Miami Heat Owner Sues Blogger & Google Over 'Unflattering' Photo

from the this-isn't-going-to-end-well dept

What is it with super rich sports owners and SLAPP suits? Remember Redskins owner Dan Snyder? Well here's a situation that seems even more ridiculous. Ranaan Katz is a minority owner of the Miami Heat, who just won the NBA championship. You might think he'd be pretty happy right now. Instead, he's suing a blogger and Google, claiming a copyright violation over of an "unflattering photo." Seeing as the photo in question is now quite newsworthy, here it is (and we're happy to explain fair use theories to Katz's lawyers, if they'd like):

The full story is even more ridiculous as you dig into the details. It turns out this is the second time that Katz has gone after this blogger. The first time was for defamation. For what? For running a blog that talked about Katz and his company... and, from the sound of things, posted legal documents that apparently Katz didn't want posted.

Where it gets really bizarre is the massive overreach on the defamation side of things. Because the bar for defamation on a public figure it quite high, Katz's lawyers claim that he's not a public figure -- despite being an owner of the Miami Heat, despite being a well-known successful real estate developer, and despite the fact that there's a street named after him and an "official day" in his honor. Instead, his lawyers have argued that getting the press to report on Katz's legal overreach is an attempt "to make Katz a public figure" even though he clearly is one and has been one. Either way, the blogger, represented by Marc Randazza, responded strongly to the ridiculousness of Katz' original lawsuit. You can see that response below, calling out the fact that a demand for an injunction against any future publication on the blog (as Katz requests) is clear prior restraint and based on no accepted legal theory in a defamation case.

Separate from that lawsuit, it looks like Katz and his lawyers have now tried a second approach, which appears to be an attempt to use the DMCA to censor. He claimed that the "unflattering image" above violates his copyright. A DMCA takedown was apparently issued to Google, who refused to comply. So now both the blogger and Google have been sued. Of course, it's unclear to me how he even holds the copyright in the photo, since he didn't take it. Either way, given the previous actions in the case, it certainly feels like this is a SLAPP-style suit, filed just to be a nuisance to the blogger who didn't fold under the defamation claims (and yes, to Katz's lawyer, that's an opinion). Update: I've added the filing in the copyright lawsuit below, which adds one other detail: the photograph is not registered for copyright in the US. Katz's lawyers point out that since the photo was originally from Israel it doesn't need to be registered, which is true, but could limit the effectiveness of any lawsuit. Separately, according to Randazza, Katz claims to have had the copyright in the photo assigned to him from the original photographer. None of that changes any of the analysis here about the lawsuits in question.

Of course, all this has really done is activate the Streisand Effect, and get a lot more attention to Katz, to the lawsuits, to the blog and, of course, to the photo itself. You would think that someone with so much money and business success would have thick enough skin to know how to ignore such things. In the meantime, Randazza has pointed out how bizarre it is to go from suing an individual blogger to adding one of the largest companies in the world to the fight on the other side, for no good reason:
My guess is that their strategy is this: If you keep whiffing against a small time blogger, you might as well then just pick a fight with one of the biggest companies in the world. Sit back and get your popcorn and watch how this one works out. I want to thank Mr. Katz for bringing in an 800 lb gorilla to help me in his unsupportable SLAPP suit.

We have yet to speak to Google's lawyers about this case, but we expect that they will be receptive to standing up for the First Amendment along with us.
Sometimes I think there should be mandatory training on the Streisand Effect before one is allowed to become a lawyer.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Eric (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 10:45am

    So, "unflattering" and looking funny are the same? So, are many photos of monkeys and apes unflattering? How about some of these photos of kids with "duck lips" and the like?

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Cholo, Jun 26th, 2012 @ 10:20pm

      There's more than one way to skin a Katz

      Sometimes I think there should be mandatory training on the Streisand Effect before one is allowed to become a lawyer.

      Training? These lawyers know exactly what they're doing: Fleecing Katz for everything he'll stand for.

      Laughing all the way to the court, and then the bank.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:07am

    "In the meantime, Randazza has pointed out how bizarre it is to go from suing an individual blogger to adding one of the largest companies in the world to the fight on the other side, for no good reason"

    It's simple. The situation has gone from stage 1: The Streisand Effect, to stage 2: The Carreon Effect.

    (I just checked. There is a wikipedia article for the Streisand Effect. Someone should create an article for the Carreon Effect once the Carreon v. the world lawsuit concludes.)

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Marc John Randazza (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:52am

      Re: "the carreon effect"

      I think it is unfair to call it the "Carreon Effect" -- not just because I still (please forgive me for this) like Chas. But, because the effect that Carreon is experiencing is one that already has a name -- it is named after the guy who already sued the entire internet.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:07am

    Who owns the photo copyright?

    If the photo was taken by the blog owner, and he's willing to let other people play with it, I could see us having a lot of fun doctoring this photo.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:24am

      Re: Who owns the photo copyright?

      I'm imagining adding something dripping from his left nostril. Or placing him in a scene looking at someone with an ice cream cone.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 26th, 2012 @ 1:04pm

      Re: Who owns the photo copyright?

