WebProNews

Tag: Fair Use

  • Righthaven May File for Bankruptcy: Report

    Righthaven May File for Bankruptcy: Report

    Things don’t appear to be looking too great for Righthaven these days. After losing some key fair use cases, the company stopped filing suits altogether, and got rid of a lawyer that’s been involved in over 50 cases.

    For more background on the ongoing Righthaven saga, read our previous coverage.

    Now, Righthaven says it might have to file for bankruptcy, according to a report from Vegas INC:

    The warning came in an emergency request by Righthaven to a federal judge in Las Vegas that he stay his order that Righthaven pay $34,045 in legal fees to attorneys who successfully defended Kentucky message board poster Wayne Hoehn against a Righthaven lawsuit.

    This fine was issued last month after a judge had already previously ruled that Hohen, a war veteran, was within the rights of fair use when he posted an entire article from the Las Vegas Review Journal to his site to generate discussion about it.

    The judge was quoted as saying:

    “Righthaven did not present any evidence that the market for the work was harmed by Hoehn’s noncommercial use for the 40 days it appeared on the website. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Hoehn’s use of the work was fair and summary judgment is appropriate.”

    “While the work does have some creative or editorial elements, these elements are not enough to consider the work a purely ‘creative work’ in the realm of fictional stories, song lyrics, or Barbie dolls. Accordingly, the work is not within ‘the core of intended copyright protection.’”

    The ruling also noted that fair use is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately for Righthaven, recent cases have ruled on the side of fair use in the defendants’ favor, though Righthaven continues to appeal.

  • Righthaven Stops Filing Suits (At Least for Now)

    Righthaven, which has made a business out of suing people for alleged copyright infringement (see background stories here) has not filed a suit in two months according to a new report from Wired, which suggests that “the great experiment in copyright trolling ” may be coming to an end.

    For some reason, that seems hard to believe, considering the amount of fight and persistence Righthaven has shown thus far. They have lost a number of key suits only to keep appealing. Once, a case was thrown out only to be immediately refiled by Righthaven.

    Judges have tended to rule on the side of fair use, and Righthaven has had to pay legal fees for the defense.

    Righthaven appears to be waiting to see how its appeals turn out before proceeding further. CEO Steve Gibson is quoted as saying, “It certainly seems to be prudent to see how all of these cases come out in the wash.”

    “The cases continue to show that their business model is not a viable business model,” Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has defended people against Righthaven, and has been very vocal in its opposition of the company, is quoted as saying.

    It’s going to be very interesting to see how the Righthaven story progresses. It should have major implications for fair use. Some have all but declared the company’s quest dead. The aforementioned Wired report by David Kravets says Righthaven is on “life support.”

    Jeff Roberts at Paid Content says, “The Righthaven model now appears moribund.”

    Righthaven also got rid of in-house lawyer Steven Ganim, who participated in 53 Righthaven suits. That doesn’t exactly send out positive waves for the company.

  • Righthaven Loses Another Fair Use Case, Ordered to Pay $34K in Legal Fees

    Righthaven was dealt another blow in a Nevada federal court, as it was ordered to pay over $34,000 to cover the legal fees of the defendant it had just sued (and lost).

    For some more background on Righthaven, you can peruse our previous coverage here. Basically, it’s a company that has made a business out of buying copyrights from publishers (namely the Las Vegas Review Journal) and suing bloggers and other sites for using article texts and images in various ways.

    They’ve already lost some key suits in the name of fair use.

    Vegas INC is reporting:

    U.S. District Judge Philip Pro awarded the fees Monday in the case of Kentucky message board poster Wayne Hoehn.

    Pro on June 20 dismissed Righthaven’s lawsuit against Hoehn, finding Righthaven didn’t have standing to sue him and even if it did, Hoehn was protected by the fair use doctrine in posting an entire Las Vegas Review-Journal column on a sports betting website message board. Righthaven’s lack of standing was due to the R-J maintaining control of the column despite Righthaven’s claims of ownership.

    “The wheels appear to be coming off the Righthaven trainwreck-in-progress,” says Nate Anderson at Ars Technica, who describes the company as “the litigation outfit, which generally sues small-time bloggers, forum operators, and the occasional Ars Technica writer.”

    That last part is a reference to when Righthaven filed a suit against Ars Technica contributor Eriq Gardner. The article was about Righthaven suing Drudge Report. It featured a screenshot of The Drudge Report page in question, which was actually taken from a court document. In the screenshot, was an image that Drudge Report used, and was the reason it was being sued by Righthaven.

    Righthaven lawyers told Anderson shortly thereafter that they dismissed the suit against Ars Technica once they realized Gardner “was a reporter.”

    Anderson calls Righthaven v. Hoehn “an utterly shambolic piece of litigation.”

    Clearly the judge agreed. Of course, Righthaven is appealing. As they’ve proven time and time again, they’re no quitters.

  • Blink 182 Has Fun With YouTube Copyright Infringement

    Blink 182 Has Fun With YouTube Copyright Infringement

    Fair use is an issue that will not have much resolution going forward. Users want to have some creative control over songs they own, and the governing bodies that by have a much more strict approach to that practice. It’s an age-old battle that’s been around since Walt Disney’s days, but now, with the ease of use the Internet provides, the situation is much more volatile, especially when some in the intellectual property litigation industry view copyright as a money-making device.

    TechDirt’s coverage of fair use and public domain has been top notch. It’s a cloudy subject with very little compromise on either part. That being said, there are humorous approaches to this touchy subject, something Blink 182 attempted with their first music video release in eight years. To create their video, they offer the following explanation:

    To launch our first single in eight years, AT&T helped us search YouTube for every instance of fans using our music without our permission. And then we rewarded them for it. This film is made out of clips from all those videos. Thanks for being a fan.

