58 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 | 1:55 a.m.
Righthaven LLC copyright infringement lawsuit defendant Brian D. Hill's attorneys filed a 56-page motion for dismissal on Monday -- and as a kicker asked the court to require Righthaven to pay their fees as a penalty.
This is just the latest chapter in what has turned out to be a public relations nightmare for Las Vegas-based Righthaven, which enforces copyrights for the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post and has filed 250 lawsuits in the past 12 months.
Hill is a 20-year-old North Carolina blogger sued by Righthaven over a Denver Post TSA pat-down photo -- one of at least 46 website operators sued over that photo.
Righthaven's problem with Hill is tied to its policy of suing first and asking questions later.
After he was sued for $150,000 and forfeiture of his website domain name, Hill went public by saying he has disabilities including diabetes, hyperactive attention disorder and mild autism -- and that Righthaven still demanded $6,000 to settle his case.
This attracted media attention in Denver, North Carolina and Virginia. Hill was also interviewed for a national Associated Press report about Righthaven and the international group Reporters Without Borders appealed to the Denver Post to call off the lawsuit.
Righthaven and the Denver Post likely would love to see Righthaven's lawsuit against Hill go away ASAP -- but now Righthaven may either have to pay Hill's attorney's fees or prove to a federal judge in Colorado why its lawsuit was not filed in "bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly or for oppressive reasons.'"
"An award of attorney's fees is appropriate," Hill's attorneys David Kerr and Luke Santangelo of Fort Collins, Colo., wrote in their motion for dismissal filed in federal court in Denver. "District courts possess inherent power to manage their affairs and to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
"A court may assess attorney's fees when a party has `acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly or for oppressive reasons,'" they wrote.
"Righthaven’s factual and legal deficiencies have been laid bare. The full scope of its ... 'negotiation' with Mr. Hill may need to become an issue," Hill's attorneys said in the filing.
"Righthaven simply cannot reasonably and diligently litigate or even engage in substantive settlement negotiations for all of the cases that it has brought in a manner that does not prejudice defendants and unnecessarily drain limited judicial resources," the attorneys wrote.
"For example, it has been alleged, and in one case confirmed by Righthaven’s counsel, that it brought at least two separate cases before this court against the wrong party. Using assembly-line litigation methods coupled with inadequate jurisdictional and factual due diligence and achieving profit-generating settlements from the disadvantaged appear to be its key motivation," the attorneys wrote.
"Righthaven does not operate a newspaper or otherwise profit from the subject photo, outside of its litigation-for-profit business model, which actually benefits from more, not less, infringement. Such behavior should not be encouraged, but deterred by this court. Righthaven should be ordered to pay, as a `proper penalty,' reasonable attorney’s fees incurred to defend Mr. Hill from this action," they wrote.
Righthaven hasn't yet commented on Hill's case other than in a court filing saying it was in settlement discussions.
As to the merits of Hill's motion to dismiss -- or at least move the case to North Carolina so Hill doesn't have to travel to Colorado for court hearings -- Kerr and Santangelo argued Hill found the photo at issue on the Internet after it went viral and that the images he saw included nothing to indicate that it was protected by copyright or came from the Denver Post.
The motion for dismissal also includes a flood of allegations against Righthaven and threats to drag the Denver Post in to the litigation.
For instance, Hill's mother, Roberta, said in a court declaration that "as a result of the stress of the current pending lawsuit, my son's health has steadily declined, placing him at risk of a serious, perhaps life-threatening medical event."
Like most -- if not all -- Righthaven defendants, Brian Hill did not receive a takedown order or request over the photo. Instead, he first learned there was a concern about the photo and that he was being sued when he was contacted by the Las Vegas Sun about the lawsuit.
The Hills then contacted Righthaven and Roberta Hill said in her declaration: "Counsel for Righthaven offered to let Brian out of the lawsuit only for an amount that was far, far beyond our means, and he told us that defending the case would cost much more than the settlement amount."
"Righthaven refused to dismiss the case based on Brian's medical and/or financial condition," she wrote.
The only income for she and her son consists of $8,000 in annual Social Security disability payments, Hill's filing said.
The motion goes on to charge:
• "Righthaven might ... be in a potentially champertous and barratrous relationship with MediaNews Group Inc., the parent corporation of the Denver Post Corp., to serve as a proxy plaintiff against defendant Brian D. Hill -- as well as hundreds of other similarly-situated persons across the country."
• Righthaven "lawsuits are primarily directed to small personal blogs, or other non-profit sites, where flummoxed and overwhelmed defendants, are presented with a simple devil's bargain -- settle with Righthaven for several thousand dollars, defend yourself pro se or hire an attorney and spend exponentially more attempting to defend against such allegations."
• "Righthaven, which is believed to neither reproduce, sell, market, distribute, or otherwise deal with the work in question, now claims it has been 'irreparably' damaged and seeks redress. This is despite the fact that to this day the photo in question appears on The Denver Post website for free, and with an automated option to 'share this gallery' and an identification suggesting ownership by The Denver Post, not Righthaven."
