Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, March 8, 2011 | 5:06 p.m.
The owners of a Canadian newspaper website are among the latest to be sued by Las Vegas copyright enforcement company Righthaven LLC.
Righthaven is the copyright enforcement partner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post.
Last week it filed five more lawsuits in federal court in Denver, all over a Denver Post TSA pat-down photo.
Among the latest defendants in one case are 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.
Potentially complicating that case is that a court exhibit shows thespec.com credited the photo to The Associated Press, which has reported it distributed the photo to media outlets.
The photo ran alongside an AP story on the enhanced pat-downs of passengers, the exhibit shows.
(William Dean Singleton, chairman of the board of directors of The Associated Press, is also chairman and CEO of Denver Post owner MediaNews Group. The AP is a not-for-profit news cooperative owned by its American newspaper and broadcast members).
Messages for comment were left with The Hamilton Spectator and The Associated Press as to whether the newspaper’s website had authorization to post AP photos on the date of the alleged infringement — Nov. 21. That was two weeks before Righthaven’s copyright to the photo was registered by the U.S. Copyright Office on Dec. 8.
Brian Hill, a North Carolina blogger sued by Righthaven over the same photo, has told the Las Vegas Sun that he's also found the photo online credited to The Associated Press.
"I think this highlights the problem with Righthaven's overall strategy of sue first and ask questions later,'' said Hill's attorney, David Kerr in Fort Collins, Colo. "Many people may use the image in good faith and try to properly cite it back to the source, but that may not in fact be the true source. While they may be trying to follow the law as they understand it, the ability of a photo, for example, to `go viral' may make it impossible to know the work's original source. Righthaven is just the first to build a business model around this new digital reality.''
As usual, Righthaven demands in the Toronto Star Newspapers lawsuit $150,000 in damages and forfeiture of the thespec.com website domain name.
Also sued over the photo were:
— Skyword Inc., owner of the gather.com website; and Rose Castle, whom Righthaven says is a registered member of the website posting under the name "Bella Rose.'' Righthaven charges she "contributed an unauthorized copy of the photograph'' to the website.
``Skyword’s failure to institute any proactive policies intended to address the contributions by others of copyright-infringing content to the website constituted and constitutes Skyword’s willful blindness to the copyright infringements occurring on the website,'' the suit charges.
— Recommended Reading Inc.; officials there Christopher McGill and Nathaniel Collinsworth; and website poster David Sullivan. The suit says Sullivan, known as "gbudavid,'' posted the photo on Recommended Reading's site, mixx.com.
— Internet Business Center LLC, an official there, Clifford Hoelz; and Timothy Alexander. The suit says Alexander is listed as an author on the site island-adv.com and is known as "Lord Stirling'' there. The suit says Alexander posted the photo there.
— Pantheon Promotions Inc., registrant of the website domain name newsnet14.com; and a contributor to that site, Nathaniel Bacon, whom Righthaven claims posted the photo there.
A spokeswoman for gather.com said the company doesn't comment on lawsuits pending or filed. Messages for comment were left with the other website operators named in the lawsuits.
These five lawsuits lift to at least 42 the number of lawsuits Righthaven has filed over the photo — with 39 of the suits filed in Denver and three in Las Vegas.
Since March 2010, Righthaven has now filed at least 246 lawsuits over Review-Journal and Denver Post material.
Separately, a Righthaven lawsuit against Michael Nystrom was dismissed. Nystrom has a website about politician Ron Paul called www.dailypaul.com and was sued over a Review-Journal column. A federal judge dismissed the case last week after Righthaven failed to show Nystrom had been served with the Aug. 31 lawsuit.
Four more Righthaven suits were settled or closed under undisclosed terms. They were against defendants James Higgins, Richard Kwei, Odds On Recording Studios and Mt Rock Church.
These lawsuits bring more TAX FREE INCOME to the winning parties - but the taxpayer pays for the courts, judges, rents etc. Corporate welfare is destroying this State and should be eliminated.
We're still waiting for one of these suits to come to trial and Righthaven is made to show their $150,000 in actual damages. Isn't the purpose of any lawsuit supposed be to put you in the position you were before you suffered the damages? Let's see the actual damages!
Righthaven is now suing other newspapers. I have seen the AP copyright while sending heads up emails to people who have posted the image. I have been warning those that I find hoping to beat Righthaven to it.
This is another way the Denver Post is being deceptive. If they really wanted to stop their images from being copied they would put Righthaven as the copyright owner but instead they are being deceptive in hopes of entrapping people.
It is against federal law to put a false copyright symbol. Someone should look into this to charge the Denver Post and the AP for falsely labeling the works in question.
I would never pay for a copy of a Las Vegas Review Journal or do business with an advertiser of it, because of this behavior.
I've been sued for something I didn't do, and it stings every time I read about this stuff.
Having to pay an attorney to defend something you're not guilty of is stressful and a complete waste.
Can someone fill me in about how Righthaven is going after individual users. Is that because these websites are not DMCA "certified"? Instead of takedown notices or just suing the MAIN website registrant, they can go after both parties?
I guess if people want to contribute to a variety of websites, they need to know which ones are truly DMCA registered to be protected.
Also, are they going through these user's ISPs to locate who these specific people are? Or are these websites willingly sharing everything to Righthaven in a power move to get info out of them to "lessen the burden"? "You snitch on the user by providing us info and we'll go after them too". Is that too far fetched?
I guess everyone needs to read their favorite websites TOS and user agreement and make sure you are truly protected.
blee 44
Righthaven has sued people that are DMCA certified. Right now they are in a lawsuit with Pajamas Media that does have a DMCA safe harbors registration.
Righthaven does not concern themselves with the merits of a case because their specialty is strong arming settlements. They will risk filing cases that they know they will never win in court because they know most will settle regardless.
they are corporate pigs gobbling up as much as they can stuff into their collective mouths. i cannot wait for some judge to stuff their greedy little mouths with a slap for wasting our judicial resources. death to the RJ and Righthaven.
AInsider: First, I am vehemently against the RJ/Righthaven tactics. Second, while your document is interesting (I read it on scribd.com), I do see anything in it that would indicate anything more than everyone surmises or already knows about Righthaven.