    The surprising thing, at least from this perspective, is, after finding them, AT&T didn’t have takedown notices issued. That might have ruined the video Blink 182 was trying to make, however. The video in question:


    It’s a mash of various clips and recreations, culminating in an entertaining video that also speaks a great deal about some of the creations fair use and public domain inspire. Granted, Blink 182 made it a point to say these songs were used without their permission, but they thanked the fans anyway. Of course, the entertainment industry’s view on fair use, public domain, or, well, using anything that they think they are entitled to is captured quite nicely in the following webcomic:

    Fair Use Comic

    Too bad no one from the RIAA or MPAA shares the same kind of humor as the comic or Blink 182.

    Considering the mentality of the entertainment industry rulers is much like this:

    The RIAA’s Jennifer Pariser claimed that there’s no value to a work in the public domain. Apparently Pariser is unfamiliar with the works of Shakespeare. Or Beethoven. Is she serious? I mean, you could make the argument that it makes life more difficult to sell those works for the labels she represents, but those works have tremendous value. Pariser, of course, is famous for making ridiculous statements, sometimes under oath.

    As long as this mentality has the inside track with the governing bodies of the U.S., fair use and public domain is not a luxury many people will be allowed to enjoy without legal hassles.

    It should be said Blink 182 is entitled to determine how their music is used, but if a person actually purchases a song and makes a video that they don’t profit from, how was the artist’s brand damaged?

  • Demand Media Threatens “Demand Studios Sucks” with Legal Action

    Demand Media Threatens “Demand Studios Sucks” with Legal Action

    A blog and forum site called DemandStudiosSucks.com has been threatened with legal action by Demand Media, the company behind Demand Studios. The letter the site received has been posted on the site itself. In it, Demand Media’s legal department says:

    Demand Media possesses valuable trademark rights in the Demand Media trademark and holds trademark registrations for Demand Media in numerous jurisdictions across the world.  Demand Media is also the copyright holder of the DemandMedia.com website located at www.demandmedia.com, as well as the copyright holder of all content on Demand Media owned and operated sites, including eHow.com and LiveStrong.com.

    It has been brought to our attention that you have wrongfully created and maintain a forum in which users can, and do, post and misuse Demand Media’s trademark, copyrighted material, including confidential and proprietary copy editing tests, as well as other confidential and proprietary Demand Media information (specifically, in the form of an internal presentation regarding the company’s business plans.)

    The letter points to a couple of links on the site that contained “content at issue”. The content on one of them has been pulled. The other one is a critique of the quality on Demand Media’s eHow site repurposes some advice from eHow itself on how to evaluate quality. A snippet from the article which uses that says:

    Did you ever stop and think why Demand Media has to rely so heavily on Google? Could it be because there are no advertisers who willingly want to attach their brand to the quality of merch that Demand Studios is selling on eHow?

    The quality of the content on Demand Media’s primary property — eHow — is mediocre at best. It tops out at average. I would throw my own output into that category. Here’s why: Demand Media gets what they pay for. They want to pay $7.50, $15, $17.50, $20 per piece, and I am going to deliver quick and slapdash work in a manner that maximizes my output and efficiency and games the system to ensure it gets through. A writer’s economic strategy is no different than Demand Media’s.

    Keep in mind this post is from January, before the company went public and before the Google Panda update. A lot has happened surrounding Demand Media and eHow since then. That includes an initiative to clean up the quality of eHow content, including but not limited to the removal of some content.

    However, as Jeff Bercovici at Forbes notes, this letter to Demand Studios Sucks comes as Demand Media’s mart cap fell below a billion dollars for the first time since it went public. The company’s next earnings call is scheduled for August 9. In the last one, the company acknowledged the impact it felt from Google’s Panda update, noting that eHow’s search referrals declined by 20% as a result of it.

    Patrick O’Doare at Demand Media Studios Sucks crafted a response with the aid of his legal team. In it, he says the site is consulting with legal advisors and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has been instrumental in defending fair use (see Righthaven cases). In the response, O’Doare writes:

    In deference to your claims, but without acknowledging wrongdoing or infringement, we have — for the time being — removed all images and allegedly infringing material from the forum post referenced in your request….

    With regard to the blog post…we assert, without equivocation, that this content falls well within the commentary and critique provisions of the fair use doctrine. Let’s be honest – if ever there was a case of unequivocal fair use, this would be it. The image in question was presented publicly as part of the Demand Media retail roadshow in advance of the company’s initial public offering. Although you may deem this material to be an “internal presentation regarding the company’s business plans,” it was — in fact — presented to the public on multiple occasions during the runup to the company IPO and purportedly after. Any alleged trademark infringement due to this image is incidental and also subject to the unequivocal commentary and critique provisions of fair use. Furthermore, as I’m sure you are aware, alleged trademark infringement is not subject to the provisions of the DMCA.

    Should Demand Media continue to pursue this spurious claim, we are prepared to defend ourselves to the fullest extent allowed by law. Please keep in mind that Section 512(f) of the DMCA creates liability for knowingly making false claims in a DMCA takedown notice. See 17 U.S.C. § 512(f). Your lack of proper consideration of the protections of fair use doctrine could well serve to the court as evidence of bad faith on behalf of Demand Media and subject your company to such liability.

    You can read the whole thing here.

  • Another Righthaven Copyright Case Thrown Out, Only To Be Filed Again

    Righthaven lost another copyright case, this time in Nevada. The “company” seems to be losing a lot lately, but this time, they have decided to refile the suit right after the case was dismissed.

    A blogger named Dean Mostofi, was the defendant this time. He apparently used the full text of an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal about a year ago. Long story short, the Judge found that Righthaven didn’t actually have the rights to the story at the time, so couldn’t sue over it now, despite an amendment to the contract between Righthaven and the Review Journal (hat tip to Ars Technica’s Nate Anderson).

    The Judge said: “This amendment, however, cannot create standing because ‘[t]he existence of federal jurisdiction ordinarily depends on the facts as they exist when the complaint was filed.’”

    Here’s the court document, courtesy of TechDirt:

    rhavenmostofi713

    So yeah, the case was dismissed. But Righthaven refiled it so that it existed during the time of the complaint this time. Oh boy.

    It is also being reported that Righthaven was fined $5,000 for misleading the court.

    Last month, a judge ruled that the copying of an entire Las Vegas Review Journal article was fair use when a war veteran had posted the article to a site aiming to generate discussion about it. Righthaven had another complaint dismissed a couple weeks before that when it sued Democratic Underground over an excerpt of a Las Vegas Review Journal article that a user posted on a forum.

  • Huffington Post Suspends Writer After Taking Too Much From an AdAge Story

    Simon Dumenco at AdAge posted a story today about how the Huffington Post regurgitated one of his articles, and bashed the Post’s long-time claims about how its links can drive tremendous amounts of traffic to the original source. It appears, however, that the content in question actually went too far for the Huffington Post’s own tastes.

    Dumenco explains that the article was a hit, but got way more traffic from Techmeme than from the HuffPost piece. Why is it ok for Techmeme to link to it and not for the HuffPost? According to Dumenco, because Techmeme takes a minimalist approach – normally with just a headline and short snippet (a la Google News) as opposed this particular HuffPost case, where the article was essentially rewritten, extracting all of the necessary points form the original piece.

    “Techmeme drove 746 page views to our original item. HuffPo — which of course is vastly bigger than Techmeme — drove 57 page views,” says Dumenco.

    In an update to the post, Dumenco shares an email from Peter Goodman, Executive Business Editor of the AOL Huffington Post Media Group, which calls his criticism “completely valid.”

    “We should have taken what you call ‘the minimalist approach’ or simply linked directly to your story. That is how we train our writers and editors to handle stories such as this,” it said, also adding that what occurred was “entirely unacceptable”. It also said that the complaint has led to greater, yet unspecified efforts to ensure reporters and editors understand that this is “unambiguously unacceptable.”

    @simondumenco
    Simon Dumenco    What It’s Like to Get Used and Abused by The Huffington Post http://j.mp/oDZOwo 20 hours ago via bitly · powered by @socialditto

    @simondumenco
    Simon Dumenco    Huffington Post suspends writer, apologizes for over-aggregated post http://j.mp/q9FCQv 4 hours ago via bitly · powered by @socialditto

    It’s frequently debated just what should be considered fair use. Righthaven has made a practice out of suing those it deems violators as a business model. Judges have been ruling on the side of fair use.

    You have to bring something new to the table, or have some kind of added value if you’re going to base a post on the work of others. An aggregator like Techmeme or Google News gives you just enough for you to see whether or not you want to read the story. They don’t aim to be the source of information as much as the sign pointing you to that source. When you get into articles themselves, it becomes a different matter.

    That’s not to say it’s wrong to quote from original sources. Links and credit are obviously musts, and you should simply bring more and/or different information or commentary to the story than what was in the original source.

    Staci Kramer at Paid Content writes, “If you can’t manage the art of aggregation, stick to the science. Aggregation has been part of our coverage mix at paidContent from the beginning. Done right, it’s a valuable tool that helps readers and benefits the original source. Done wrong, it’s at best, a mess and at worst, theft.”

    Here, for example, I’ve quoted from two different stories: the original AdAge piece and a PaidContent piece discussing it further. The PaidContent piece quoted from the original as well. Are either of us in the wrong for quoting (and linking to) these sources? I don’t think so, but you also don’t see us taking the entire post, paraphrasing, throwing a link on, and not adding anything to the conversation.

    And that’s just it. Conversation. That’s why, in my opinion, it’s not only fair, but critical for publications to quote and link to original reports sometimes. The conversation shouldn’t end with the one report from the one source. There are often new shades of perspective or simply different angles to stories, and that is precisely what makes aggregators like Techmeme or Google News useful to the news consumer. They cluster these different articles on the same topics together to give readers a more rounded spectrum of coverage.

    In this age of social media, things get even more complex. People are going to share stories through social networking channels. They’re going to add their own commentary most of the time, but at the same time there are plenty of people out there simply spouting off something they read in an article to their own circle of friends, or even to the public with no link or mention of the original source. That may be limited to 140 characters on Twitter, but it could be as long as an article on Facebook or Google+.

    Publications have their work cut out for them if they’re to stop this kind of thing entirely.

  • To Righthaven’s Dismay, Judge Rules Copying of Entire Article Fair Use

    Righthaven was dealt another blow in court this week when a judge ruled that one of the defendants it was suing over copyright infringement had fairly reposted an entire article from client/partner Las Vegas Review-Journal.

    If you’re unfamiliar with Righthaven, it’s a company whose sole purpose appears to be to sue bloggers and media outlets who have used content it has purchased the copyrights to (typically from Stephens Media (which owns Las Vegas Review-Journal), and share the winnings with the original owner of the content. Righthaven’s ethics are questioned time and time again, as it has filed hundreds of suits, a number of which have been settled out of court. For more background on Righthaven, read our ongoing coverage here.

    In this particular case, Wayne Hoehn, a war veteran, has posted an article from the Review-Journal in its entirety to a site, aiming to generate discussion about it. The judge is quoted as saying:

    “Righthaven did not present any evidence that the market for the work was harmed by Hoehn’s noncommercial use for the 40 days it appeared on the website. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Hoehn’s use of the work was fair and summary judgment is appropriate.”

    “While the work does have some creative or editorial elements, these elements are not enough to consider the work a purely ‘creative work’ in the realm of fictional stories, song lyrics, or Barbie dolls. Accordingly, the work is not within ‘the core of intended copyright protection.’”

    The ruling also notes that fair use is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. “Fair use is a mixed question of law and fact. If there are no genuine issues of material fact, . . . and a reasonable trier can reach only one conclusion, a court may conclude as a matter of law whether the challenged use qualifies as a fair use of the copyrighted work.”

    This isn’t the first time we’ve seen Righthaven lose a case like this, in which the republishing of an entire article was deemed fair use. Back in March, there was a case involving a 33-paragraph article (also from the Review-Journal of course) that was published by the Center for Intercultural Organizing (with credit). The article was related to the non-profit’s cause, and deemed to be serving a different market and within the bounds of fair use.

    A couple other things that appeared to have an impact on the judge’s decision were the fact that the piece was used as part of an online discussion, and Righthaven’s growing reputation itself, particularly with last week’s dismissal of a case where Righthaven had sued Democratic Underground over an excerpt of a Las Vegas Review-Journal article a user posted in its forum.

