Copyright troll

Last updated
Richard Liebowitz, a New York-based attorney, was called a copyright troll in several lawsuits and was met by various sanctions. Richard Liebowitz OPTIC New York June 2019.jpg
Richard Liebowitz, a New York-based attorney, was called a copyright troll in several lawsuits and was met by various sanctions.

A copyright troll is a party (person or company) that enforces copyrights it owns for purposes of making money through strategic litigation, [1] in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, sometimes without producing or licensing the works it owns for paid distribution. Critics object to the activity because they believe it does not encourage the production of creative works, but instead makes money through the inequities and unintended consequences of high statutory damages provisions in copyright laws intended to encourage creation of such works. [2]

Contents

Both the term and the concept of a copyright troll began to appear in the mid-2000s. It derives from the pejorative "patent trolls", which are companies that enforce patent rights to earn money from companies that are selling products, without having products of their own for sale. [3] It is distinguished from organizations such as ASCAP, which collect royalties and enforce copyrights of their members. [3]

Notable examples

One commentator describes Harry Wall, husband of nineteenth-century British comic singer Annie Wall, as the world's first copyright troll. [4] Wall set up "the Authors', Composers' and Artists' Copyright Protection Office", to collect fees for unauthorized performances of works by composers (often deceased) based on the threat of litigation for statutory damages under the Dramatic Copyright Act of 1842. [4]

In the 2000s, the SCO Group's effort to obtain royalties in regards to the open source operating system Linux was viewed as copyright trolling by some of the approximately 1,500 companies from whom SCO demanded licensing royalties, based on a copyright that a court eventually ruled belonged instead to Novell. Novell, by contrast, had no interest or intention of enforcing its copyright against the alleged infringers. [5] [6]

The term was also applied to two parties that separately sued Google in 2006, after posting content they knew would be indexed by Google's Googlebot spider, with the industry standard "noindex" opt-out tags deliberately omitted. After Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google Inc. , adult magazine Perfect 10 was described as a copyright troll for setting up image links with the intent to sue Google for infringement after Google added them to its image search service. [3] In Field v. Google , a Nevada lawyer took "affirmative steps" to get his legal writings included in Google's search results so that he could sue Google, and was ruled to have acted in bad faith. [7] More recently, the term has been used to describe entities that bring questionable claims against companies in the fashion industry over purported copyrights in fabric patterns. [8] In 2021, the term was coined by a Belgian judge in reference to Permission Machine, which later changed its name to Visual Rights Group. [9] This company scanned photos on the internet and sent large damage claims without asking for the removal of the material.

Righthaven cases

In 2010, copyright holding company Righthaven LLC was called a copyright troll by commentators, [10] [11] after it purchased copyrights to a number of old news articles from Stephens Media, at the time the publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal , based on a business model of suing bloggers and other Internet authors for statutory damages for having reproduced the articles on their sites without permission. [12]

The matter was covered by the Los Angeles Times , Bloomberg News , Wired News , Mother Jones , The Wall Street Journal , the Boston Herald , and other newspapers and news blogs, [13] as well as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which offered to assist the defendants. [14] The paper's competitor, the Las Vegas Sun , covered all 107 of the lawsuits as of September 1, 2010, [13] describing it as the first known instance of a copyright troll buying the rights to a news story based on finding that its copyright had been infringed. [11] The Review-Journal's publisher responded by defending the lawsuits, and criticizing the Sun for covering them. [15]

In August, 2010, the company entered an agreement with WEHCO Media in Arkansas to pursue similar actions, and announced that it was in negotiation with a number of other publishers. [16] Wired magazine described the activity as "borrowing a page from the patent trolls", and noted that the company was demanding $75,000 from each infringer, and agreeing to settlements of several thousand dollars per defendant. [16]

In April 2011, a Colorado court ruled in Righthaven v. Hill that:

"Although Plaintiff's business model relies in large part upon reaching settlement agreements with a minimal investment of time and effort, the purpose of the courts is to provide a forum for the orderly, just, and timely resolution of controversies and disputes. Plaintiff's wishes to the contrary, the courts are not merely tools for encouraging and exacting settlements from Defendants cowed by the potential costs of litigation and liability." [17]

By the second half of 2011, defendants with resources to fight Righthaven in court were winning cases on grounds that their usage fell within the fair use doctrine and that Stephens Media had actually not assigned full ownership of the copyrighted material to Righthaven. Righthaven was also sanctioned by at least one judge for failing to disclose that Stephens Media got a 50 percent cut of any lawsuit proceeds involving the Review-Journal. Successful defendants demanded court costs and legal fees, which Righthaven refused to pay. [18] By December 2011, Righthaven was insolvent and on the auction block. [19]

Two lawyers have provided a framework for a legal defense against copyright trolls. [20] Since most of the lawsuits about online copyright infringement rely on a minimal amount of information that targets non-infringers as well as infringers, there are ways to defend against the lawsuit by defense lawyers and pro se defendants that are described in the framework.

