Harvard project spreading the news about Righthaven

Sunday
10 July 2011
1:25 p.m.

An agency at Harvard University wants judges, attorneys and Internet publishers everywhere to know about the profound implications of the Righthaven LLC newspaper copyright infringement lawsuits.

Righthaven is the Las Vegas company that since March 2010 has filed 274 lawsuits claiming material from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post was displayed elsewhere online without authorization.

Righthaven says the no-warning lawsuits are attacking rampant online infringements of news material, but critics say Righthaven is merely running a shakedown operation designed to extract quick and small settlements from defendants.

After U.S. District Court Judge Philip Pro in Las Vegas dealt Righthaven its latest loss on fair use grounds, Harvard’s Citizen Media Law Project on June 27 sent Pro a letter asking him to "publish" his order.

That’s legal shorthand asking that the judge’s decision be submitted to nationwide publishers of bound volumes of legal decisions.

Many Righthaven court decisions are routinely reported electronically by services such as Westlaw, Justia.com and LexisNexis.

The publication of Pro’s decision on Righthaven in bound volumes would give the ruling more authority for citation as precedent in existing and future copyright cases, said David Ardia, director of the Harvard center.

Publication of the ruling in the print format would also make it more widely available, as bound volumes are shipped to law libraries open to the public nationwide, Ardia added.

"As I am sure you know, Righthaven LLC is involved in a number of other copyright infringement cases in Nevada and Colorado and its litigation tactics have been the subject of considerable public scrutiny," Ardia wrote in his letter. "Given the intense public interest in these cases and the importance of your decision, I believe it would benefit the public and the bar if your June 20 order were published."

Pro hasn’t indicated if he’ll do anything in response to the letter and Righthaven — which has its own attorney associated with Harvard — has not responded to the letter.

In his June 20 order, Pro became the second Nevada federal judge to rule Righthaven did not have standing to sue over Las Vegas Review-Journal material.

Copyright case law requires plaintiffs in infringement lawsuits to have exclusive control of copyrights, but Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC remained in control of the copyright at issue despite purportedly transferring it to Righthaven, Pro found.

Perhaps just as significantly, Pro found that the defendant in the case, Kentucky message-board poster Wayne Hoehn, was protected by the fair use doctrine of copyright law when he posted an entire R-J column on a sports betting website’s message board.

This fair use ruling against Righthaven was similar to two previous fair use rulings against Righthaven in that the judge found there was no evidence that Hoehn’s use of the column affected the market for the column.

Pro’s ruling was controversial, though, because it involved an opinion piece. The previous two fair use rulings involved R-J news stories — one partially copied on a commercial website and the other fully copied on a nonprofit website.

In Pro’s decision, the column was an opinion piece by former R-J Publisher Sherman Frederick.

Pro found that just five paragraphs of the 19-paragraph piece were purely creative. The other paragraphs were factual or had a mix of factual and creative elements. Overall, it wasn’t a purely "creative work" within the core of intended copyright protection, Pro found.

Pro and Judge James Mahan, in a previous fair use ruling against Righthaven, rejected Righthaven’s arguments that under previous case law, the defendants weren’t protected by fair use.

That’s why their rulings, and one by Judge Larry Hicks in Reno last year, are creating new precedent in copyright law. Righthaven has appealed the fair use rulings by Hicks and Mahan. It has suggested it will appeal Pro’s ruling in the Hoehn case, but has yet to do so.

This and other Righthaven decisions are creating case law with wide ramifications for not just the news industry, but for individual citizen journalists such as bloggers, Ardia said in an interview.

The Citizen Media Law Project offers legal information and referrals for journalists and online publishers.

Part of Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society engaging on cyberspace issues, the Citizen Media Law Project has referred some Righthaven defendants — including citizen journalists and commentators — to attorneys willing to work for free or at reduced rates through its Online Media Legal Network.

And Righthaven lawsuits regularly show up on the Citizen Media Law Project’s database of "legal threats directed at those who engage in online speech."

Ardia, however, said that as an information provider, the Harvard center isn’t taking sides in the Righthaven lawsuits. That’s in stark contrast to Righthaven critic the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, which has teamed up with several affiliated law firms and attorneys to litigate against Righthaven.

Nevertheless, Ardia said the Citizen Media Law Project is concerned the Righthaven lawsuits are eroding the ability of both newspapers and citizen journalists to protect their content online.

Since the Righthaven lawsuits seem to be backfiring and reducing copyright protection for content producers, Ardia said it’s not surprising Righthaven hasn’t signed up more newspapers as lawsuit partners.

"There’s a sort of ambivalence. They’re (newspapers) not sure whether it’s in their best interests to push these types of lawsuits," Ardia said.

The Citizen Media Law Project has been funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which was created by the family behind the Knight Newspapers Inc. chain. The Knight organization later became part of Knight-Ridder Inc., for a time the largest newspaper company in the country with some of the nation’s most-respected newspapers including the Philadelphia Inquirer.

MediaNews Group Inc., a Righthaven client, now owns some of the biggest former Knight-Ridder papers: The San Jose Mercury News and the St. Paul Pioneer Press in Minnesota.

The Citizen Media Law Project isn’t the only Harvard connection to Righthaven.

After his company was threatened with sanctions for failing to disclose Stephens Media’s interest in the copyright lawsuits, Righthaven CEO Stephens Media suggested this was, in part, guidance for future cases.

"I think part of what’s happening here is that the federal judges recognize that Righthaven has hired some of the top lawyers across the country. Copyright lawyers. Harvard law professors. And they understand that we’re affiliated with an organization as reputable as Stephens Media," Gibson told Ralston.

"I think what the judges are saying is ‘listen, folks, Righthaven is filing a lot of lawsuits.’ They understand that we’re potentially genuine with respect to upholding copyrights. They don’t want to see Righthaven competitors potentially come on with not-solid documentation, and they’re giving us guidance as to what the documentation should be," Gibson said June 22 on "Face to Face with Jon Ralston."

Gibson’s Harvard reference apparently was to Righthaven’s star outside attorney Dale Cendali. She’s a partner at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP in New York and an adjunct professor at Harvard teaching copyright and trademark law.

Share

Discussion 5 comments

Comments are moderated by VegasInc editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.

Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their VEGAS INC account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. I agree that the Righthaven saga needs to be spread far and wide in the legal and online communities, but I disagree that Judge Pro's ruling is the definitive one.

    I would much rather see Judge Hunt's ruling published given his position and being the first to address the issue of standing and how it affected other motions. Hunt's reasoning on why the first set of amendments to the SAA could not be applied retroactively was superb.

    I think that Judge Pro not only erred in reaching the issue of fair use after dismissing Righthaven on standing, but he was also wrong in saying that an editorial opinion piece was not creative enough to warrant copyright protection.

  2. I would say editorials are different than actual news reports since editorials do require creative writing and are based on opinion rather than actual fact. Hard news stories on the other hand should have less protection since the reporter is merely describing a factual event and no one owns facts. Despite what some newspapers claim they do not own the news.

    Good practice and common courtesy dictates that you should only cite the part of a news article that is pertinent to what you are writing about and always leave a link and cite the source. Except for the RJ and Denver Post most papers don't mind and even encourage it if it is done properly.

  3. According to Steve Gibson Harvard lawyers are headed to work for Righthaven since they hire the "top lawyers" in the country.

  4. Regarding editorials, the question Judge Pro addressed was "are all editorials to be considered creative for purposes of copyright protection?" He evaluated the specific editorial in question for informational content gleaned from other sources and which is content based on facts which cannot be considered creative and then for purely creative content. He found the creative content to be only a small percentage of the total content of the editorial. Pro both asked and answered a question which needed asking and answering, regardless of what one thinks of the answer. And, like any area of the law yet unexplored for definitive answers this one certainly will be asked and answered again. Obviously the Harvard group has recognized the importance and novelty of what has occurred.

    And far from the claim that some have made that Pro ruled that editorials are not worthy of copyright protection, Pro has suggested a balancing test (albeit not a very specific one) should be employed on a case by case basis. What if one sentence is creative? One paragraph? Should every editorial be afforded the same protection? Should someone be able to sue if 19 paragraphs of non-creative work are copied along with one sentence of creative work? Is that not the same as only using one sentence?

    One thing is certain....this same question will be litigated again. And judge Pro's ruling will be front and center in the arguments.

  5. LawMed

    I do wish more of these fair use questions would be decided because the law is very vague. Fair use is critical to our economy. Infact companies that rely on fair use account for at least 18% of our economy according to a study conducted in 2007 which by far dwarfs the movie, music and publishing industries.

    source: http://www.informationweek.com/news/2018...

    Fair use has never gotten a fair hearing because most people have settled rather than face catastrophic and draconian penalties when they have been accused. These cases gives us our best opportunity to address these critical issues.

    The very concept of fair use is under attack and many copyright holders deny it even exists and routinely send cease and desist letters to those who are clearly within any reasonable definition of fair use.

    Fair use is critical in other ways as well and that is the right to use a product that you have legally bought as you see fit. Many copyright holders feel they should be able to dictate how and when the products they produce are used and often times these interfere with the consumers rights. For instance if I buy a house and decide to add on to it or change things I do not have to pay a licencing fee to the architect to alter his original design. If I own a car I do not have to give the car company a percentage of the proceeds, however restrictions like these are placed on items all the time that are considered "intellectual property".

    Take DRM for instance. The movie industry has placed restrictions on Blueray disks and DVDs that do not allow copying even though it has been ruled by courts that those who legally purchase movies and music can copy them for personal use. DRM violates this right. It is equivalent to a property owner fencing off the sidewalk. The movie and music industry demand their rights be protected but then trample the rights of their own consumers.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated by VegasInc editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.

Commenting requires registration.

If you have a LasVegasSun.com account, you are already registered.

Follow VEGAS INC

20 Answers

Tell us what you think.

Answer This!

Will the north end of the Strip ever be as vibrant as the south end?