Independent videographer Tim Lewis refused to comply with a Lane County, Oregon, grand jury subpoena for video he filmed of a May 30, 2008, incident where police tasered Ian Van Ornum, a student protester.  Lewis argued that Oregon's reporter shield law, Or. Rev. Stat. § 44.520,  protects him from compelled disclosure of his newsgathering materials.

The grand jury planned to examine the video to determine whether Van Ornum, or any other people attending the anti-pesticide protest he was attending, should face criminal charges.  Lewis, who edited and posted the video to YouTube, said the tape contained very little information that would be useful to the grand jury, as he didn't begin to record events until after Van Ornum had been tasered. Nonetheless, he refused to surrender the tape because he "can't set a precedent by giving it to them," according to The Register-Guard.

Update:

7/15/2008 - After Lewis, with aid from the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, filed documents in court invoking the shield law, the District Attorney's office withdrew the subpoena, reports The Register Guard.

YouTube.com shut down the account of Showing Animals Respect And Kindness ("SHARK"), an animal rights activitist group, after the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association ("PRCA") filed DMCA takedown notices in December 2007 regarding SHARK videos that used recordings of PRCA events. The videos, which contained recordings of rodeos filmed by SHARK members, criticized the treatment of the animals involved in the rodeo.

On June 9, 2008, SHARK, represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed a lawsuit against the PRCA in Illinois federal court asking for a declaratory judgment that the videos were not infringing and bringing claims against the PRCA by arguing that it violated section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), by knowingly materially misrepresenting that the SHARK videos infringed PRCA’s copyrights and for interference with contract.

Update:

5/12/2009 - PRCA and SHARK settled the section 512(f) case.  PRCA agreed to (1) pay $25,000 to SHARK, (2) set up a private takedown system for SHARK videos outside the normal DMCA process, whereby PRCA will first send future copyright complaints directly to SHARK rather than to YouTube, and (3) not to selectively enforce a "no videotaping" stamp on its tickets against activists like SHARK.

On October 8th, 2007, Quixtar Inc., a sister company of Amway Corp., sued thirty “John Does” for anonymous posts they made on blogs focused on Quixtar including freetheibo.com, theiborebellion.blogspot.com, and quixtarlostmycents.blogspot.com, and for anonymous videos posted on YouTube that the company considers disparaging and malicious. Quixtar seeks an injunction and damages of more than $25,000.

Quixtar claims two counts of tortious interference and one count of unfair competition. The complaint alleges the defendants have caused proprietary information to be disclosed and encouraged Quixtar’s distributors, known as “Independent Business Operators” (IBOs) not to buy certain products, to stop building their businesses, and to resign from the Quixtar business. Quixtar also claims unfair competition alleging the defendants misled current and prospective IBOs into believing Quixtar’s business practices are unethical, its products are not competitively priced, and it is operating contrary to law.

According to Quixtar’s official news blog called “Alticor Media Blog,” the lawsuit was filed in order to discover the identities of the bloggers and discern whether they are working in concert with Orrin Woodward, the subject of a separate Quixtar legal action Quixtar, Inc. v. Woodward, No. 07-08413-CK, slip op. (Mich. Cir. Ct. Aug. 10, 2007). An October 12th, 2007, blog post reflects this motivation:

We filed suit this week in Ottawa County, Michigan seeking to learn more about a number of “John Does” who have cropped up online since our dispute with Orrin Woodward and TEAM began.

Because we believe we can prove that some of their sites and posts were engineered or directed by Woodward, TEAM, their lawyers or their PR agency. And that those sites were purposely used to post material that violates a court order.

…So we are seeking to support the legal system – and not attack First Amendment speech. Tough line to walk, but we’ll walk it. Because we believe in both principles.

Some of the John Does filed a motion to dismiss the suit on October 15, 2007, arguing collateral estoppel in connection with the pending Quixtar v. Woodward case where Quixtar also seeks to discover the identities of the John Does and that Quixtar’s complaint violates the defendants' freedom of speech rights under the U.S. Constitution and article I of the Michigan Constitution.

Paul Tarsax, who blogs on a site called Catholic Anti-Defamation League, created and posted a video on YouTube that contained edited footage of Robert Sungenis, the founder of Catholic Apologists International (CAI), making controversial statements about Jews together with images from the holocaust.

On September 22, 2007, Tarsax received a cease-and-desist demand from Colin Andrews, Esq., purportedly a lawyer for CAI, which Tarsax posted on his blog. The demand states that the video is libelous and unless it is removed, CAI would "register a legal complaint with Youtube authorities as well as file a lawsuit against you."

Tarsax ignored the demand, but YouTube later removed the video. Tarsax says this was because Sungenis's statements were too graphic and upsetting, while Sungenis states it was because he had complained to YouTube that the video was libelous. Tarsax reposted the video, this time on Google Video and on his blog, where it remains as of May 22, 2008.

Lifestyle Lift Holding, Inc. and LL NJ, Inc. are in the business of performing facelifts and other cosmetic surgery. In September 2006, they sued NBC-Subsidiary (WCAU-TV) (a.k.a. NBC 10), NBC Universal and certain of its affiliates, NBC reporter Lu Ann Cahn, and Dr. Louis Bucky over a television news report about the "Lifestyle Lift" cosmetic surgery procedure that appeared on NBC 10 in Philadelphia. In preparing the news report, the NBC defendants allegedly sent two individuals in an undercover capacity to LL NJ's offices to gather information and secretly videotape events on the premises. The news report itself was critical of the Lifestyle Lift procedure and included negative statements by former patients and Dr. Bucky, NBC10's hired expert. A copy of the news program was posted on the NBC10's website, but later removed, and a nearly verbatim transcript of the broadcast was originally posted on various local NBC websites.

The complaint, filed in federal court in Michigan, included claims for violation of the New Jersey wiretapping statute, trespass to land, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and defamation. In November 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the case, and the court dismissed the false advertising and wiretapping claims, and dismissed Dr. Bucky from the suit altogether for lack of personal jurisdiction over him. Later, the remaining defendants moved for summary judgment on the trespass and defamation claims. On April 28, 2008, the court denied the motion, holding that the defamation claim could go to trial. The court dismissed the trespass claim without prejudice, holding that a New Jersey court should decide that claim.

UPDATE:

On 7/14/2008 the court issued an order of referral to facilitative mediation. On 8/21/08, the court issued an order dimissing the case.