7 Comments

Summary:

Righthaven, a company that has garnered controversy by suing 250 different blogs and websites over newspaper copyrights, has lost its second…

Righthaven, a company that has garnered controversy by suing 250 different blogs and websites over newspaper copyrights, has lost its second case. The company lost a lawsuit on Friday in a ruling that, if upheld on appeal, could change the way that copyrighted newspaper articles get treated on the web-and not at all in the way Righthaven was hoping for.

Normally, “fair use” is the rule that justifies partial use of a copyrighted work. Fair use is what allows for quotation in a book review or news report-and it’s done countless times every day on the web. But in certain circumstances, judges have found 100 percent of a work to be fair use, and in a hearing on Friday, U.S. District Judge James Mahan found this was one of those circumstances, and that it was legal for an Oregon non-profit to post a full copy of a newspaper article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal on its website.

The judge based his decision on several factors, including that the defendant, the Oregon-based Center for Intercultural Organizing (CIO), which works with immigrants in Oregon, serves a completely different market than the R-J. Importantly, Mahan also took the opportunity to show he was unimpressed with Righthaven’s business model as a whole-buying up newspaper copyrights and suing mostly small websites with no warning at all. “Righthaven is not using the copyright the same way the R-J used it,” he said. “Righthaven is using it to support a lawsuit.” (So far, Righthaven’s main clients are the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the MediaNews chain.)

Mahan issued the ruling orally from the bench on Friday, and his decision to favor the non-profit was reported by the Las Vegas Sun. But Mahan asked defense lawyers to write up a dismissal order, and said he’ll sign it. While a written order detailing Mahan’s reasoning has not yet been submitted, the judge detailed some of his reasons from the bench.

This decision shows how Righthaven’s pursuit of these cases could backfire on the whole media industry. As I wrote last month,, newspaper industry lawyers can currently be sure that they’re within their rights to ask for a takedown of any full copy of a newspaper article posted online without their permission. Newspapers like The New York Times file takedown requests regularly. If this decision holds up on appeal-and it has a very good chance of doing so-that ability will be greatly diminished. Newspaper execs will have to consider what kind of person or organization made the full copy, and what for what purpose they made it. A competing commercial media company that engages in copying will still be way out of bounds-but we might find a web full of “fair uses” by non-profits and mom-and-pop bloggers.

This is the second lawsuit Righthaven has lost on “fair use” grounds, but the most recent loss is much more likely to have widespread effect than the first. That’s because the first finding of fair use was over a website that only quoted about 25 percent of an R-J story. Last month, Righthaven appealed that loss, and on Friday it indicated it will appeal this recent loss as well.

  1. Not sending a takedown notice played a big part in this as well. Righthaven said it costs a lot to send takedown notices but they are finding out the hard way it is more expensive not too.

    Share
  2. Of course, it’s just fine to steal from newspapers. It would be just terrible to steal from anyone else, and against the law. But newspapers that spend money on getting news that others can just steal at will? No problem at all!

    Share
  3. Ardmore

    So you are now going to defend Righthaven that their irresponsibility just diluted every newspapers copyrights? Righthaven is not the friend of copyrighters. Anyone who has associated with them should run for the hills.

    Righthaven has proven to be a costly mistake for Stephens Media. It is time to pull the plug on them.

    Share
  4. What about iCopyright? Their permissions modeal looks much more friendly to all parties.

    Share
  5. Andrew Elston Tuesday, March 22, 2011

    Suing your readers is not a good business model. Giving them the tools to reuse your content in ways you approve is much smarter–and profitable! This is what iCopyright does. Thanks for asking, Ted! Check it out at http://www.icopyright.com.

    Share
  6. Now the big question is whether this will ever go up on appeal and set any precedent. I wonder if Righthaven’s business model even takes appeals into account.

    And as far as takedown notices “costing a lot of money” that seems like a pretty ludicrous argument when you take into account the price of filing a lawsuit.

    Share
  7. I think the other way to look at it is that legislation has not caught up with righthaven. This goes far beyond newspapers and journalists (parish the thought they are not center of the universe). Does this mean you can use mickey mouse at a church in texas because the church is non-profit? The IPR community is probably the most powerful lobby in DC these days. So, I think the story on this will not be written until they make a call on what to do.. But a good piece on paid content

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post