Courtcase presents interesting idea re: WTS lawsuits and "fair use"

by Lady Lee 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Lady Lee

  This might be to our advantage re: WTS lawsuits

  'Dancing baby' lawsuit can proceed: Judge

  20/08/2008 10:19:00 PM

  THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge is allowing a Pennsylvania woman to sue Universal Music Corp. for forcing YouTube to take down a video clip of her baby dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy." Universal Music demanded the removal of the 29-second home video by Stephanie Lenz of Gallitzin, Pa., because it allegedly violated copyright laws on the song.

  But a San Jose-based judge says Universal needed to first consider whether the clip was "fair use" of the material.

  Fair use provisions of the U.S. copyright act allow segments of copyrighted works to be used for purposes of parody or satire or in reviews and other limited circumstances.

  It's the first such legal ruling requiring copyright owners to consider fair use of their material before demanding that Internet sites such as YouTube remove material.
• 

  neverendingjourney

  Fair use provisions of the U.S. copyright act allow segments of copyrighted works

  The operative word here is "segments." I don't think the fair use doctrine can be used to legally defend the posting of a complete book or magazine, even if its used for parody or critical review.
• 

  Lady Lee

  different country but Quotes lost his case and had to remove his website because the WTS didn't like how he used segments of WT litterature. They thought it made them look foolish
• 

  Finally-Free

  They thought it made them look foolish

  Of course, they completely ignore the fact it's their own words that make them look foolish, so much so that Quotes' web site didn't even need any commentary.

  W
• 

  mustang

  Sad to hear over Quotes.

  The New York Times had a problem with a Mr. Sullivan: a low-life petty bureaucrat from Alabama, I believe. NYT criticized him for something or other. Sullivan sued; NYT stood their ground. All the way through the USSC: Sullivan vs. NYT is a precedent on "public figures" having to stand public criticism.

  The question is: has WTS made "public figure" class? I would say so, even as much as they like the shadows.

  Mustang
• 

  OUTLAW

  So the WBT$ thought they`re own literature,made them look foolish?...................I wonder why?.....OUTLAW
• 

  wha happened?

  I remember quotes. He didn't nearly have the money to fight this so he gave in to all their requests. It was sad but the info was spread to to other sites
• 

  Lady Lee

  Quotes posted about the case here

  The link to the court records isn't working bu tthe discussion is interesting. One point:

  Their Statement of Claim plainly stated that they feel that a collection of their own words can only have one purpose: to embarrass them.
• 

  OUTLAW

  Lady Lee..Love your thread!..It`s very funny..I didn`t know the whole story with Quotes..This is priceless..Thanks for the laugh`s................OUTLAW
• 

  Lady Lee

  I found the thread that has the court document

  Watch Tower sues Quotes for $100,000 plus plus plus...

  Article 31 states:

  31. The Defendant’s main purpose in operating the website is not “fair use”, but rather to try to embarrass the Plaintiffs by quoting selectively from some of the Religious Works in a manner that misleads Internet users as to the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses in .

  Bold is mine. In their own words yet again.