From Western Front America as originally featured on The BoBo:
Has anyone else out there ever heard of RightHaven, LLC? Well, if its news to you as well – that is very understandable. Check out that link – they’ve only been in business since early 2010. Their primary purpose is to acquire copyrights from newspaper organizations around the country and then actively seek out bloggers to sue them over alleged copyright infringement.I first came aware of them this past week while I was fixing my blog. On a side note – if you are running Firefox, I highly recommend getting the add-on Firebug. You can watch your page load and see exactly where all the errors are. Anyway – I was fixing my blog and getting rid of dead links as well as checking all of my links. If you look over to the far right there and down a little to see my blog badges – you’ll see a blog from our buddy Brian Hill –U.S.W.G.O. – It is when I followed that link to his blog that I first learned of RightHaven, LLC. Apparently, they sued Brian over a TSA Patdown picture –this one. I didn’t see the actual blog post. Brian had this picture up on his blog – On February 7, 2011 – that’s right – this very past Monday – Brian was served with a court summons. If he doesn’t respond within 21 days he loses by default. If you read the initial link regarding RightHaven, LLC you will see their tactic is to demand a minimum of $75,000 payment and to have the blogger turn over their domain.
If you look to the bottom right of my sidebar – you see I have a “Fair Use Policy” – It essentially states I may use copyrighted material without expressed written permission from the originator and it is in accordance withTitle 17, U.S.C. Section 107 which says:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Like I said, I don’t know what Brian’s original post looked like and what was stated in it – but – if it was commentary regarding the aforementioned picture – it would certainly pass the “Fair Use” muster. Then, I noticed that picture does not have anything anywhere stating that it is a copyrighted image. So, I scrolled all the way down the page and it does have this on the bottom right side
All content © 2011 The Denver Post
So – that got me to thinking even further about copyrighting and notification of copyright – here is what I found
a) General Provisions. — Whenever a work protected under this title is published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright owner, a notice of copyright as provided by this section may be placed on publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.(b) Form of Notice. — If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of the following three elements:(1) the symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word“Copyright”, or the abbreviation “Copr.”; and(2) the year of first publication of the work; in the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying text matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful articles; and(3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.(c) Position of Notice. — The notice shall be affixed to the copies in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright. The Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation, as examples, specific methods of affixation and positions of the notice on various types of works that will satisfy this requirement, but these specifications shall not be considered exhaustive.(d) Evidentiary Weight of Notice. — If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504(c)(2).
Then – I found this – based on what I’m reading here – RightHaven, LLC has no standing:
(b) Scope and Exercise of Rights. — Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. The authors of a joint work of visual art are coowners of the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work.and(e) Transfer and Waiver. — (1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified. In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, a waiver of rights under this paragraph made by one such author waives such rights for all such authors.(2) Ownership of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art is distinct from ownership of any copy of that work, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright in that work. Transfer of ownership of any copy of a work of visual art, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright, shall not constitute a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a). Except as may otherwise be agreed by the author in a written instrument signed by the author, a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art shall not constitute a transfer of ownership of any copy of that work, or of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive right under a copyright in that work.
Based on what I’m reading here – only the photographer of that photo that Brian put up can sue for copyright infringement. Neither The Denver Post nor RightHaven, LLC have a standing. I highlighted the section for emphasis. Even if the photographer sold his photo to The Denver Post – the photographer retains the right to state whether his photo was used in a manner that violates attribution or integrity.
This is getting pretty long – so – if you’re interested – the rest is below the fold
This also got me to wondering about attribution and copyright infringement – is it copyright infringement if the blogger properly attributes the work? The primary method for such attribution is a direct link back to the original work. I know that when I am doing research and then writing papers – I have to attribute quotes, citations, and general paraphrases to the original authors. I am not required to get permission from them to use their work in my work. There are still certain limitations such as copyrighted surveys and other tools in which you would have to get permission from the creators. However, for the most part, you don’t need to get permission – not even when publishing the research in a peer reviewed journal. Thus far – my dissertation has over 100 citations.
So – I got to wondering if it is absolutely necessary to get permission for every thing that is copied or reprinted on a blog – even if you give attribution. Well, I’m only going to post one link here – but – the consensus is that even if you provide attribution to the originator – you can still be found to have violated copyright laws unless it falls under the Fair Use guidelines.
Anyway – here’s a good link regarding copyright infringement and attribution:
So – bottom line is – if you are going to quote something you found on the Internet or use a photo – at minimum – attribute the originator AND make sure it falls in the Fair Use guidelines. Whenever possible – create your own works.
Now – back to the matter at hand – RightHaven, LLC
This bullshit outfit is out to do one thing and one thing only – Destroy bloggers. There are several websites out there dedicated to following RightHaven, LLC
RightHaven Lawsuits – this is pretty good for following the activities of the various lawsuits filed by RightHaven, LLC
RightHaven Victims – this is an absolute must for all bloggers – bookmark this page. This has a monthly list of all the bloggers that RightHaven is going after. Had Brian Hill known of this blog ahead of time – he would have known he was going to be served. U.S.W.G.O. is listed under January (January 27, 2011) – Brian didn’t get his summons until February 7th. One of our blogging buddies is listed under February – Hans von der Gruen of Western Front America. He’s posted a few of my articles up on his blog or has linked back to me and vice versa – he’s on my blogroll. I’ve already sent a message to him via twitter to give him a heads up.
Now – if you think that RightHaven, LLC is only suing bloggers that copy and post from third-party sites – you would be thinking wrong. They have also sued a blogger for publishing HIS OWN material on HIS OWN blog.
From Blog Law Blog – Righthaven “Really Outdid Itself” Suing Blogger Over Article That Contains His Own Material
That’s right! These assholes have a scorched earth policy – they are going after everyone and anybody. Very few are fighting back – most are settling according to those other websites and judges are refusing to throw out the lawsuits.
Bloggers beware – there is a new bully in town out to destroy free speech on the Internet. Let others know about these bastards and these stories. If you’re interested in more on Brian Hill and U.S.W.G.O. – here are some links:
These are all from Brian – since he can’t post from his own blog any longer – he has found an alternative outlet. Please show your support for him and other bloggers in his situation – get the word out there.
