• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

CITADEL BEING SUED BECAUSE OF WPRO

F

fullabaloney

Guest
Citadel being sued by Righthaven LLC because Matt Allen posted a photo from the Denver Post website for a captioning contest. Righthaven LLC wants 150K in damages and seizure of the WPRO web domain. Righthaven has filed at least 239 suits according to the Las Vegas Sun. Just what Citadel needs right now. More aggravation to add to uncertainty.
 
This is such a scam on the part of Righthaven, just google them and see what many in the legal field are saying. Basically what they do is they find printed material that belongs to one of their clients that has been reproduced without permission. Then, the newspaper transfers the copyright to righthaven. Righthaven sues, then offers to settle for $3,500. It's easier to pay the $3500 than persue it. Scam!
 
RE "The question is, was the photo protected by copyright?"

Quaint-as-the-concept-may-seem in the right-click-and-Save era, you own photos or paintings or drawings or manuscripts or music you create, unless someone-pays-you-to-create-it ("work for hire" in copyright law).

reelyreal said:
This is such a scam on the part of Righthaven...they find printed material that belongs to one of their clients that has been reproduced without permission.
Click to expand...

A "scam," eh? So you don't think twice about buying bootleg movies? Or stealing music online? Fine. That's on YOU. But your boss WILL have a problem if you do it at work.

And vice-versa: If you listen to AM radio, you're hearing network spots from The Business Software Alliance, offering cash rewards for employees who report piracy.

In August 2009, I advised stations I consult:
Don’t make the thousand dollar mistake. Station owners who-found-out-the-hard-way tell me that Getty Images’ form letter comes with a $1000 invoice enclosed. Pay up or we sue. Just because you CAN right-click-and-copy a photo on the Internet doesn’t mean you MAY. I use, and recommend, Fotolia.com, where prices start at $1…lots cheaper than a thou.’ See also istockphoto.com

And here's a freebie: morguefile.com

HC
www.HollandCooke.com
 
Holland, there's a difference in Getty Images suing for copyright issues for their images, and a newspaper purposely selling the copyright of an image to some lawyer for the specific purpose of suing, settling, and making a buck.

As a musician I'm a big supporter of anti-piracy and giving credit and compensation to the artists and creatives that produce material. I think this slimy deal degrades the integrity of the lawyers involved, the newspapers involved, and the greater cause of respecting various copyrights.

Websites, and radio stations in particular should be very careful about what they reproduce. I also agree that Citadel/Providence should have a more clear policy in place so these things don't happen. Citadel was in the wrong, but I think Righthaven is a third party in the (profitable) business of stirring up trouble and I don't care for that. For the record, I also think that guys like Jim Sokolove are slimy.

Totally my opinion, this is just how I feel about this issue. If the newspaper wants to sue and settle, no problem! Selling the copyright so someone else can do it? lame.
 
RE "As a musician..."

reelyreal said:
Holland, there's a difference in Getty Images suing for copyright issues for their images, and a newspaper purposely selling the copyright of an image to some lawyer for the specific purpose of suing, settling, and making a buck. Totally my opinion...
Click to expand...

It's called "outsourcing."
In case you hadn't noticed, media are downsizing.
Only-doing-what-only-they-do, and farming-out General & Administrative functions.

I used to work for a great big newspaper with in IN-HOUSE legal department.
The entire 29th floor at USA Today was a law office.
And THEY routinely farmed-out specialized work to firms-that-specialized-in-that-kind-of-work.

Heck, MY DENTIST sent me to another dentist, on the next floor, for an implant.
That's all that other dentist does.
And he sent me to ANOTHER dentist, different floor, same building, for a root canal.
Nobody has "a relationship" with an endodontist. You're in, you're out. That's all they do.

"I am a non-attorney spokesman..."

http://amzn.com/1439172889
 
So WHAT IF...?

If there are any Intellectual Property attorneys here...is THIS a loophole?

If you right-click-and-Copy-and-Save someone-else's-image, then upload-that-image-to-your-server, as seems-to-have-been-the-case-here, you've taken-possession-of-it, without permission.

But WHAT-IF, instead, you simply linked-to the image, at its existing URL?
No copy, no take-possession.

Instead of your HTML page Source code saying something like <img src="http://630wpro.com/nameofimage.jpg">, it says:
<img src="http://originalwebsite.com/nameofimage.jpg">?

Obviously, you're depending-upon the owner to keep-the-image-there.

