RSS
Copyright As Censorship: How Howard Hughes Used Copyright To Try To Block Biography He Didn't Like
from the a-look-back dept
One of the key worries about copyright is how it can be used as a tool for censorship if not watched carefully. Stephan Kinsella points us to an example I was not previously aware of, in which eccentric and reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes once purchased the copyrights on a series of articles about himself in order to try to block the publication of an unauthorized biography that was largely based on those articles. Looking into this further, what's amazing is that this strategy almost worked. The lawsuit that Hughes brought against Random House and author John Keats was successful in getting an injunction at the district court level, and was only overturned on appeal. That appeals court ruling has some interesting quotes in it, including questioning the fact that Hughes clearly bought the copyright just to sue (sound familiar?) and recognizing the clear First Amendment issues at stake:
The spirit of the First Amendment applies to the copyright laws at least to the extent that the courts should not tolerate any attempted interference with the public's right to be informed regarding matters of general interest when anyone seeks to use the copyright statute which was designed to protect interests of quite a different nature.So while the end result here was good, the fact that this actually did work at the lower level highlights why it's important to constantly view actions in the name of copyright law against the First Amendment. It has become all too common for people to brush aside the natural conflict between copyright law and the First Amendment, and make misleading claims about how the "safety valves" of fair use and the idea/expression dichotomy mean there is no conflict. This is not true. There is an inherent conflict, and it's important that courts recognize this and weigh copyright law against the First Amendment. Fair use and the idea/expression dichotomy may help alleviate that conflict, but they are often applied arbitrarily and with little regard to the key First Amendment issues.
5 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Congress Proposes Giving Another $10 Million To ICE To Censor More Websites For Hollywood
- As UK Government Considers Opt-Out Porn Censorship, Report Already Finds Overblocking On Mobile Networks
- US Gov't Thinks Censorship Is Bad, Unless It's Paid For
- Is Banning The Pirate Bay The Best Advertising A Country Can Give Its Local Pirate Parties?
- Dutch Judge's Anti-Piracy Activities Draw Accusations Of Corruption In Pirate Bay Censorship
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Copyright vs. First Amendment
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright vs Howard Hughes
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright vs Howard Hughes
http://digital.library.unlv.edu/hughes/
"Control of the Hughes Image reached bizarre proportions when Chester Davis, Hughes's Wall Street lawyer, vice president and chief counsel for Hughes Tool Company, created Rosemont Enterprises, Inc., a Hughes subsidiary whose sole purpose was to control all literary material past, present, and future about Howard Hughes. Staff were hired who located and inventoried all known stories published about Hughes anywhere, or any newsreel footage that existed. They tried to acquire exclusive rights over all footage and photographs. Through a network of informants, any writer researching or writing a piece on Hughes was reported to the Rosemont 'office,' in other words, to Bill Gay at the Romaine Street headquarters in Los Angeles. The writer would be investigated, contacted, informed that Rosemont had been granted by Hughes exclusive rights to his image and biography and would offer payment to the writer for exclusive rights to 'develop and exploit' the writer's material. If a writer could not be bought off, lawsuits were threatened against writer, editor and publisher. The Rosemont files contain investigative reports on a number of journalists as well as a number of unpublished pieces, some transparently fictionalized, about Hughes, for which the writer had accepted payment from Rosemont. Acquisition was not really intended for development, but for suppression."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Virtual Police State
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Trademark too
Here is a recorded case: Trademark infringement allegations from an Indian school house ('Global Indian Foundation' which owns GIIS schools in India/Singapore who,according to the C&D, own the GIIS trademark worldwide). The target is a blog whose name (http://www.forabettergiis.blogspot.com) contains the trademarked G-word bang in the middle of it.
The C&D notice is taken apart at http://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/notice.cgi?NoticID=33101 so I guess it is no more than a damp squib and a surprising case study.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment