“Court Says You Can Copyright A Cease-And-Desist Letter”

We and many others criticized a law firm in October for taking the position that its cease and desist letters, also known as nastygrams, were copyrighted and thus could not be posted intact on the web by its targets. However, if a press release from that law firm is correct, a federal court in Idaho has just indeed taken the position that cease and desist letters may be covered by copyright law. Such a ruling, if upheld, would make it more difficult for the targets of bullying tactics by lawyers to rally online support for their cause. (TechDirt, Jan. 25; Slashdot, Jan. 26; Dozier Internet Law press release, PRWeb, Jan. 24).

More: “if a press release from the law firm is correct” turns out to be a big if: according to Ron Coleman at Likelihood of Confusion, as well as our own commenters, the Idaho federal court ruling falls far short of establishing any such proposition about these letters’ being copyrightable. See also: Victoria Pynchon, IP ADR blog, TechDirt later post, Paul Alan Levy @ CL&P. And yet more: Marc Randazza, Eugene Volokh.

Filed under: copyright, Idaho, nastygrams

Harry Potter, Inc., vs. fan guides

“There is a necessary and healthy line between what the initial author owns and what follow-on, or ‘secondary,’ authors get to do, and [author J.K.] Rowling is running over that line like the Hogwarts Express.” With mention of Judge Posner’s 2002 Beanie Baby decision (Tim Wu, “J.K. Rowling’s Dark Mark”, Slate, Jan. 10).

Filed under: copyright, fans as infringers

Model’s suit: You used the video you took of me

A 37-year-old Jane Doe (who claims to be the host of a national cable tv program) agreed to be videoed rolling around in a bed “looking excited” for $200 in November, and was disturbed to see the results on a YouTube advertising campaign with obviously dubbed orgasmic moans. The punchline in the ad (probably NSFW if your volume is on): “Jewelry works every time.” Or, as my feminist girlfriend grouses every time she sees a tv jewelry ad with far subtler implications, “Your wife is a whore who will only put out for shiny objects.” Cf. also this YouTube copyright violation from Family Guy (NSFW), soon to be taken down by Fox.

Through her attorney, Kevin Mulhearn, she’s sued Szul Jewelers for $5 million. Mulhearn claims there’s no release, which while implausible, may be true. If so, she has a point, though the ad damnum claim is ludicrous: and far more people are going to watch the supposedly image-damaging video now that Mulhearn has gone to the press. And, of course, she didn’t have to roll around on the bed in the first place. (One hopes that I’m not aiding and abetting a publicity stunt for the jeweler.) [Daily News; AP/New York Times]

Filed under: copyright, jackpot justice, lawyers making clients worse off, personal responsibility

Egypt wants to copyright pyramids, Sphinx

Under the proposed law, backed by Supreme Council of Antiquities chief Zahi Hawass, persons around the world would be forbidden to make copies, even for private use, of the country’s famous monuments, scarabs and other Pharaonic survivals. “His comments came only a few days after an Egyptian opposition newspaper, Al-Wafd, published a report complaining that many more tourists each year travelled to the pyramid-shaped Luxor hotel in Las Vegas than to Luxor itself. The newspaper proposed that the US hotel should pay some of its profits to Luxor city.” However, Hawass said that copies of pyramids and other objects that were less than “exact” might escape a royalty obligation, which might get the back of the U.S. one dollar bill off the hook. (Rory McCarthy, “Egypt to copyright the pyramids and antiquities”, Guardian, Dec. 27; “Egypt to copyright pyramids”, AFP/Google, Dec. 26; AP/IHT). More: Coleman.

Filed under: antiquities, copyright

Canada: Staples sued over customers’ unauthorized copying

“Access Copyright has launched a $10 million lawsuit against Staples/The Business Depot for unauthorized copying by store customers. The copyright collective claims this is the largest lawsuit ever launched over copyright infringement of published works in Canada.” (Michael Geist, Nov. 15)(via Fagstein).

Filed under: Canada, copyright, technology

Don’t link, criticize, use our name, refer to us, view our source code…

Just by browsing the website of a company called Inventor-Link, visitors supposedly consent to abide by the terms of a “user agreement” which “strictly” prohibits them from using not only any of the site’s content but even its name without express permission. “Furthermore, we strictly prohibit any links and or other unauthorized references to our web site without our permission.” The company is invoking these terms in a cease and desist letter “in an attempt to stop criticism of the company that appears on InventorEd.org, a website that provides information about invention promotion businesses and scams.” Inventor-Link’s law firm? None other than Dozier Internet Law, criticized in this space and many others last week over its claim that its nastygrams are themselves the subject of copyright and cannot be posted on the web. And the Dozier firm’s own website has a user agreement that purports to prohibit “linking to its website, using the firm’s name ‘in any manner’ without permission,” and, weirdest of all, even looking at its source code by clicking on your browser’s “view source code” command. (Greg Beck, Consumer Law & Policy, Oct. 17). More: Boing Boing, TechDirt (including comment that reads, in its entirety, “You are not allowed to read this comment”), Slashdot.

