NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Institute

Last updated
NXIVM Corp. v. The Ross Institute
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case nameNXIVM Corporation and First Principles, Inc. v. The Ross Institute, et al.
ArguedNovember 19 2003
DecidedApril 20 2004
Citation(s)364 F.3d 471, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1538
Case history
Prior historyPreliminary injunction denied (United States District Court for the Northern District of New York 2003). Appealed to United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Subsequent historyCertiorari denied (Supreme Court of the United States 2004)
Holding
Defendants’ use of material for critical commentary was fair use despite bad faith on the part of the defendants in obtaining the material.
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingChief Judge John M. Walker, Jr.; Circuit Judges Dennis Jacobs and Chester J. Straub
Case opinions
MajorityWalker, joined by Jacobs
ConcurrenceJacobs
Laws applied
17 U.S.C.   § 107

NXIVM Corp. v. The Ross Institute, 364 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2004), [1] was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision that held that the defendant's critical analysis of material obtained in bad faith, i.e., in violation of a non-disclosure agreement, was fair use since the secondary use was transformative as criticism and was not a potential replacement for the original on the market, regardless of how the material was obtained. [2] [3]

Contents

NXIVM, (pronounced NEX-ee-um) [4] was a sex trafficking cult that claimed to offer a life-improvement seminar called the "Executive Success Program" (ESP). At the time of the court case, NXIVM's status as a sex trafficking cult was not widely known to the public, and would not be until key leaders were indicted in 2018. [5] NXIVM sued the Ross Institute and several individuals for posting quotations from a NXIVM training manual on Ross Institute's website in the context of two written critiques of the manual and NXIVM's training program. NXIVM's lawyers attempted to argue that the fair use doctrine did not apply since Ross had obtained copies of the manuscript in bad faith, i.e., he obtained them from a former ESP participant who had signed a non-disclosure agreement. Both the district court and the appeals court ruled in Ross's favor. An appeals judge stated, "Certainly, no critic should need an author's permission to make such criticism, regardless of how he came by the original; nor should publication be inhibited by a publisher's anxiety or uncertainty about an author's ethics if his secondary work is transformative." [1]

Facts and procedural history

NXIVM was a sex trafficking organization that posed as a multi-level marketing company that offered a life-improvement seminar called the "Executive Success" program (ESP). ESP claimed to train participants in a method NXIVM claimed would improve communication and decision-making. [2] [6] As part of the ESP seminar, NXIVM provided a training manual to paying participants who signed non-disclosure agreements that they would not discuss or release the manual to non-participants. [1] [2]

As executive director of the nonprofit organization the Ross Institute, Rick Ross maintained two websites to provide information to the public about cults and other controversial groups that had complaints made against them for allegedly using deception and undue influence to manipulate participants. [7] Ross received the NXIVM manual through a former ESP participant and commissioned reports from two mental health professionals who analyzed and critiqued the manual, quoting sections of it to support their analysis. [8] The reports, which referred to the program as "expensive brainwashing," [4] [6] were made available to the public on Ross’s websites. [9] [10] About 17 of 500 pages were republished on Ross's websites in the context of the critiques. [11] [12] [13]

In 2003, NXIVM filed a federal trade-secrets lawsuit against the Ross Institute, Rick Ross, the authors of the reports, and the former ESP participant who provided the manual to them, alleging copyright infringement for their use of quotations from NXIVM's "secret" manual in the online critical reports of the manual and training program, arguing that the fair use doctrine should not apply since the manual had been obtained through the violation of a nondisclosure agreement, constituting bad faith. [6]

Finding that the reports were likely protected by the fair use doctrine, the district court denied NXIVM's motion seeking a preliminary injunction directing Ross to remove the material from his websites. NXIVM appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. [9]

Issue

The issue before the Court was whether a fair use defense was available where the materials used were obtained in bad faith. [2]

Opinion of the court

The court noted that defendants’ misconduct in obtaining unauthorized material is one of several relevant factors in a fair use defense as set forth by the Supreme Court in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises , but that obtaining the manuscript in bad faith does not preclude a fair use defense. [9]

The court weighed the four fair use factors to determine if Ross’s use was fair, and made the following findings: [2]

  1. The purpose and character of the use was transformative as criticism and favored the defendants even if the defendants’ bad faith in obtaining the manual favored the plaintiffs.
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work was unpublished and favored the plaintiffs.
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole did not favor the plaintiffs as (1) it was reasonable for the defendants to quote liberally from the manual in order to critically comment on it and (2) there was no identifiable "heart" of the manual.
  4. The market inquiry heavily favored the defendants because, "as a general matter, criticisms of a seminar or organization cannot substitute for the seminar or organization itself or hijack its market."

The court ruled in favor of the defendants and affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, stating,

If criticisms on defendants' websites kill the demand for plaintiffs' service, that is the price that, under the First Amendment, must be paid in the open marketplace for ideas...Certainly, no critic should need an author's permission to make such criticism, regardless of how he came by the original; nor should publication be inhibited by a publisher's anxiety or uncertainty about an author's ethics if his secondary work is transformative. [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. Unlike "fair dealing" rights that exist in most countries with a British legal history, the fair use right is a general exception that applies to all different kinds of uses with all types of works and turns on a flexible proportionality test that examines the purpose of the use, the amount used, and the impact on the market of the original work.

<i>Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.</i>

Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82, was a copyright case about the Russian language weekly Russian Kurier in New York City that had copied and published various materials from Russian newspapers and news agency reports of Itar-TASS. The case was ultimately decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The decision was widely commented upon and the case is considered a landmark case because the court defined rules applicable in the U.S. on the extent to which the copyright laws of the country of origin or those of the U.S. apply in international disputes over copyright. The court held that to determine whether a claimant actually held the copyright on a work, the laws of the country of origin usually applied, but that to decide whether a copyright infringement had occurred and for possible remedies, the laws of the country where the infringement was claimed applied.

<i>A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i> US legal case

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the a district court ruling that the defendant, peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court copyright law case that established that a commercial parody can qualify as fair use. This case established that the fact that money is made by a work does not make it impossible for fair use to apply; it is merely one of the components of a fair use analysis.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Derivative work</span> Expressive work created from a major part of a different, original artwork

In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of an original, previously created first work. Its Amp pacet. The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent in form from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright. Translations, cinematic adaptations and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works.

Fair dealing is a limitation and exception to the exclusive rights granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. Fair dealing is found in many of the common law jurisdictions of the Commonwealth of Nations.

The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time limit, and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1928, are in the public domain.

<i>Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.</i>

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, is a U.S. district court case about whether the operator of a computer bulletin board service ("BBS") and Internet access provider that allows that BBS to reach the Internet should be liable for copyright infringement committed by a subscriber of the BBS. The plaintiff Religious Technology Center ("RTC") argued that defendant Netcom was directly, contributorily, and vicariously liable for copyright infringement. Netcom moved for summary judgment, disputing RTC's claims and raising a First Amendment argument and a fair use defense. The district court of the Northern District of California concluded that RTC's claims of direct and vicarious infringement failed, but genuine issues of fact precluded summary judgment on contributory liability and fair use.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">NXIVM</span> American sex cult

NXIVM is the name commonly used to describe the personality cult of imprisoned racketeer and sex offender Keith Raniere. NXIVM is also the trademarked name of the defunct corporation that Raniere founded, which provided seminars and videos in the field of human potential development. The United States seized ownership of NXIVM related entities and their intellectual property through asset forfeiture following Raniere's conviction.

Substantial similarity, in US copyright law, is the standard used to determine whether a defendant has infringed the reproduction right of a copyright. The standard arises out of the recognition that the exclusive right to make copies of a work would be meaningless if copyright infringement were limited to making only exact and complete reproductions of a work. Many courts also use "substantial similarity" in place of "probative" or "striking similarity" to describe the level of similarity necessary to prove that copying has occurred. A number of tests have been devised by courts to determine substantial similarity. They may rely on expert or lay observation or both and may subjectively judge the feel of a work or critically analyze its elements.

