered if the company's move to go public would force a crackdown on such activities. Indeed, soon after Baidu went public in the US, it got sued. However, eventually the courts found that it was not guilty -- but because of the way the copyright laws were worded. Simple solution: a little pressure from the recording industry and... voila: new laws. So, with those new copyright laws in place, the IFPI went after Alibaba, who also happens to run Yahoo China. And, with those new laws in place, Alibaba has now been found guilty of copyright infringement for providing easy to find links to downloadable music (not hosting the music, just linking to it). Not surprisingly, the recording industry pulls out its favorite adjective, calling the win "significant." Given all of these "significant" wins, and the fact that the recording industry's future keeps getting bleaker and bleaker, while file sharing (and the rest of the music industry) continues to grow, I'm beginning to think that the industry maybe does not really know what that word means.

Filed Under: china, deep linking, music search
Companies: alibaba, baidu, yahoo china