• "Righthaven’s pleadings contain insufficient copyright ownership allegations sufficient to support a cause of action."
• Righthaven's standard lawsuit demand for forfeiture of Hill's website domain name is not authorized by the Copyright Act and would violate the First Amendment.
"Righthaven’s demand for domain name transfer offends the First Amendment and must not stand. Such a request amounts to nothing more than an attempt to intimidate ill-informed defendants who are not aware such a request is not authorized by law, is not available in equity, and represents a violation of their constitutional rights," the filing said.
• The Colorado federal court exercising jurisdiction over Hill "offends due process and would be unreasonable" as Hill has no contacts to Colorado and his nonprofit website doesn't transact business with anyone in Colorado.
• Hill did nothing to make himself subject to the jurisdiction of the Colorado court as Righthaven as the claimed copyright holder is based in Nevada; and when Hill first spotted the photo at issue on the Internet he had no idea it depicted events in Colorado or that it was taken by a photographer for the Denver Post.
"As shown in Righthavens’ own exhibits, the photo shows a non-descript law enforcement officer, 'patting-down' what appears to be an anonymous male in what may be an airport. The frame of the photo is taken up almost entirely by the two anonymous figures. There is no indication in the background, or foreground that this photo corresponds to a location in Colorado," Hill's filing said.
• Since its publication on Nov. 18, the photo has been featured in numerous websites and has effectively "gone viral."
"If one were to type in the phrase 'TSA pat-down photo' into a standard Google search engine query, it returns approximately 290,000 hits. The same terms used in an image search returns 85,100 hits. The subject photo appears four times on the first page alone. None of the pages are from The Denver Post or Righthaven," the filing said.
• Hill first spotted the photo on the deadseriousnews.com website, a parody site that appears to the be source of the infringements alleged in several of Righthaven's lawsuits.
"Righthaven’s own exhibits clearly indicate that it knew this, or should have known this, before it filed its lawsuit in Colorado. To the extent Mr. Hill understood, or was capable of understanding that this article was a parody, and/or social commentary, Mr. Hill believed that the apparently California-based website was the creator of the work in question, and that it may have related to a public airport in San Francisco," Hill's filing said.
• Brian Hill said in his declaration he didn't use the photo from deadseriousnews.com because he wanted a higher-resolution image. "Seeing that the subject photo had gone viral and readily appeared on numerous sites, I accessed an unknown amateur blog site that had another unattributed subject photo with commentary," he said.
• "If Righthaven, seeking to mitigate any accrued damages, contacted me informing me of the issue, I would have removed the photo from my website," Hill added.
• "Mr. Hill also notes that the same photo appeared on Nov. 18 in the online version of the British newspaper The Daily Mail. The photo in question is designated 'Copyright AP.'"
"It is unclear, and not alleged if the photo in question was transiently assigned to The Associated Press, or if Righthaven has any contractual arrangement with The Associated Press, apart from their position as a proxy plaintiff on behalf of Media News Corp., or, if the AP is in fact the rightful owner of the photo in question. Or, more plausibly, the second largest newspaper in Britain is likely guilty of innocent misattribution."
Hill's filing pointed out William Dean Singleton, chairman of the board of directors of The Associated Press, is also chairman and CEO of Denver Post owner MediaNews Group
(Righthaven hasn't yet commented about the lack so far of a lawsuit against www.deadseriousnews.com. The Associated Press has not responded to a query about a Righthaven lawsuit against Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd., Metroland Media Group Ltd. and Torstar Corp. That suit says the photo was posted without authorization on the thespec.com website, a website for the newspaper group's The Hamilton Spectator newspaper in Hamilton, Ontario. A court exhibit in that case shows the photo was credited not to the Denver Post, but to the AP.)
• "There is a 'fundamental substantive policy' that could be addressed by an appropriate dismissal of this action. Specifically, this is a case involving federal statutory rights and out of state parties. Righthaven has not suffered any cognizable Colorado harm whatsoever from the infringement it alleges. If any damages occurred, it occurred even before Righthaven procured the copyright registration. Righthaven does not suffer any harm from lost profits or a lost market for the work, as it does not produce or sell content, but merely acquires rights in it to file lawsuits such as this one," the filing said.
"Dismissal favors fundamental substantive policy. As part of its business model, Righthaven appears to have pursued an unyielding, bullying litigation strategy against primarily small defendants as a proxy for the real parties in interest. It flaunts the basic tenants of due process, as well as the letter and spirit of copyright law, ignoring fair use and other requirements and rights. Righthaven threatens unsupportable damages, for non-existent, protected or even de-minimums (minimal) acts against hundreds of citizens that for the most part have no means of defending themselves," the filing said.
