Righthaven LLC v. Hyatt [1]

Righthaven LLC, a Las Vegas company associated with Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Bill Hyatt, a New York blogger.  Righthaven alleged [2] that Hyatt copied an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal without permission and posted it on his website, 1ce.org.

After Hyatt did not respond to Righthaven's lawsuit, on February 10, 2011, Righthaven filed a motion for default judgment [3] and demanded it be awarded attorney fees, $150,000 in statutory damages, and an order that 1ce.org be transferred from Hyatt to Righthaven.

Update: 

2/23/2011 - The Media Bloggers Association ("MBA") moved to file an amicus brief [4] with the court.  In the brief, the MBA argued that Righthaven's claim to ownership of the copyright in the article in question is dubious, as the copyright assignment appears to be invalid.  The MBA also argued that Righthaven should not be awarded any more than nominal damages at most, as it "is not a content producer trying to preserve ts relevant market from the unceasing raids of content pirates, but a dedicated litigation house that acquires rights from other entities solely to sue essentially defenseless 'infringers' for their supposed infringement."  And the MBA argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to order the transfer of 1ce.org to Righthaven, as such an award is only an appropriate remedy in cybersquatting cases, which this is not.

4/14/2011 - The court granted the MBA's motion to file an amicus brief [5].

4/14/2011 - The MBA files the amicus brief.

4/19/2011 - The MBA files  a supplement [6] to their amicus brief containing a "Strategic Alliance Agreement" (SAA) between Righthaven and Stephens Media, alleging that the SAA is the document that Righthaven relies upon for its right to sue for violations of Stephens Media copyrights.

4/19/2011 - Plaintiff Righthaven files a motion to strike [7] the supplement.

4/28/2011 - Plaintiff Righthaven and the MBA agree to a stipulation [8] for an extension of time to respond the MBA amicus brief. The stipulation also allows the MBA to file the SAA.

5/05/2011 - The court issues an order approving the stipulation [9] filed on 4/28/2011.

5/06/2011 - The MBA withdraws its supplement [10] filed 4/19/2011, stating that the stipulation filed 4/28/2011 allowing them to file the SAA renders the supplement unnecessary.

5/10/2011 - Righthaven files a response brief [11] to the MBA's amicus brief in which it characterizes the MBA brief as a late attack on its business model, stating that the MBA’s filing is untimely after the Defendant’s default. Furthermore, Righthaven argues that even if the MBA was not too late, it lacked standing as a third party not affected by the contract. Finally, Righthaven states that the record and the SAA between Righthaven and Stephens Media shows that all rights of the copyright were sold to Righthaven, not just the right to sue as the amicus brief alleges.  In support of this statement, Righthaven submits the declarations of its CEO, Steven A. Gibson [12], and the General Counsel of Stephens Media, Mark A. Hinueber [13], both of whom rely upon a “Clarification and Amendment to the Strategic Alliance Agreement” effective January 18, 2010, which is attached to the declarations.

5/16/2011 - The MBA files a reply brief [14] to Righthaven's response, arguing that even in light of the “Clarification,” the SAA is still nothing more than an attempted transfer of a bare right to sue for copyright infringement without a true transfer of exclusive copyright rights as required by the Copyright Act. Specifically, the MBA cites to the fact that Stephens Media still retains a right of reversion of the copyright under the Clarification and because Righthaven must give thirty days notice to Stephens Media for any use of the copyright other than litigation.  Thus, the MBA argues, Stephens Media never assigned its copyrights fully to Righthaven.