The Center for Public Integrity (CPI), a nonprofit organization dedicated to producing investigative journalism on issues of public concern, requested to be treated as a representative of the news media for purposes of document requests it made under the Freedom of Information Act. Such a designation would have allowed CPI to pay only photocopying costs, instead of higher processing fees applicable to the general public. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) denied CPI's requests on several occasions.

On October 24, 2007, CPI sued DHHS, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the question whether CPI was a "representative of the news media" for purposes of assessing processing fees under FOIA. After the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, the court held that, because CPI had a concrete, "firm intention" to use the information from the FOIA requests to publish one or more "distinct works" such as reports and press releases, CPI qualified as a representative of the news media. The court distinguished CPI from groups like Judicial Watch that previously failed to qualify as representatives of the news media because they had only vague plans to publish creative or analytical works based upon FOIA requests in general (and not necessarily the information from any particular request).

On October 2, 2007, DHHS filed a notice of appeal which it subsequently withdrew.

Update:

As of August 17, 2007, CPI's bill of costs and motion for attorney's fees was pending with the court.

In October 2005, Eagle Broadband, Inc. brought a John Doe lawsuit for defamation, trade libel, and unfair competition under California law after anonymous users posted critical statements about it on a Yahoo! Finance message board. Shortly thereafter, the court granted Eagle leave to take discovery from Yahoo! regarding the identity of the anonymous posters. Eagle determined the identity of two of the posters -- Thomas Mould (Doe 5) and Richard Williams (Doe 4).

Williams and Mould moved to strike the complaint pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16). The court granted the motion with respect to Mould and awarded him approximately $65,000 in attorney's fees. The court denied the motion with respect to Williams. On appeal, a California appellate court upheld the trial's court's rulings regarding Mould, but reversed the denial of Williams's motion and remanded the case with instructions to award attorney's fees to Williams upon proper motion.

Eagle voluntarily dismissed the action with regard to Doe 2 in October 2006. The case appears to be still pending against the remaining anonymous defendants.

43rd State Blues: Democracy for Idaho describes itself as a "website of, by and for Democrats and those who lean towards Democratic, progressive causes." The website offers what it calls a "team blog" service -- users who register for an account can maintain their own personal blog on the site. On of the site's users, going by the pseudonym "Tom Paine," published a post in April 2007 about Melaleuca, Inc. and its CEO Frank VanderSloot. VanderSloot and Melaleuca objected to the post, which, according to court documents, discussed rumors about questionable payments made to a US Senator. On April 6, counsel for Melaleuca sent a cease-and-desist letter to an individual believed to be the administrator of 43rd State Blues, claiming that the post was defamatory and demanding its removal within 24 hours. The next day, an anonymous individual with the user name "d2" posted the cease-and-desist letter on the website.

In late April, Melaleuca sent a DMCA takedown notice to the hosting provider for 43rd State Blues, demanding that the hosting provider remove the April 6 cease-and-desist letter from the website. The hosting provider complied, but Melaleuca was not content to stop there. It served administrative subpoenas issued pursuant to section 512(h) of the DMCA first on the hosting provider, and then on the "reseller" of the account associated with 43rd State Blues. These subpoenas asked for documents and information identitying "those persons who posted the infringing content identified in the Take-Down Notice [sent to the hosting provider], including but not limited to those persons using or associated with the screen names 'd2' or 'Tom Paine' as found at the website 43rdstateblues.com." The hosting provider informed Melaleuca that it had no information other than the name of the reseller of the account. When the reseller recieved a subpoena, 43SB.COM, LLC ("43SB"), the actual owner of the site, contacted Melaleuca through counsel and asked that further communications be directed to his office.

Melaleuca then obtained and served the same DMCA subpoena on 43SB. 43SB filed a motion to quash the subpoena on June 25, 2007, arguing that the subpoena did not comply with the requirements of the DMCA and violated the First Amendment. At oral argument, counsel for 43SB narrowed its objections to two points: (1) that the cease-and-desist letter lacked the originality necessary for copyright protection; and (2) that upholding the subpoena would violate Tom Paine's First Amendment right to engage in anonymous speech because there was not a sufficient connection between Paine and the posting of the cease-and-desist letter.

On December 7, the district court adopted the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (to whom the motion had been referred for decision). The Report recommended that the court grant the motion to quash with respect to Tom Paine, but deny the motion with respect to d2. The magistrate judge rejected 43SB's argument that the cease-and-desist letter was insufficiently original to garner copyright protection, concluding that Melaleuca's registration of the letter with the Copyright Office was a sufficient indication of ownership of a valid copyright for a DMCA subpoena to issue. Since d2 had allegedly posted the cease-and-desist letter, the court upheld discovery of his/her identity. With regard to Tom Paine, however, the magistrate judge concluded that using a DMCA subpoena to uncover his/her identity would be improper because there was no connection between Paine and the alleged infringement (i.e., posting the cease-and-desist letter).

Neither party submitted objections to the magistrate judge's Report, thereby apparently waiving the righ to raise factual and/or legal objections to it on appeal.