• "Righthaven brings these claims with unclean hands, which mandates dismissal of this action. It is apparent that Righthaven was created by its counsel, Steven Gibson, apparently to purchase copyright infringement lawsuits, and serve as a proxy plaintiff for profit. Righthaven is not the author of the subject photo. There is even reason to believe that Mr. Gibson, upon discovering potential infringements, purchases the copyrights only for a limited time so as to pursue the infringement actions against the allegedly liable parties," the filing said.
• "Neither The Denver Post, nor Righthaven, attempted to mitigate any damages by simply sending a cease and desist letter, nor any other request to discontinue the alleged infringement, prior to initiating this action. Instead, Righthaven has brought this lawsuit (and 249 others) against alleged infringers, further exacerbating the court’s overloaded docket," the filing said.
"Righthaven’s motivation for avoiding the simple act of requesting that Mr. Hill cease and desist is simple, it is using these lawsuits as a source of revenue. Such abuse of legal process should be rejected," the filing said.
After reading this entire affidavit it sickens me that this outfit Righthaven would stoop so low as to endangering Brian Hills health to a degree he could literally die from the stress they have inflicted on him when they KNOW they cannot get a dime out him.
This lawsuit against Brian Hill is nothing less than pure vindictiveness on Righthavens part. They cannot get money out of him so they are going after blood. Literally.
This rein of terror must stop. This is not about copyrights this is about the life of a 20 year old semi-autistic person with type 1 diabetes so bad he requires around the clock monitoring. Traveling to Colorado WILL jeopardize his life but Righthaven doesn't care.
Mr Kerr has drawn up a masterpiece that crushes every last lame argument Righthaven has made. There is absolutely no reason to hold this in Colorado except to inflict maximum damage on Brian Hill and other victims.
This case WILL be devastating to Righthaven because as Mr. Kerr has so eloquently stated Righthaven has no basis or even standing in this case. A new revelation states that Brian's website was shutdown BEFORE Righthaven even "acquired" the copyright. They have no standing in this case.
This case must be dismissed and Righthaven be made to pay all legal fees. Atty David Kerr deserves to be paid several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees for the work he as done. Not only that but Righthaven should be slapped with sanctions by the judge for filing these frivolous lawsuits.
"Brian Hill said in his declaration he didn't use the photo from deadseriousnews.com because he wanted a higher-resolution image."
That is possilby the reason deadseriousnews.com has not been sued. There appears to be some precedent that says a thumbnail is not infringing.
One thing that is coming to light through all of this is that it is very difficult to determine the actual copyright owner of many works seen on the Internet. How many people even know that *all* works automatically have copyright protection at time of creation without filing for it or posting a notice?
Of more interest, at least to me, is that Hill's attorney specifically mentioned that this is an action equity. I have said many times now that the concept of coming to equity court with "clean hands" (though no longer spelled out in law) has held sway for literally centuries in our legal system and traditions.
Righthaven simply does not come to equity with clean hands.
botfx
I still believe the Righthaven has not sued deadseriousnews because it was the source of many of their victims. The image on that site is smaller but still too big to be considered a thumbnail. Also the fact that deadseriousnews has kept the image even though they have to know about these lawsuits indicts them of at least careless abandon.
I actually received an advanced copy of this affidavit and become a contributor of righthavenvictims.blogspot.com here is my first post regarding the affidavit.
http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com/20...
This is the sort of thing that citizens need to take up, because government supports scum like those in Righthaven as "free market" business persons.
Righthaven should proceed with the case against Hill with full vigor.
Forget about negotigations.
They are passed that now.
This is wrong, and I sincerely hope Righthaven and all that are associated do some serious jail time.
> Righthaven should proceed with the case against Hill with full vigor.
couldn't agree more --- and it should be before a jury. that'd finish you d-bags off for good.
I'd say I don't understand the blindness from the Reichhaven corner but all one has to do is read the editorial pages of the RJ to get that whiff of superiority that the paper's editors actually think they know what they're doing.
but yes -- get Hill on the stand, in front of a jury, and let the games begin. Maybe ol' stevie g can beat the kid up real good on the stand --- lol.
Brian had a really bad insulin reaction this morning. I am worried that this lawsuit is affecting his health. When I went downstairs to check on him this morning he was staring at his computer and was unresponsive and making a bizarre noise. It took about an hour before he was back to normal again and responsive. He has been having more insulin reactions then he normally does and I think he has not been eating as much. If this lawsuit continues, then I am thinking about suing Righthaven for all of the stress that they are putting him through. They are insensitive and heartless bullies that care only about money.
I don't blame you, Roberta. I understand he has had a lot of lows this month and in February too. Usually in Feb. his blood sugar is way up most of the month because of the cold he can't get out and exercise much, but ever since this lawsuit mess, his is staying down most of the time now with taking a long time for you to get it back up again. This mornings sounded real serious, enough so that you were about ready to call 9-1-1. I'm glad he is resting now after bringing his glucose back up again. No one should go through what he is going through his entire life, but is worse now because of this constant stress. I hear that a guy by the name of Sherman Frederick is behind Righthaven and encouraging these lawsuits. My prayers will be with you and Brian!
tell Brian to relax --- his attny is a fighter, let him fight. And Sarge wants an all out attack, which is perfect. Get Brian rested up and ready for a nice jury trial -- he'll walk out an enriched winner no problem.