  • Righthaven Complaint Dismissed in Key Case

    Righthaven, the company often referred to as a “copyright troll,” which has essentially made a business out of suing bloggers and media outlets over alleged copyright infringement, was dealt a big blow by a Las Vegas judge, who dismissed a key suit filed by the company.

    That case would be Righthaven LLC vs. Democratic Underground, LLC, along with the counter-case Democratic Underground, LLC vs. Righthaven, LLC and Stephens Media LLC.

    Righthaven had sued Democratic Underground in the fall, over an excerpt of a Las Vegas Review Journal (owned by Stephens Media) article that a user posted on Democratic Underground’s forum. Here’s the background as it appears in the court document:

    This dispute arises out of Democratic Underground’s allegedly copyright infringing conduct. About May 13, 2010, a Democratic Underground user posted a comment on Democratic Underground’s website which included a portion of a Las Vegas Review-Journal (“LVRJ”) article about Nevada politics, particularly about the Tea Party effect on Sharon Angle’s senatorial campaign (the “Work”). The posting included a link to the full article and the LVRJ’s website.

    As such, Democratic Underground displayed this selection from the article on its website and Righthaven claims that this infringed on the copyright.

    Righthaven claims that after the Work was posted on Democratic Underground’s website, it purchased the copyright to the Work from Stephens Media, the owner of the LVRJ, along with the right to sue for past infringement. (Dkt. #102, Decl. of Steve Gibson, Ex. 1, Copyright Assignment (hereinafter referred to as the “Assignment”).) Righthaven then registered the copyright with the United States Copyright office. Thereafter, Righthaven sued Democratic Underground alleging copyright infringement. Democratic Underground, in turn, filed a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement against both Righthaven and Stephens Media, which was not originally a party to this case. Righthaven has since filed a motion for voluntary dismissal with prejudice due to an adverse fair use ruling by the Honorable Larry R. Hicks, United States District Judge for this district (Righthaven is appealing that decision), Stephens Media has filed a motion to dismiss or strike the counterclaim and a partial joinder to Righthaven’s motion, and Democratic Underground has filed a motion for summary judgment on Righthaven’s claim.

    After these motions were fully briefed, Stephens Media disclosed to Democratic Underground the Strategic Alliance Agreement (“SAA”) between Stephens Media and Righthaven. The SAA defines their relationship and governs all future copyright assignments between them (including the assignment at issue here). (Dkt. #79, Supplemental Mem. Ex. 1, SAA, dated Jan. 18, 2010.) After learning the details of this agreement, Democratic Underground sought leave to file a supplemental memorandum addressing this newly discovered evidence and its effect on the outstanding motions. The Court allowed the supplemental briefing as it too considered the SAA highly relevant to Righthaven’s standing in this and a multitude of other pending Righthaven cases. After considering the supplemental brief and for the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses Righthaven for lack of standing and, therefore, denies both Righthaven’s motion and Democratic Underground’s motion as moot. The Court also denies Stephens Media’s motion.

    You can read the whole thing in its entirety here (pdf), but I’ll jump to the conclusion of the document, which says:

    Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Righthaven is dismissed from this case for lack of standing. As such, Righthaven’s complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Righthaven’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (#36) is DENIED as moot.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Stephens Media’s Motion to Dismiss or Strike (#38) is DENIED.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Democratic Underground’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#45) is DENIED as moot.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Righthaven show cause, in writing, no later than two (2) weeks from the date of this order, why it should not be sanctioned.

    The common thinking is that the outcome of this particular case will have widespread impact on Righthaven’s success with other cases.

    “We are pleased that the Court saw through Righthaven’s sham assignment of the copyright and dismissed its improper claim,” said Kurt Opsahl, EFF Senior Staff Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who is on Democratic Underground’s defense team. “Today’s decision shows that Righthaven’s copyright litigation business model is fatally flawed, and we expect the decision to have wide effect on the over 270 other cases Righthaven has brought.”

    The outcome of the case is important, as many people feel that Righthaven’s many suits are a threat to fair use. It appears that Righthaven is losing the war, though the company will no doubt continue to fight.

  • Righthaven Files Suit Against Ars Technica Writer, Quickly Dismisses It

    Eriq Gardner, a journalist who contributed this article to Ars Technica 3 months ago was being sued by the controversial Righthaven, but then Righthaven apparently decided to dismiss it.

    What would have made this case stand out from the plethora of other Righthaven-initiated lawsuits? Well, it would’ve been over an article that was actually about Righthaven suing others.

    The article, about Righthaven suing the Drudge Report specifically, features a screenshot of the Drudge Report page (actually taken from a court document), which was the subject of the lawsuit. In that screenshot, is an image that Drudge Report used, and was the reason Righthaven was suing them. The image is clearly a significant part of the story itself.

    Joe Mullin at PaidContent spoke with Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson about it. He reports:

    I asked him pointedly: “Did you sue this reporter because he wrote a story about your company?” Gibson wouldn’t answer that. Noting that the photo in question appeared to be pulled from court records, I asked: “Do you believe reporters have a right to use court documents to report on Righthaven?” Gibson didn’t really answer that one either, saying: “That’s going to be based on facts and circumstances.” He said he disagreed with the premise of my question, and went on to say: “The line of your questioning is so intimate with the issues that are going to be litigated before the court, I don’t feel comfortable having any further discussion on this subject matter with you.”

    Righthaven recently lost its second fair use case, when a Judge found that it was ok for a nonprofit to re-use an article in its entirety. As Mullin notes, journalists’ first amendment rights would have probably come into play here. It’s worth noting that the caption to the image, as presented by Gardner, reads: “The photo in question as it appeared on Drudge Report”.

    @eriqgardner
    Eriq Gardner    Oy. I’ve just been sued by Righthaven. http://j.mp/hlOfBI 22 hours ago via HootSuite · powered by @socialditto

    @eriqgardner
    Eriq Gardner    I’d buy a “I survived Righthaven” t-shirt but won’t for trademark reasons. 1 hour ago via HootSuite · powered by @socialditto

    Ars Technica Senior Editor Nate Anderson has a fresh post up about the whole ordeal. He says:

    We strongly believe that the use is fair—indeed, that it is almost a paradigmatic case of fair use. A grainy black-and-white copy of a color photo, used to illustrate a news account about said photo, is the reason we have fair use. I had thought I was immune to feelings of surprise after covering these sorts of legal battles for years, but it turns out I still have the capacity to feel shock. The reaction around the Ars newsroom—and from our legal counsel—was absolute bafflement.

    And instead of suing Ars Technica directly, Righthaven bizarrely sued freelancer Eriq Gardner, who regularly writes on legal matters for The Hollywood Reporter and who has covered Righthaven for some time. The post in question is the only one Gardner has ever written for Ars.

    The result is that we had a New York writer being sued by a Nevada company over a Colorado photo published by a New York-based website. Righthaven claimed “willful” infringement and requested statutory damages, which can reach as high as $150,000 per infringement. In addition, they wanted their legal fees covered. And they wanted “pre- and post-judgment interest.”

    Another interesting element to the whole story is that, according to Anderson, Righthaven lawyers told him they dismissed the suit when they realized Gardner was a reporter.

    As opposed to a blogger? Good thing there is such a clear difference.

  • Copying an Entire Article Without Permission – OK in Some Cases?

    Last month, we asked whether full article-copying could be ruled as fair use. We now know the answer. Yes, it can.

    Do you think duplicating an article in its entirety without permission is OK in some cases? Comment here.

    Righthaven, a company whose business model relies on copyright lawsuits for newspapers, has essentially lost its second fair use case. The first one was over a partial article sampling, but this most recent one involved the copying of a full 33-paragraph article from the the Las Vegas Review Journal (with credit) by the Center for Intercultural Organizing, a ten-person Portland, Oregon-based nonprofit organization set up to preserve immigrant and refugee rights. The case has not been dismissed yet, but he judge presiding over it says he plans to.

    CIO - Nonprofit Wins Fair Use Case
    The article in question was directly related to the nonprofit’s cause. It was a story about immigrants and their relationship with police in Las Vegas, and given that CIO is indeed a nonprofit, and is not serving a completely different market than the Las Vegas Review Journal, U.S. District Judge James Mahan found the copying of the article to be within the bounds of fair use.

    The Las Vegas Sun, which has a detailed account of the case, quotes Mahan, who also appears to have called out Righthaven itself:

    “Here the copyright has been removed from its original context,” Mahan said.

    “Righthaven is not using the copyright the same way the R-J used it. Righthaven is using it to support a lawsuit,” Mahan said.

    This type of copyright use has a chilling effect on free speech and doesn’t advance a purpose of the federal Copyright Act, which is to encourage and protect creativity, Mahan said.

    He also made comments suggesting that if the Las Vegas Review Journal had sued CIO itself, it may have had a stronger case, though he didn’t imply that that they would’ve necessarily won either.

    There is talk around the Blogosphere that the outcome of the case could have far-reaching ramifications within the news industry, as publishers will have to put more thought into who is using their content before sending takedown notices out.

    Last month, we had a conversation about fair use on the web, with Copyright Clearance Center Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary Frederic Haber, who told us, “In the Copyright Act of 1976, Congress finally enshrined fair use in statute, but did not define it because what is fair use and what is not vary so widely with circumstances. Instead, Congress adopted and refined a test that judges had been developing over the years, directing a court to look at all the circumstances surrounding a use and make a judgment as to the appropriate way that a copyright holder’s rights and a user’s fair use privilege can best be balanced. That’s the famous ‘four factor’ test of Section 107 of the Copyright Act.”

    “A fair use, then, is defined for digital content exactly as it’s defined for all other content,” he added. “It’s a use that benefits society generally but does not unreasonably interfere with a copyright holder’s right to exploit and protect its creative output (a right which is itself intended to encourage the creation of more creative output for the ultimate benefit of society). The four factor test is technology-neutral, much as copyright itself is technology-neutral, because it is intended to address the needs and rights of people (and not technologies) in as balanced a fashion as possible.”

    “Righthaven appears to be using the courts to test the fair use balance by responding to some users’ use with an allegation that goes beyond that which is reasonable in the circumstances and interferes with the copyright holder’s right to benefit from its own creative output,” Haber said. “Here, the creator of content (the newspaper) is conveying its right to sue to another party – Righthaven – which appears to be more prepared to test the fair use claim (than a newspaper which would rather focus on its core business), but the issue should be the same. Copyright holders have long sought court protection against infringers, including those who allege fair use but are not in fact making fair use.”

    Righthaven intends to appeal the ruling, and has already appealed the first one, but is still waiting on the final ruling for that.

    Righthaven typically seeks around $150,000 in damages and the forfeiture of the defendant’s domain name. The company has filed over 250 lawsuits in the past year (including a new one, just this past Thursday). After this, maybe they’ll at least stop targeting nonprofits.

    Do you think CIO’s re-use of a full article should be considered fair use? Tell us what you think.

  • Righthaven Appeals Fair Use Ruling

    Righthaven has reportedly appealed a court ruling from last fall, which deemed the use of 8 sentences of one of its clients’ 30-sentence article "fair use". The ruling had temporarily led Righthaven to reconsider its strategy, and focus on full copies of articles. 

    As we looked at yesterday, it’s entirely possible that a ruling will come down on the side of fair use in some of these cases as well. According to the Las Vegas Sun (via Mike Masnick):

    The appeal comes as Righthaven faces a second potential dismissal by another federal judge involving an entire Review-Journal story that was posted on the website of the Center for Intercultural Organizing in Portland, Ore.

    The appeal also comes as four Righthaven defendants — two represented by attorneys for the online free speech group the Electronic Frontier Foundation — press counterclaims against Righthaven and Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC.

    Could Fair Use Include Full Article-Copying?

    Righthaven has received a great deal of criticism as a company with a business model based on suing publishers and bloggers on behalf of newspaper clients like the Las Vegas Review-Journal, bringing lots of fair use questions into the forefront. 

    For more context and background on this, read our articles "Fair Use Controversy: The Gift That Keeps On Giving," "Testing the Fair Use Balance" and "Could "Full Article-Copying Be Ruled as Fair Use?"

  • Could Full Article-Copying Be Ruled as Fair Use?

    We’ve written about Righthaven a couple times. This is a company with a business model based on suing publishers and bloggers on behalf of newspaper clients like the Las Vegas Review-Journal, bringing lots of fair use questions into the forefront. 

    For more context and background on this, read our articles "Fair Use Controversy: The Gift That Keeps On Giving" and "Testing the Fair Use Balance".

    PaidContent legal, regulatory, and privacy reporter Joe Mullin revisits the topic, suggesting that depending on how the litigation process goes, we may soon see 100% copying become "legally justified" in many cases. 

    He says this could happen if one of two things happens: a judge could rule that newspapers gave "implied license" to copy their content (through things like share buttons) or a judge could rule that even full copies of newspaper articles are often "fair use."

    Read the whole article.

    More coverage of fair use at WebProNews.

    Could Fair Use Include Full Article-Copying?

  • Testing the Fair Use Balance

    Remember Righthaven? That’s the company with the business model of suing bloggers over copyright that ignited one of the more recent fair use controversy debates. A report last month from Fortune about the company asked questions like: "Could clicking a Like button lead to a lawsuit?" and "Are the days of posting stories to Facebook, emailing articles to friends, or printing out pieces numbered?" and suggested that social media could be "maimed". For further context read our previous coverage here and here. 

    Are you concerned with how others use your own content? Let us know. 

    While we even found that to be a bit sensational at the time, words from Copyright Clearance Center Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary Frederic Haber seem to confirm that. He shared some commentary on the subject with WebProNews.

    When asked whether he though social media sharing and emailing of articles was in jeopardy, his response was: "In jeopardy from copyright?  No, copyright helps make all of that possible. Without copyright, it’s much less likely that either the software or the articles would have existed to be shared. Users have always shared materials that they read or experienced and wanted to bring to the notice of their friends and social circles, and copyright has never stopped that; on the other hand, going into the publishing business by distributing other people’s creations to strangers with whom you have no connection rather than creating things yourself is another matter."

    "Social media sharing between friends or within social circles shouldn’t impede publishers’ and creators’ ability to profit from their content, and neither should wider sharing of focused selections where the person doing the sharing is actually saying something like ‘look how great this is!’ or ‘can you believe that he said this?’ Then the person doing the sharing is actually making a contribution to society, even if in only a small way, and that is exactly the kind of thing that fair use protects. Simply making a copy in order to save someone else from having to buy her own is something else."

    The definition of fair use often seems a little blurry because of the gray areas (particularly online). When asked how fair use is defined for digital content, Haber said, "Fair use is a remarkable tool developed by federal judges over 170 years to balance the rights of copyright holders with the Constitutional injunction that copyright is intended ‘to promote the progress of Science’, which necessarily means that users must be able to use copyrighted works in some ways without being deemed infringers."

    "In the Copyright Act of 1976, Congress finally enshrined fair use in statute, but did not define it because what is fair use and what is not vary so widely with circumstances," he continued. "Instead, Congress adopted and refined a test that judges had been developing over the years, directing a court to look at all the circumstances surrounding a use and make a judgment as to the appropriate way that a copyright holder’s rights and a user’s fair use privilege can best be balanced.  That’s the famous ‘four factor’ test of Section 107 of the Copyright Act."

    "A fair use, then, is defined for digital content exactly as it’s defined for all other content. It’s a use that benefits society generally but does not unreasonably interfere with a copyright holder’s right to exploit and protect its creative output (a right which is itself intended to encourage the creation of more creative output for the ultimate benefit of society). The four factor test is technology-neutral, much as copyright itself is technology-neutral, because it is intended to address the needs and rights of people (and not technologies) in as balanced a fashion as possible."

    "The question as to whether a use is a fair use is always whether the use goes beyond that which is reasonable in the circumstances (with the four factors as a guide to doing that analysis) or unreasonably interferes with a copyright holder’s rights to, for example, earn the money through selling copies of her work that she needs to earn to make MORE copyrighted works for others to experience and share.  With that as the standard, social media sharing or emailing articles between friends shouldn’t be at risk."

    As for Righthaven’s practices, Haber had the following to say: "Righthaven appears to be using the courts to test the fair use balance by responding to some users’ use with an allegation that goes beyond that which is reasonable in the circumstances and interferes with the copyright holder’s right to benefit from its own creative output. Here, the creator of content (the newspaper) is conveying its right to sue to another party – Righthaven – which appears to be more prepared to test the fair use claim (than a newspaper which would rather focus on its core business), but the issue should be the same. Copyright holders have long sought court protection against infringers, including those who allege fair use but are not in fact making fair use."

    At last count, the number of Righthaven’s lawsuits was up to 225, and they were also going after content providers that didn’t even have sites. 

    Do you agree with Righthaven’s practices? Tell us what you think.

  • Fair Use Controversy: The Gift That Keeps On Giving

    So the whole "what is fair use?" debate is back, as Fortune describes the business practices of Righthaven and the Las Vegas Review Journal of going after publications for violating copyright. 

    Tell us what fair use means to you.

     As the piece by John Patrick Pullen explains, the operation involves "transferring the copyright of content that has been reproduced on the Internet — either entirely or in part — from the Review-Journal to Righthaven, which then files lawsuits against the alleged infringers."

    The EFF has reportedly stepped up to represent some clients the firm has gone after, while most are just settling with Righthaven, which has been seeking a maximum penalty of $150,000 plus seizure of the domain name in every case, according to the report. 

    The piece does appear to be a little sensational, asking questions like "Could clicking a Like button lead to a lawsuit?" and "Are the days of posting stories to Facebook, emailing articles to friends, or printing out pieces numbered?"

    Based on a Q&A with Steve Gibson, Righthaven’s CEO (and a lawyer), the firm is more interested in going after publications that are reposting a hundred percent of the original material without permission, though the piece does say (as mentioned a few paragraphs back), "entirely or in part". 

