Slashdot Mirror
Judge Puts Righthaven Cases In Colorado On Hold
Hugh Pickens writes "Senior US District Judge John Kane says there are serious questions about the validity of Righthaven's copyright infringement lawsuits in Colorado, and has put them all on hold. Kane says the main case in which he'll rule on the jurisdiction issue is that of Righthaven defendant Leland Wolf, who was sued over a Denver Post TSA pat-down photo. Wolf's attorneys filed briefs saying that based on Righthaven's lawsuit contract with Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC, its lawsuit contract with the Post is likely similar, and that their contract doesn't give Righthaven standing to sue. 'Righthaven very likely is neither the owner nor exclusive holder of any rights in the copyrighted work underlying this lawsuit,' say attorneys for Wolf. 'As such, Righthaven has suffered no injury or other cognizable harm required for it to have standing.' Judge Kane says he wants to resolve that issue before proceeding. 'Because there are serious questions as to whether my exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over Righthaven's claim of copyright infringement is proper, I think it most prudent to stay the proceedings in all pending cases in this district in which Righthaven is the named plaintiff,' wrote Kane. 'Should I find that I lack subject matter jurisdiction over Righthaven's claim of copyright infringement, it is likely that I will be required to dismiss all pending actions.'"
If all these cases are indeed thrown out, the defendants should be able to counter-sue not only Righthaven, but the newspapers that "contracted" (read: created) Righthaven. Because let's be honest, they created Righthaven for the sole purpose of lawsuits in an attempt to distance themselves from any litigation and possible losses. I'm willing to bet Righthaven has very little in way of actual assets or anything else of value with which to pay any judgements that went against them. Now, they might not be breaking the law, but they are certainly twisting it, bending it over, and raping it. They need to go after not just Righthaven, but the people behind it.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It's a haven of wrongdoing!
But seriously, if we are going to sue every website and blog for re-posting photos found on the web, the internet is going to have to shut down due to widespread copyright violations.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Something like that. I think that the idea behind creating Righthaven was meant to avoid having the newspapers themselves be the plaintiffs in these lawsuits, to put a (poorly thought out) shell between the papers and the suits (to try to dodge exactly the countersuit that has now been filed - Righthaven may go bankrupt if they lose, but the newspapers will, they hope, come out unscathed and set up another shell). But since the current suits are having trouble due to Righthaven not actually owning the copyrights, they may just reorganize in a different way, where the newspapers sign over all their copyrights to Righthaven with the newspapers retaining a license to use the material, and proceed exactly as they have been doing.
And when that happens these suits will be on much better footing (since, as far as I know, these defendants have actually been using material copied from the newspapers). They may still fail on fair use or other grounds, but it is then much less likely that some defense will come out that will invalidate the entire group of them. Assuming, of course, that the countersuit does not find the newspapers themselves liable for the suits in the shell company they set up, and bankrupt them all.
Disclaimers: IANAL. I have not been sued by Righthaven, and I don't believe I have ever copied anything from those newspapers (or even read anything from them except for occasional Slashdot stories linking to them).
But that change would mean the various rights holders would need to initiate the suit, even if using Righthaven as their legal representation.
From reading through the Righthaven contract that was made public about a month ago, it is very clear that the rights holders, while claiming to transfer copyright ownership to Righthaven for the sake or pursuing legal action or settlements, really did not intend to fully transfer copyright to Righthaven. There are so many clauses that cause copyright ownership to revert to the rights holders, and so many escape clauses for the rights holders, and limitiations on the transfer of rights, that judges are (imho, ianal) rightly questioning whether or not Righthaven has any legal standing at all.
The relationship between the rights holders and Righthaven is something like this:
i. The rights holder gives Righthaven a catalog of their copyright portfolio.
2. Righthaven is told to seek out infringing use.
3. When infringing use is identified, Righthaven is to request a transfer of copyright to Righthaven from the rights holder.
4. As the copyright owner of record (contractually), Righthaven is then free to pursue whatever legal options or settlements they can negotiate, to recoup funds for infringing use. Such funds are eventually split between Righthaven and the original rights holder.
5. After formal actions to resolve infringement incidents are resolved, Righthaven transfers copyright ownership back to the original rights holder.
On the surface, it looks like a plain strategy. Courts have previously allowed new rights holders to sue for infringement that occurred before they gained the copyright (since the infringement potentially devalues the purchased asset), but the complexities and nuanes of the contract with Righthaven made it very clear that, while called a transfer of copyright, what transpired seems to be much more like a grant of license (since it is clear that the rights holders had no intention to fully give up their claim of copyright ownership to Righthaven). That final point, that the transfer of rights to Righthaven required that Righthaven eventually return them to the original rights holders, is probably what has judges thinking twice. I don't believe copyright was ever intended to be put on loan so that a specialty firm could then try to bully hundreds or thousands of accused individuals (who may or may not have been protected under "fair use" provisions of US copyright law) into quick settlements as a way to generate a revenue stream
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Bingo. It's an illegal attempt to shield assets in a legal proceeding. I'd like the judge to rule that the agreement is a legal work for hire contract and that LRJ is responsible for any counter damages.
It sounds promising - he's acknowledging that TrollHaven likely doesn't even own this IP, and if they do, haven't been injured.
No, the judge noticed that RightHaven doesn't own the copyrights that it is suing about, and _because they don't_, they haven't been injured.
For $100, I sell you the right to sue anyone who damages my car for those damages. What do you actually get for the $100? The only thing you get is that when you try to sue someone who damaged my car, _I_ cannot come running to the judge and complain. However, you won't get any damages because the damaged car is not actually yours. You basically paid $100 for a right that isn't worth anything.
I don't think there is anything that could happen legally to the copyright holder, but I think Righthaven might go down for fraud. Let's say I have done something that makes me actually guilty of copyright infringement. The copyright holder can then take me to court, or ask for money in order not to take me to court, which I would have to accept. However, if anyone who is not the copyright holder tells me they are going to sue me, and asks for money, and I pay up, then I think this is quite clearly fraud.