RightHaven Going After Drudge

[mrjarrell]

Our favourite group of shysters is going after Drudge this time. Not for quoting a segment of an article, either. Nope. They're going after him for copyright infringement of a photograph. So, now we have something else to worry about from these creeps.

Drudge Report owner sued by Righthaven - Thursday, Dec. 9, 2010 | 10:06 a.m. - Las Vegas Sun

(Note: The Las Vegas Sun is NOT the Las Vegas Review-Journal that's in bed with RightHaven)

 

[thej27]

Soon they will practically be telling the media "Join as an investor or we will find a way to sue you!" Wonder if they will be brave enough to take on the likes of Fox, CNN, BBC and other major media. Doubt it though.

 

[mrjarrell]

Soon they will practically be telling the media "Join as an investor or we will find a way to sue you!" Wonder if they will be brave enough to take on the likes of Fox, CNN, BBC and other major media. Doubt it though.

Well, if they're successful they'll own many of these website outright. That's part of their settlement. If they win, they'll force Drudge to turn over his domain to them. Can you imagine going after newspapers and news sites? They'll eventually own every truly independent aggregator site, if this keeps up.

 

[rambone]

Maybe the Department of Homeland Security should shut down Drudge for being an internet pirate.

 

[mrjarrell]

Maybe the Department of Homeland Security should shut down Drudge for being an internet pirate.

If it weren't for fair use, someone could probably try to make the case.

 

[henktermaat]

They just bit off more than they can chew.

 

[mrjarrell]

They just bit off more than they can chew.

Why? Drudge isn't rich or something. He's going to be hard pressed to defend himself, too. If he used a picture without permission or copyright, like it or not he's guilty. That's what everyone here was arguing not too long ago in regards to music. While I, and many others, would like to think he's covered by fair use, this is going to cost Drudge a load of money and might just put him out of business.

 

[henktermaat]

Why? Drudge isn't rich or something. He's going to be hard pressed to defend himself, too. If he used a picture without permission or copyright, like it or not he's guilty. That's what everyone here was arguing not too long ago in regards to music. While I, and many others, would like to think he's covered by fair use, this is going to cost Drudge a load of money and might just put him out of business.

Oh I forgot, you know everything and cannot comprehend an optimistic viewpoint.

 

[mrjarrell]

Oh I forgot, you know everything and cannot comprehend an optimistic viewpoint.

You can be as optimistic as you like, it won't change the reality of it.

 

[henktermaat]

You can be as optimistic as you like, it won't change the reality of it.

Drudge can handle this. He's not another small blog who'll settle for $3500.

 

[mrjarrell]

Drudge can handle this. He's not another small blog who'll settle for $3500.

He could only wish it was $3500 (+legal expenses).

Righthaven seeks in Wednesday's lawsuit damages of $150,000 as well as forfeiture to Righthaven of the drudgereport.com and drudgereportarchives.com website domain names.

While he might be able to handle $150K he cannot afford to lose his domain name. RightHaven isn't playing softball.

 

[Eddie]

This is a new area to me. Isn't there some sort of professional liability insurance these guys can purchase?

 

[mrjarrell]

This is a new area to me. Isn't there some sort of professional liability insurance these guys can purchase?

I'd guess there was, since companies will insure someone for just about anything for the right price. Unfortunately, Drudge is just a blogger who has a popular blog/aggregator, (albeit one that pulls in about $1 million a year in ad revenue). You would think that liability insurance would be a smart idea. Not sure what it would cost, since it would have to cover "criminal" acts.

 

[Yoder]

He isn't going to lose his domain over this, that it just a ridiculous term added to the complaint. These are just the dying throes of another industry that technology will soon leave behind.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

This is why I'm going to love becoming a lawyer. People like Jarrell who believe that just because an attorney writes a letter "Sumtin' BIG is gonna happen!" will keep me fat and happy the rest of my days.

They just co-named Drudge because someone else who uses Drudge's name allegedly used one of their photos. That thing is going to get tossed out of court faster than a shaped charge explosion in a coverup meant to look like a terrorist attack (We're sure of it! This is the first time fire has melted steel!).

 

[mrjarrell]

This is why I'm going to love becoming a lawyer. People like Jarrell who believe that just because an attorney writes a letter "Sumtin' BIG is gonna happen!" will keep me fat and happy the rest of my days.

They just co-named Drudge because someone else who uses Drudge's name allegedly used one of their photos. That thing is going to get tossed out of court faster than a shaped charge explosion in a coverup meant to look like a terrorist attack (We're sure of it! This is the first time fire has melted steel!).

Hope you read better when you become a lawyer. Drudge is being sued because he used a copyrighted picture without permission. The Drudge Archives are being sued because they archived the picture and are using it without permission. As for this being big...RightHaven has dragged quite a few sites through the wringer and only lost one, as far as I know. Is this "BIG"? Who knows? But Drudge is certainly the largest target they've gone after. Surprised they didn't go after more than the few thousand and his domain.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

Nope, I read it just fine. As a blogger, Drudge has certain journalistic protections for him that are not extended to that archives site he doesn't own. He can use their image as long as he attributes it properly. It's not copyright infringement.

 

[mrjarrell]

Nope, I read it just fine. As a blogger, Drudge has certain journalistic protections for him that are not extended to that archives site he doesn't own. He can use their image as long as he attributes it properly. It's not copyright infringement.

While I'd like to believe that fair use comes into play, in this instance, the rules at most papers state that you need to buy the image for use, or have their permission to use it. The copyright holder in this case did not grant permission, nor did Drudge lease it, as far as we know. By the letter of the law he is in violation of the copyright. The same would apply if he used a music file. Copyright laws are screwed up, but that's what happens when government gets involved.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

While I'd like to believe that fair use comes into play, in this instance, the rules at most papers state that you need to buy the image for use, or have their permission to use it. The copyright holder in this case did not grant permission, nor did Drudge lease it, as far as we know. By the letter of the law he is in violation of the copyright. The same would apply if he used a music file. Copyright laws are screwed up, but that's what happens when government gets involved.

Doesn't matter what the papers state. What matters is what the law is. That's why South Park isn't suing you for your avatar.

 

[Fargo]

While I'd like to believe that fair use comes into play, in this instance, the rules at most papers state that you need to buy the image for use, or have their permission to use it. The copyright holder in this case did not grant permission, nor did Drudge lease it, as far as we know. By the letter of the law he is in violation of the copyright. The same would apply if he used a music file. Copyright laws are screwed up, but that's what happens when government gets involved.

Fair use is an exception, whether consent is given or not; you are mixing two different ways it may be legal to use a copyrighted imaged.

If you are using it within the parameters of fair use, it doesn't matter whether the owner consents or not. Even if the owner explicitly does not consent, the fair use exception still applies. As I recall, this was litigated about 5 years ago over google providing thumbnails of copyrighted material on its image searches. I don't recall whether that was found to be fair use or not.

I do know that "excerpt and link" is something widely considered acceptable under current law. As such, as long as Drudge linked to the site of the paper he excerpted the image from, he very well may fall within fair use. This is especially true if he just posted a thumbnail rather than a full size image.

Consent to use the image is a whole nuther thing largely unrelated to fair use.

IAALBNYL

Best,

Joe

ETA: The google case I referenced was Perfect 10 v. Google. While ancilliary issues are still being litigated, it appears that Google won the fair use argument. IMO, this makes Righthaven's argument weak at best.