But it's already THERE. All you're doing is pointing-to-it, in-the-same-manner-that Matt Drudge is pointing to others' proprietary content.

Any lawyers looking-in?
 
Holland, what makes this situation different for WPRO is that it involves a “contest”. If the earlier poster is correct, this was an on air promotion to “caption” the very photograph the station did not own. So, you have an announcer driving people to the website to view the specific photo in question, in order to come up with a clever caption. You have a prize, you have consideration and most likely a great deal of on air conversation about the picture.

This is far different then a random photo used and inadvertently put on the website to show weather conditions in Denver, lets say. In the weather example, this would mitigate the radio stations damages. A Judge or jury might even be sensitive to the fact that WPRO was informing listeners of severe weather within the confines of “news content”.

But here seemingly we have a radio station trying to promote itself by asking listeners to take part in a game, in order to WIN something! “Go to 630WPRO.com and look at our photo of a traveler being screened and caption the picture and WIN!” I can imagine the air talent even sharing some of the caption ideas with listeners.

I believe the station has significant exposure to liability here IF the facts are the way they are outlined. No doubt this will be settled out of court and I doubt the station has insurance for this sort of thing.

Recently, I heard WPRO railing on a member of the print media who had been accused of plagiarism. I wonder if the news department reported on their own litigation?
 
I get all that. And all-that-notwithstanding, I'm still intrigued by the technicality I've broached. If, for WHATEVER reason, the image APPEARED, but was never actually copied or otherwise captured, and merely continued to RESIDE on its owner's server, would that infringe?

Ya can never find a dang IP lawyer with The Short Answer...
 
The operative word here is “intent”. The mere fact it stayed on the creators server is nothing more then a subterfuge for the defendant. The “intent” was to rip off the photo and exploit it for the local radio stations gain. It was the hope of WPRO to advance its media position by using someone else’s work product without permission. My guess is this case is worth five figures.
 
RE The operative word here is “intent”

We're just legal laymen speculating here, but if showcasing-content-owned-by-others is the threshold, why does Drudge skate?

But hey, I'm merely posing a hypothetical.

Cases like this generally end up settled, at some-fraction-of the C&D hear-ye-hear-ye figure.

Otherwise, the accused could argue Fair Use, citing Fox News and MSNBC grabbing-each-others' programming to call-each-other-names, and a bunch of other examples of ongoing help-yourself examples.

And courts have specifically held that parody is protected. As not-yet-Senator Al Franken used to wisecrack after Bill O'Reilly couldn't beat him, "even if the party being parodied doesn't get it."
 
I am in no position to answer for Mr. Drudge, but I would guess he gets permission. Based on the size of his organiztion I am sure has people who handle this. PLUS, because of his prominence many news organizations approach HIM!
 
"organization"

YakYakYak said:
Based on the size of his organiztion I am sure has people who handle this.
Click to expand...

Drudge reportedly sits alone in his apartment and surfs what's-online and turns "what's there" into a page-O-links. He told the interviewer that he takes a break once or twice a day, but then he's back to surfing news and opinion sites and the pile-O-Email.

What would you say to a joint understanding among media that anyone-can-use-anything...with attribution?
 
I have news on this...

Hi from the NAB in Vegas, where I broached the hypothesis above with some IP attorneys. "Interesting," one said. More on this soon...
 
"And now, the REST...of the story..."

Holland Cooke said:
If you right-click-and-Copy-and-Save someone-else's-image, then upload-that-image-to-your-server, as seems-to-have-been-the-case-here, you've taken-possession-of-it, without permission.

But WHAT-IF, instead, you simply linked-to the image, at its existing URL?
No copy, no take-possession.

Instead of your HTML page Source code saying something like <img src="http://630wpro.com/nameofimage.jpg">, it says:
<img src="http://originalwebsite.com/nameofimage.jpg">?
Click to expand...

I played-back this situation to a prominent Intellectual Property attorney attending the NAB convention here in Las Vegas.

"Interesting," he said.

The copyright owner might argue that -- even though the image was not, technically, copied -- its use out-of-context was tantamount. "But, on the other hand," as lawyers love to say, the newsworthiness of this particular use might constitute what-copyright-law calls "Fair Use," an oft-abused defense.

And it's only a defense ("an affirmative defense"), which means you'll already burn-through what-could-be hefty legal fees before you get to MAKE that case.

Bottom Line: When in doubt, DON'T.

HC
www.HollandCooke.com
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom