Intellectual Reserve, Inc., the legal entity that owns the intellectual property of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints, sent a DMCA takedown notice to Wikileaks after someone posted the Church Handbook of Instructions on the website. The notice requested that Wikileaks expeditiously remove or disable access to the Handbook. Wikileaks has refused to do so.

Jan Kruska sued several anti-pedophile organizations, including Perverted Justice Foundation, Inc. ("PJFI"), and individuals affliliated with those organizations, as well as domain registrar GoDaddy.com and social networking site MySpace.com, after the organizations accused Kruska of being a predator, a pedophile, and pro-pedophile on various websites, including JanKruska.com and JanKruska.net. Kruska sued for defamation, copyright infringement, cyberstalking and harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") in Arizona federal court.

In August 2007, self-described journalist Kruska began to receive what she described as "venomous" emails after she criticized the overbreadth of anti-pedophile laws. Soon after, the Absolute Zero United blog and PJFI's Wikisposure and Corporate Sex Offender websites posted accusations that Kruska was a convicted child molester and a pedophile, according to the complaint. The defendants allegedly posted similar accusations on MySpace.com, as well as on websitesJanKruska.com and JanKruska.net, both of which were registered byFilmax.com through GoDaddy.com. Some of the websites also allegedly posted personal information about Kruska, including her address, and photographs of Kruska that she says are copyrighted. In addition, Barbara Ochoa, aka Petra Luna, allegedly organized a protest targeting publishers of Kruska's writing, which Kruska said resulted in her articles being taken down. Further, Ochoa allegedly emailed Kruska, demanding Kruska remove her "entire web presence" or else face a "full scale activist attack" against her.

Kruska filed her complaint in January 2008. It sought damages and a preliminary injunction, barring thedefendants from "disseminating claims that [Kruska] is a 'Predator', 'Child Molester', 'Child Abuser', 'Pedophile', and 'Pro-Pedophile' bypostings on the internet, mass mailings, e-mails to friends, relatives,employers, business associates, among others; or otherwise by any othermeans making such suggestions."

In response, GoDaddy.com, Ochoa, and PJFI all moved to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds. In April 2008, Kruska voluntarily dropped her claims against MySpace.com. In June 2008, the court granted Ochoa's motion to dismiss, but gave leave to Kruska to amend her complaint against Ochoa, which she did. In July 2008, the court granted GoDaddy.com's motion to dismiss on the ground that CDA 230 precluded liability. The court also seems to have dismissed trademark claims against GoDaddy on CDA 230 grounds, which Eric Goldman notes is unusual.

Update

6/12/2009 - The court denied  Butler's new motion for summary judgment pending discovery.

8/7/2009 - Kruska moved for summary judgment on her copyright infringement claims against Von Erck and PJF.  She claimed any arguments for fair use failed as a matter of law.

8/28/2009 - Von Erck and PJF answered Kruska's complaint with affirmative defenses including a First Amendment defense, fair use, lack of damages, and a lack of personal jurisdiction.

9/22/2009 - The court denied Brocious' motion to dismiss Kruska's amended complaint.  

10/13/2009 - The court denied Kruska's motion for summary judgment on her copyright claims pending discovery.

11/18/2010 - Court issued order granting in part and denying in part Christopher Brocious' Motion to Dismiss and denying Brocious' Motion for Summary Judgment. 

On June 20, 2008, counsel for Bernard Malik sent a cease-and-desist letter via email to the administrator of ScamFraudAlert.com, a forum site that focuses on alleged Internet scams, security threats, and fraudulent practices. The letter asserted that a forum user going by "justiceismine" posted false and defamatory statements about Mr. Malik and his organization, International Open University, on ScamFraudAlert.com (see the letter for details). It demanded that ScamFraudAlert.com remove the allegedly defamatory posts and provide "identifying details, including but not limited to the e-mail address and login IP addresses for 'justiceismine' so that Mr. Malik can take further legal actions."

The letter also claimed that ScamFraudAlert.com is not entitled to the protection of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because it "solicit[s] and encourage[s]" defamatory posts from users and subscribers, citing as support the Ninth Circuit's decision in Fair Housing Council v. Roommate.com, LLC. This is an unconventional reading of the Roommate.com case. Counsel also claimed that the letter itself is copyrighted and advised ScamFraudAlert.com not to publish it.  The letter elaborated:

Contrary to the opinion of some Internet bloggers, the Federal Courts that have ruled on the issue, as recently as November of 2007, have held that an attorney's cease and desist letter is protected by copyright laws. Any unauthorized publication of this letter will potentially expose you to substantial damages for copyright infringement. 

The November 2007 case referenced in the letter,  In re Subpoena Issued Pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to: 43SB.COM, LLC, 2007 WL 4335441 (D. Idaho Dec. 7, 2007), sparked a flurry of online debate on the topic of the copyrightability of cease-and-desist letters. While the Dozier Law Firm and others (including apparently counsel for Mr. Malik) view the case as establishing copyright protection for cease-and-desist letters, the case only touched on the narrow question of whether the C&D in that case was sufficiently original to be protected by copyright, and the court expressly stated that it would "not go into an in-depth analysis of the merits of a copyright infringement claim in determining whether to quash this subpoena." Most importantly, the court did not address the strong argument that publishing a cease-and-desist letter for purposes of documenting it and commenting on it is fair use.

The administrator and Mr. Malik's lawyer exchanged additional emails without coming to agreement about the disputed content. As of July 7, 2008, no further action has transpired.

Update:

7/15/08 - Counsel for Malik sent a DMCA takedown notice to ScamFraudAlert's web host, NationalNet, Inc., claiming that posting email communications between counsel and ScamFraudAlert infringed Mr. Malik's copyrights.

In September 2007, Creation Science Evangelism (CSE), a creationist group founded by Kent Hovind, recently sent a raft of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube complaining that various user-posted videos infringed its copyrights in videos of its seminars. Among those users whose videos were taken down was the Rational Response Squad (RRS), an atheist group.

The videos flagged for removal were all critical of CSE, and some consisted of expression entirely original to the YouTube poster. Other videos used portions of CSE's own videos to make critical commentary about the organization.

RRS created a video -- Open letter to YouTube -- arguing that its videos were protected under fair use.

YouTube also canceled RRS's entire account for a time (the rationale for doing so is not clear), but later reinstated it. As of April 2008, CSE has not taken further action on the matter.