      It's already newsworthy and any doctoring would be transformative for the purpose of parody or satire. And it would increase the market for the original so people could compare the original with the altered versions to see what changed. IANAL, but I think it's fair use to play with the photo.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:10am

    freakin' half-wit needs to grow up!!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Billy Spearshaika, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:11am

    First, we kill all the lawyers

    Simple plan. Got it?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:13am

    Training on Steisand Effect? Useless

    The guy who pays my overinflated fees wants it, so I want it too.

    or to put it another way:

    Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:13am

    Ha ha

    The lawsuit shows the photo “partially distorted due to its unflattering nature”

    He's so embarrassed to be seen possessing a tongue that he blurred the image on the court document. I'd love to see the distorted image.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 12:23pm

      Re: Ha ha

      He's so embarrassed to be seen possessing a tongue that he blurred the image on the court document. I'd love to see the distorted image.

      I've now added the original filing, which includes the "distorted" image.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 1:36pm

        Re: Re: Ha ha

        Nice. Covering up his entire face does make the picture more flattering.

        It's interesting that in the filing he claims:

        Katz is the owner, by assignment, of all right, title and interest, including all copyright rights, in and to the following image

        Did he really buy the copyright of the image, from the newspaper just so he could issue this dmca notice? If so, maybe the dmca takedown is valid. Pathetic and sad, but possibly valid.

        Wait a sec ... It looks like the image on the blog is not even stored on the blog servers. The img link points to the haaretz newspaper site where the image was first published. If Katz really did go to the trouble of buying all rights to the image from Haaretz, maybe he should be asking Haaretz to take it down, not the blogger.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 3:36pm

          Re: Re: Re: Ha ha

          Wait a sec ... It looks like the image on the blog is not even stored on the blog servers. The img link points to the haaretz newspaper site where the image was first published. If Katz really did go to the trouble of buying all rights to the image from Haaretz, maybe he should be asking Haaretz to take it down, not the blogger.

          Ha! That's right. The proper target would have been Haaretz...

           

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

    •  
      icon
      OldGeezer (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 2:00pm

      Re: Ha ha

      How about the fact that he is an ugly son of a bitch? Can ANY photo of this mug be "flattering"? If he is going to sue over this then he should sue anyone who ever takes a photo of him. (That is if it doesn't break their camera!)

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Lion Judge, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:14am

    Ruling, Please!

    Is the term "Streisand Effect" copyrighted?

    /ducks

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:15am

    "Sometimes I think there should be mandatory training on the Streisand Effect before one is allowed to become a lawyer."

    You could even teach the class on it, since you're the only one that uses the term anyway.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Brent (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:18am

    people with lots of money, the 1%, wouldn't ever get this but seeing people with a different expression than what you're used to seeing is a really good thing (even if it's not 'flattering' for the person in the picture) b/c it humanizes them. That means it makes them seem less like the rich asshole who blows the average person's annual salary in a single night at the bar and more like someone they might actually know (or at least like a real person). The worst part is that no one cares what that guy looks like. Maybe the other people in his 1% circle would jibe him about it a little but guys like this must assume that if any picture is published anywhere it will be seen by over 300,000,000 people..

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    B. J. S., Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:21am

    Intended Consequences?

    How long before this process is turned into just another fast-buck making PR machine?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:24am

    Of course, it's unclear to me how he even holds the copyright in the photo, since he didn't take it.

    If Katz didn't authorize the photo and he didn't imply it was ok to take the photo by doing such as posing for it or saying "cheese" then, technically he holds just as much copyright as the person who toke the photo. None the less what the blogger did was legal, assuming he was using to comment on Katz.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:25am

      Re:

      If Katz didn't authorize the photo and he didn't imply it was ok to take the photo by doing such as posing for it or saying "cheese" then, technically he holds just as much copyright as the person who toke the photo

      Umm... no. That's wrong.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:29am

      Re:

      Uh...no. That simply isn't true. Copyrights in photography are held by whoever held the camera. Otherwise, you'd have a situation where someone takes a photo of a crowd of thousands of people, and according to you then, each one of those people would hold a copyright claim.
      Copyright law does not mention posing or saying cheese.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:33am

      Re:

      Unless it was a work for hire ONLY the photographer holds the copyright on the photograph.. Not the subject, not the printer, not the anti-techno-god of soul stealing, not the person who said "say cheese" NO ONE EXCEPT THE PHOTOGRAPHER!

      This is a basic concept.. The creator (photographer) of the artwork owns any and all copyright in the artwork.

      And no-matter what some moronic Herp Derp looking guy with his tongue hanging out his arse (oops face) thinks this will ALWAYS be the case.

      It's not a hard legal concept this, quite easy without any latin phrases even and is even universally applied.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        G Thompson (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:34am

        Re: Re:

        Damn above comment where I impersonate an AC (with a pink square no less -twirls and looks in the mirror.. ooo perty! ) was mine

        :)

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 1:02pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Look at this guy trying to claim credit for the AC's work. I bet the AC holds the copyright, he said cheese! ;)

           

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

    •  
      icon
      fogbugzd (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 12:34pm

      Re:

      In addition to the other statements explaining why he doesn't have copyright, it looks like the photo was done in a very public place where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        OldGeezer (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:46pm

        Re: Re:

        Very true. He would have a claim if someone had photographed him with a telescopic lens in his home. In many cities you could captured on camera a couple dozen times a day and it is legal because in public there is no expectation of privacy. You can be seen or photographed by anyone. Right or wrong celebrities have even fewer rights than regular people.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:27am

    Since anyone can be caught in these "unflattering" poses like 2000 times per day, I wonder if the streisand effect will result in many more of these types of photos on this particular individual. In fact, in pure entrepreneurial spirit, on could in fact capture such photos and try to sell the subject the copyrights. That way, any use of said photo would have an actual DMCA basis.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Chris ODonnell (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:30am

    //Sometimes I think there should be mandatory training on the Streisand Effect before one is allowed to become a lawyer.//

    A world without the Streisand Effect would be not be as much fun.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:31am

    Honestly, though, how is this an unflattering photo? He's looking over his shoulder and licking his lips. Maybe they were dry.
    That's it.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Greg G (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:41am

    Hmm

    Looks like he's ogling the cheerleaders.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    BentFranklin (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:52am

    Thanks to Ranaan Katz for making me aware of the RK Associates Blog so now I know what a douchbag Ranaan Katz is!

     

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

  •  
    icon
    OldGeezer (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 11:55am

    My Opinion (Everyone's Got One)

    You are an asshole Ranaan Katz. So sue me!!

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 12:26pm

    This will vault this 'unflattering photo' into the memory of millions, lol.

    Good job buddy :)

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Ian (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 12:28pm

    Actually...

    In law school, one of my profs made exactly this point. To paraphrase:

    "You need to look at the interests of the client to determine if litigation is really the answer. If you have an employee suing someone who fired them, they might really want a good reference, and you might be able to get that with just a polite phone call. And if someone is out there publishing embarrassing but true details about your client, and he wants them to stop, a lawsuit is often the last thing you want to do. It puts the details into the public record, and makes it easy for journalists to report them without running afoul of any laws themselves--they can just report that someone else is saying something. It also makes it vastly more likely to hit the news. That's the time to send a polite letter asking for them to help you out, not to go nuclear.

    And above all, remember that you can always go nuclear /later/, unless you're up against a limitations period. But you can't lead off by being aggressive and then try to play nice You've already blown the opportunity at that point."

     

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

  •  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 1:26pm

    >mfw I'm suing Google.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    gab4moi (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 3:59pm

    Exactly how does this dude imagine it possible to post a flattering image of that head anyhow? Take it from another ugly bald old guy, it aint gonna happen son...

     

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

  •  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Jun 25th, 2012 @ 4:47pm

    Unflattering?!

    Let me see now, it's an entirely normal human reaction to lightly bite or chew the tongue when a human is deep in thought or under some form of stress. Stress, like, for example, some point in the last 5 or 10 minutes before his team won the NBA championship it was bought to get off the shelves of the private display rooms at Harrods.

    I suppose he'd rather be portrayed as totally emotionless than a normal human being?

    Gotta SLAPP these things down, you know!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    ScytheNoire, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 5:06pm

    Streissand Effect Never Fails

    I would have never seen this picture if it wasn't for this idiot pointing it out. Thanks!
    Now to go make memes making fun of him.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Androgynous Cowherd, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 6:13pm

    In the meantime, Randazza has pointed out how bizarre it is to go from suing an individual blogger to adding one of the largest companies in the world to the fight on the other side, for no good reason


    It's dumb to add one of the largest anythings in the world to the other side of a fight, but hardly unprecedented. Remember Operation Barbarossa?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2012 @ 8:55pm

    GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Jun 26th, 2012 @ 2:28am

    How is that photo in any way even embarrassing? We all have tongues, and we all sometimes stick them out for some reason or another.

    In this case, he looks like a grandfather sticking out his tongue to his grand kids. That was my first thought when I saw the photo.

     

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    wilkinsy (profile), Jun 26th, 2012 @ 3:44am

    as Billy explained I didnt know that a stay at home mom able to get paid $7613 in a few weeks on the computer. have you read this webpage N u t t y R i c h D o t c o m

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Nargg (profile), Jun 26th, 2012 @ 7:51am

    Looks serious, what's wrong with that?

    Some people just have too much time on their hands. There is nothing wrong with this photo at all. Gees.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Gene Cavanaugh (profile), Jun 26th, 2012 @ 10:24am

    Sometimes I think there should be mandatory training on the Streisand Effect before one is allowed to become a lawyer.

    Okay, a client comes in, and says "I want to sue ... for ...". You explain the Streisand Effect, the law, etc. The client says "I STILL want to sue ... for ...".
    An attorney can say "Go get another attorney", or "Well, okay, maybe a jury or judge ... and that is your right, but I really advise against it". The client says "I STILL (you get the drift)".
    Then the blogs, in their infinite wisdom (???) say "Lawyers ought to know better".
    I wonder if they will ever find intelligent life?

     

    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