Righthaven, LLC v. Realty One Group, Inc. 2010 WL 4115413 (D. Nev. Oct. 19, 2010)
FACTS: Michael Nelson is a licensed realtor in Las Vegas, Nevada, who operates an internet blog, which provides information on home ownership and the Las Vegas, NV housing market. On or around May 10, 2010, Nelson displayed an unauthorized copy of a news article, which was originally published in the Las Vegas Review Journal on April 30, 2010. On May 25, 2010, plaintiff Righthaven obtained a transfer of copyright for the article from the Las Vegas Review Journal. Righthaven received a copyright registration for the article on June 8, 2010.
PROCEDURE: On June 25, 2010, Righthaven filed a complaint against Nelson, alleging copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501. Nelson then filed a motion to dismiss on July 29, 2010.
ISSUE: Whether posting a copyrighted article is lawful under the Fair Use doctrine when the posting was for purposes that, while education, were primarily commercial in character, was primarily factual in nature, was reproduced only in part, and will likely have little effect on the market for the copyrighted article.
HOLDING: Yes, the posting of this copyrighted article was lawful under the Fair Use doctrine.
ANALYSIS: In defending his reproduction of the article originally produced in the Las Vegas Review Journal, Nelson argues that his reproduction was protected by the Fair Use doctrine. The Fair Use doctrine states that “the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as . . . comment, or news reporting . . . is not an infringement of copyright.â€
In determining if an alleged infringement is a fair use of copyright, courts will consider the following: 1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is commercial in nature, or for non-profit or educational uses; 2) the nature of the copyrighted work; 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Purpose and Character of the Use
The court held that the purpose and character of Nelson’s use of the article was both commercial and educational in nature. The court further explained that it was educational in nature, because it relayed information on the current housing market to potential and current homeowners. It was commercial in nature, however, because Nelson’s end goal was to create a business for himself as a realtor in Las Vegas. Based on this finding of commercial purpose, the court holds that this factor weighs against fair use.
Nature of the Work
The court found that the portion of the article that Nelson reproduced was primarily factual in nature, which weights in favor of fair use.
Amount of Copyrighted Work Used
Nelson only reproduced eight sentences of the originally thirty sentence article. This also weighs in favor of fair use.
Effect on Potential Market for Copyrighted Work
Because the portion of the copyrighted article used by Nelson did not contain the author’s commentary, and because Nelson directed readers to the full article, the court found that Nelson’s use of a portion of the article was unlikely to have an effect on the market for the copyrighted news article.
All of these factors combined, lead the court to conclude that Nelson’s use of the copyrighted article fell within the Fair Use doctrine. Thus, Nelson did not infringe Righthaven’s copyright, and his motion to dismiss was granted.
FACTS: Michael Nelson is a licensed realtor in Las Vegas, Nevada, who operates an internet blog, which provides information on home ownership and the Las Vegas, NV housing market. On or around May 10, 2010, Nelson displayed an unauthorized copy of a news article, which was originally published in the Las Vegas Review Journal on April 30, 2010. On May 25, 2010, plaintiff Righthaven obtained a transfer of copyright for the article from the Las Vegas Review Journal. Righthaven received a copyright registration for the article on June 8, 2010.
PROCEDURE: On June 25, 2010, Righthaven filed a complaint against Nelson, alleging copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501. Nelson then filed a motion to dismiss on July 29, 2010.
ISSUE: Whether posting a copyrighted article is lawful under the Fair Use doctrine when the posting was for purposes that, while education, were primarily commercial in character, was primarily factual in nature, was reproduced only in part, and will likely have little effect on the market for the copyrighted article.
HOLDING: Yes, the posting of this copyrighted article was lawful under the Fair Use doctrine.
ANALYSIS: In defending his reproduction of the article originally produced in the Las Vegas Review Journal, Nelson argues that his reproduction was protected by the Fair Use doctrine. The Fair Use doctrine states that “the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as . . . comment, or news reporting . . . is not an infringement of copyright.â€
In determining if an alleged infringement is a fair use of copyright, courts will consider the following: 1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is commercial in nature, or for non-profit or educational uses; 2) the nature of the copyrighted work; 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Purpose and Character of the Use
The court held that the purpose and character of Nelson’s use of the article was both commercial and educational in nature. The court further explained that it was educational in nature, because it relayed information on the current housing market to potential and current homeowners. It was commercial in nature, however, because Nelson’s end goal was to create a business for himself as a realtor in Las Vegas. Based on this finding of commercial purpose, the court holds that this factor weighs against fair use.
Nature of the Work
The court found that the portion of the article that Nelson reproduced was primarily factual in nature, which weights in favor of fair use.
Amount of Copyrighted Work Used
Nelson only reproduced eight sentences of the originally thirty sentence article. This also weighs in favor of fair use.
Effect on Potential Market for Copyrighted Work
Because the portion of the copyrighted article used by Nelson did not contain the author’s commentary, and because Nelson directed readers to the full article, the court found that Nelson’s use of a portion of the article was unlikely to have an effect on the market for the copyrighted news article.
All of these factors combined, lead the court to conclude that Nelson’s use of the copyrighted article fell within the Fair Use doctrine. Thus, Nelson did not infringe Righthaven’s copyright, and his motion to dismiss was granted.