Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Saturday, June 5, 2010 | 1:53 p.m.
Related Document (.pdf)
Sun Coverage
- Former news anchor among targets of new R-J copyright suits (5-30-10)
- 4 more copyright suits over R-J stories brings total to 22 (5-28-10)
- 4 more sites sued over alleged R-J copyright infringements (5-20-10)
- 14th website sued over R-J copyright allegations (5-17-10)
- More suits over alleged R-J copyrights bring number to 13 (5-14-10)
- Suits accuse groups of posting copyrighted R-J stories (5-5-10)
- Two more websites sued over posting of R-J stories (5-3-10)
- Sixth copyright suit filed over R-J stories on websites (4-26-10)
- 3 copyright suits filed over R-J stories on Web sites (4-16-10)
- Suits accuse 2 groups of posting copyrighted R-J stories online (3-17-10)
The publishers of a noncommercial blog about cats in Boston are among the latest defendants in lawsuits claiming website operators have been infringing on copyrights by posting Las Vegas Review-Journal stories without authorization.
Allegra and Emerson Wong are among the defendants in eight lawsuits filed in federal court in Las Vegas on Friday claiming infringement of copyrights to R-J stories. Friday's suits bring to 34 the number of lawsuits filed over R-J copyrights since March.
The plaintiff in the suits is Righthaven LLC, a company that has partnered with the Review-Journal to sue alleged copyright infringers.
In most cases, the defendants have no idea the R-J is concerned they are violating copyrights until they are contacted by the Las Vegas Sun, informed they have been sued and asked for comment.
In the Wongs' case, court records indicate family in Las Vegas sent them an R-J story from March 21 about a fire at the Gilcrease Nature Sanctuary that killed scores of birds. One of the Wongs then allegedly posted the story on the blog at allegrawong.com, apparently out of concern for the animals.
More than two months later, attorneys for Righthaven on May 26 obtained the copyright to that story from the R-J; and then filed their suit on Friday.
The Wongs couldn't be reached for comment on the allegation the web post infringed on the copyright now held by Righthaven.
Also sued Friday were:
--Las Vegas public relations executive Steve Stern and his company Stern and Co. Inc. They're accused of posting R-J business stories or portions of business stories on Stern's website asternglance.com
--Pregame LLC and two individuals associated with the company, Randall J. Busack and R.J. Bell. They are accused of posting a February R-J story involving Super Bowl betting on the pregame.com website, which covers sports betting.
--The Prescription LLC and RX Advertising Inc. They are accused of posting a February R-J column on Las Vegas strip club payments to taxi drivers on the therxforum.com website, which focuses on sports betting.
--The website emtcity.com and an official associated with the site, Christopher J. Malley. The site, which focuses on the paramedic and emergency medical technician industry, allegedly posted a February R-J story involving the North Las Vegas Fire Department seeking to acquire ambulance duties.
--The Motorcycle Racing Association of Nevada, accused of posting an R-J story from February about proposed national monument designations.
--The Off Shore Gaming Association and James Quigley in the Philadelphia area, accused of posting an R-J story from March involving Internet gambling.
--Shaker Advertising Agency, an Illinois company, and an official associated with the company, Joseph G. Shaker, accused of posting an R-J story from March about a federal program to bring computer centers to Nevada. That material allegedly was posted on the company's www.vegasjobs.com website.
Requests for comments were left with the defendants. The suits typically seek damages of $75,000.
In Stern's case, an exhibit filed with the lawsuit indicates a story involving a former Stern client, Community Bank of Nevada, was posted in its entirety on the asternglance website, that its headline was changed to credit the R-J to say "LVRJ: FDIC seeks damages from Community Bank officers and directors," and that a link to the R-J story was included on the asternglance website.
"The defendants did not seek permission, in any manner, to reproduce, display or otherwise exploit the" story, the lawsuit charges.
Stories, or portions of other R-J stories, involving Silver State Schools Credit Union and the Nevada unemployment rate were also posted and again credited and/or linked to the Review-Journal, the exhibit shows.
