Erie, Pennsylvania police officers allegedly threatened Jeremy Orr and/0r his brother with a federal wiretapping charge if he did not remove a video from YouTube.  The video, which was shot in a bar on Orr's cell phone, showed one of the officers, James Cousins, making fun of a recent homicide victim.

In April 2009, Erie Police Chief Steve Franklin  learned of the video. As a result, the department assigned James DeDionisio to determine if Cousins' behavior violated conduct standards. Franklin also asked YouTube to remove the video, because he worried that "[p]eople [would] look at this and say, 'Geez, is that what the Erie cops are like?'" YouTube refused to do so without a request from an original poster.

DeDionisio and Cousins allegedly questioned Orr's brother on April 6 and threatened him with a federal wiretapping violation if he or his brother did not remove the video.  (Orr's brother did not disclose his name to the press out of fear for police reprisals.) DeDionisio and Cousin deny that they issued that threat.

District Attorney Brad Foulk stated that he thought a wire tapping charge under the circumstances "is absolutely preposterous," adding that "I would never consider charging this person with a wiretap violation." The police allegely contacted Foulk's office to request a court order for the removal of the video. Foulk claims that his lead detective told the police "we could not do it and would not do it." 

It appears that to date, no charges have been filed against Orr or his brother.

Sedgwick, a company that provides insurance claims management services, sued Robert Delsman, a former employee of one of Sedgwick's clients, for copyright infringement, defamation, and other torts, after he created gripe sites, blogs, videos and print materials criticizing the company. Delsman's beef with the company started after he filed a claim for disability benefits in 2006.  According to the complaint, Delsman was unhappy with the way in which Sedgwick handled his claims, and began a campaign of harassment which allegedly included:

• Hosting pictures of Sedgwick's CEO and COO on his website and blog, which "morph[ed] . . . into images of Adolph Hitler and Heinrich Himmler," and posting a similar video to YouTube
• Referring to Sedgwick and its employees as "Sedgthugs"
• Unjustly accusing Sedgwick of engaging in criminal behavior on his website and in emails
• "Operation Going Postcard," in which Delsman sent postcards to Sedgwick offices, employees, customers and outside insurance agencies in multiple states.  These postcards allegedly contained copyrighted images of Sedgwick's CEO and COO and an image of a human skull containing Sedgwick's trademark in the eye sockets, along with "defamatory, false and libelous statements against Sedgwick.

(Compl. ¶¶ 12-13.)  Sedgwick sought damages, fees, and an injunction preventing Delsman from sending offensive emails or postcards and further defaming or libeling Sedgwick, and requiring him to remove all of Sedgwick's copyrighted material from his website and blog and to destroy all Sedgwick's copyrighted material in his possession.

Delsman, who is representing himself pro se, has filed a motion for summary judgment.  The court has yet to rule on his motion.

UPDATE:

07/17/2009- The court construed Delsman's motion for summary judgment as a motion to dismiss and granted the motion.  The court held that the copyright claim failed because Delsman's use of Sedgwick photographs was fair use.  The court dismissed the remaining claims under California's anti-SLAPP statute.

12/16/2009- Sedgwick filed its opening brief on appeal.

01/29/2010 - Delsman filed its response brief.

03/01/2010 - Sedgwick filed its reply brief.

03/21/2011 - In an unpublished, two-page opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling.

John Cafiero, a rock musician and manager of punk bands The Ramones and The Misfits, filed suit against Doug Custer (a/k/a Doug Evil) alleging in his complaint that Custer infringed his copyright by posting an animated video featuring The Misfits on YouTube.com and other websites.  Cafiero also brought a claim of misrepresentation under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, arguing that Custer lied on his DMCA counter-notification by claiming a copyright interest in the video.

Alongside the copyright allegations, Cafiero alleged defamation and false light arising from various Internet postings Custer allegedly made that criticized Cafiero.  Many of these arose from spoof site Osuka Papsmear, which Cafiero asserts is a Custer blog dedicated to defaming Cafiero and his band Osaka Popstar.

