Q2 2018 Quick Links, Part 2 (Copyright)
* Naruto v. Slater (9th Circuit April 23, 2018). The monkey selfie case ends (for now?) with a whimper. The monkey has constitutional standing (per a misguided 9th Circuit precedent that should be overturned) but Naruto as a monkey lacks…
The California Supreme Court Didn’t Ruin Section 230 (Today)–Hassell v. Bird
I previously described the case facts: “A lawyer was unhappy with a Yelp review about her. The lawyer sued the putative author (with dubious service of process), got a default ruling that the review was defamatory along with a removal…
Challenge to Santa Monica’s “Anti-Airbnb” Law Dismissed–Homeaway v. Santa Monica
Numerous cities have passed “anti-Airbnb” laws, including Santa Monica. Santa Monica’s regulation, like San Francisco’s, regulated the provision of “booking services” to unlicensed vendors. Airbnb and HomeAway challenged Santa Monica’s regulation. In March, citing the Airbnb v. SF ruling, the…
Catching Up on FOSTA Since Its Enactment (A Linkwrap)
Some links of note about what’s happened since the enactment of the Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA: * ReplyAll podcast on the Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’s harmful effects on sex workers. One sex worker reports she knows of 13…
Twitter Isn’t a Shopping Mall for First Amendment Purposes (Duh)–Johnson v. Twitter
Multitudinous lawsuits–mostly by political “conservatives”–seek to deprive social media services of their property rights to exclude unwanted customers. Or, more precisely, these lawsuits seek to censoriously restrict the social media services’ First Amendment-protected right to free speech/press by forcing them…
Snapchat’s Speed Filter Not Protected by Section 230–Maynard v. Snapchat
Christal McGee allegedly drove recklessly (over 100 mph) to capture her accomplishment in Snapchat’s speed filter. McGee’s car hit Maynard’s car and caused permanent brain damage to someone in the car. The Maynards sued Snapchat, alleging “Snapchat knew that its…
YouTube Defeats Another Remove-and-Relocate Lawsuit–Song Fi v. Google
The YouTube “remove-and-relocate” cases involve similar facts. A YouTuber uploaded a video and promoted it. YouTube suspected irregularities with the promotion, removed the video from its initial URL (breaking inbound links, stripping the comments, and resetting the like and view…
Bittersweet DMCA Safe Harbor Defense Win in Ninth Circuit–Ventura v. Motherless (Catch-Up Post)
Motherless runs a UGC site for adult content. None of its content is licensed from content producers. It is primarily ad-supported (85%), with the remaining revenues coming from subscriptions (but only 0.2% of active users are subscribers) and sales of schwag. For a…
A DMCA Section 512(f) Case Survives Dismissal–ISE v. Longarzo (Catch-up Post)
I’m blogging this case now, even though it came out a few months ago, because we see so few 512(f) cases that make any progress at all. At its core, the litigants dispute ownership over a TV show, “The Weekend…
Section 230 Doesn’t Provide a Basis To Remove Cases to Federal Court–A.R.K. v. Grindr
The court summarizes this case: Plaintiff alleges that Grindr and the individual defendants engaged in a conspiracy to produce and disseminate sexually explicit photographs and pornography, with Grindr providing the platform for anonymous meetings, communication, and dissemination. Section 230 may…