Copyright

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
copyright, eriq gardner, fair use

Companies:
righthaven



Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit Against Reporter; Still Seems Confused About The Whole Thing

from the well,-there-you-go dept

A few hours ago, we wrote about Righthaven's painfully stupid lawsuit against Eriq Gardner claiming copyright infringement for an article he wrote about a previous Righthaven lawsuit, that included an image from Righthaven's own legal filing. After widespread mocking, it appears that Righthaven has realized it totally and completely screwed this one up, though it seemed to take a little while. This morning, reporter Joe Mullin called Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson, and he insisted this was going to be "litigated before the court," and seemed to suggest that Righthaven was confident it was right here.

Clearly, others in the Righthaven office talked some sense in to Gibson because sometime after that (but apparently still in the morning), Righthaven filed for a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit, with prejudice (meaning it can't file again). Of course, Righthaven even screwed that up, with its initial filing claiming it was to be done without prejudice in one point and with it in another. Eventually it got it right.

As for Righthaven's explanation, contrary to the claims of its CEO, the two Righthaven lawyers who Nate Anderson at Ars Technica spoke to, Steven Ganim and Shawn Mangano, appear to give a totally different story. They claim that they realized it was a mistake as soon as they heard about it, and claimed this was just a "clerical mistake," and they never meant to sue a reporter writing about their cases. That is, frankly, completely unbelievable. They filed a federal lawsuit against an individual, including an exhibit which clearly showed the entire original article from Gardner. Either they didn't read their own exhibits, didn't understand what they were doing, or knew full well that they were suing someone who was reporting on their own case. I can't see how any of those options makes Righthaven look particularly credible.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Poster, 29 Mar 2011 @ 8:06pm

    Righthaven: even incredible incompetence can't stop us!

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

  • identicon
    Ken, 29 Mar 2011 @ 8:09pm

    This isn't credible. Infact it has been done before. They are suing the Toronto Star for having the TSA image. Problem is Toronto Star is an AP affiliate and the AP distributed this photo to several newspapers so more than likely the Toronto Star had permission

    They are also suing MIXX.com for a thumbnail as well as DailyKix.com also for a thumbnail even though Thumbnails have already been ruled fair use by the 9th circuit court of appeals. What is noteworthy too is that MIXX.com is one of the 322 social bookmarking sites that the Denver Post offeres in sharing their content including the TSA image.

    It is also interesting that both MIXX.com and DailyKix do not hold the images on their servers but merely have code that queries the sources server to send the image to the users browser. The image never exists on their servers an the same 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling states that simply having code that directs information is not a copyright violation. If it was the entire Internet would be illegal.

    What is interesting is that both Mixx.com and DailyKix are being sued for linking and having a thumbnail for a site called deadseriousnews.com who still has the image on their site and has not been sued by Righthaven. Infact many of the people who are being sued got the image from that site. Righthaven knows about deadseriousnews because the site is mentioned in several different Righthaven exhibits. This suggests that deadseriousnews.com is being used by Righthavan as a honeypot to attract people that would not normally visit the Denver Post.

    There have simply been too many dubious claims by Righthaven to give them any credibility. News Media Group the parent company of The Denver Post is risking even more embarrassment and worse by their association with Righthaven. It would be in their best interest to dump them for good.

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

    • identicon
      Ken, 30 Mar 2011 @ 5:25am

      Re:

      Any reasonable law firm would suspend all new legal activity and investigate how something like this could have happened, but not Righthaven. They won't miss a beat because most likely they don't have to investigate what happened because they already know.

      All Righthaven cases now need to be investigated. There are probably scores of cases that are just as bad as the one they were forced to close (only because they got caught)

      Righthaven said they closed the case because they found out he was a journalist? however they knew enough about him and the website to know the site had a DMCA registration. They would only had to look at their exhibit to know he was a reporter but then again had they looked at their own exhibit they would have discovered it was from their own court document from the Drudge suit.

      This may have been an attempt on Rightahven's part to silence a journalist that has been critical of Righthaven. If that is the case this would constitute criminal activity in the highest order. This case screams for a federal investigation.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 6:04am

        Re: Re:

        This may have been an attempt on Rightahven's part to silence a journalist that has been critical of Righthaven. If that is the case this would constitute criminal activity in the highest order. This case screams for a federal investigation.

        All due respect (which is none), but you sound like a freaking idiot. It's not criminal to sue someone who copies your work. No investigation will ever happen. You live in a crazy, angry dreamworld.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 7:33am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Ring, ring! Hey pot, it's the kettle calling!

