That Time Hitler Used Copyright Law To Block Future Senator Alan Cranston From Publishing Mein Kampf

from the wtf dept

We've written in the past about the somewhat bizarre copyright history of Adolf Hitler's infamous book Mein Kampf. The copyright is currently held by the state of Bavaria (which got it from the US government after the US seized the Nazis' publishing house at the end of World War II). Bavaria has used the copyright to bar the publication of the book in Germany for decades. However, in the past few months, extra attention has been paid to it because the copyright is set to expire at the end of the year, putting the book into the public domain in Germany.

But, apparently, that's not even the most interesting story about copyright and Hitler. David Post has a fascinating post about copyright as censorship, which starts out about the Katz v. Chevaldina case that we've written about in the past. It involved Ranaan Katz, the partial owner of the Miami Heat, who was upset about comments a blogger, Irina Chevaldina, was making about him on her blog. Katz went so far as to acquire the copyright on an "unflattering photo" that Chevaldina had used in a blog post mocking him and then sued Chevaldina (and Google, which hosted the blog on its Blogger platform, but was eventually dropped from the suit) for infringement. This was after Katz had tried and failed to sue Chevaldina for defamation. So, instead, he decided to use copyright law to censor her. It was a perfect example of what Matthew Schruers has shrewdly called copyright "immigration," where people who can't censor people through other laws turn to copyright as a last resort.

The amazing thing was that it actually worked at first. The court sided with Katz and issued a ridiculously broad injunction, raising questions about copyright misuse and (of course) the First Amendment. Eventually, though, the court got it right, noting that the use of the photo was clearly fair use. Katz, not getting the message, appealed his SLAPP suit, and it's now before the 11th Circuit, which will hopefully make quick work of it. If you want to read more about that, I highly recommend the EFF's amicus brief and its related blog post.

So... what the hell does all of that have to do with Hitler?

Well, in that article by David Post, he points out that there's actually a fairly long history of people using copyright for censorship -- and it turns out that none other than Adolf Hitler apparently liked to use copyright this way (yes, this post is pre-Godwin'd -- deal with it). And, to make this even stranger, apparently Hitler used that copyright-as-censorship/copyright immigration plan against then-news reporter/future Senator Alan Cranston. Cranston himself explained what happened in an interview:

While I was doing my foreign correspondence work, I read Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf, the book he wrote while he was in prison before he became the dictator, outlining his plans for Germany and the terrible things he intended to do in the world. There was no English language version of it. When I quit journalism and came back to try to get involved in activities in the United States, one day in Macy's bookstore in New York I saw a display of Mein Kampf, an English language version, which I'd never seen before, which hadn't existed. I went over to look at it out of curiosity and as I picked it up, I knew it wasn't the real book. It was much thinner than the long book that I had read, which is about 350,000 words. So I bought it to see how come. And delving into it I found that it was a condensed version, and some of the things that would most upset Americans just weren't there as they were in the version I had read, the original, in German.

So I talked to an editor friend of mine in New York, a Hearst editor named Amster Spiro, and suggested that I write and we publish an anti-Nazi version of Mein Kampf that would be the real book and would awaken Americans to the peril Hitler posed for us and the rest of the world. So we did that. I spent eight days [compiling] my version of Mein Kampf from the English language version that I now had, the original German language version, and another copy that had just appeared. A book was then selling for around three dollars normal price. Hitler was getting forty cents royalty for each copy that somebody bought that wasn't [even] the real thing. We proceeded to print in tabloid the version that I wrote, with a very lurid red cover showing Hitler carving up the world, and we sold it for ten cents on newsstands. It created quite a stir. Some Nazis went around knocking down newsstands that displayed it in St. Louis and the German part of New York and elsewhere in the country. We sold half a million copies in ten days and were immediately sued by Hitler's agents on the grounds we had violated his copyright, which we had done. We had the theory that [though] he had copyrighted Mein Kampf in Austria, he had destroyed Austria with his army, so we said he destroyed his copyright at the same time. Well, that didn't stand up in court, and a Connecticut judge ruled in Hitler's favor. No damages were assessed, but we had to stop selling the book. We got what was called an injunction. But we did wake up a lot of Americans to the Nazi threat.

If you're interested, the case is Houghton Mifflin v. Stackpole Sons, and it's an interesting read. The issues are certainly a bit different, but it does show that Hitler and his publishers looked to actively prevent Americans from knowing the full extent of his views... using copyright law. As Post notes:

It was not copyright law’s finest hour – its Korematsu, one is tempted to say. Hitler gets to continue to receive royalties, and to control publication of his book, 10 weeks before he marches into Poland and war breaks out in Europe. The defendant doesn’t seem to have raised “fair use” as a defense in the case, relying instead entirely on a theory that because Adolf Hitler was a “stateless person”, any assignment of his copyright rights was invalid....

