Ninth Circuit Vacates Fair Use Finding in Righthaven Case

[Newsjock]

Source: Bloomberg

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sealed the fate of copyright enforcer Righthaven LLC today by ruling that the minima; "right to sue" copyright assignments that Righthaven acquired from newspaper publishers did not confer standing to sue third parties for copyright infringement.

So far, that's good news for bloggers and others who had been targetted by Righthaven. However, the Ninth Circuit's ruling contained a bit of bad news for them: along the way, the court vacated the lower court's ruling that the defendant's posting of the entirety of a copyighted article to an online discussion board was a protected fair use.

... With this part of the lower court's ruling in Hoehn swept aside, the high-water mark for fair use rights online is arguably another Righthaven case, Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC, D. Nev., No. 2:10-cv-01356 (D. Nev., March 9, 2012), where the district court ruled that the posting a five-sentence excerpt of a fifty sentence news article on a political discussion forum was a fair use.

Read more: http://www.bna.com/ninth-circuit-vacates-b17179873884/

[derby378]

1. Two steps forward, one step back?

[Posteritatis]

2. Eh, not necessarily. *Entire* articles is a bit much

That means the standard these days is roughly in line with the LBN rules here (or a percentage otherwise), which seems like a, well, fair type of fair use.

[Skinner]

3. Not just "roughly in line" ...

Exactly in line:

... With this part of the lower court's ruling in Hoehn swept aside, the high-water mark for fair use rights online is arguably another Righthaven case, Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC, D. Nev., No. 2:10-cv-01356 (D. Nev., March 9, 2012), where the district court ruled that the posting a five-sentence excerpt of a fifty sentence news article on a political discussion forum was a fair use.

[Posteritatis]

4. Doh, yeah. Was thinking LBN was four sentences instead of four paras for some reason.

I choose to scapegoat sleep deprivation.

[freshwest]

5. Five sentences and not five paragraphs?

Last edited Thu May 9, 2013, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm in trouble then, since I go by the 'five paragraph' rule.

And since it says 'arguably,' does that mean DU will have to 'argue' in court again?

The OP says 'bad news for bloggers.' Please make an announcement if we need to tighten up.

I'd hate that, because leaving DU to read links can kill a thread and it can waste time.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Five sentences out of 50 was how the particular DU case worked out

The decision didn't explicitly say "5 out of 50 is the exact limit", or "4 paragraphs is exactly right"; it said the DU rules (which is 4 paragraphs) produced an acceptable example of fair use, in the case.

I don't think this means DU needs to change the rule at all (but "I am not a lawyer&quot . It's 'bad news for bloggers' because some of them thought they could quote entire articles, due to that other case that has now been vacated.

[freshwest]

8. Oh my, I've still been doing it wrong. I just looked at the TOS and it says 4 paragraphs.

All along I thought it was 4 to 5 as when I asked a member a way back what it was and the member said it was 4 to 5.

Can't go back and change all of those but I'll keep it down to 4 from now on out for good.
Thanks for the clarification.

Speaking as another 'I am not a lawyer,' as I say in my disclaimers.

[WeekendWarrior]

6. Why is this a blow to bloggers?

They shouldn't BE posting the entire article. A couple paragraphs and a link to the original such be fine under fair use.

I'm with the court on this one.

[DCKit]

9. Too lazy to post a link and shouldn't be on the Interwebs.

Thanks to all those on DU who continue to remind and educate us of the limitation - you've saved our bacon, likely more than once.