See also

Related Research Articles

Democratic Underground is an online community for members of the United States Democratic Party. Its membership is restricted by policy to those who are supportive of the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates for political office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent infringement</span> Breach of the rights conferred by a patent

Patent infringement is an unauthorized act of - for example - making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for these purposes a patented product. Where the subject-matter of the patent is a process, infringement involves the act of using, offering for sale, selling or importing for these purposes at least the product obtained by the patented process. In other words, patent infringement is the commission of a prohibited act with respect to a patented invention without permission from the patent holder. Permission may typically be granted in the form of a license. The definition of patent infringement may vary by jurisdiction.

The software patent debate is the argument about the extent to which, as a matter of public policy, it should be possible to patent software and computer-implemented inventions. Policy debate on software patents has been active for years. The opponents to software patents have gained more visibility with fewer resources through the years than their pro-patent opponents. Arguments and critiques have been focused mostly on the economic consequences of software patents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent troll</span> Pejorative term related to intellectual property

In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art, often through hardball legal tactics Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities, which do not practice their asserted patent, may not be considered "patent trolls", when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance.

<i>Las Vegas Review-Journal</i> Newspaper published in Las Vegas, Nevada

The Las Vegas Review-Journal is a daily subscription newspaper published in Las Vegas, Nevada, since 1909. It is the largest circulating daily newspaper in Nevada and one of two daily newspapers in the Las Vegas area.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

Stephens Media LLC was a Las Vegas, Nevada, United States, diversified media investment company. It owned stakes in the California Newspapers Partnership and the Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette.

DataTreasury, located in Plano, Texas, United States, develops, acquires and licenses technology for secure check image capture and storage. As of 2010 the company had 2 employees, about 1000 shareholders and had generated over $350 million in licensing revenue in the previous four years.

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the standards governing awards of attorneys' fees in copyright cases. The Copyright Act of 1976 authorizes, but does not require, the court to award attorneys' fees to "the prevailing party" in a copyright action. In Fogerty, the Court held that such attorneys'-fees awards are discretionary, and that the same standards should be applied in the case of a prevailing plaintiff and a prevailing defendant.

Arts and media industry trade groups, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), strongly oppose and attempt to prevent copyright infringement through file sharing. The organizations particularly target the distribution of files via the Internet using peer-to-peer software. Efforts by trade groups to curb such infringement have been unsuccessful with chronic, widespread and rampant infringement continuing largely unabated.

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset was the first file-sharing copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States brought by major record labels to be tried before a jury. The defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was found liable to the plaintiff record company for making 24 songs available to the public for free on the Kazaa file sharing service and ordered to pay $220,000.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marc Randazza</span> American First Amendment attorney

Marc J. Randazza is an American First Amendment attorney and a legal commentator on InfoWars.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vringo</span>

Vringo was a technology company that became involved in the worldwide patent wars. The company won a 2012 intellectual property lawsuit against Google, in which a U.S. District Court ordered Google to pay 1.36 percent of U.S. AdWords sales. Analysts estimated Vringo's judgment against Google to be worth over $1 billion. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the District Court's ruling on appeal in August 2014 in a split 2-1 decision, which Intellectual Asset Magazine called "the most troubling case of 2014." Vringo appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Vringo also pursued worldwide litigation against ZTE Corporation in twelve countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Malaysia, India, Spain, Netherlands, Romania, China, Malaysia, Brazil and the United States. The high profile nature of the intellectual property suits filed by the firm against large corporations known for anti-patent tendencies has led some commentators to refer to the firm as a patent vulture or patent troll.

Righthaven LLC was a copyright enforcement company founded in early 2010. Based in Las Vegas, Nevada, it entered agreements from its partner newspapers after finding that their content had been copied to online sites without permission, in order to engage in litigation against the site owners for copyright infringement. The lawsuits were much criticized by commentators, who describe the activity as copyright trolling and the company as a "lawsuit factory". Righthaven LLC's CEO, Steven Gibson, who is currently a partner at Las Vegas law firm Gibson & True LLP, regularly spoke to the media about Righthaven.

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i> 2010 United States district court case

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

<i>Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC</i> 2011 US copyright infringement case

Righthaven LLC. v. Democratic Underground LLC, 791 F. Supp. 2d 968, was a copyright infringement case which determined that a contract giving a party right to sue on behalf of a copyright holder does not give the party legal standing to file such lawsuits. This case is one of over 200 similar cases filed by Righthaven against media outlets using content from Stephens Media. Judge Roger L. Hunt ruled that Righthaven lacked standing to file a copyright infringement suit and ordered Righthaven to show cause within two weeks why it should not be sanctioned for failure to disclose Stephens Media as an interested party.