Stern, whose clients include the Gordon Silver law firm and the Vestin real estate lending companies, has plenty of experience in media relations involving litigation.
Stern said the first he heard there was an issue with the R-J stories and his website was when he was contacted about the lawsuit by the Sun on Friday.
"I was unaware there was any concern," he said, adding it's his practice to usually run summaries of stories -- often involving his company and his clients -- with links and full credit to the source.
At the Motorcycle Racing Association of Nevada, Bryan Schierberl, a race referee, also said an inquiry from the Sun was the first he had heard there was a concern about an R-J story on the association website. He said he didn't have enough information about the matter to comment further.
Separately, in a Righthaven case filed last week against former newscaster and sportscaster Ron Futrell, his attorney Jason Wiley said he plans to contest the suit with valid defenses, but declined to say exactly what those defenses would be.
Wiley, of the firm Woods Erickson Whitaker & Maurice, said he's also considering filing a counterclaim against Righthaven and potentially against associated parties, but didn't want to name the associated parties.
Futrell was accused of infringing on Righthaven copyrights by posting R-J stories on his website www.localslovevegas.com.
In a blog post May 28, Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick said the Righthaven lawsuits were filed as part of an effort to stop the theft of copyrighted material.
"When it comes to copyrighted material — news that my company spends money to gather and constitutes the essence of what we are as a business — some people think they can not only look at it, but also steal it. And they do,’’ Frederick wrote.
Of the 34 lawsuits filed by Righthaven, at least four have been settled with the terms generally not being disclosed.
But on Friday, Righthaven agreed to settle a case against the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), based in Washington, D.C., for $2,185. That case involved an R-J story called "Marijuana as Medicine."
Attorneys for NORML had been fighting that lawsuit, saying Righthaven lacks standing to prosecute the alleged infringement because the Nevada court lacks jurisdiction over NORML and since Righthaven didn't own the copyright at the time R-J story showed up on the NORML website.
But on Friday, NORML filed papers offering to settle and that offer was accepted by Righthaven.
"As a point of information, this amount ($2,185) was arrived at by examining the number of persons who could possibly have viewed the `Marijuana as Medicine' article on (codefendant) MAP Inc.’s servers (247), and multiplying that number by the dollar amount charged by the Las Vegas Review-Journal to purchasers of copies of the article from its news archive ($2.95). Nothing in this offer is an admission that 247 people actually did view the article on MAP Inc.’s servers, and in fact, NORML believes that the number is far lower. Nevertheless, this offer is calculated to be the maximum amount that Righthaven could possibly, theoretically, collect in actual damages for the alleged copyright infringement in this case, and then to remove all doubt of the reasonableness of the offer, this amount was then tripled," attorneys for NORML said in their filing.
NORML was represented by three attorneys with three law firms in the case, so its costs to defend the suit likely easily exceeded the $2,185 settlement amount.
"If Righthaven does not accept this offer, Righthaven may become obligated to pay NORML’s costs incurred after the making of this offer," the NORML attorneys said in their filing.
MAP, which stands for Media Awareness Project, is the group that provides the news feed to NORML's website. The Righthaven suit against MAP remains active.
i have never seen a more "penny wise - pound foolish" act by a business in my lifetime.
the r-j is REALLY going after a CAT website in boston?
REALLY?
is the bad p.r. worth it?
ya, i can't WAIT to advertise in the r-j.
What about those who post stories to Facebook....even though there is a Facebook box right next to the article as to who posted what....I hate to think of what the RJ will do to the Facebook crowd...
Sounds like the best bet is to avoid this newspaper, its simply not worth it. I will not renew my subscription. My guess facebook users could be targeted next. I'll stick with my old mainstay the Boston Globe, and get my local news from television.
Canceled my subscription 3 years ago. They must be desperate.
They're too liberal and desperate for cash.
Hopefully they'll lose and go out of business for reporting liberal garbage.
