Skip to comments.Court Declares Newspaper Excerpt on Online Forum is a Non-Infringing Fair Use
Posted on 03/11/2012 8:27:58 PM PDT by Dallas59
Late Friday, the federal district court in Nevada issued a declaratory judgment that makes is harder for copyright holders to file lawsuits over excerpts of material and burden online forums and their users with nuisance lawsuits.
The judgment part of the nuisance lawsuit avalanche started by copyright troll Righthaven found that Democratic Underground did not infringe the copyright in a Las Vegas Review-Journal newspaper article when a user of the online political forum posted a five-sentence excerpt, with a link back to the newspaper's website.
Judge Roger Hunts judgment confirms that an online forum is not liable for its users posts, even if it was not protected by the safe harbors of the Digital Millennium Copyright Acts notice and takedown provisions. The decision also clarifies that a common practice on the Internet excerpting a few sentences and linking to interesting articles elsewhere is a fair use, not an infringement of copyright.
(Excerpt) Read more at eff.org ...
Sounds like good news for us on FR.
Hmmmm, does this mean that everything is now fair game and now more lists of not being able to post from certain sites?
Well, if Righthaven could’ve won just one of these lawsuits...this one, against DU, would’ve been the one. Darn.
For the first time in history, the Democratic Underground sub-humans actually serve a useful purpose.
“Sounds like good news for us on FR.”
Yup, as long as it’s applied equally to both the progressives and the conservatives.
About the only thing lower then the DUmp is Righhaven, so when it comes down to scum vs. scum, the right scum won ;-)
RIghthaven ping of interest
Sorta like an election...
Righthaven loses, DU wins. Guess it’s one of those “good news/bad news” things.
Righthaven made a lot of money while it was on a roll. What happened to it all? I hope Righthaven ends up losing every penny it gained and ends up paying 10 times what it extorted from others in its schemes.
Not that much. They received half after expenses.
And you just know they did not work cheap.
Estimated Total Money Settlements Righthaven’s Efforts Have Earned to Date:
(based on 141 cases closed as of June 22, 2011 that involved a written settlement with Righthaven and an educated guesstimate of an average of $2,500 settled per case)
(NOTE: settlement amount downgraded from $3,500 to $2,500 per case on July 1, 2011, in light of recent information regarding Righthaven’s settlement of at least one case for $1000 and other known facts and circumstances)
I would like to hear that Gibson was disbarred.
I would like to hear that Gibson ran a red light and collided with a bus ala Alan Grayson, and was hounded by ambulance chasing attorneys for the rest of his days.
FReepers who do us all a disservice by posting just one or two sentences from an article should take notice. FR’s rule has been 300 words for a long time. Seems this judge agrees.
“Righthaven CEO Steven A. Gibson dreamed of making himself rich off of lawsuits over trivial uses of newspaper articles. Instead, his company is in ruins, his legal theories have been emphatically rejected and he is under investigation by the Nevada State Bar.”
“Righthaven claimed that Stephens Media had transferred copyright to Righthaven before it filed the suit, but a document unearthed in this litigation — the Strategic Alliance Agreement between Righthaven and Stephens Media — showed that the copyright assignment was a sham, and that Righthaven was merely agreeing to undertake the newspaper’s case at its own expense in exchange for a cut of the recovery. “
The judgment -- part of the nuisance lawsuit avalanche started by copyright troll Righthaven â found that Democratic Underground did not infringe the copyright in a Las Vegas Review-Journal newspaper article when a user of the online political forum posted a five-sentence excerpt, with a link back to the newspaper's website. Judge Roger Hunt's judgment confirms that an online forum is not liable for its users' posts, even if it was not protected by the safe harbors of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's notice and takedown provisions.
This is a good thing, even if it is DU.
Yes, I do agree.