    Either way, I’m guessing the "liking" of content isn’t in immediate jeopardy. Hitting a like button (which is likely made available by the content provider itself) to share a link is significantly different than copying an entire article and posting it on your own blog. Emailing or printing an entire article might be a different story, but these are less likely to even come up as an issue, if for private use. Email or print newsletters or books, etc. would likely fall more into line with the blogs. 

    But as long as "part" is part of the equation (in addition to "entirety"), there is going to be some gray area, unless rules are truly defined, which is essentially what Gibson claims they are trying to do. The problem with this is that the rules themselves aren’t so easy to define, which is probably why they aren’t clearer today. This isn’t a new issue. 

    We’ve visited this topic on more than one occasion. Back in July, the Las Vegas Review Journal was in the news for filing a slew of lawsuits against blogs, claiming they were using its content without permission. The question was, and still is, what exactly is fair use? It’s been a blurry subject for years, because not everyone has the same viewpoint. 

    Allow me to borrow a couple viewpoints from my own previous article on the subject (if that’s fair):

    Rich Ord, CEO of the iEntry Network and Publisher of WebProNews says, "Fair use is taking small amounts of content in order to add perspective or additional information to your own content. A publisher should also link to the content source and credit them accordingly." 

    Marshall Kirkpatrick, Co-Editor, VP of Content Development and Lead Blogger at popular tech blog ReadWriteWeb told WebProNews, "Aggregation and filtering is a beautiful thing.  Give me a day with a HuffPo appearance and it’s a good day for us at ReadWriteWeb. Excerpts with as much as three paragraphs, with attribution and a link, are a great way to add value and share traffic. Fair use paves the way for rapid content creation and curation – I have no fear of it at all."

    Here’s how one of our Facebook fans described fair use: "I see fair use as similar to writing papers. Name the source and link, if necessary and do your homework. Some companies do not allow use of their materials at all without their permission. There aren’t documented rules as there are for writing papers such as the writing formats MLA or APA but they do include rules to follow when using online content in writing."

    As far as rules are concerned, Attorney John Burton, who practices Trademark/Copyright and Internet/Technology law, told WebProNews: "Fair use is a legal doctrine under U.S Federal.Copyright law that provides for limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the copyright owners, such as for news, research, teaching and commentary.  It provides for the legal use of third-party copyrighted material under a four-factor test:

    1.    the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

    2.    the nature of the copyrighted work;

    3.    the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

    4.    the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

    "Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation (2003) set a strong benchmark for fair use and the Internet," Burton told us. "Arriba Soft was found to have violated copyright without a fair use defense in the use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly’s website in Arriba’s image search mechanisms.  The decision was appealed."

    "On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant," he added. "In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Second, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a ‘full’ replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals."

    Fortune’s Q&A with Gibson is worth a read. In it, Gibson says things like: "We are absolutely continuing to develop the law of copyright in the area in respect to fair use." and "There are generally more takers than creators." 

    "Taking" may be a little too broad a term, however, for what’s at stake. As Kurt Opsahl, the EFF’s senior staff attorney,  is quoted as saying in the report, "It’s beneficial to society to have news be part of an ongoing conversation."

    That could not be truer. This is why the Internet is such an important medium for news, and why people are flocking to the web more and more to get their news. They want different perspectives, and to get the full picture. It’s hard to get the full picture if fair use is restricted, because at best, you lose context. At worst, readers may miss the story entirely, because they never knew it existed, because maybe it was originally reported on some obscure site they’d never heard of.

    And the question still remains, what is fair use? Comment here.

     

  • Court Ruling Raises Fair Use Questions Around DRM

    Elecronista reports that a new court ruling could set a legal precedent to allow the bypassing of DRM for fair use purposes. "The decision could impact the media industry as it may allow breaking DRM for music, movies and other formats as long as the material isn’t pirated," says Electronista.

    Engagdet has a look at a "mystery HTC Windows Phone 7 device". "A candybar slate from HTC with a 3.7-inch SLCD and 1GHz Snapdragon processor — sounds about right for the Desire, but this little puppy is actually running Windows Phone 7 (presumably a developer build, given the apps catalog)," the publication reports. "According to our tipster, the three buttons under the screen are touch-sensitive à la Nexus One, the camera boasts 8 megapixels of memory retention, and the "hardware is ready." It apparently lacks HTC Sense.

    According to Bloomberg, AOL is looking for an executive to lead its music business, with the help of recruiting firm Spencer Stuart.

    Apple announced that the iPhone 4 will be made available in 17 more countries starting Friday. This news comes while LG has suggested iPad international expansion could be temporarily hampered.

    Rackspace and NASA have teamed up on an open source cloud project called OpenStack.

  • What is Fair Use? You Tell Us.

    What is fair use? It’s a question that doesn’t seem to go away. Traditional media publications often throw blogs under the bus for borrowing quotes and spreading news to their own audiences. While there are certainly plenty of cases in which blogs do trample on the concept of fair use, to say that blogs in general follow this practice is simply absurd. In fact, as we looked at in a recent article, traditional media publications "borrow" from blogs as well, and often don’t even give the credit that most professional bloggers would give without thinking twice.

    An LA Times piece this week looks at a publication – the Las Vegas Review Journal – that has reportedly filed over 30 lawsuits against blogs that it claims use its content without permission, leading author James Rainey to ask, "So what is fair use?"

    How would you describe fair use? Tell us in the comments.

    Again, this is not a new question, but it is one that has yet to be collectively resolved. We took it upon ourselves to reach out to a number of media professionals from both blogs and traditional media publications, as well as lawyers, and readers, with the aim of presenting a well-rounded view of how these different parts of the media-picture see fair use. Unfortunately, not everyone was too eager to lend their opinions on such a touchy subject, and I have yet to receive any real response from any of the traditional media publications I contacted (I’ll update if I do).

    Viewpoints

    Rich Ord, CEO of the iEntry Network and Publisher of WebProNews says, "Fair use is taking small amounts of content in order to add perspective or additional information to your own content. A publisher should also link to the content source and credit them accordingly."