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

        • identicon
          Ken, 30 Mar 2011 @ 7:51am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Coward

          The journalist did not copy anyone's work. He used a court document that is public property. Filing a lawsuit for malicious reasons and using false evidence is a reason to investigate.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 12:18pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The journalist did not copy anyone's work. He used a court document that is public property. Filing a lawsuit for malicious reasons and using false evidence is a reason to investigate.

            Just because something appears as an exhibit in a court document doesn't mean that work loses its copyright. There are no malicious reasons and there will be no investigation. You sound like a crazy fool.

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

            • identicon
              Ken, 30 Mar 2011 @ 2:16pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              A court exhibit is public information that can be used for any purpose. Copyrighted material is on every court filing that deals with copyrights as evidence? Are you suggesting that the public has no right to public documents that deal with copyrights?

              Righthaven was forced to withdraw the case because of it so whatever you believe is not supported by the law or common sense.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 6:01am

      Re:

      They are also suing MIXX.com for a thumbnail as well as DailyKix.com also for a thumbnail even though Thumbnails have already been ruled fair use by the 9th circuit court of appeals.

      You're a pretty confused guy. Thumbnails in general are not fair use. It depends on the circumstances.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous, 30 Mar 2011 @ 7:30am

        Re: Re:

        Mixx.com and DailyKix.com was using the thumbnails the same way discribed in the 9th circuit court precedent.

        This president and other rulings is why Facebook can offer thumbnails as the default when you post a news article on Facebook. In fact you have to specifically check the option for "no thumbnail"

        Read the 9th Circuit Court decisions:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v._Arriba_Soft_Corporation

        This is exactly how both Mixx and DailyKix use the thumbnails.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 7:35am

          Re: Re: Re:

          This president and other rulings...

          Which "president" is that? Obama? ;)

          Read the 9th Circuit Court decisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v._Arriba_Soft_Corporation
          This is exactly how both Mixx and DailyKix use the thumbnails.


          I don't need to read it. I can recite the facts and the holding in that case from memory. Mixx and DailyKix are not search engines. Their use is not the same.

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

          • identicon
            Ken, 30 Mar 2011 @ 8:02am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            They facilitate people's ability to find information just like a search engine. Infact Mixx is actually one of the Social Bookmarking sites that Denver Post uses to invite people to share. If you take Denver Post on their offer you get a thumbnail on Mixx. Deadseriousnews.com also invites people to share on Mixx. When people shared the Deadseriosnews.com story with the TSA image on Mixx it also produced a thumbnail. That is what got them sued (but not Deadserious news). DailyKix uses the Mixx API to mirror what is sent to Mixx, which is what got them sued. (but not Deadseriousnews).

            It is interesting how so many people being sued are connected with deadseriousnews but Righthaven has not sued them which suggests Righthaven is using deadseriousnews as a honeypot to entrap people that normally would not come in contact with the Denver Post.

            Deadseriousnews.com has no attribution and leads the reader to believe the photo was taken in San Fransisco. The site completely separates the photo from the original source.

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

          • identicon
            Ken, 30 Mar 2011 @ 8:17am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Coward

            I do have a question for you. Do you believe that when a Facebook user links to a news article and it automatically attaches a thumbnail image is this an infringement of copyright?

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

  • identicon
    Ken, 29 Mar 2011 @ 8:24pm

    Calls for a Federal Investigation.

    This whole thing now demands a federal investigation.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Poster, 30 Mar 2011 @ 4:03am

      Re: Calls for a Federal Investigation.

      This whole thing now demands a federal investigation.

      ...into Eriq Gardner.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 6:03am

      Re: Calls for a Federal Investigation.

      This whole thing now demands a federal investigation.

      Um, no it doesn't. That makes no sense. Par for the course for you. You seem really angry, and really misguided.

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

      • identicon
        Ken, 30 Mar 2011 @ 7:36am

        Re: Re: Calls for a Federal Investigation.

        Anonymous

        So who are you going to be the apologist for after Righthaven is shut down?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 8:14am

          Re: Re: Re: Calls for a Federal Investigation.

          Don't argue with him. He's an ip-maximalist bot:

          State facts and he'll say you don't understand them or ignore them completely.
          Provide sources and he'll either say the methodology was flawed, you you didn't really read them, or ignore them.
          Use logic and he'll tell you you didn't read his posts, are arguing a straw man, or are just generally a simpleton.

          Then he'll complain how mean everyone is and how narrow-minded they are.

          Lather, rinse, repeat.

          Notice the hypocritical use of ad hominem, flawed logic, and lack of evidence. But he won't ever acknowledge it.

