The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee v. Copyright Royalty Board, (Docket No. 23-927, certiorari denied 6/24/2024). (Order List.) At issue in the case was whether the Copyright Royalty Board violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when the royalties it set for non-commercial religious broadcasters that stream copyrighted songs over the Internet were 18 time higher than the rates it set for the secular National Public Radio. (See prior related posting and ADF's press release for additional details.) Here are links to all the documents filed in the case.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Tuesday, June 25, 2024
Tuesday, February 27, 2024
Cert. Filed In Religious Broadcasters' Appeal of Mandatory Royalty Rates
A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed last week with the U.S. Supreme Court in National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee v. Copyright Royalty Board, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 2/23/2024). In the case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a July 28, 2023, opinion (full text) upheld the royalty rates set by the Royalty Board for calendar years 2021 through 2025 that must be paid by various classes of webcasters that stream copyrighted songs over the Internet. In its certiorari petition, the Religious Broadcasters set out the following as one of the Questions Presented for review:
Recently, the Board adopted rates requiring noncommercial religious webcasters to pay over 18 times the secular NPR-webcaster rate to communicate religious messages to listeners above a modest 218-average listener threshold. The D.C. Circuit upheld that disparate burden based on the Board treating some secular webcasters as poorly as religious webcasters. The result is suppression of online religious speech....
Its decision presents ... important legal questions:
1. Whether approving noncommercial rates that favor NPR’s secular speech over religious speech violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or the First Amendment....
ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.
Monday, February 21, 2022
Satirical Videos Criticizing Jehovah's Witnesses Did Not Violate Copyrights
In In re: DMCA Section 512(h) Subpoena to YouTube (Google, Inc.), (SD NY, Jan. 18, 2022),a New York federal district court quashed a subpoena request under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act seeking the identity of an individual who allegedly infringed copyrights of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the organization that publishes Jehovah's Witness literature. At issue were satirical YouTube videos posted by a lapsed Jehovah's Witness, described by the court in part as follows:
Under the pseudonym of “Kevin McFree,” Movant publishes videos on YouTube featuring stop-frame Lego animations set in a fictitious village called “Dubtown” that satirize and criticize the practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The court concluded that because the YouTube postings amounted to fair use, there was no copyright infringement. The court said in part:
Movant’s other videos in his YouTube channel, like the Dubtown Video, all involve stop-frame Lego animations with titles that are derisive about the practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses.... It is well-established that “[a]mong the best recognized justifications for copying from another’s work is to provide comment on it or criticism of it.”
TorrentFreak reports at greater length on the case.
Wednesday, May 26, 2021
Street Artist Sues Vatican For Using Her Image of Christ On Postage Stamp
AP reports on a lawsuit filed in Italy last month by a Rome street artist. Alessia Babrow has sued the Vatican for copyright infringement for using her street art image of Christ on the Vatican's 2020 Easter postage stamp. The image was glued onto a bridge near the Vatican:
Olivieri, the Vatican’s numismatic chief, has told an Italian journalist that he took a photo of the Christ when he saw it while riding his moped one day and decided to use the image for the Easter stamp in an apparent attempt to appeal to a new generation of stamp enthusiasts.
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
Copyright Infringement Counterclaims Not Dismissed
Friday, November 09, 2018
Satanic Temple Sues Netflix Over Wrongful Use Of Bahomet Statue
Baphomet historically involved a goat’s head ... on a female body associated with Lilith, a figure from Jewish mysticism sometimes considered a goddess of the night. The classic visual representation of idea of Baphomet is an image created in or about 1856 by an occult historian Eliphas Levi....
[T]he TST Baphomet with Children, consists of several modifications from the historic expressions of the deity....
The Sabrina Series’ evil antagonists stand in stark contrast to TST’s tenets and beliefs.... By misappropriating TST Baphomet with Children (which is a registered copyright and famous mark of TST) to publish this false and defamatory depiction of TST, Defendants have engaged in three classes of wrong: copyright infringement (Claim 1), trademark violation (Claim 2), and injury to business reputation (Claim 3).In addition to damages, plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring defendants to digitally remove the statue from all future distributions of the TV program. Courthouse News and Reuters report on the lawsuit. [Thanks To Tom Rutledge for the lead.]