It’s hard to know whether there’s something noble about a US federal court going through the arcana of international copyright jurisprudence in order to give Hitler – even Hitler! – his day in court, or appalling that it would allow copyright law to be mis-used in a matter of such crucial public importance.

So, now, next time you feel like Godwin'ing any conversation on copyright-as-censorship, feel free to just declare "that's like something the Nazis would do!" and point to this story.

Filed Under: adolf hitler, alan cranston, censorship, copyright, fair use, irina chevaldina, mein kampf, ranaan katz

Miami Heat Owner Wins Injunction Against Blogging Critic; Asks For Contempt After She Blogs More About The Case

from the free-speech? dept

Remember Raanan Katz? The Florida real estate mogul and part-owner of the Miami Heat, made some news earlier this year for suing Google and a blogger for copyright infringement after the blogger posted an "unflattering" photo of Katz. Katz, who was clearly annoyed at the blogger -- a former Katz tenant who is (to put it mildly) not a fan of Katz -- for blogging critical stories about Katz (including highlighting some earlier lawsuits Katz had been involved with and posting the related legal documents). In addition to suing for defamation, Katz purchased the rights to the "unflattering" photo the blogger, Irina Chevaldina, had posted of him, and then sued for copyright infringement. Google was included on the case for refusing to take down the photo. While Google was later dropped from the case (one assumes that someone somewhere finally realized that, perhaps that end of the suit wasn't going to end well), Katz has continued his case against Chevaldina.

Earlier this month, the judge in the case signed off on a ridiculously broad injunction against Chevaldina, that not only says that she can't "trespass" on Katz's properties, but that she can't blog anything that is intended to "otherwise cause harm" to Katz. That doesn't seem even remotely constitutional. Criticizing someone is protected speech, even if it may (or is intended) to cause harm to someone's business. And the "trespass" injunction may seem like no big deal, especially since trespassing is already illegal. But, in this case, the court has indicated that by "trespassing" they mean that Chevaldina cannot even go to any of the properties that Katz owns -- which includes stores and shopping malls. As Carlos Miller notes in the link above:

On Thursday, a Florida judge found no evidence that Katz suffered defamation or damages because of Chevaldina's blog, but nevertheless banned her and her husband from stepping on any of Katz's properties, which pretty much prevents them from visiting any of the local businesses in the community of Sunny Isles, which is known as Little Moscow for its high Russian population.

Judge Ellen Leesfield said they shouldn't want to visit these premises anyway because of their hatred for the man.

But Chevaldina said many of these business owners are their Russian friends who rent from Katz and invite them into their stores and restaurants.

That was earlier this month in a verbal injunction. Right before Thanksgiving, the judge signed off on the text injunction that Katz's lawyers wanted... and then Chevaldina posted a few blog posts on her blog, including a story about an earlier dispute between her and Katz, in which it was ruled that Katz cannot use a "trespassing" claim to keep her out of retail establishments that he owns. Then there's another post highlighting how courts have said that shopping malls and shopping centers are often deemed the equivalent of public places. While she doesn't do a particularly good job explaining what she's posting, it's not hard to figure out that she's highlighting some questions about the injunction against her, which seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do and a form of protected speech.

In response, however, Katz's lawyers have now filed for contempt charges against her, saying that those blog posts, which support her position that the injunction is improper, are in and of themselves, breaking the injunction. Get your head around that. While the blog posts may be a bit wacky, it seems way, way over the top to argue that such blog posts are in contempt of the injunction. It also raises serious First Amendment questions to suggest that you can't even discuss details of the case that you, yourself, are involved in.

On top of that, it's worth noting in the filing that Katz's lawyers still are claiming that Katz is not a "public figure." They've been claiming that since the beginning, because the bar to show defamation of a public figure is much higher. But the idea that Raanan Katz is not a public figure is preposterous. As detailed in a Miami NewTimes article from last year, Raanan Katz is, by any measure, a public figure.

In Sunny Isles Beach, Raanan Katz has a street and an official day named in his honor. His company, with its omnipresent "RK" basketball logo, seems to claim every other strip mall in North Miami-Dade. He's also minority owner of the Miami Heat....

Katz cuts a singular figure in Miami. Once an Israeli basketball star, he built a real estate empire in Boston before gobbling up a block of South Beach in 1984. Two years later, he bought into the expansion Heat franchise and has been a courtside fixture since then.

How can he continue to claim he's not a public figure?

Filed Under: defamation, free speech, injunction, irina chevaldina, raanan katz