Filed under: copyright, Dozier Internet Law, nastygrams, online speech

A nation of lawbreakers

Recommended: at Slate, Tim Wu of Columbia has a five-part series in progress on the phenomenon of laws whose violation is very widespread and broadly tolerated. His examples include laws against (certain) recreational drug use, possession of obscene material, (some) copyright infringement by end users, and (promised in the final segment) immigration. (One that might have been added: low-level gambling in the form of office football pools and the Supreme Court poker game.) His opening anecdote:

At the federal prosecutor’s office in the Southern District of New York, the staff, over beer and pretzels, used to play a darkly humorous game. Junior and senior prosecutors would sit around, and someone would name a random celebrity — say, Mother Teresa or John Lennon.

It would then be up to the junior prosecutors to figure out a plausible crime for which to indict him or her.

(via Katherine Mangu-Ward, Reason “Hit and Run”). More from Hans Bader.

Filed under: copyright, crime and punishment

Nastygram: don’t you dare post this nastygram on the web

Ted has briefly mentioned (Oct. 8) the recent doings of an outfit called Dozier Internet Law, whose cease and desist letter to a consumer-complaint site not only demanded that the site take down certain statements about Dozier’s client, DirectBuy, but also asserted that the cease and desist letter was itself the subject of copyright and could not be posted in part or full on the web. Eric Turkewitz, having called this approach “chuckleheaded” in an initial post (Oct. 5 — scroll), is now all over the story (Oct. 9 and Oct. 11), especially after attorney John Dozier of the firm in question submitted a comment whose clueless snippiness really must be seen to be believed.

More: from Consumer Law & Policy, Patry Copyright Blog, Legal Ethics Forum, and TechDirt, as well as extensive coverage at TDAXP.

Filed under: copyright, Dozier Internet Law, nastygrams, online speech

October 8 Roundup

The DC Examiner quotes both Walter and me in their series on corruption in the trial bar.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t: privacy laws interfere with college mental-health treatment, which of course doesn’t keep them from being sued when the treatment doesn’t work. [LA Times; earlier in April; and May 2006]
Charlie Weis didn’t just lose his first several games of the season at Notre Dame; he also lost his silly medical malpractice case retrial. [Childs; February in Overlawyered]

Ninth Circuit revives one claim in deep-vein thrombosis litigation against airlines. [Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines; San Francisco Chronicle; earlier on Overlawyered]

Hugh Hewitt discusses tort reform with Overlawyered bloggers. [Ted on Hugh Hewitt; Walter on Hugh Hewitt]

Overlawyered and Public Citizen agree: it’s silly for law firms to try to copyright their nastygrams. [CL&P Blog]

More on the Target website disability suit. [Open Market; Oct. 3 and links therein]

Utah Supreme Court adopts common-sense product liability rule. [Products Liability Law Prof]

DC City Council objects to recovering millions spent by city on medical care of patient who sued city after gouging out his own eyes. [DC Examiner; Washington Post; BLT]
The most embarrassing thing Joe Stiglitz ever wrote? [Manne via Boudreaux; Cowen; Frum]

Are Overlawyered readers “fringe element” “sycophants”? From the same blogger who says no one can criticize Lynne Stewart unless they personally know her, but I presume that’s “For thee, but not for me”-style hypocrisy. [Scott Greenfield]

Filed under: copyright, Lynne Stewart, nastygrams, Public Citizen, roundups, Utah

$222,000 for sharing 24 songs

Good thing copyright infringement law isn’t punitive or anything (David Kravets, “RIAA Trial Produces Playlist of the Century”, Wired News, Oct. 4; more; Recording Industry vs. The People, Oct. 5; via Sullivan). Meanwhile, from the same state, same day, comes word that a school bus driver who pleaded guilty to drinking on the job has been fined $482. (“Bus driver pleads guilty to alcohol charge”, AP/Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Aug. 5; Lileks via Reynolds). More: Declan McCullagh, “Why the RIAA should have won (though the fine was too high)”, CNet, Oct. 5.

Filed under: copyright, RIAA and file sharing