I know it can be hard to ignore an issue like this -- but don't feed the Reichaven troll. that'll be your first step to victory. ;)
"Righthaven LLC copyright infringement lawsuit defendant Brian D. Hill's attorneys filed a 56-page motion for dismissal on Monday -- and as a kicker asked the court to require Righthaven to pay their fees as a penalty."
Whoever said "talk is cheap" never hired a lawyer. This article certainly shows what happens when they run amok.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -- Dick the Butcher in Shakespeare's "Henry The Sixth," Part 2 Act 4, scene 2
I am surprised this attorney has not tried to pierce the corporate veil of Righthaven and sued Gibson personnally. If he can get a ruling that Righthaven exists solely to file lawsuits and not to collect royalties then it is champertous and doesn't serve a lawful purpose. As such, Righthaven would not serve to limit the liabilities of its owners. As long as Brian Hill's attorneys are making the champerty argument, they should take it all the way to its full, most expensive conclusion.
Rock
You just proved how much of a jerk you are. Your not even worth my time anymore. This is the last time I will even acknowledge you and your inane babble. I'm sure everyone in this forum agrees.
Scandalrag
Once this is over Gibson will be sharing a cell with the likes of Bernie Madhoff.
I am sure that something is in the works to make Gibson personally responsible and all I can say is Brian better come out of this with his health intact or the Hill Family will own Stephens Media and News Media Group.
This is the law profession's Abu Graiab. Though it's not fair to the many good lawyers who have ethics, they do have the responsibility to clean it up. Thanks to the good and ethical lawyers who have come to the defense of Brian Hill.
Terry Pelz
American Justice Dot Org
Anita and Rebecca, you may not be aware, but Sherman Frederick is an Episcopal priest. Ironic, isn't it?
Sherman Frederick is a man of God the same way "Reverend" Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church is a man of God.
Ken, Rock is entitled to his opinion and I defend his right to it. I don't agree with his views regarding Righthaven's tactics. Nonetheless, many of his 4,000+ non-Righthaven posts on the LVS I agree with. He can be insulting at times, but I don't think he's vicious. It's his right to be a jerk if he wants to.
No prudent attorney, out of state, would represent Righthaven, since they could potentially lose their license and they should, since the lawsuits are poorly researched and ill founded and generated for the sole purpose of unjust enrichment and generating income for a band of attorneys; who were either laid off by law firms or have too much time on their hand. In the fair right use-any one can post a picture from a website on their own website or blog for the purpose of commenting on the picture. Second problem is taking down the defendants website, which is tatamount to economic damages and libel. For a copyright violation the article should be original and put on a tangile medium. RJ has the most unscrupulous columnists who can't walk and chew at the same time let alone write a newsworthy article !
American Justice
I understand what you are saying and possibly in a different context I may agree with Rock too but what got me is Rock stating that Righthaven should go full throttle with this suit even though they know it is severely effecting his health and Righthaven doesn't care. Brian's episodes have increased lately due to all the stress. For Brian's sake this all needs to end soon.
I agree with Sgt. Rock - Righthaven needs to proceed with this law suit and go to trail - but, only so that the people in the jury box will see what opressive snakes Righthaven really are and hopefully lose, and lose big!
I've told Brian to let his lawyers do their thing. Yeah, Rock is stoking the fire so to speak, but justice is blind as an ideal. From the human perspective, Steven Gibson cares naught about Brian Hill's medical condition. He just sees the dollar signs, not the humanity.
"Rock stating that Righthaven should go full throttle with this suit even though they know it is severely effecting his health and Righthaven doesn't care."
From reading Mr. Green's stories, Righthaven was attempting to negotiate an ending to the lawsuit.
But Hill and his lawyers declared all-out legal war on Righthaven.
If you don't like hot kitchens then don't start a fire.
Here is what I recommend to Hill and his friends.
Offer a deal to Righthaven.
In the deal, state that Hill did not ask for permission from anybody to download and use the image.
State that Hill now will no longer do such actions. If wants to use an image or story then follow fair use generally accepted guidelines which is if you want to use the full blown image then ask and obtain permission. If you just want to have a thumbnail image and link then do that. You don't have to have permission to have a thumbnail linking image.
In the deal, offer to settle for $1,200 to be paid over 60 months which is $20 a month. His friends can chip in and pay the settlement.
Hill can get move along with his life.
"...but justice is blind as an ideal." - A_J
Which is precisely the reason that equity courts were established in the first place. Though we do not have specific equity courts today, there still exists actions in equity, and there the spirit of the law is given great weight besides the letter of the law.
