Copyright Infringment Lawyer, Internet Defamation, and Internet Privacy

Copyright Infringement, Internet Defamation and On-Line Privacy Attorneys

"Traverse Legal's attorneys know first hand how on-line defamation, internet privacy and copyright infringement issues have become more complex in cyberspace.  There are very few firms that can match our ability to identify and monitor on-line content. We understand the Internet and the technology which drives it.  Because we are a boutique litigation law firm, we know how to strategically and efficiently accomplish our client's goals. "

If you have a on-line defamation, privacy or copyright infringement issue you may contact one of our attorneys today for a consultation at l 866.936.7447 (International Toll Free).

Copyright Infringement is on The Rise

We have seen a significant uptick in the amount of copyright infringement litigation at our law firm.   The reason for this is simple. There is an explosion of authorshipIn the areas of photographs and videos on the internet.   Because of this increase in the amount of content,And the ease In which it isTo postPhotographs and videos,The amount of copyright protected works continues to grow at an exponential rate.

It used to be that professional photographers and videographers were the only ones to create this kind of compelling original content. Now, everyone with the cell phone and an Instagram account is posting original work. Not only are people using YouTube to post videos, they are monetizing their video channels. Social media influencers and celebrities acting as influencers contribute to the volume of copyright protected content.

What does the increase in copyright protected works mean?

It means there are more copyright owners out there looking to protect more copyrighted works. Text content,  images, copying is rampant. Many people do not understand that they cannot use someone else's photograph or video without permission, especially if it is being used for profit.

 

Federal District Court Refuses To Dismiss Claims Against Ripoff Reports

Recently, a federal district court in Utah declined to dismiss claims of false advertising, deceptive trade practices, as well as including a claim of defamation against Eccentric Ventures, a company that operates Ripoff reports.  Relying on 10^th Circuit precedent in the case of FTC v AccuSearch, Inc., 570 F3d 1187 (10^th Cir. 2009).  The Court denied Ripoff Reports motion to dismiss based upon §233 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). 

In Vision Security, LLC and Rob Harris v Eccentric Ventures, LLC, the plaintiff had a former employee post false and defamatory content on Ripoff Reports concerning Vision Security and its owner.  The former employee acknowledged in an affidavit that the posts were false and defamatory and were intended simply to dissuade people from patronizing Vision Security.  The former employee submitted the affidavit with a request to Ripoff Reports that the content be removed.  Consistent with its policy, Ripoff Reports declined to remove the post from the employee.  Vision Security then requested removal and in return Rip-Off Reports joint its paid corporate advocacy program in an effort to mitigate the damaging content, but again refused to remove the content.  The Court noted that Vision Security pled facts that would demonstrate that rip-off reports was motivated by their own commercial interests in declining to remove the defamatory content pursuant to the poster’s own affidavit and request for removal and that Ripoff Report could be found to have had an interest in and encouraged negative content which the 10^th Circuit has concluded is sufficient to state a claim under the CDA.  The 10^h Circuit is alone in construing the CDA so broadly.

We will update the post as the case unfolds, but it is surely a signal that courts are increasingly finding ways to address these injustices against innocent individuals under the CDA where web posts have an absolute policy concerning the posting of content and can be considered to in some fashion to be promoting the negative content that results in false and defamatory posts.  Based on the significant volume of victims who are the subject of defamatory content which remains posted under the CDA, it would not surprise this writer that that there would be some legislative action to provide a mechanism for content found to be defamatory or otherwise unlawful by a court of law, arbitrator or verified acknowledgement from the poster of the content.

Ripoff Report pulled in as part of a Criminal Investigation

Note: The prosecuting attorney has dismissed all charges against Darren Meade as part of the ongoing saga related to Tracey Richter (updated July 17, 2015).  No charges were filed against Ripoff Report or any of its owners or employees.

It is reported that Darren Meade is alleged to have published the harassing and defamatory accusations about State’s witnesses at the direction of Tracey Richter and Anna Richter, Tracey Richter’s mother, by posting them as ‘complaints’ on www.ripoffreport.com.  It is suspected that Darren Meade had hoped to use these defamatory postings to collect money from those defamed by charging them and other customers for the removal of such slanderous postings on the website. 

Below are some of the quotes taken from the Search Warrant Affidavit submitted by SAC County attorney to obtain evidentiary items that were in the possession of Anna Richter.  It is believed that such information and evidence is now being used to file charges of conspiracy in connection with the 2011 murder trial of Tracey Richter, who was the ex-wife of one of Ripoff Report’s most vocal critics – Michael Roberts: 

Online Defamation through Consumer Reporting Websites

There are several websites on the internet that allow individuals to report information regarding poor services, misconduct of actions by others or for providing unsatisfactory goods.  One such website, RipoffReport.com, has currently been in the news because a family member of convicted murderer Tracey Richter was using RipoffReport.com to defame the reputations of witnesses by providing statements to Ripoff Report that these people were guilty of perjury, fraud, child molestation, murder and terrorism, which was then posted on Ripoff Report’s website.  RipoffReport.com is claiming that they are not responsible for any inaccurate statements that users post on their website. 

It is being reported that many of these statements are false and are tarnishing the reputations of these individuals and/or their businesses.  If a lawsuit is filed, someone could be held responsible of internet defamation for the posting of false and damaging statements about these individuals.  However, if RipoffReport.com did not screen the posts, invite additional offensive postings, elaborate with their own comments, and/or call upon others to respond in kind, then they could be viewed as not being responsible for any internet defamation on their part pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), thereby leaving those individuals that posted these online statements as the responsible party for online defamation.

If you find yourself the victim of online defamation that is causing irrefutable harm to your reputation, business and/or brands, the highly experienced internet defamation attorneys can help you protect your reputation on the internet. 

What Damages are Available for Online Defamation?

Welcome to Defamation Law Radio. Internet defamation of character is as easy to perpetuate as a blog post, Facebook update, rating submission, or a forum comment.  Your online reputation is measured by the websites return as Google search results.  Do you know what people are saying and writing about you?

What Damages are available for online defamtion_

Matt: Hi, it’s Matt Plessner and welcome back to Defamation Law Radio.  We’ve talked about defamation on the internet many times before.  What can you do if you are defamed? And what kind of compensations are you entitled to?  We are going to talk about some of these things as we interview Mark Clark of the Traverse Legal office of Traverse City, Michigan.  Mark, thanks again for being back!

Mark:  Thanks Matt!  It is always a pleasure to be here.

Matt: Well thank you very much! Now, just start off plain and simple.  What, I guess damages are available for any kind of online defamation, Mark?

How Not to Get Caught for Copyright Infringement – YouTube Video

 

Videos are being taken down all the time for copyright infringement.  Copyright infringement basically means that you’re not allowed to use anything in your videos that you didn’t actually create yourself; not without the permission of the copyright owners.  Now that kind of sucks for a lot of people who just want to make videos for fun and put in some background music because that is how to make videos cool, and then they find that the copyright owner doesn’t like those videos and doesn’t want them using their material and so they file a DMCA Complaint against it and pop! Gone! 

The Monster Copyright Infringement

Monster Beverage Corporation recently had a verdict handed down against them in trial for the amount of $1.7 million, which was award to the Beastie Boys for copyright infringement of the band’s music.  Monster’s said in its defense that, even though they had infringed on the band’s copyrights, it had not done so intentionally because an employee of the company had mistakenly believed that it had permission to use the Beastie Boys’ music for their YouTube video.  

Uploading videos on websites like YouTube are a very common practice by both individuals and companies to get additional exposure and attention beyond TV, magazine, radio and websites.  However, if you downloading and using someone else’s videos, pictures, music  and/or other forms of artwork which you don’t have expressed consent to use, you could very well be infringing on their protected copyrighted materials.  Be aware that this could lead you into a lawsuit similar that Monster Beverage Corporation found itself in with the Beastie Boys.   So, unless you are only posting your own photos, music or other forms of work, the unintentional use of a copyrighted material could possibly get you into copyright infringement trouble.  If you want to use some form of media or art, it is extremely important to make sure that it is not copyright protected, that you get the proper written authorization to use it, and/or contact a copyright attorney to assist you with obtaining permission and the proper use of other’s pictures, music and/or videos. 

Recent Trends in Doctor, Dentist and Physician Defamation

For whatever reason, doctors and dentists are targets of online defamation by patients and, sometimes, competing doctors and physicians.  As an internet law-defamation attorney, I handle a large number of  doctor and dentist defamation cases.  I have always believed that the reason doctors, dentists and physicians are the target of online liable and slander is because of the special relationship they have with their patients.  A patient who has had a bad medical outcome sometimes feels that someone has to be responsible.  They don’t accept that not every outcome is going to be a good medical result.  The desire to blame someone often falls on the doctor, dentist or physician. 

Some trends that we are starting to see in doctor defamation cases are as follows:

Arguments on Jones v Dirty World

The United States 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati took up oral arguments on the fast becoming famous case of Jones v Dirty World Entertainment Recordings and its found and owner, Nik Richie.  The trial court in the case by way of jury trial awarded the Plaintiff damages in her defamation claim that The Dirty website had posted false and defamatory information about her concerning her sexual activities as a Cincinnati Bengals Cheerleader.  The Dirty relied on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which allows a web host who simply allows third-party commentary on its website immunity from defamation claims.  The trial court found that in the case of Nik Richie and The Dirty that it did more than simply provide third parties with a place to post their comments.  The Court stated:

“In the view of this Court, the Act’s text indicates that it was intended only to provide protection for site owners who allow posting by third parties without screening them and those who remove offensive content.  If, however, the owners, as in the instant case, invite invidious postings, elaborate on them with comments of their own, and call upon others to respond in kind, the immunity does not apply.”

Amicus briefs were filed by many, including Google and Facebook siding with The Dirty and claiming that the Court’s interpretation of Section 230 immunity under the CDA would subject them to needless claims for internet defamation.  It will be interesting to find out whether the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the trial court and use of the case to emphasize what the trial court emphasized and that is that Section 230 Immunity only shields a web host from defamation claims if they do not become involved in soliciting or creating the content. 

Online Defamation has many available resources which can be reviewed for more information: 

• Defamation happens when a statement that is made is false and was made to someone other than the person defamed.  Online defamation is happening on social websites and other online media as the internet becomes more and more popular.
• Examples of online defamation can help you to better understand if you have been defamed online.
• Online or internet defamation can also be known as cyber defamation.

 

Traverse Legal will post an update once the Court makes a decision. 

Who Owns a Copyright in a Tattoo?

A recent L.A. Times article posed the question, “Whose tattoo is it anyway?” The article goes on to outline ownership issues as it relates to the copyright in a tattoo.  On the one hand, the person who has the tattoo on their body should be able to have ownership of it in light of paying for it.  However, the artist who actually put the tattoo on the person may also have rights under copyright law.  Lawsuits have been filed in the past over this exact issue, and, in order to avoid dispute as to copyright ownership in a tattoo, there are certain things that any transaction involving a tattoo should include.  There should be a written agreement that makes clear who owns the copyright.  There could be assignment language or other language, potentially even work-for-hire language that makes clear that the tattoo is owned by the person under whose body it is placed. Otherwise, there is always a risk that the copyright may be claimed by the tattoo artist.