Righthaven is essentially finished. It will be months before any rulings over standing come about and I don't see the judges rushing to make any decisions. Righthaven will not be able to file anymore lawsuits while these are pending.

My guess is that Stephens Media is now planning the best exit strategy and how best to put an end to this without incurring all or most of Righthaven's massive liabilities. They will only keep Righthaven around now as a throw away company to take the brunt of these liabilities. I don't see Stephens Media nor Media News Group walking away from all this unscathed.

Sgt Rock

So what your are saying is unless you happen to have access to the President and can take a photo yourself you have no right to parody or satire him or any public figure for that matter?

You could ask permission but they could be supporters of the President and say no giving them veto power over your free speech. So can't you see why in the case of criticism and parody there has to be some exceptions to copyright?

Sgt Rock

Thanks for the information. I have passed it along to Brian.

Sgt Rock

I will send your link to Brian.

One thing that makes any case against Brian weak on this one is that the photo in question says nothing about Destination 360 so the use of it cannot possibly harm any market or confuse customers that somehow Destination 360 had something to do with this Parody. This would fall under parody and not necessarily satire since Brian was using a depiction of a casino to make a point about Wall Street and casinos so there was a direct relationship to the image and the subject of the parody.

Speaking of the New York Stock Exchange, they now claim to own the copyright to any image taken inside the Exchange as well as any image that includes their trademark. This would be like Disneyland claiming to own all images taken inside the park, or McDonald's saying they own any image that includes the Golden Arches.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/20...

Sgt Rock

Brian did send a reinstatement request to Flickr:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56605325/My-Sa...

We will see how Flickr reacts.

botfx

Courts have upheld that satires do not necessarily have to be aimed at the copyright holder to be protected. In fact most don't. For instance there are many satires created from images of various Presidents and obviously the President is not the copyright holder.

There are various music parodies that have been created and the parodies have nothing to do with the band or the owner of the copyright. Weird Al Yankovick generally asks permission of the copyright holder as a courtesy but there have been times he has done it without the permission from the artist.

http://www.legalzoom.com/intellectual-pr...

SgtRock

I'm not sure if Brian could sue Flickr or not. It may be a good idea to look into it though because companies often times take the path of least resistance and just shut something down even if the person effected was within his rights.

I do think Destination 360 is on thin ice with this one. I think this would be a good case for civil rights organizations to follow and maybe even assist in bringing a law suit against them, There are civil rights and free speech implications in this that go way beyond Brian Hill or Destination 360.

Enough is enough. This was a satire which has been upheld time and time again not only be fair use but protected by the First Amendment.

Why do I have a feeling Righthaven has something to do with this?

Our freedom of speech is being taken away bit by bit by overbearing IP maximilists who believe IP trumps all other rights. No one needs permission to parody anyone and this complaint against Brian Hill is an attack on the very rights this country was founded upon and that is the right to speak out against institutions of power.

Brian Hill should demand Flikr reinstate this image or Brian Hill should sue both Flikr and Destination360 for civil rights violations.

Righthaven would have required Brian to ask people like me who wrote the article in question on Oneutah and all articles written about Brian Hill including Righthavenvictims to be taken down. Righthaven demanded both Brian Hill, his Mother, and attorney David Kerr to make false statements that they had perjured themselves before the court.