These Sun Reporters keep trying to confuse the issues by bringing up the facts. Fact is Sherm needs the money.
I know of a store that only gets their papers half of the time, the RJ can't even do their job.
Maybe the SUN should do some kind of a Kindle, Nook deal, where you get a discounted reader with a special subscription, etc.
The RJ has become some kind of laughing stock and the only people that give them any attention is a very low rated talk radio station owned by out of town interests.
http://news.cnet.com/kindle-vs-nook-vs-i...
mred: I love the idea of a Kindle app. The RJ is a step ahead of the Sun here as you can subscribe to it on the Kindle. I don't, as from what I've read the Kindle implementations of most of the newspapers are not especially good. This may be heresy, but I think both the Sun and the RJ (the newspaper industry in general) should start weaning their readers from free online content. And, yes, I'll be paying for the NYT as I do for the WSJ.
Sgt. Rock, why do you think it is wrong for anyone but Righthaven to stand up for a principle? If copyright is a sacred trust that must be defended to the utmost on every occasion, isn't fair use also a legal principle to be defended with equal vigor?
In 11 years of media law, I have never seen the type of arrogance coupled with incompetence that Gibson and Margano have shown. In order to lose these cases on summary judgment, the facts were viewed in the light most favorable to Righthaven and it was still found to be fair use. Unlike Mr. Green, I don't think this erodes copyright protection very much given the narrow window of Non-Profit web use but this still is an overwhelming loss for Righthaven given their litigation strategy.
Your little litigation factory should be glad Mr. Hill's lawyers show the restraint they do, because they are definitely working Pro Bono. A good attorney represents his cases Pro Bono with MORE vigor than his paid clients because these cases tend to be issues he really believes in. Pro Bono attorneys tend to use a carpet bomb approach because they need to build up service hours. You keep spouting they filed an overly long 52 page motion, whereas any attorney worth a damn is wondering why they only produced 52 pages when they could have produced five times that and gotten ahead on next year's PB hours as well.
Offer Righthaven $1200? I'd offer to settle for $25K cash from Litigation, LLC or treat Righthaven to a level of personal and professional discovery guaranteed to make the Exxon Valdez hearings seem like traffic court. When you make quick settlements your business, you make prolonging litigation the best possible defense.
These Righthaven f*ks should be executed!
"This may be heresy..."
sdstern -- I hope you meant "hearsay." The lack of that one little letter would have got you burned or dunked in the early colonies.
"Although the most clear-sighted judges of witches and even the witches themselves were convinced the witches were guilty of witchcraft, no guilt in fact existed. So it is with all guilt." -- Friedrich Nietzsche 1882 "Gay Science"
Rock
Righthaven in their standard "settlement" impose a permanent gag order that bars the defendant from not just speaking of the terms of the settlement but bars them from ever speaking about Righthaven again. In essence Righthaven demands you sign away your first amendment rights of free speech. This was completely unacceptable to Brian who values the first amendment and believes those unalienable rights can never be signed away and are worth "declaring an all-out legal war" to defend. Its just a shame Drudge and others who had the means to fight but do not value their first amendment rights like Brian does.
By Righthaven demanding any monetary settlement they are breaking the law since his only form of income is his disability check. It is against federal law for anyone to demand monies from a disability check since it is barely enough to sustain a person. Brian hill and his mother live on $600 a month so even $20 would be a large burden beside the fact that even $20 would violate federal law.
Righthaven wanted Brian to purger himself by making a false confession that he willingly knew he was taking an image from the Denver Post and knew it was copyrighted by the Denver Post.
You need to read David Kerr's entire dismissal motion. It may enlighten you on many facts.
http://www.lynnmediagroup.com/righthaven...
If Hill's friends really cared about him and if they are truly concerned about his health then they should encourage settlement and negotiations to get this done with.
But it seems like Hill's friends don't care about Hill and want Hill to fight tooth and nail.
All of this discussion, or most of it anyway, is quite interesting and engaging. However, I think the single most telling points about this matter are that, at least as far as I can tell, not any other newspaper of moment has filed a similar suit, let alone filed a brief in support of Righthaven's litigations or the Review-Journal.
The New York Times, WSJ, Chicago Trib, Miami Herald and Washington Post, among others are knocked off almost daily with full reprints on blogs and other venues, yet they're not taking the litigation approach. Presumably they're looking for new and creative ways to generate revenue streams in the news business.
I think the real issue of this discussion is the "hair trigger" approach taken by the RJ and Righthaven, suing without warning. I believe it was the editor of the Seattle paper who wrote that "take down" letters appear to work for them.
Righthaven's latest suit being reported on is going to be even thornier for them.
They are suing a website hosted on blogspot.com, which they apparently don't realize is owned by Google. Google has a clear policy and notice of how to issue a take down notice as required by the DMCA safe harbor, which everyone should know by now Google has.
Also, the website URL is a sub-domain on blogspot.com, so it can not transferred as a domain name.
