Judge: Righthaven Lacked Standing, Abused Copyright Act
See: U.S. District Judge John Kane's ruling in full
The article notes that 23 Colorado cases had closed prior to Judge Kane's ruling. It is likely that Righthaven lacked standing to bring those lawsuits as well, several of which included settlements with big names, such as white supremacist David Duke and website operator Matt Drudge.
Part of Judge Kane's Order:
Defendant Leland Wolf is represented by Randazza Legal Group. (Huge kudos to both!)
Righthaven LLC of Las Vegas lacked standing to file copyright infringement lawsuits in Colorado under its lawsuit contract with the Denver Post and abused the Copyright Act in doing so, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.See: VEGAS INC article in full
Senior U.S. District Judge John L. Kane in Denver granted summary judgment for Righthaven lawsuit defendant Leland Wolf and the It Makes Sense Blog against Righthaven.
See: U.S. District Judge John Kane's ruling in full
The article notes that 23 Colorado cases had closed prior to Judge Kane's ruling. It is likely that Righthaven lacked standing to bring those lawsuits as well, several of which included settlements with big names, such as white supremacist David Duke and website operator Matt Drudge.
Part of Judge Kane's Order:
Righthaven’s only interest in the Work is “the right to proceeds in association with a Recovery.” The Copyright Assignment Agreement defines “Recovery” as “any and all sums . . . arising from an Infringement Action.” Thus, when read together, the Assignment and the Copyright Assignment Agreement reveal that MediaNews Group has assigned to Righthaven the bare right to sue for infringement – no more, no less. Although the assignment of the bare right to sue is permissible, it is ineffectual. Standing alone, “[t]he right to sue for an accrued claim for infringement is not an exclusive right under § 106.” Silvers, 402 F.3d at 884. Furthermore, neither the Assignment nor the Copyright Assignment Agreement provide Righthaven any beneficial interest in the dissemination of the Work. Accordingly, Righthaven is neither a “legal owner” or a “beneficial owner” for purposes of § 501(b), and it lacks standing to institute an action for copyright infringement.
CONCLUSION
It is apparent from the terms of the Assignment and the Copyright Assignment Agreement that Righthaven lacks standing to institute an action for copyright infringement. Because the jurisdictional issues raised in the Motion to Dismiss are intertwined with the merits of the case, I convert Mr. Wolf’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to a Rule 56 motion and GRANT him SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Furthermore, in light of the need to discourage the abuse of the statutory remedies for copyright infringement, I exercise my discretion under Section 505 of the Copyright Act and ORDER that Righthaven shall reimburse Mr. Wolf’s full costs in defending this action, including reasonable attorney fees.
Defendant Leland Wolf is represented by Randazza Legal Group. (Huge kudos to both!)
