Legal Threat

Many readers are probably familiar with the meltdown of the Santa Barbara News-Press, a local daily newspaper in Santa Barbara, California. Starting in 2006, reporters and editors of the newspaper clashed with now-infamous Wendy McCaw, controlling shareholder of Ampersand Publishing LLC, which owns the paper. Tensions swirled around McCaw's perceived intervention in editorial and reporting judgments, traditionally left to the paper's professional staff. The controversy resulted in a slew of resignations and firings, chronicled in the documentary film, Citizen McCaw. The brouhaha spurred a bizarre lawsuit over copyright infringement, which pitted the News-Press against another local paper, the Santa Barbara Independent. According to the Independent, the defendant in the lawsuit, the case recently settled. While this might come as a relief to the Independent, it leaves a questionable fair use decision on the books.   read more »

Just last week, I was ruminating on the viability of state claims of copyright in government records. At the time, I was pretty confident that a state wouldn't be crazy enough to claim copyright in its own statutes, both because caselaw suggests this would be legally invalid and because it would be shoddy public policy. Now, the Legislative Counsel Committee of the State of Oregon has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Justia, a free online resource for judicial decisions and statutes, claiming that Justia's posting of the Oregon Revised Statutes violates its copyright. The Committee's claim is not as outlandish as it initially sounds, but it is still quite problematic.

The Committee is not claiming copyright in the text of the law itself. Smart thinking -- Tim Armstrong at Info/Law does a better job than I could marshalling the cases suggesting that any copyright claim to the text would be doomed. (The most exciting of these cases is Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc), if only because it's from this century.) Instead, the Committee claims copyright in   read more »

Wikileaks, which purports to provide an "uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis," is back in the news as it faces a new legal threat from the Church of Scientology. On March 26, Wikileaks published what it describes as a full unedited version of the Church of Scientology's Operating Thetan documents. It says that while some portions of the "bibles" of Scientology have been previously leaked, this is the first time the entire 612-page document had been made public.

On March 28, 2008, a lawyer for the Religious Technology Center (RTC), the entity that holds the copyright in the Church's writings and religious materials, sent an email to Wikileaks alleging copyright infringement. The email complained that an unknown Wikileaks user had posted certain "Advanced Technology" works belonging to the Church on the Wikileaks site. It demanded that Wikileaks remove the allegedly infringing material and requested that the website "preserve any and all documents pertaining to this matter and this customer, including . . . logs, data entry sheets, applications . . ., registrations, forms, billing statements or invoices, computer print-outs, disks, hard drives, etc."   read more »

We've been following the subpoena issued to Kathleen Seidel in the Citizen Media Law Project's Legal Threats Database, but thought it was time to throw our support behind Seidel and post about this egregious attempt to chill online speech.

Seidel publishes the blog Neurodiversity, where she writes about autism issues. In February 2008, she wrote about a lawsuit against various vaccine manufacturers, Sykes v. Bayer, in which the plaintiffs, Lisa and Seth Sykes, seek to link exposure to mercury to their son's autism.

Seidel's post mainly focused on developments in the lawsuit, but some of her language was critical of the Sykes and their case. For example, she indicated that the Sykes have "aggressively promoted the overwhelmingly discredited scientific hypothesis that autism is a consequence of mercury poisoning" and called their lawsuit "a hydra-headed quest for revenge, for compensation, and for judicial validation of autism causation theories roundly rejected by the greater scientific community, by numerous courts, and by a great number of individuals and families whose interests they purport to represent."

Apparently as a result of this post, the Sykes served her with a subpoena in connection with the Sykes v. Bayer lawsuit. The subpoena demands that Seidel appear for a deposition on April 30, 2008 and that she produce a breathtaking array of documents. Seidel summarizes the subpoena's demands as follows:   read more »

Earlier this week, Perez Hilton sued fellow gossip-blogger Jonathan Jaxson for libel, slander, invasion of privacy, harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Jaxson, the former publicist for the Backstreet Boys whose real name is Jonathan Wayne Lewandowski, operates a blog called JJ's Dirt that feeds the public's apparently unlimited hunger for celebrity gossip.

The complaint, which Hilton filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleges that Jaxson slandered him by stating that Hilton had solicited sexual favors from Jaxson in exchange for help promoting Jaxson’s website. The complaint specifically refers to a February 28 article in the New York Post in which Jaxson stated that Hilton encouraged him to send sex tapes of himself. "He would tell me he would give me stories for my blog," Jaxson told the Post. "He used me."