@tooshy:
Presumably they're going after sites that repost the entire article - not just a link and fair use (which has a rather large gray area) excerpt. They want their content to be shared, but on their terms, not yours.
This is starting to become more common as a way to pick up flagging revenues - indie film companies have or are suing over 15,000 people so far this year for downloading and distributing movies on Bit Torrent. They're playing some legal tricks to keep their costs down (filing a lawsuit against does 1-5,000 instead of an individual lawsuit against each person), then offering settlements for $1,500 a person, escalating to $2,500 if the case goes to discovery.
Its basically legal extortion - its legal because the person did commit a crime (intellectual property violation), but it seems to go against most people's ethical standards (surely, a significant number of people are false positives - running open WiFi and not knowing any better, kids using the internet and not knowing its illegal, etc), especially when you consider that the federal damages are insane - $75,000 for reprinting a news article on a blog is ridiculous. It should be punished but $75,000 is just crazy.
Gee..I wish I was the law firm for the RJ..just think of all of the billable hours and .50 cent a page photo copies...LMFAO
Just wondering if that s(umbag lawyer who sued because the bottle of propofol was too large is involved in this too.
Steve Green(or anyone else who knows the answer).
I would assume it's ok to post a link to an RJ story and in that way no copyright violation would exist?
Maybe the RJ will turn a profit after all.
A link is legal as it sends to viewer to a page where ads pay the author. When people copy and post they make money off of the views and don't want to pay the author or the publisher. It's called theft when you make money off of someone's work without permission.
I guess I'm leary of these R-J & Righthaven practices..Didn't it mention that Righthaven acquired the copyrights AFTER someone posted the stories? Isn't that a little fishy????
This is absolutely ridiculous! Instead of realizing that those blogs and web-sites will potentially product increased traffic to RJ by using the article and the source, they're going to try to make money from frivolous lawsuits.
Each of these web-sites will now have the right to tell what RJ has done to them; that adverse publicity will hurt them more, than had they simply sent a comment or e-mail and ask them to use a link only, and possibly a paraphrased introduction to the article.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot and head at the same time!
PS - thanks for including the web-sites, I'm off to visit them now........
It's a shame the various websites that have posted these stories from the R.J. did not seem to be given a cease and desist order giving them a chance to remove these articles before a lawsuit was filed. Maybe I missed something.
Glad to see Ron Futrell is fighting them. Rock on Ron!
republican OR democrat...boycott ANY candidate that runs an ad in the r-j this year.
this newspaper is a bully picking on people that have really done no harm to the r-j (is a CAT website in BOSTON really doing anything to harm the r-j?) and these people have no way to defend themselves.
it would be one thing if it was a blogger or website or paper in las vegas competing with the r-j for advertising dollars, but this doesn't seem to be the case with ANY of these so called "offenders".
truly a disgusting move by a disgusting paper.
The RJ should be happy ANYONE is interested in what is going on in Vegas (or interested in the RJ stories). Yea, let's sue potential visitors. Hey, be glad people still talk about us. When they stop this place will be a dust bowl.
These two attornies are pathetic. They will end up falling. They think it is great now but the end is near..
As for the LV Sun, why are you helping them out by continuously posting about who they sued? What is the point?
The tea people are melting down and lashing out - Wasn't it the RJ that was quick to condemn the Desai Verdict?
Overly litigious society means: employees, patients, environmentalists, consumers, not corporations, polluters, rich, Republicans, Fox etc.
The RJ's favorite radio NEWS? man even melted down when D. Tark "touched him" at a hillbilly teaparty Bar. eek! I think the RJ and the Hawaiian shirt guy are upset that Reid is closing in and Ensign is acting kooky with his "defense fund."
The Rightklaven strikes again.
Shameful as it sounds, it is a REVENUE STREAM for a desperate industry and a despicable practice by a newspaper that has no scruples.
The RJ and Sherman are aging dinosaurs lashing out with their big fat tails...