This new suit demonstrates that Righthaven has little or no understanding of some critical technological aspects of the Internet. It also calls into question their understanding of copyright law itself inasmuch as they ignored a central component of the DMCA, the safe harbor provision requiring a take down notice.
If it can be shown that they do not in fact have standing to bring this action, they might be subject to liability under the DMCA for a false report.
I am Brian's friend and family. If anyone reads all of this motion to dismiss, they would see that Brian did not and still does not know where this photo really came from. He nor any of our family had ever read any newspapers in Colorado. He lives in North Carolina, and we live in Virginia. The photo does not tell you where it comes from.
He and we too are concerned about the TSA that is going on. He did not have to ask permission as the newspaper where he found the article (did not link back to anything else), so of course, he thought that was where the photo and incident happened in California. He did link back to the original article. They were asking everyone to share this, print it or email it which is giving permission. On the other hand, after the lawsuit, and we found out where the photo came from, the paper (Denver Post) does give permission to print, email or share. It did say on the bottom of the page to not put it on a commercial site. Brian does not make any money from his website. It did not say anything about asking permission. Again when Brian got this photo one week before Righthaven got a copyright on it, Brian did not know where it came from. When Righthaven or whomever found out it was on Brian's website, all they had to do was ask him to remove it, and he would have done so. Brian did nothing wrong. He was operating a hobby website, not for profit. We will not pay for this because money is tight right now, and we don't feel that he is guilty of wrong doing.
It's obvious to me that Righthaven is going after blood, after the disabled, after those who don't have money and mostly after free speech. Brian will not admit to wrongdoing as he did nothing wrong. All over the world wide web, we all have shared with each other. We have never made any money off from any of this since Brian has been a baby. If the courts decide that we can no longer have free speech on the Internet, can no longer share, then it will be up to Brian and all of us to just close shop, get off of the Inernet. To this day, Brian did nothing that all of the rest of us have done. He will not, can not apologize for wrongdoing.
According to the U.S. Copyright Office (Public Catalog), Righthaven has recently increased its copyright holdings to 195. Apparently they've scoured archived articles from Stephens Media, picked the ones that they've found on blogs and other web sites, and are preparing for a new wave of lawsuits. Some of the articles date to 2008, so they're backtracking.
American Justice Dot Org
http://www.americanjustice.org
I have found some wonderful people through this entire episode. I call them "angels on earth". I have also found the cold, judgemental people, whom I don't like at all. Brian's 2 attorneys have done an amazing job for him. I am impressed! They have spent many hours helping Brian with this. Brian has met some wonderful friends. We have all learned a lot.
It really is affecting his health in a very bad way. All we can do is let this be known. After this, it is beyond our power, and all we can do is put it in God's hands while the court decides what is free speech and what is fair use. This morning was very rough. Roberta found Brian at his desk with eyes open, and he was unconscious. She kept working with him, trying to get icing and juice down him with icing and sweet drink going everywhere. She was almost ready to call 911 (which is rough too to have to spend the day in the hospital) always a last step for Roberta. Finally after an hour he was better. She has no idea how long he was like that. She was shaking from everything. It is just taking a lot longer to bring him around than it used to when his glucose goes way down since this uncalled lawsuit began.
Brian is truthful and will not lie and say that he was wrong because sharing on the Internet, linking back to where you got your information has never been considered wrong his entire life. He has been taught to share with others which is what we all have liked about the Internet, this ability to share from home, not even have to go to the library. We all learn a lot on the Internet. To say he is guilty of something he is not guilty of would make his autism worse.
vegastom: If you've ever met Steven Gibson you would know with absolute metaphysical certitude that he could never make this guy look bad on the stand. By virtue of opening his pie hole for the first time a jury would absolutely want to draw and quarter him.
Using a little common sense and basic human ethics, most people would know it is wrong to copied something that somebody has created or paid for.
It is not rocket science.
Don't copy other people's work.
If people did the decent thing then Righthaven would be out of business.
It is a simple thing to just link back to the original.
You find a cool photo. Fair Use allows one to display a small copy (thumbnail) of the image that links back to the original. You are suppose to cite the source, too.
You find a cool story. Fair Use allows one to display a few sentences of the story. You need to cite the source and provide a link back to the original.
It is not that hard to do.
Do the right thing.
Don't steal.
Follow common sense and basic ethics.
That will put Righthaven out of business.
How many times do we have to tell you that Brian did link back to the source which was from California, not Colorado. The photo does not tell you who it belongs to, looked like it was public domain TSA patdown.
That is common sense and basic ethics.
I personally do not like that photo at all and don't even like to look at it. From now on, my grandson has learned to use only his own photos or to make up some type of art work to represent this. He always links back to the original source unless it's an article he does himself. He doesn't go in airports, so he had to rely on other information for that article of his and thought he had linked back to the original source. He is a great photographer and wanted a much better photo, thinking it was public domain. If it had something telling him where it belonged on the photo, then he would have gladly asked. As it was he saw the article and thought he linked back to the natural source. I don't like the tsa, would never go to an airport where they do the patdowns. You need to use some common sense too. Go to google, type in TSA patdown, look at those photos on there. Would you know where they belong? We live in Martinsville, VA and when we look in our newspaper, the year and the newspaper is stamped on all of their photos, so if one wanted to use one, it would not be a problem to ask.
Did you know there are many photos that people can use on the internet that is called "public domain" and are free for everyone to use? When we link back to articles, we make no money, but are helping these sites (we thought) to make money by linking back to them and sending others to them, which Brian did. All Righthaven needed to do was to tell him this is a copyrighted photo and needs to be removed or linked back to the right source. Of course, when he put it on, when they found it on his website, it was not copyrighted (or was it, we really don't know). We're all aware that these newspapers do us a great service by sharing news with us and don't mind linking back to where we received our news, so others can read it first hand as well as other articles related to this subject. I wonder how much money we have given people in the last almost 20 years that we have been on the internet, just by linking back to the article and sharing these interesting articles with others.
Rock, for once I do agree with you when you said if Hill's friends truly cared about him there should be a settlement. The problem is, I haven't seen in any of these articles how much Righthaven has offered him. That would be the only way to settle, for Righthaven to be the ones to pay for his physical suffering and mental and physical anguish.
Your comments remind me of someone I was in the military with several years ago. No matter what you owned, he had something better. No matter what you had done, he had done something better. No matter what comments we make to you, you only see one way (the wrong way). Righthaven is in the wrong and everyone, including you, knows it. You're just too stubborn and bullheaded to admit it, so the courts have to be the ones to tell them and you as they have been doing all along. Hill doesn't have to admit wrongdoing, since he has done nothing wrong.
"From reading Mr. Green's stories, Righthaven was attempting to negotiate an ending to the lawsuit.
But Hill and his lawyers declared all-out legal war on Righthaven.
If you don't like hot kitchens then don't start a fire.
Here is what I recommend to Hill and his friends.
Offer a deal to Righthaven.
In the deal, state that Hill did not ask for permission from anybody to download and use the image.
State that Hill now will no longer do such actions. If wants to use an image or story then follow fair use generally accepted guidelines which is if you want to use the full blown image then ask and obtain permission. If you just want to have a thumbnail image and link then do that. You don't have to have permission to have a thumbnail linking image.
In the deal, offer to settle for $1,200 to be paid over 60 months which is $20 a month. His friends can chip in and pay the settlement.
Hill can get move along with his life." by SgtRock, March 22, 2011 11:31 a.m.
Sgtrock your the unreasonable one and if you are Sherman Frederick then you were a pastor and suppose to follow god but you don't act like you follow god. With the way you talk and act you sound as though you follow the god of money and Satan is your god. God is a creative being and never charges anything we do here. God doesn't copyright and charge s-loads for the earth we inhabit, the trees we cut down, the animals we kill to eat, the plants we kill to eat, and god isn't charging us for the prayers we give.
God is about being creative but sgtrock you are far from a god loving pastor. Pastors should be setting an example and your not setting a good example. Jesus was a homeless man that served god and didn't copyright anything but instead he gave and gave until he was tortured and killed by the money changers.
Also Righthaven should be reasonable and stop making all these demands. Why can't they just get the case disappear for nothing then maybe Brian will just make the agreement since his freedom of speech will still be intact but is afraid that they are calling all the shots and will strip away his freedom of speech like they did with Alex Jones of infowars. Righthaven is in the wrong here not the defendant!
Freedom of speech is important and once it's taken away then he cannot get it back and is better off moving to another country since he can start over having freedom of speech that he would lose in America.
Brian is reasonable but he is also a reporter and journalist and you should never make any proposal to take away Brian's rights because hes a journalist and journalists have rights.
The minute we start taking away journalists rights away we might as well live in a depressed 3rd world country where police beat up the reporters and people live in huts.
"If you've ever met Steven Gibson you would know with absolute metaphysical certitude that he could never make this guy look bad on the stand."
I can pick a d-bag out from across the parking lot --- no need to intentionally meet one in person.
but that's my point --- you can't really beat up a kid on the stand who would be half puking and suffers from the assortment of maladies he does. Gibons wouldn't be able to garner the support he'd need --- regardless of his half-baked reading of the law.
and for what? over a half-cooked photo that no one but Gibons cares about? lol. do you think you could find 12 people who would give Gibons $150K for a friggin photo that's all over the place? lmao --- get serious.
that's why I say --- lets follow Sargent Frederick's advice and have a trial. lets have it tomorrow. lets see if the mighty Gibons is such a great litigator that he could convince a dozen people he deserves what he's asking for.
As far as Sargent Frederick's advice? He probably tells women who are about to be raped to enjoy it.
