

Righthaven Loss: Judge Rules Reposting Entire Article is Fair Use  - jonah
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/fair-use-defense/

======
ggchappell
This is an interesting article about an interesting ruling.

Of course, the overriding fact determined by Judge Pro was that Righthaven did
not have standing to sue. Good for Judge Pro.

Also:

> "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,” Judge
> Pro ruled.

That sounds to me like he is saying that Righthaven just wrote up the wrong
stuff. They did not address the things that the judge considered to be the
major issues.

But all that aside, there is, IMHO, one very striking thing in this article:

> “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,” he wrote.
> “Accordingly, the work is not within ‘the core of intended copyright
> protection.’”

Seriously? The judge is saying that a 19-paragraph newspaper editorial is _not
covered by copyright law_??? That sounds huge, to me.

IANAL, so I have a couple of questions for any actual lawyers who may be
reading this.

(1) Am I correct, that the above statement is, as I said, "huge"?

(2) Since that statement was not required for the support of the actual
decision -- due to Righthaven's lack of standing -- does the statement that
the editorial is not within "the core of intended copyright protection", have
the force of legal precedent?

~~~
dtrizzle
Since the standing issue was decided and made the rest of the case moot, the
fair use analysis is dicta. Thus, it is not legal precedent.

Even if the judge did decide the fair use issue, it's precedential value would
be low - applying only in the district where the decision was made. In this
case, that would be the entire state of Nevada.

~~~
msredmond
Thank goodness. Don't get me wrong -- glad Righthaven lost for many reasons --
but if this judge's ruling on the fair use of full reprint were to become
precedent I think the web would be lost to a landslide of "scraper" sites
(more than it already is). They'd just add a line of commentary and go.

------
wccrawford
That's... Troublesome.

Now some people have copyright protection on their creative works and others
don't? Ugh.

And let's be honest... A 19 paragraph article is a creative work, even if it's
not fiction. There's more than just facts there. It took time and effort to
assemble it in just that way.

Art is always molding something into something more aesthetically pleasing...
Or at least molding one thing into another. Clay into statues, paint and
canvas into portaits, words and facts into articles.