Early in the case, Cafiero received a default judgment against Custer after Custer did not appear or answer the complaint.  Appearing pro se, Custer successfully challenged the default judgment and filed his answer and counterclaims.  Custer's lengthy counterclaims, which discuss Cafiero's business dealings in depth, appear to bring claims of copyright infringement and defamation.  Custer's filings maintain that he himself authored most of the material appearing in the video and that Cafiero reneged on his promises regarding publication and use of the video.

On November 11, 2008, Cafiero filed a motion to dismiss Custer's counterclaims for failure to comply with rules of civil procedure, asking in the alternative for Custer to file a more definite statement.  Custer opposed the motion and filed a more definite statement.

On May 22, 2009, the parties agreed to submit the case to mediation proceedings, and the judge referred the case to mediation on June 1. The defendant consented to appointed counsel for the mediation process only.

On May 28, Cafiero moved to file an amended complaint that would add two more plaintiffs --  Jerry Caiafa (a/k/a Jerry Only), who composed music for the video; and Cyclopian Music, Inc., the owner of The Misfits trademarks. The motion also sought to add counts of copyright infringement arising from use of Caiafa's work; trademark infringement under  Section 32 of the Lanham Act; and false designation of origin and unfair competition under Section 43 of the Lanham Act. The defendant opposed the motion to amend the complaint, asserting that adding more plaintiffs would conflict with the purpose of mediation.

Christopher  Comins, an Orange County businessman, filed a defamation lawsuit against Matthew Frederick VanVoorhis, who publishes a wordpress blog called Public Intellectual.  Comins objects to two of VanVoorhis' blog posts from June and August 2008, which reported and followed up on an incident that occurred in May, in which Comins shot two husky dogs believing they were wolves intimidating a group of cattle grazing on land being developed by one of his business partners. According to the Orlando Sentinel, both dogs survived, one with four gunshot wounds and the other with three.

VanVoorhis blogged about the incident after video footage captured by Irish tourists who witnessed the event appeared on YouTube. The six-minute video shows Comins shoot the dogs while a sizeable number of onlookers express increasing amounts of outrage.  It also shows the dog's owner, Chris Butler, run onto the scene in a frantic effort to save the dogs.  After the video appeared, an Internet backlash of sorts erupted on animal-rights websites and forums, according to the Sentinel. 

VanVoorhis' first post, called "Christopher Comins: Barbarian Hillbilly Dog-Assassin (w/Friends in High Places), took a highly critical stance on Comins' conduct and used an almost novelistic approach to recreating the timeline of events and the participant's emotions.  VanVoorhis embedded the tourist video in the post.

Comins' complaint alleges that this post "misrepresents the timeline, sequence and facts of this incident to cast Plaintiff in a false and negative light."  It also alleges the post "falsely claims . . . that Plaintiff continued shooting the dogs after their owner entered the pasture and notified Plaintiff that these were his pets."  The complaint includes claims for defamation and tortious interference with a business relationship. 

VanVoorhis'  second post reported more matter-of-factly about the possibility of a follow-up investigation by authorities and, while mentioned in the complaint, doesn't appear to be targeted by the lawsuit.

Update:

9/20/2010 - Comins filed an amended complaint.

11/3/2010 - Comins filed a second amended complaint.

3/1/2011 -  VanVoorhis moved for summary judgment, arguing that Comins had failed to state a claim by not giving VanVoorhis pre-suit notice of the defamation claim as required by Florida Statutes § 770.01.  VanVoorhis also argued VanVoorhis's comments were statements of opinion about a public figure without actual malice, thereby barring Comins' defamation claim.  And VanVoorhis argued that his comments do not show the intentional and unjustified conduct Comins needed to support a claim of tortious interference with business relationships.

6/29/2011 - The Ninth Judicial Circuit granted VanVoorhis's motion for summary judgment,  finding that VanVoorhis's blog is a "medium" for purposes of Florida's defamation notice law, and that Comins had failed to give VanVoorhis the requisite pre-suit notice.

 8/18/2011 - Comins filed a Notice of Appeal to the Florida District Court of Appeal for the Fifth District. In his subsequent appellant brief, Comins argued that VanVoorhis is a non-media defendant for purposes of Florida's defamation notice law, and thus should not qualify for such a notice requirement. Comins further argued that even if VanVoorhis did qualify for pre-suit notice, he waived such benefit by remaining anonymous and evading initial contact.

11/14/2012 - VanVoorhis filed an answer brief and cross-appeal brief. In his brief, VanVoorhis argues that the court correctly interpreted the defamation notice law, and argued that the claim against VanVoorhis must fail because the statements are opinion, Comins cannot prove actual malice, and Comins cannot prove any damages stemming from VanVoorhis's statements. VanVoorhis further argued that the tortious interference claim was a hidden defamation claim and should fail for the same reasons that the defamation claim should fail.

On March 30, 2009, Dr. Barry Eppley, a plastic surgeon in the Indianapolis area, filed a lawsuit against former patient, Lucille Iacovelli.  The complaint included claims for defamation, trade disparagement, harassment, false designations and descriptions of fact, and false light publicity based on webpages, videos, and postings Iacovelli allegedly made regarding her past surgery experience with Eppley.  Eppley also asked for a temporary restraining order prohibiting Iacovelli from carrying out or writing about an alleged plan to commit suicide and publicize it in order to destroy his career. 

The court granted a temporary restraining order preventing Iacovelli from publishing anything related to a suicide attempt, her prior treatment by Eppley, or commenting on Eppley's role in preventing the suicide attempt the same day. Following a hearing on April 8, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Barker issued an order extending the temporary restraining order until April 18. 

On April 9, 2009, Iacovelli filed an answer to Eppley's complaint and counter sued Eppley, his lawyer Todd Richarson, and Lewis & Kappes (Richardson's law firm). On April 13, 2009, the court accepted Iacovelli's answer to the complaint but rejected her counterclaims as not conforming to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

On April 17, the court granted Eppley's motion for a preliminary injunction.  The court found that Iacovelli's speech would not likely be protected by the First Amendment due to its defamatory and likely false nature as well as its lack of advancement of debate on a public issue. 

The preliminary injunction prevents Iacovelli or anyone in active concert with her from posting on the internet or emailing about Eppley, Eppley's attorneys, Lewis & Kappes, or referencing Eppley's actions with respect to Iacovelli's suicide threats.  It also requires her to remove any information about Eppley from any websites she controls, remove www.eppleyplasticsurgerysucks.com, www.barryeppleyplasticsurgeon.com, and www.lewis-kappessucks.com in their entirety, and refrain from registering any new websites that use Eppley's name.  It also requires her to remove any links to the listed websites until the conclusion of the lawsuit. 

According to Wired's Threat Level blog, in April 2009 the anti-gay-marriage group National Organization for Marriage ("NOM") sent a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube, demanding that it take down a clip from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show.  In the clip, Maddow criticizes NOM's "Gathering Storm" advocacy ad, displays short excerpts from the ad and 40 seconds of leaked audition outtakes from the ad, which had been uncovered by the Human Rights Campaign and posted widely on video-sharing sites like YouTube. 

MSNBC apparently sent a counter notice, and YouTube put the clip back up.  Subsequently, Maddow commented on the DMCA takedown request and chided NOM on the air for using copyright law to silence critical commentary:

A cable news segment critical of an issue ad violates the copyright of the organization that made that ad? So you can pay to put it on TV, but I can't address its merits on TV?  Come now anti-gay-marriage people, I know your campaign is about how scared we should all be of gay marriage, but now you're scared of people talking about your stance on it?

After receiving a copyright complaint from the Tribune Company, YouTube took down a video from comedic performance group Improv Everywhere that allegedly infringed copright in a CW 11 (WPIX-TV) news broadcast. The CW 11 broadcast discussed an Improv Everywhere prank and reproduced excerpts from one of Improv Everywhere's own videos.

The original Improv Everywhere video showed an April Fools Day prank in which the group crashed a staged funeral.  CW 11 broadcast a news story about the video under the assumption that the video was a prank on unsuspecting funeral-goers.  In reality, Improv's prank was on any viewer who believed the video to be real.  Improv Everywhere has a detailed post on the takedown.