J.K. Rowling, the author of the successful Harry Potter books and films, and Warner Brothers, which produces and markets Harry Potter movies and products, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against book publisher RDR Books in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Rowlings and Warner Brothers seek an injunction barring RDR Books from publishing The Harry Potter Lexicon, the print counterpart of the Harry Potter fan website, www.hp-lexicon.com. The website contains information on "the series’ characters, places, animals, magic spells, and potions along with atlases, timelines, and analyses of magical theory," according to a press release issued by Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project, which is acting a co-counsel to RDR Books in the case.

Rowling and Warner Brothers argue that the book, which had been scheduled to be released November 28, 2007, misappropriates elements of Rowling's imaginary world and otherwise violates the plaintiffs' copyright and trademark rights in the books, movies, and related products. RDR argues that it has the right to publish the Lexicon under the fair use doctrine, which is a defense to copyright infringement that permits the use of a copyrighted work without the copyright owner's permission for limited and "transformative" uses that do not damage the market for the original work.

On November 8, 2007, the court issued a temporary restraining order delaying RDR's publication of the book. Both parties agreed to the entry of this order, pending a hearing on a preliminary injunction scheduled for February 6, 2008.

Update:

The court decided to combine the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits, which is scheduled to begin April 14, 2008.

4/16/2008 - The trial ended, and the court took the matter under advisement.

9/8/2008 - Judge Patterson issued a decision finding the defendants liable for copyright infringement; judge issued permanent injunction and $6,750 in statutory damages.

12/4/08 - RDR Books dismissed its appeal and announced that it will publish a revised version of The Lexicon on on January 12, 2009.  Mr. Vander Ark substantially rewrote the book in an effort to bring it in line with Judge Patterson's decision.  J.K. Rowling's agents issued the following statement:

We are delighted that this matter is finally and favourably resolved and that J.K. Rowling's rights  -- and indeed the rights of all authors of creative works -- have been protected.  We are also pleased to hear that rather than continue to litigate, RDR have themselves decided to publish a different book prepared with reference to Judge Patterson's decision.

Todd Hollis objected to the information users posted about him on DontDateHimGirl.com, a website that allows women to post about men and warn other women about them. In May 2006, Mr. Hollis sued Tasha Joseph/Cunningham, the operator of the website, alleging defamation in Pennsylvania state court, after she refused to remove the posts.

The Pennsylvania court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over Joseph/Cunningham, a resident of Florida.

On November 29, 2007, Hollis filed a second lawsuit in federal court in Florida, alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false light invasion of privacy. According to the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, Tasha Joseph/Cunningham issued the following statement in response to the new lawsuit:

DontDateHimGirl.com's mission is to empower women with the informationand connections that help them make better life decisions. DDHG.com is fully protected [from defamation lawsuits] by the Communication Decency Act. ... Any attack or lawsuit put forth regarding DDHG.com will be dealt with strongly, swiftly and in a manner which will seek to end this type of erroneous, wasteful litigation.

03/31/2008: Cunningham answered Hollis' complaint and filed a counterclaim against Hollis for defamation. The defamation claim arose from an telecopier document allegedly sent by an organization related to Hollis that stated as fact that Cunningham had been convicted of grand theft by the State of Florida.

04/14/2008: Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The motion argued that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on several of plaintiff's claims because certain examples of the disputed content were true and certain examples were entitled to protection under CDA 230.

03/2008 through 05/2008: Plaintiff and defendants filed a series of motions disputing discovery issues. These primarily concern defendants' requests for information from plaintiff and plaintiffs requests to depose individuals regarding defendants' reputation.

05/15/2008: Court dismissed Cunningham's counterclaim at Cunningham's request and granted Cunningham's request for protective orders that would prevent plaintiff from deposing certain individuals on the issue of defendants' reputation.

06/20/2008: The case has been dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of both parties. Details of the settlement are not yet available.

In 1999, Christopher Lamparello registered the domain name www.fallwell.com and used the website to criticize Rev. Jerry Falwell's views concerning gays and lesbians. In September 2003, Falwell initiated an arbitration action against Lamparello pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, claiming trademark infringement, cybersquatting and other torts, and sought to have the domain name transferred to him.

The National Arbitration Forum ruled that Lamparello's use of the domain name was confusing and had been registered in bad faith, and it ordered that the domain name be transferred from Lamaparello to Falwell. Lamparello commenced a lawsuit against Falwell in federal district court, seeking relief from the arbitration decision and a declaration of non-infringement. Falwell counter-claimed, alleging federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition under federal and Virginia law, and cybersquatting.

The district court granted summary judgment to Falwell, enjoined Lamparello from using the mark, and required him to transfer the domain name to Falwell. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and entered judgment for Lamparello. Avoiding the larger question of whether trademark law applies to websites like Lamparello's that do not use the disputed mark to sell a good or service, the court ruled that Lamparello's use of the domain name, in the overall context of his gripe site, did not create a likelihood of confusion between his site and Falwell's official site. The court rejected the doctrine of "initial interest confusion" for establishing trademark infringement, at least as applied to non-commercial sites critical of the trademark holder. The court also found that Lamparello did not have the "bad faith intent to profit" required for a cybersquatting claim, primarily because he used the domain name and website to engage in criticism and did not have a profit motive.