    Marshall Kirkpatrick, Co-Editor, VP of Content Development and Lead Blogger at popular tech blog ReadWriteWeb tells WebProNews, "Aggregation and filtering is a beautiful thing.  Give me a day with a HuffPo appearance and it’s a good day for us at ReadWriteWeb. Excerpts with as much as three paragraphs, with attribution and a link, are a great way to add value and share traffic. Fair use paves the way for rapid content creation and curation – I have no fear of it at all."

    Here’s how one of our Facebook fans described fair use: "I see fair use as similar to writing papers. Name the source and link, if necessary and do your homework. Some companies do not allow use of their materials at all without their permission. There aren’t documented rules as there are for writing papers such as the writing formats MLA or APA but they do include rules to follow when using online content in writing."

    The Law

    Attorney John Burton, who practices Trademark/Copyright and Internet/Technology law, tells us: "Fair use is a legal doctrine under U.S Federal.Copyright law that provides for limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the copyright owners, such as for news, research, teaching and commentary.  It provides for the legal use of third-party copyrighted material under a four-factor test:

    1.    the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

    2.    the nature of the copyrighted work;

    3.    the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

    4.    the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

    "Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation (2003) set a strong benchmark for fair use and the Internet," Burton continues. "Arriba Soft was found to have violated copyright without a fair use defense in the use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly’s website in Arriba’s image search mechanisms.  The decision was appealed."

    "On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant," he continues. "In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Second, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a ‘full’ replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals."

    Interpretation

    So how would this apply to written content? Would a snippet and a link, designed to send traffic to the original source, be the text equivalent of a small thumbnail increasing the exposure of the original?  It’s not so clear.

    Burton seems to recommend a better safe than sorry approach. "Essentially, caution is the word when using copyrighted content of another on your website," he says. "I strongly recommend receiving written authorization from the copyright holder prior to redistributing their work or link, especially if there is a commercial interest in why you are using the work."

    WebProNews spoke to Attorney Michael Donaldson of the law firm Donaldson & Callif and Pat Aufderheide, the Executive Director for the Center of Social Media at American University, who has worked with the university’s law school on developing best practices for fair use, at SXSW a couple months ago. They also spoke about fair use from the legal perspective. Watch this clip if you’d like to hear more on the subject from this standpoint:

    "Fair use is part of copyright law, and it says you have the right to use other people’s copyrighted material without licensing it, without paying for it, or even asking them permission under some circumstances," said Aufderheide. "The law itself is rather vague, so the question is , ‘how do you interpret that law?’"

    "The newspaper people had me pretty much in their corner until they went after the cat people," writes James Rainey, the LA Times writer who covered the Las Vegas Review Journal story. Basically, the story is about a newspaper publication going after dozens of blogs for using content. To what extent this content was used is not really delved into, but the highlighted example is of a small cat blog that doesn’t even have ads on it, and could hardly be considered a competing publication. In all "fairness," you should read Rainey’s story for more on these suits.

    Regardless of how you interpret fair use law, it appears that the traditional media will continue to put pressure on new media. One minute the New York Times is talking about how important blogs are, and the next, it’s keeping feed readers from using its content. Of course, as Search Engine Land Editor-in-Chief Danny Sullivan recently showcased, traditional media also pushes the boundaries of fair use itself. It goes both ways. Unfortunately, traditional publications are more likely to have the funding that bloggers may not have, when it comes to legal disputes.

    Are traditional media publications justified in going after bloggers who use samples of their content and link to the original? Share your thoughts in the comments.

  • Are You Blogging Within Your Fair Use Rights?

    With all of the struggles and controversies surrounding the news industry these days, there is a lot of confusion out there about what falls under fair use and what doesn’t. The more savvy bloggers who have been in the game for a while usually have a better grasp on the concept, but there are still plenty of others who aren’t so well versed. After all, anyone can start a blog, and not everyone comes from a news or legal background.

    Do you every worry about quoting major media sources? Discuss here.

    At SXSW last month, WebProNews spoke with Pat Aufderheide, the Executive Director for the Center of Social Media at American University, who has worked with the university’s law school on developing best practices for fair use, and Attorney Michael Donaldson of the law firm Donaldson & Callif.

    "Fair use is part of copyright law, and it says you have the right to use other people’s copyrighted material without licensing it, without paying for it, or even asking them permission under some circumstances," said Aufderheide. "The law itself is rather vague, so the question is , ‘how do you interpret that law?’"

    Good thing we had a lawyer present. "Fair use is rooted in the first amendment," said Donaldson. "So if you’re telling a story, and you need or want, and it’s reasonable to use little pieces of other people’s stuff to tell that story, that’s protected as a first amendment right."

    "If you keep in mind the first amendment origins of fair use, you’ll have a good starting point," he added.

    According to Aufderheide, one thing judges will ask is "did you use this for a different purpose than the original or are you merely taking something that somebody’s actually selling, and getting it for free?" Basically – are you taking market value from them?

    In the case of news and blogging, she says some of the traditional media sites have legitimate issues legally, but not always. She equates a great deal of the pushback from traditional media to hysteria over a dying business model. If you take a whole article from the Washington Post for example, and put it on your site, you’re taking what belongs to them and taking market value from them. This is basically plagiarism anyway. On the other hand. However…

    "Bloggers have a perfect right to quote in context, and to say ‘the Washington Post said this’ and ‘here’s how the Times covered it’, and here’s a link to the whole article if you want to look at that," says Aufderheide. "And they have a perfect right as well to quote pictures, images, and to link to video on a commercial site that is producing that stuff, once again within context. What is it that they’re doing that is different from the original site? And then I think bloggers are doing just fine, and they’re employing their fair use rights just like scholars do every day when they quote several previous scholars and write in their articles that these previous scholars didn’t know what they were talking about when they said x, y, and z, and I’m right."

    Donaldson added that "there’s no first amendment right to steal something and make money off it," and to just keep in mind those 1st amendment origins of fair use law.

    Watch the video above for a great deal more insight into the fair use issue.

    What is your take on fair use? We’d like to hear your thoughts.