Heh. I looked up a$$clown this afternoon and this is the photo that was used as an illustration.....
http://tinyurl.com/4c3j3vk
PR disaster? you wait boys and girls --- they'll use the Reichaven fiasco in PR _and_ law schools around the world on "how absolutely not to do things".
Last time I checked the 1st Admenment did not say, "You shall have the right to steal other people's speech to use for your own."
Copyright protection is in the Constitution.
It is something that goes back hundred's of years.
The Bible says not to steal.
So if you see something out there and you lust after it and want to put on it your own website then just ask the website that has it for permission to use it.
Is that too hard to understand?
If you believe that we have to right to steal then can I drop by your house? I need a few things.
> If people did the decent thing then Righthaven would be out of business.
LOL --- you've got to be kidding, Sargent Frederick -- now you're going for sympathy? Wow. There's no bottom for you, is there?
All the RJ had to do was do the "decent thing" and send an email asking to take the alleged violation down. Now that some gloves have come off and fists pointed at your chops you're calling for decency? WOW!!!
You morons struck for first blood --- live with the consequences.
Or are you one of those "libs" you're always whining about, "Sarge"? LMAO.
> If you believe that we have to right to steal then can I drop by your house? I need a few things. <
Sure. stop on by and see what happens. lol -- then see what happens in the media and how no charges would be filed as a result of your stupidity.
Sarge old boy -- you're trying to compare apples and oranges and there's noooooo way you could find 12 people who will get what you're trying to argue --- let alone caring what it is you think you've lost. You're confusing law with what happens in courtrooms.
and how trite of you to bring up the bible --- as I said before. there's no low to low for you, pal.
Well actually, Rock, infringement under the law is not theft. Therefore, no one has stolen anything. No where in Righthaven's lawsuits have they alleged that anything was stolen or there was a theft. You will not find those words in any of the lawsuits. The copyright holder has not lost possession of his copyright, physical or otherwise. That may be all semantics to you, but it's not theft.
Sgt Sherm, you've lost the Righthaven-is-always-right argument on this thread (again) just like your so-called 'law firm' will lose the case against Brian Hill.
Righthaven's litigation-for-profit business model worked for awhile but it's beginning to crack. Hopefully you will disappear along with them.
It is trespassing and Bible is against that too.
The only reason why I am bringing up the Bible is that old lady did.
Evidence: "As far as Sargent Frederick's advice? He probably tells women who are about to be raped to enjoy it."
Evidence....as in Vegas_Tom is an pure 100% total idiot.
SgtRocksInHisHead has been so vehement on this issue whenever it appears, I have come to the conclusion that for him, it isn't a matter of right and wrong, nor one of principle. I will wager that he is personally involved, either directly or at the very least, peripherally.
And I should know.
Hey Sherman Frederick...err I meant Sgt Rock I have a educational lesson for you.
Definition if stealing: To take something without asking; To remove a possession without ones permission; to take something without paying for it.
Stealing is Taking Something okay!!! Taking something not copying something but actually taking it!
Now the definition of copying: To copy something; to make a duplicate of the original work; to duplicate whatever you like.
Stealing is taking something without asking. The only crimes committed by defendants is copying the photo without asking.
Also sgt rock you act like the defendants are trespassing but if that was true then why didn't these news sites use IP Blocks or deny access to those that they view are copying their images.
Also another good education lesson for knowledge of computing:
Every time a website is accessed all files download to the Temporary Internet Files folder and so that means if somebody wanted the image to put on their website then all they have to do is check their Temporary Internet Files and there you go. Every website files and images all automatically download to your computer for viewing. So if that is stealing then every visitor is a thief, lol.
If you don't like anyone to download your images then watermark them cause I would do that dummy sgt rock, and if you still are afraid of random users taking your image then just DONT even have a freaking website if you really want your work to be protected.
>> It is trespassing and Bible is against that too.
>> The only reason why I am bringing up the Bible is that old lady did. - Sgtrock
Wait a minute now are you calling me a old lady???
I'm a man! not a old lady!
No matter what you called it is infringement and infrinement is both illegal and unethical....old church lady.
>Evidence....as in Vegas_Tom is an pure 100% total idiot.<
you're so right, Perry Mason --- I forgot the part about asking the lady for $1,200, with $20 monthly payments if she can't crack the whole nut in one whack.
I can only imagine the mensa meeting down on Bonanza where Gibons brought the idea to the table --- everyone snickering over 10,000 $6,000 settlements they could extract from the unsuspecting. talk about total idiots. LMAO.
just how many times did you and Gibons say "unlimited income" that day? hmmmmmm? BWWWWWAAAAHHHHAAAAAA.
>No matter what you called it is infringement and infrinement is both illegal and unethical.<
bla. bla. bla.
protect your precious content there Sargent Frederick --- it's simple and would give you the hammer you're grasping around for with Reichaven.
Here, I'll make it easy for you.
http://www.hypergurl.com/norightclick.ht...
Or perhaps you prefer the humiliation route?