I think they're just about to go the way of the dodo bird.
ETHICS? THE RJ?
Surely Shirley, you jest.
I may have mentioned this before but can anyone higher up step in and intervene and knock some sense into RH? Can the courts say "enough already, maybe the problem isnt with them, but you".
Maybe my logic doesn't work with everyone but almost 100% of these articles would NOT have been posted, seen, or read about if it wasn't for these select people. In theory, they are doing the newspaper a favor by garnering potential customers as they may go back to the source website for future articles. If they liked what they read, they'll go straight to the source.
I ask if anyone can step in because you can do a google search right now and find atleast 500 blogs/message boards/websites who have done this 100% copy and pasting of articles.
Lastly, with a warning, wouldnt these websites still be inclined to post links from LVRJ properly and still give them their much needed views? Currently it seems these websites are basically turning away everything LVRJ related.
A instant loss of views. You think the NORML website or the CAT website will ever post a LVRJ article again? Nope. There are plenty of other news sources out there.
Do the advertisers know about this practice? The old way likely garnered at least 20% source link clicking. Now you are down to nothing.
Logic_doesn't rule,
I would bet if that attorney you are defaming had a cause to file a suit against you, it would be the last word you ever wrote or said about him or his firm. They are a first class firm and unless your name followed by the word defendant in one of their cases, you are damn lucky to have them involved.
The drug companies were guilty. A jury of YOUR peers found them to be guilty. The award set a record for Nevada and you think this is because the attorney was a "s(umbag without a case? If you believe in the justice system, you should accept the outcome as fair and just.
Believe me, if you were damaged and had a case worthy of Mainor, Eglet, Cottle's representation, you would be begging to hire them. But they don't take BS cases or BS clients so I doubt you would ever qualify for their services.
When the little guy gets screwed, Mainor, Eglet, Cottle represents the best chance he has to get compensated, no matter how big or powerful the defendant is. Just ask Baxter and Teva, who thought their money and power was enough to avoid taking responsibility for their negligent, and in my opinion, criminal behavior.
Thank you to M,E,C for having the guts and talent to take on these goliaths when other, lesser firms would run away from a case. A first class firm made up of first class talent.
Just my opinion but if I were to see my name as defendant on a suit filed by M.E.C., the word settlement would be the first thing that popped into my head.
I guess freedom of the press really does belong only to the owner of the presses. Funny that the R-J is absolute on the First Amendment but believes that its alleged property rights trump the First Amendment. By the way, the R-J didn't really go after the state on taxes until it didn't get a tax vote to go its way. Anybody remember that?
Time to start a new paper. It can be done, people, with a lot less money than one may think. I've done it and took on the local big dog and took a bite of their revenue because they were crap to their locals. Thought about going to LV and do the same - if anyone is interested, please let me know.
JustDumb-Forget the "fine" attorney. I don't have the billions he's trying to suck out of the health care system.
Since you seem to have a brilliant legal mind. Why don't you sue me?
Question for all the legal minds out there, if you just post a link to a story are you doing anything wrong?
This seems to be an endgame; make money while you can before going out of business. It's like sending customers on a leaky boat and selling seats on the lifeboats.
samb007
i am not a lawyer but i work in media...and i even worked for the r-j.
there is a concept of "fair use" that basically as long as you give credit to the source, you can use part of a copyrighted work to illustrate a point, or for debate.
for example, it's an election year. if cnn does a story on a politician and they show part of a newspaper article that says the paper called him "dishonest"...as long as cnn gives CREDIT to that article...it's almost always ok.
now, if you copy the entire article, and don't give any credit...leading people to think it was YOUR work, that's where you get into trouble.
for example, if you posted a link to a story in the r-j on THIS website...you would be fine because of "fair use".
