RSS
Whatever Copyrights Righthaven Might Actually Have Owned Now Transferred To Receiver For Auction
from the and-now-what? dept
This could get interesting. The latest news in the ongoing Righthaven saga is that the judge in the Hoehn case -- who had ordered Righthaven to pay attorneys fees which it never paid -- has now ordered that all of Righthaven's "intellectual property," including the many copyrights in dispute, be turned over to the receiver for auction. As you may recall, Righthaven's domain has already been auctioned off, but now it appears the copyrights will be too.
Of course, this is a bit tricky, since it's unclear what, if anything, Righthaven actually "owns" here. Even the company (when it bothered to show up in court, which was increasingly rare) started to claim that it really only held the bare right to sue -- which is what sunk its cases, since that right cannot be separated from the other, enumerated rights under copyright law. But, as the court noted, even if there's a dispute over what rights Righthaven technically has under the agreements it made with Stephens Media's Las Vegas Review Journal, the company is registered as the copyright holder on hundreds of works. And those are all being auctioned off:
Of course, this is a bit tricky, since it's unclear what, if anything, Righthaven actually "owns" here. Even the company (when it bothered to show up in court, which was increasingly rare) started to claim that it really only held the bare right to sue -- which is what sunk its cases, since that right cannot be separated from the other, enumerated rights under copyright law. But, as the court noted, even if there's a dispute over what rights Righthaven technically has under the agreements it made with Stephens Media's Las Vegas Review Journal, the company is registered as the copyright holder on hundreds of works. And those are all being auctioned off:
In connection with the Defendant’s judgment enforcement efforts, the Court appointed the Receiver to, among other things, seize the copyrights assigned to Righthaven by various entities (the “Copyrights”), as well as its trademarks and other intangible property, so that they could be sold at auction. (Doc. # 62, 66.) Despite the Receiver’s efforts, Righthaven has not transferred its intellectual property. (Docs. # 70, 81, 82.) The only property that the Receiver has been able to obtain and auction is Righthaven’s former domain name, <righthaven.com>, which was sold for more than $3,000 in a commercially reasonable auction (Docs. # 81, 82).The order then goes on to list out the 275 copyrights that are registered in Righthaven's name. Even if the transfers were a sham, the registrations still exist. What can actually be done with them is an open question, because the sham transfer likely means that the rights are still really Stephens Media's, and if there ever were a legal dispute that would be an issue. But, in the meantime, you may soon be able to "own" a piece of copyright troll history: one of the bogus Righthaven copyright registrations, with which you can legally do, well, absolutely nothing. Though, it could be fun to see if you could convince the Las Vegas Review Journal that it needs to pay up for continuing to host the article for which you hold the copyright registration...
Based on the evidence submitted to the court by the Receiver (Docs. # 70, 82), Righthaven has failed to substantively participate in the orderly disposition and sale of its intangible assets as ordered on December 12, 2011. (Doc. # 66.) Moreover, Righthaven failed to appear at the originally scheduled January 5, 2012 debtor examination in this case, (Doc. # 71), and failed to appear at the March 5, 2012 hearing giving rise to this Order. (Doc. # 88.)
In light of Righthaven’s lack of participation in these proceedings, and Hoehn’s entitlement to relief (Docs. # 62, 66), this Court concludes it is appropriate to transfer such rights as Righthaven may still hold in Righthaven’s intellectual property to the Receiver, Lara Pearson. The Court deems Righthaven’s conduct in this case to constitute its consent to this Order.
This Court acknowledges that there is a dispute over what intellectual property rights Righthaven actually possesses. Nonetheless, the Court may use its powers under 17 U.S.C. § 201(d)(1) to transfer Righthaven’s copyright rights, whatever they are deemed to be, to the Receiver for auction pursuant to the Court’s December 12, 2011 order (Doc. # 66). While Righthaven has argued now that it does not have more than the bare right to sue, as this Court previously held, Righthaven does possess copyright registrations that can be assigned by operation of law. The copyright registrations to more than 275 works are in Righthaven’s name, can be transferred by this Court, and can then be auctioned by the Receiver.
I’m looking for policy...
Policy Resources: Software Patents
Jon Potter: Software Patent Trolls Can Be Stopped By U.S. Patent Office And Congress
I have an app...
App Developer Conversations: What Does The iPad Mini Mean For The App Economy?
Marketing And Monetization Strategies For Free Apps
I have an idea...
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
Finding Co-Founders in a Recovering Economy
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Another Techdirt head shaker.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Let's see the real value of the copyrighted works
I wonder if the Las Vegas Review Journal will swoop in and buy them all back to save face.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
software
that should have some value and no one has heard a thing about it.....
i'd like to bid on one of the physical copyright just to hang it on the wall and say to myself"sometimes what goes around comes around"
my 2 cents worth!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: software
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Here's a question (probably will be in a IP Exam coming to a Law School soon)
A court legally transfers copyrights from an Entity 'A' to another party/receivers 'B' that are legally not owned by A and instead owned by 'C', though the court in good faith and through testimony by A believes they are in fact owned by A, and then entity D purchases them in good faith from B.
Questions: Who actually owns the copyrights, remembering that a court has transferred them? Who has liability in any dispute? Is their immunity from conversion for B and/or the court? Does D have, if they are not the rightful owners, an ability to recover any and all loss/damages?
;)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Now Stephens Media will have to argue Righthaven *didn't* have copyright
If it is just the copyright registrations that are auctioned it will be interesting to see if the restrictions of the formerly secret strategic agreement, which said the registrations really still remained with Stephens media, will apply.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
If the original contract transferred the copyrights to Righthaven who then exclusively licensed all rights but the right to sue back to Stephens Media, that contract will presumably be void once Righthaven no longer exists, with all rights reverting to the new owners of the copyright.
Of course, one could argue that if it was enough of a sham to have the lawsuits thrown out (the whole "unauthorized practice of law" thing), it should be enough of a sham for there to have been no valid transfer of the copyrights, but on the other hand, if there was no transfer at all, then Stephens Media should have to pay Righthaven's legal fees (as if Righthaven had been a law firm representing them), which would be a much worse outcome for them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Another Techdirt head shaker.
Pretty simple, you cannot have it both ways... Either you read the article and realize we discuss this point and we explained the situation, or you don't even bother to read the article and your comment makes you look foolish.
Another TAM head shaker.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Things may yet get more complex when if 'C' was supposed to turn over rights to 'A' but did not correctly do so then the Court may yet force 'C' to turn over rights to 'A' which then get transferred to 'B'
Best read these 275 registration but in all odds they are worthless just like their claims were.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
righthaven.com
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Problems, always problems
The main problem comes with Mis-interpretation and corrections.
Finding them on another page/date is extraneous. And when the original article is taken as Proof, we forget the corrections.
This is like a medical journal, with a small mistake thats printed AFTER the fact. Even on the NET, making a correction to a publication AFTER, does not HELP those that read the information BEFORE the correction.
At least with playing GAMES we understand that Changes happen, and IF' you are a beta tester, that changes happen MORE.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
To all the righthaven haters
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment