Stanford Center for Internet and Society

As announced yesterday and reported first by the Leaky Cauldron and then the Associated Press, RDR Books has withdrawn its appeal from the Court's decision enjoining the publication of the Lexicon, and will publish a new Lexicon instead.

Following the trial and the Court's decision, Steve Vander Ark created a new Lexicon manuscript. That manuscript addressed some of the concerns expressed by J.K. Rowling at trial, and those expressed by Judge Patterson in his thorough and detailed decision. As it turns out, Vander Ark and RDR like the new manuscript much more than the old one, and they decided they are much more excited to publish the new manuscript instead of the old one.

Michael Savage has one of the most popular shows on the radio. He doesn't hesitate to speak his mind, no matter how controversial his views. He should be applauded for that. Many find those views highly offensive, and level fierce criticism at him. They should be applauded for that. That is the dialogue of free speech. The right to speak and the right to criticize speech you don't like are equally important.

You'd think that Savage of all people, who depends on free speech to do what he does for a living, would understand that. Yet when the Council on American-Islamic Relations ("CAIR") put up a web page last year documenting overtly hostile remarks Savage made about Muslims on his show and urging advertisers to boycott Savage's show, Savage tried to shut down CAIR's criticism of him. He sued CAIR, claiming the snippets of Savage's show CAIR used to document Savage's statements and support CAIR's criticism of him infringed his copyrights in his show. If fair use protects anything, it protects the right to use portions of a copyrighted work to criticize it, so Savage lost his case quickly and decisively.

But the attack goes on. Brave New Films created a similar video and posted it to YouTube. That video likewise documents Savage's comments and urges viewers to do something about them. Brave New Films also created a website, www.nosavage.org to support its efforts to speak out against Savage and the comments he made. Late last month, Savage's nationwide syndicator, Original Talk Radio Network, complained to YouTube about BNF's video. In response, YouTube removed it pursuant to the DMCA.

The Fair Use Project, along with co-counsel Bingham McCutchen, have now sued OTRN and Savage to recover damages for the misrepresentations made in connection with the wrongful removal of the video from YouTube, and declaratory and injunctive relief to vindicate BNF's right to say what it said about Savage in the video, and prevent the suppression of the video in the future.

Not all campaign controversies fill the national stage. But this one should get national attention for being so abusive.

Mark Blanchfield is challenging George Amedore for his New York state assembly seat. Last week, Blanchfield released political ads that include excerpts of an interview Amedore apparently gave to the Albany Business Review in connection with an award he received from the Business Review last May. In that interview, Amedore says he doesn't "look at [his] Assembly position as [his] job."

Blanchfield's radio and TV ad lambast Amedore for this comment. In response, the Business Review turned its lawyers loose on Blanchfield, who received a letter accusing him of copyright infringement and threatening legal action if he does not pull his ads off the air.

This is an abuse of copyright law that should trouble everyone, and cannot be allowed to persist or spread. Copyright is not a tool to censor criticism, and cannot be allowed to become a device to suppress statements that public officials wish they had not made.

What Blanchfield did here is a textbook example of fair use -- and an important one at that. Blanchfield is using a small portion of the video to criticize the views expressed in it by Amedore and to expose to the voters Amedore's attitude about the job he's been elected to do; moreover, Blanchfiled's use of this material will have no conceivable impact on whatever market there might be for the video the Business Review made (assuming there is a market for it in the first place).

After both the state and federal courts rejected the attempts of Yoko Ono Lennon and EMI Records to enjoin the showing of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed on the ground it used a 15-second fragment of John Lennon's Imagine, all of the plaintiffs in both cases have now withdrawn their claims and dismissed their cases.

This is the right result to be sure. There should never have been any doubt the filmmakers who were sued here had every right to use a short segment of a song for the purpose of criticizing it and the views it represents. But the right result came far too late. The mere pendency of these cases caused the film's DVD distributor to shy away from releasing the full film -- the version that includes the Imagine segment. So the film goes out on DVD on October 21 in censored form, illustrating the damage that even an unproved and unsupported infringement claim can do.