<i>Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.</i>

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126, is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that copyright owners must consider fair use defenses and good faith activities by alleged copyright infringers before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Keith Raniere</span> Founder of the NXIVM cult

Keith Allen Raniere is an American criminal convicted for a pattern of racketeering activity including human trafficking, sex offenses, and fraud. He co-founded NXIVM, a purported-self-help multi-level marketing company offering personal development seminars and headquartered in Albany, New York. Operating from 1998 to 2018, at its height, NXIVM had 700 members, including celebrities and the wealthy. In NXIVM, Raniere was referred to by members as "Vanguard".

<i>Ho v. Taflove</i> U.S. Seventh Circuit case about the copyrightability of scientific data

Ho v. Taflove is a Seventh Circuit case about the copyrightability of scientific data. In 2011, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a 2009 decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois holding that the expression of ideas can be copyrighted but not the ideas themselves.

<i>Cambridge University Press v. Patton</i>

Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al., 1:2008cv01425, was a case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in which three publishers, Cambridge University Press, SAGE Publications, and Oxford University Press, initially filed suit in 2008 against Georgia State University for copyright infringement.

<i>Wright v. Warner Books, Inc.</i> American legal case

Wright v. Warner Books (1991) was a case in which the widow of the author Richard Wright (1908–1960) claimed that his biographer, the poet and writer Margaret Walker (1915–1998), had infringed copyright by using content from some of Wright's unpublished letters and journals. The court took into account the recent ruling in Salinger v. Random House, Inc. (1987), which had found that a copyright owner had the right to control first publication, but found in favor of Walker after weighing all factors. The case had broad implications by allowing the use of library special collections for academic research.

<i>Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc.</i>

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc., 749 F.2d 154 was a copyright infringement case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit over the playing video cassettes in-store of a video sale and rental store. The appeals court affirmed the decision of the district court to grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and enjoin defendants from exhibiting plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures.

<i>Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust</i> American legal case

Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87, is a United States copyright decision finding search and accessibility uses of digitized books to be fair use.

Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), was a 1965 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held, for the first time, that enforcement of a fraudulently procured patent violated the antitrust laws and provided a basis for a claim of treble damages if it caused a substantial anticompetitive effect.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Institute, 364F.3d471 (2d Cir.2004).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Aspen Publishers (2007). Copyright. Keyed to Keyed to Course Using Gorman and Ginsburg's Copyright: CAses and Materials Seventh Edition. Casenote Legal Briefs. Wolters Kluwer. pp. 95–96. ISBN   978-0-7355-6176-2.
  3. ↑ Roger E. Meiners; Al H. Ringleb; Frances L. Edwards (2006). The legal environment of business. Cengage Learning. p. 230. ISBN   978-0-324-20485-8.
  4. 1 2 Köhler, Nicholas (2010), "How to lose $100 million", Maclean's, vol. 123, no. 35, p. 58
  5. ↑ "Leader of NY Group Branded Women, Made Them Sex Slaves: Feds". NBC New York. Retrieved 2021-01-01.
  6. 1 2 3 Parlato, Frank (27 Nov 2015), "The Bronfman/Raniere Cult Demands Investigation", Niagara Falls Reporter
  7. ↑ Pankaj, S (2005), E-commerce, APH Publishing, pp. 207–208, ISBN   8176488054
  8. ↑ Odato, James M.; Gish, Jennifer (February 24, 2012), "Secrets of NXIVM", Times Union
  9. 1 2 3 Berkeley Technology Law Journal (January 2005), "NXIVM Corp v. Ross Institute", Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 20 (1, 67): 735, doi:10.15779/Z38K40D
  10. ↑ A Forensic Psychiatrist Evaluates ESP, Cult Education Institute, February 2003
  11. ↑ Kenneth D. Crews; Dwayne K. Buttler (2006). Copyright law for librarians and educators: creative strategies and practical solutions. ALA Editions. p. 58. ISBN   978-0-8389-0906-5.
  12. ↑ A Critical Analysis of the Executive Success Programs Inc., Cult Education Institute, February 2003
  13. ↑ Robert Jay Lifton's eight criteria of thought reform as applied to the Executive Success Programs, Cult Education Institute, February 2003
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.