Hilton also claims that statements Jaxson made to ABC News, Popcrunch.com, and HollywoodCrap.com, were defamatory. According to ABC News.com and allegations in Hilton's complaint:   read more »

A quick update on the Internet Solutions v. Marshall case, which I've blogged about at length previously. This case is significant to us because Tabatha Marshall, the defendant, was the first user of our website to submit information about her case through our threat entry form.

Yesterday, a federal district court in Florida dismissed the lawsuit against Marshall, who is a Washington resident, holding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over her. The court held that exercising personal jurisdiction over Marshall would violate the Due Process Clause because she lacked minimum contacts with Florida. Specifically, the court determined that Marshall's website, www.tabathamarshall.com, did not justify hailing her into a Florida court because it was equally accessible to persons in all states and because Marshall's posts did "not specifically mention Florida or its residents." The court therefore distinguished the pre-Internet Supreme Court case, Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), which held that a California court could exercise jurisdiction over two Florida reporters who had "specifically target[ed] a California audience, ma[de] large distributions in California, and publish[ed] articles about a California resident."

Marc Randazza has additional commentary.

I was sure that this was an April Fool's joke. But alas, it's true. Deutsche Telekom, the parent company of T-Mobile, sent Engadget a letter a few weeks ago, requesting that the popular tech blog stop using the color magenta in the logo for its Engadget Mobile news blog. Here are the two logos side-by-side (courtesy of Engadget):   read more »

Breaking news -- TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington is suing Facebook for unauthorized use of his name and likeness. In apparent disregard of the tech blogger's publicity rights, the social networking giant has been allowing advertisers to post ads on user profiles using Arrington's picture and name to endorse their products without permission. Specifically, Arrington alleges that his image appeared in connection with ads for Blockbuster's new "Movie Clique" application and the movie Jackass 2.5.

From TechCrunch:

I am sad that this had to blow up to the point where we are publicly suing Facebook over the matter. We’ll be filing the lawsuit tomorrow along with a related civil case for assault and battery and infliction of emotional distress. In a round of negotiations over the lawsuit with Facebook led by Chief Privacy Officer Chris Kelly, things got out of hand. When our team of lawyers offered to settle for a mere $50 million, Kelly told me Facebook would “bury you and bury your crappy blog” if we filed the suit. He then threw his steaming hot triple soy latte espresso at me, which caused extensive second degree burns over the top half of my body. Later on, he also unfriended me.

Yep, you guessed it. April fools :) Sorry I didn't take the time to fabricate something out of whole cloth myself, but this was ready-made and too good to pass up.

Last Thursday, a federal court in Georgia handed down a big win for free speech when it ruled that Wal-Mart could not use trademark law to stop a critic from disseminating his virulently anti-Wal-Mart views over the Internet. From Public Citizen's press release:

In rejecting the company’s claim of trademark infringement, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta found that Charles Smith’s parody Web sites (www.walocaust.com and www.walqaeda.com) and related novelty merchandise were protected speech and that a reasonable person would not confuse their use with Wal-Mart’s legitimate trademarks. The court also rejected Wal-Mart’s claim that it has trademark rights in the “smiley-face” that Smith used in one of his parodies.

Public Citizen and the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia Foundation defended Smith after Wal-Mart sued the Conyers, Ga. man in 2006, claiming he infringed on its trademark by creating parody logos and Web sites built around the “Walocaust” and “Wal-Qaeda” concepts,including the image of an eagle clutching a yellow smiley face, similar to the one Wal-Mart uses in advertising. Smith also put the design on T-shirts, bumper stickers and other items that he sold on CafePress.com.   read more »

New Jersey prosecutors have subpoenaed the controversial gossip site JuicyCampus as part of an investigation into whether the site is violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Reports (here, here, and here) indicate that prosecutors believe that the website may be running afoul of the law by suggesting in its Terms & Conditions that it does not allow the posting of offensive material but providing no enforcement of that rule or way for users to report objectionable content. (New Jersey authorities also subpoenaed AdBrite and Google for information about how JuicyCampus represented itself to these advertising services.) Assuming the investigation moves forward, this case is sure to be a flashpoint for further debate about section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230).   read more »