Based on the information being true in this article, the people of Vegas need to be all over this. The negitive backlash could mean a loss of money coming to vegas ten-fold of the money won in these lawsuits. Remember...Do something right and a person MAY tell 10 people about it. Do something wrong and that same person WILL tell everyone that will listen. (Human Nature 101)
I can't believe they are bragging about this. It sounds like the folks at the LVRJ are sue happy......whatever happened to sending a cease and disist letter first as a courtesy?
samb007, 90% or more of these defendants never claimed it was theirs. All over these blog entries are LVRJ this, LVRJ that. They were never leading viewers to make it seem as if it was that websites work. View this website for the PDFs of the lawsuits and "evidence"
http://www.citmedialaw.org/search/node/r...
It has nothing to do with plagiarism, but the very fact that they are not being read on LVRJ.com, makes them a copyright issue. Or better yet a $$$$$ ad revenue issue.
Everyone sues nowadays. You know that a bakery cannot put a picture of Mickey Mouse on a cake without paying a royalty to Disney. I know of a local car club that got a cease and desist letter from the car manufacturer because the club had the car logo on it's business cards. No thought of the free advertising the club gave the company by promoting (and buying) it's products. I sometimes see obvious copyright violations in various advertisements run in newspapers across the country (possibly ad copy produced by the advertiser ot it's agent, not necissarily the paper itself). I guess it's "cool" until they get caught.
I have just canceled my subscription to the RJ (it's a lousy excuse for a newspaper anyway) and I will have nothing further to do with them in any form. I hope they enjoy their extortion money from the cat bloggers while they can.
The article doesn't state definitively if the RJ was referred to or not. Every small business blogger I know is 'taught' to use other material from the internet, with proper acknowledgements - or linking to it where it is.
Other court cases have set precedence that things on the internet is public information and usable.
There is no defense by posting a link or identifying the source. Don't know where that comes from but it is quite untrue. Attribution is a nice thing but no way required or useful in a defense.
There is a general view that a small excerpt and a link are generally legal under the fair use rule. They can likely still sue though. You do have a defense and may be able to set it up so your legal costs get paid when you win.
And note that these damages generally need not be proved. A Judge however must agree to their size.
this is so stupid. there is no reason to sue over this garbage. RJ is obviously desperate for money. F*** the RJ
This is a great example of a big corporation forgetting that the reason they exist is because of small business who advertise and individuals who buy their paper. This is a death spiral if I have ever seen it. They should be thrilled that they are getting free advertising. Spread the word to all companies that advertise in the RJ and all those who buy the paper. I promise to never spend any of my income on any company that would support such an un-American way of business.
Goodbye RJ and good riddance!
This is ridiculous!!
EMT City is a website for EMS professionals, we also have a large firefighter/paramedic membership as well.
A member posted the link and story which credited the newspaper and article as the originator of the story. The link is from another EMS website however, but the article has the author and newspaper named.
These stories are relevant to our careers and are great discussion topics. And now you want to sue a paramedic who makes very little money who tried to share an important article with a mass audience while crediting the paper as well??
WTF...over!!!
Get your head out of your...and quit being a money grubbing, take down the little man bully!!
I used to live in Las Vegas & have always kept up with what is happening in the city. I registered just to post against this story. While I understand the concern over copyright, then you might be wise to remove the ability to post to facebook, twitter, print or email the story as well - Be consistent - if you can't embrace social media with people sharing stories (with credit given!!), then don't allow people to easily share. I sure won't - I wouldn't want to be sued based on how many people read the post via twitter or facebook!
Also, I'm wondering if the RJ is filling out a copyright application for each and every article. The old law that I'm familiar with, requires that $8 be paid along with the copyright application, and then one must display the copyright number with any future publication.
Since I don't see any copyright numbers on their articles, I'd question the fact that they also didn't get some of their material from the myriad of news' sources on the I-net.
You can type key words from an RJ (or even a Las Vegas Sun) article, and you'll get a lot of other sources - often they're using the exact same verbiage, and many times it's an modified version.
As I said earlier on this commentary, they're leaving a bad taste in the mouths of readers and the bloggers who have been sued, can run rampant with their experience re the RJ, which means more bad publicity than good.