At the same time, the result here -- great but imperfect -- is a fantastic lesson in how we might start to solve the fair use dilemma. We launched the Documentary Film Program with Media Professional Insurance and Michael Donaldson to help solve a critical problem: fair use rights are expensive to use because they require lots of lawyer time. Media Pro took the visionary step of insuring fair use risks. We and Donaldson agreed to mediate these risks by vetting the fair use issues ahead of time. (We do it for free; Donaldson has to make a living.) Donaldson reviewed Expelled, and Media Pro insured it. When its producers got sued, we agreed to defend it pro bono, alongside the producers' regular counsel at the Locke Lord firm. Together we won, kept the cost to Media Pro minimal, and thus demonstrated that the fair use problem can be solved, in many (but perhaps not all) cases by teamwork like this.

I'm proud to have been a part of it.

Reference guides and companion books about literary works have been a critically important part of literature since its inception, and the right to publish them stood largely unchallenged. We agreed to help defend the Harry Potter Lexicon because J.K. Rowling's claims threatened that right, and because we believe the fair use doctrine protects the Lexicon, and other publications like it. We tried the case in April in a Manhattan Court and waited through the summer for a decision.

Today we found out we lost. In a thoughtful and meticulous decision spanning 68 pages, the Court recognized that as a general matter authors do not have the right to stop publication of reference guides and companion books about literary works, and issued an important explanation of why reference guides are not derivative works. Needless to say, we're very happy the Court vindicated these important principles.

But the Lexicon did not fare so well. The Court held the Lexicon infringed Ms. Rowling's copyright, was not protected by fair use, and permanently enjoined the publication of it. (Read the full decision here.)

Needless to say we're disappointed, as is our client, RDR Books. Careful and thoughtful as the decision is, we think it's wrong. So stay tuned to see where we go from here. In the meantime, thank Roger Rapoport, the Publisher of RDR Books for having the courage to stand up for free speech and fair use. He fought a fight that not many would have the stomach to fight, and we are proud to fight with him.

While you're at it, thank Steve Vander Ark. It's not easy to stand up to your hero, or bear the unjustified scorn of your fellow fans.

Finally, remember that avada kedavra -- the killing curse -- is not always fatal. One wizard survived it. Three times. And it was he who cast the spell (and won't be named here) that ultimately suffered for it. Maybe someday the Lexicon will be known as The Book That Lived.

Many have worried about the role of intermediaries who provide platforms for sharing information and expression on the internet, and their sometimes profound power to make content disappear. But here is an example of one intermediary -- a big and very important one -- that did the right thing.

Students for a Free Tibet posted a video on YouTube showing their protest at the Chinese consulate in New York, which included various images relating to the Beijing Olympics, all to speak against China's human rights record -- a fair use to be sure.

The International Olympic Committee filed a DMCA takedown notice and the video was removed. Upon learning more about the content of the removed video, YouTube contacted the IOC and asked them if they really planned to pursue a claim about this [really very preposterous position] and if not, to withdraw the takedown notice. To the IOC's credit, they retracted the notice and the video was reposted within hours.

So here is an intermediary who took an interest in free speech and fair use, even when it didn't necessarily have to. Yes, that followed widespread outrage among bloggers and others. Yes, the situation would have been much tougher if the IOC had maintained its irresponsible position. But we should all be pleased to see YouTube going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect free expression.

Two months ago, a Manhattan federal court rejected Yoko Ono Lennon's attempt to enjoin the further showing and distribution of Expelled: No Intelligence allowed on the ground that film used fifteen seconds of the John Lennon song Imagine.

EMI Records filed a nearly identical claim in state court based on the film's use of the sound recording, and demanded a nearly identical injunction. We're happy to report the state court has now denied EMI's request for an injunction.

The state court's order is particularly important because it establishes that fair use applies to the use of sound recordings under common law copyright, and rejects the insane conclusion of the Sixth Circuit in Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films that there is no such thing as de minimis use when it comes to sound recordings.

Read the full order here.

Building on the tremendous success they have achieved with the Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use, the Center for Social Media today released another valuable tool for content creators -- the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video

The ability to easily create and share online video presents unprecedented opportunities for self-expression, but has at the same time generated significant confusion about what is permissible versus impermissible copying. As part of the panel that helped shape this Code of Best Practices, I hope it creates a growing consensus about how to balance the rights of copyright holders and the rights of those who would use content for new, valuable, and expressive purposes.