<i>Warner/Chappell Music Inc. v. Fullscreen Inc.</i>

Warner/Chappell Music Inc. et al. v. Fullscreen Inc. et al. (13-cv-05472) was a case against multi-channel network Fullscreen, filed by the National Music Publishers Association on behalf of Warner/Chappell Music and 15 other music publishers, which alleged that Fullscreen illegally reaped the profits of unlicensed cover videos on YouTube without paying any royalties to the rightful publishers and songwriters.

Personal Audio LLC is a Beaumont, Texas-based company that enforces and earns licensing revenue from five patents. The company has often been accused of being a patent troll, making money solely through royalties on frivolous and sweeping patents.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

Open source license litigation involves lawsuits surrounding open-source licensed software. Many of the legal rights of open source software licensors enforceable against users violating licensing agreements are untested by the U.S. legal system. Free and open source software (FOSS) is distributed under a variety of free-software licenses, which are unique among other software licenses. Legal action against open source licenses involves questions about their validity and enforceability.

References

  1. 1 2 Aaron Moss (2021-08-23). "Are Courts Finally Getting Fed Up With Copyright Shakedowns?" . Retrieved 2021-09-15. Liebowitz is probably the best known example of a copyright troll, a moniker that one circuit court defined as a someone who brings "strategic infringement claims of dubious merit in the hope of arranging prompt settlements with defendants who would prefer to pay modest or nuisance settlements rather than be tied up in expensive litigation."
  2. ↑ Rangnath, Rashmi (2008-01-29). "What a copyright troll looks like". Public Knowledge. Archived from the original on 2017-06-07.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  3. 1 2 3 Horton Rockafellow, Caroline (2006-11-23). "Copyright Trolls - A Different Embodiment of the Patent Troll?". Archived from the original on 2009-01-15. Retrieved 2010-09-03.
  4. 1 2 Alexander, Isabella (2010). Deazley, Ronan; Kretschmer, Martin; Bently, Lionel (eds.). Privilege and Property. Essays on the History of Copyright. Open Book Publishers. p. 339. ISBN   9781906924188.
  5. ↑ Kravets, David (2007-09-14). "Battered SCO Files for Bankruptcy to Stay Afloat". Threat Level. Wired Magazine.
  6. ↑ Kravets, David (March 31, 2010). "Copyright Troll Loses High-Stakes Unix Battle". Wired Magazine.
  7. ↑ Knutson, Alyssa N. (2009). "Proceed With Caution: How Digital Archives Have Been Left in the Dark". Berkeley Technology Law Journal: 437.
  8. ↑ "Copyright Trolls Are Never in Fashion: Copyright Infringement Suits and Strategies for Fighting Back". American Bar Association. May 24, 2013. Archived from the original on November 9, 2013. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
  9. ↑ Vonnis Kort geding Gent inzake Permission Machine vs. Kortom. bottom of page 7, term "Auterusrechtrol"
  10. ↑ Jones, Ashby (September 3, 2010). "Vegas, Baby! Ruling a Possible Boon to 'Copyright-Troll' Suits". The Wall Street Journal.
  11. 1 2 Cassens Weiss, Debra (August 4, 2010). "Attack Dog' Group Buys Newspaper Copyrights, Sues 86 Websites". American Bar Association.
  12. ↑ Mullin, Joe (August 16, 2010). "Is This the Birth of the Copyright Troll?". Corporate Counsel.
  13. 1 2 Green, Steve (September 1, 2010). "Why we are writing about the R-J copyright lawsuits". Las Vegas Sun.
  14. ↑ Galperin, Eva (August 25, 2010). "EFF Seeks to Help Righthaven Defendants". EFF.
  15. ↑ Frederick, Sherman (September 1, 2010). "Protecting newspaper content -- You either do it, or you don't". Las Vegas Review-Journal.
  16. 1 2 Kravets, David (August 30, 2010). "Threat Level Privacy, Crime and Security Online". Wired Magazine.
  17. ↑ Kane, Judge John. "Righthaven v. Hill, No. 1:11-cv-00211-JLK" (PDF). CourtListener. Retrieved 28 November 2023.
  18. ↑ Kravets, David (2011-10-29). "Creditor Moves to Dismantle Copyright Troll Righthaven". Wired . ISSN   1059-1028 . Retrieved 2020-02-19.
  19. ↑ Green, Steve (2011-12-22). "Dismantling of Righthaven appears under way with loss of website". VEGAS INC. Retrieved 2020-02-19.
  20. ↑ Sag, Matthew; Haskell, Jake (2018-01-01). "Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling". Iowa Law Review . 103 (2). Rochester, NY. SSRN   2933200.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.