Righthaven Takes On Drudge Report

from the copyright-fun dept

We recently noted that MediaNews, the second largest newspaper publisher in the US, had apparently signed up with Righthaven to start suing blogs and other websites for using any content from the Denver Post. It looks like for its second lawsuit over Denver Post content, Righthaven has gone big: it's suing Matt Drudge, the operator of the famed Drudge Report, because he used a photo from the Denver Post. This is a bit different than the usual Righthaven lawsuits over copies of articles -- and perhaps an even tougher claim. Drudge may have a decent fair use claim on a single photograph, though that may depend on a lot of other details. Still, all this is doing is making me wonder why anyone would ever want to use any Righthaven connected publication as a source ever again.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    whytewolf (profile), Dec 9th, 2010 @ 2:11pm

    shooting ones self in the foot.

    this is funny.

    the irony here is that if drudge goes down one of the largest director of traffic that a lot of these newspapers have left will go with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2010 @ 3:47pm

      Re: shooting ones self in the foot.

      No irony, pure business acumen. Drudge would, should, issue blacklist to all associated sites. All bloggers should at this point, as well. It's not like this paper has a monopoly on information/content.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2010 @ 2:24pm

    They may want the domain

    Could be that is the exact reason they are targeting Drudge. Sue, seize the domain and then they get to decide what the Drudge site links to.

    I wouldn't want to argue that drudge's use falls under fair use, I don't think it is.

    Regardless no matter how you slice it Righthaven and others like it are pretty slimy it makes those that use them seem pretty desperate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Dec 9th, 2010 @ 2:32pm

      Re: They may want the domain

      "Sue, seize the domain and then they get to decide what the Drudge site links to."

      Yeah, that's not gonna happen. It's one photo. Even if it isn't fair use, its infringement is certainly not worth the cost of a widely visited (sadly) domain name.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        interval (profile), Dec 9th, 2010 @ 2:35pm

        Re: Re: They may want the domain

        I'm hoping Drudge fights back, adding another loss to Righthaven's portfolio of lost suites.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Killer_Tofu (profile), Dec 10th, 2010 @ 6:50am

        Re: Re: They may want the domain

        As much as I think most of what shows up on Drudge report is for those who have troubles thinking for themselves, I side with Drudge Report on this. They are definitely in the right (no pun intended).

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Dec 10th, 2010 @ 9:40am

      Re: They may want the domain

      > Sue, seize the domain and then they get to
      > decide what the Drudge site links to.

      What makes these people think they automatically get the domain names of any site that commits copyright infringement? The US Code certainly doesn't specify that as statutory damages.

      Even if they win on the merits and Drudge is found to have misappropriated the photograph, they actually think they’re going to be able to take over a web site worth hundreds of millions of dollars because of one picture?

      It's idiotic.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Joshy, Dec 9th, 2010 @ 2:31pm

    They are actually are suing for the forfeiture of the web address Drudgereport.com

    Wow I don't think (even if they are found guilty) using one photos means the right to live in ones own house (domain) need be taken away.

    Imagine if Yahoo.com or microsft.com somehow used the wrong photo. Must they forfeit there web address???

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Dec 9th, 2010 @ 2:39pm

      Re:

      Domain forfeiture has been demanded before in Righthaven's settlement demand letters. As far as I know, even people who have settled haven't given in to this particular demand. It's just meant to make the demands sound more threatening and the consequences of not settling seem more severe, however unlikely.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2010 @ 2:40pm

      Re:

      will if this becomes a precedent. If this goes through the first person to sue yahoo/microsoft needs to put in the lawsuit
      "This lawsuit was made possible by RightHaven and protectionism for dying industries. Also support was received by you, the recipient"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 9th, 2010 @ 3:07pm

      Re:

      They are actually are suing for the forfeiture of the web address Drudgereport.com

      Eh. I wouldn't read too much into that. Righthaven makes that claim in every lawsuit, and there is absolutely no basis for it. There is simply no precedent for infringement leading to a domain name handover.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Mike C. (profile), Dec 9th, 2010 @ 5:42pm

        Re: Re:

        Mike, you should have clarified and said that there is no court approved, fully litigated precedent for infringement leading to a domain handover. Otherwise, you'll get tons of trolls pointing to TechDirt posts about the ICE seizures... :-)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2010 @ 3:13pm

    Drudge is one of the web's biggest image abusers. It is shocking it took this long.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2010 @ 3:50pm

      Re:

      "abusers?" Is that when the pixels are forced down tubes?

      One could say that his images bring more traffic to sites he links to. Drudge can't survive without the content, sites can't survive without the reference links. Give/take, it should work out.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2010 @ 4:50pm

        Re: Re:

        You have a logical failure there. Drudge can't survive without other people's content, but the other people who actually make the content can survive just fine without Drudge. It's the amazing power of making your own content, you are the source, not just a user. Drudge is disposable (and also a one sided republican shill that makes Fox News look reliable, but that is for another debate)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Dec 10th, 2010 @ 9:44am

      Re:

      > Drudge is one of the web's biggest image abusers.

      Exactly how is that site an abuse?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Joseph (profile), Dec 9th, 2010 @ 3:34pm

    The irony

    Someone commenting on this article noted that Sherman Frederick, columnist for the Las Vegas Review-Journal and defender of the Righthaven suits (http://tinyurl.com/245fves), is more than willing to post copyrighted material on his blog without permission: http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/sherm/SNL_on_TSA.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    iamtheky (profile), Dec 9th, 2010 @ 3:39pm

    drudge displays thumbnails that can be crawled, and the occasional larger image at the top, no? The same exact thing google images does...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DanVan (profile), Dec 9th, 2010 @ 5:12pm

    I hate Drudge but OMG, HE USED A PICTURE?

    Huh? Suing over that?

    Do papers realize the money they are wasting on these idiotic suits that will do NOTHING in the long run?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chris Meadows (profile), Dec 9th, 2010 @ 10:59pm

    We may be looking at this all wrong

    Whatever you say about Righthaven, you have to admit that they're not pulling an RIAA, making threats to people they believe will readily cave and pay them more money than it cost to send the copyright notices.

    They're going after one of the most pugnacious bloggers in the whole blogosphere, the guy who stood up to an ex-Clinton aide and won. (What are they thinking? Are they thinking?)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Dec 10th, 2010 @ 9:46am

      Re: We may be looking at this all wrong

      > They're going after one of the most pugnacious
      > bloggers in the whole blogosphere

      Drudge is a blogger? Seems like the definition of the word must have been greatly broadened, then, because as far as I can see, he doesn't blog about anything. Listing a bunch of links to news articles doesn't really fit the commonly-accepted definition of the word.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    24AheadDotCom, Dec 10th, 2010 @ 11:12am

    What to do

    Things like this affect the entire web. What you can do is urge everyone to delink the APost and LVRJ.

    Sign the Twitter petition: act.ly/2t5

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This