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

          • identicon
            Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 8:21am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Calls for a Federal Investigation.

            Who are you talking about?

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

          • identicon
            Ken, 30 Mar 2011 @ 9:09am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Calls for a Federal Investigation.

            Anonymous.

            Sounds like you are the ip-maximalist.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 3:11pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Calls for a Federal Investigation.

              Sorry Ken, I meant the AC you were debating with, not you. You sound like a well-informed, well-reasoned individual.

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

              • identicon
                Ken, 30 Mar 2011 @ 3:44pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Calls for a Federal Investigation.

                Ok I thought I was dealing with a split personality. The Anonymous Coward who is the Righthaven apologist is absolutely an IP maximalists. I have read into this movement and it is truly scary and anti-Constitution. They claim that intellectual property trumps all other rights and is working to abolish any concept of fair use and impose strict control over all information including the Internet.

                We as Americans believe in intellectual property but it has never been as absolute as real property. It does not trump other rights. Infact it is one of the few rights that the Constitution itself mandates a time limit even though that has been circumvented. For now.

                An abuse of the system by Righthaven and other IP Max groups will actually end up causing an outcry for overreaching and the pendulum will swing the other way again towards freer access to information. Which is the antithesis of IP maximalists.

                http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/intellectual_property/development.research/SusanSel lfinalversion.pdf

                This is a peer reviewed scholarly writing on this subject. It is no conspiracy theory.

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

                • identicon
                  Ken, 30 Mar 2011 @ 4:26pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Calls for a Federal Investigation.

                  Not even real property is absolute. There are even fair uses to real estate such as easements. I can walk on the side that technically runs right through your property. I can go to your door and ring the bell as long as their is not a no trespassing sign.

                  You do not have complete control of your property. There are city ordinances that you have to follow. You may pay property taxes. The state can take your property in certain situations. No property is absolute, and intellectual property even less.

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

              • identicon
                Ken, 30 Mar 2011 @ 4:04pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Calls for a Federal Investigation.

                For now on I will just call the other AC "Righthaven Apologist" to avoid any confusion.

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

  • identicon
    Ken, 29 Mar 2011 @ 8:28pm

    Calls for a Federal Investigation.

    Some are beginning to question the validity of Righthaven's explanation. Righthaven is giving contradictory information. This demands a Federal Investigation.

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

  • icon
    grumpy (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 1:46am

    Oh

    When dealing with lawyers, never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice. :-)

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

  • icon
    Narcissus (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 7:16am

    I'm all for allowing people to go to court whenever they want about whatever they want but isn't it time we somehow limited lawyer stupidity/greed?

    Just an idea: If somebody files a lawsuit and is laughed out of court (or Anti-Slapped), the lawyer involved shouldn't be allowed to send a bill for the work unless he told the client this was a stupid idea and let him sign a waiver to that effect. Something like: "I discussed this with my legal counsil and against his express legal advice I still want to press this case. Signed Mr. M. Oron"

    It seems that now there is no incentive for lawyers to discourage customers from pressing dubious lawsuits. Not sure this is the best solution but I feel that (in some cases) we need to force lawyers to give proper legal advice or suffer from their own incompetence.

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

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 30 Mar 2011 @ 7:51am

    "claimed this was just a "clerical mistake,"

    Now they throw the secretary under the bus. Nice.

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

  • icon
    hmm (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 1:50pm

    Pixelation, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 7:51am

    "claimed this was just a "clerical mistake,"

    Now they throw the secretary under the bus. Nice.

    Then they sue the secretary because somewhere they have a thumbnail of a pizza that now looks EXACTLY like her.....

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

  • identicon
    Ken, 30 Mar 2011 @ 5:07pm

    Counter-suers should sue for copyright!

    Since Righthaven is demanding the domain name of the victims then those that are counter-suing should demand the copyright "owned" by Righthaven.
    This could put a quick end to this nonsense.

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

  • icon
    hmm (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 9:08am

    far be it from me

    to suggest that Righthaven has sunk so low, that Mr Gibson would happily throw his own wife under a bus for a bit of cheap publicity, but I DO hear he's just moved in next door to a greyhound station.......

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

  • identicon
    emmo, 23 Jul 2011 @ 2:05pm

    Not a Lawsuit

    That lawsuit is a waste of time.

    < a href = "the link"> my anchor text < / a>

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

  • identicon
    emmo, 23 Jul 2011 @ 2:07pm

    Not a Lawsuit

    That lawsuit is a waste of time.

    < a href = "http://www.elawsuit.com"> personal injury lawyer < / a>

    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
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.