UPDATE: According to a Nov. 21 post by Lucien Greaves, the suit has been amicably settled, with the unique elements of the Satanic Temple’s Baphomet statue acknowledged in credits of episodes already filmed.
Saturday, August 15, 2015
DC Circuit: Allocation of Royalties To Religious Broadcasters Was Arbitrary and Capricious
[The Devotional Claimants] argue that, after the Royalty Judges ... simply split the difference between the two parties, and that decision was arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by substantial evidence. We agree with the Devotional Claimants..... King Solomon was not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act; the Royalty Judges are.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
9th Circuit En Banc Reverses Injunction Agaianst "Innocence of Muslims" On YouTube
As Garcia characterizes it, “the main issue in this case involves the vicious frenzy against Ms. Garcia that the Film caused among certain radical elements of the Muslim community.” We are sympathetic to her plight. Nonetheless, the claim against Google is grounded in copyright law, not privacy, emotional distress, or tort law, and Garcia seeks to impose speech restrictions under copyright laws meant to foster rather than repress free expression. Garcia’s theory can be likened to “copyright cherry picking,” which would enable any contributor from a costume designer down to an extra or best boy to claim copyright in random bits and pieces of a unitary motion picture without satisfying the requirements of the Copyright ActJudge Watford issued a concurring opinion and Judge Kozinski dissented. Electronic Frontier Foundation has further analysis of the decision.
Friday, May 08, 2015
Faith Healer Sues Atheist Activist Claiming Misuse of YouTube Video
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Saudi Artist Sues Watch Company For Appropriating His Hajj Etching
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
9th Circuit En Banc Hears Arguments In "Innocence of Muslims" Case
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Megachurch Leader Threatens To Sue Rappers Over Remix
Friday, July 04, 2014
Christian Hip-Hop Group Sues Top Music Star For Copyright Infringement
By any measure, the Dark Horse song also constitutes an infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyright in their Christian gospel song Joyful Noise, released five years before Dark Horse..... And by any measure, the devoutly religious message of Joyful Noise has been irreparably tarnished by its association with the witchcraft, paganism, black magic, and Illuminati imagery evoked by the same music in Dark Horse. Indeed, the music video of Dark Horse generated widespread accusations of blasphemy....
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Court Accepts Fair Use Defense In Copyright Claim By Prominent Christian Speaker
Plaintiff has filed this suit to suppress legitimate criticism of alleged contradictions in the narrative that supported his rise to prominence. The purpose and character of Defendant’s use weigh strongly in favor of finding fair use.Correction [thanks to Commenter]: Caner is now President of Brewton-Parker College in Mt. Vernon, Georgia. The post has also been corrected to spell Caner's name correctly.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Contempt Motion Filed Against Google Over "Innocence of Muslims" Video
Friday, March 07, 2014
Google Denied Stay of Order To Take Down "Innocence of Muslims", But En Banc Rehearing Is Possible
The Court last Wednesday issued a sealed order directing that Defendant-Appellee Google Inc. take down “all copies” of the video "‘Innocence of Muslims’ from YouTube.com and from any other platforms under Google’s control" and that Google "take all reasonable steps to prevent further uploads of ‘Innocence of Muslims’ to those platforms." Google has complied with the Court’s order, but in light of the intense public interest in and debate surrounding the video, the video should remain accessible while Google seeks further review.In an Order (full text) issued Feb. 28, the court denied a stay and ordered Google to comply with the take down mandate within 24 hours, but added that "this order does not preclude the posting or display of any version of “Innocence of Muslims” that does not include Cindy Lee Garcia’s performance."
In the latest development, yesterday the court issued an Order (full text) stating that one judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear en banc the request for a stay. The court gave the parties until March 12 to file briefs on whether an en banc rehearing should be granted. [Thanks to Edward Lee via CyberProf listserv for the lead.]
Thursday, February 27, 2014
9th Circuit: Court Should Order Removal of "Innocence of Muslims" From YouTube
The film’s writer and producer ...cast Garcia in a minor role [in a film with the working title "Desert Warrior."] Garcia was ... paid approximately $500 for three and a half days of filming. “Desert Warrior” never materialized. Instead, Garcia’s scene was used in an anti-Islamic film titled “Innocence of Muslims.” Garcia first saw “Innocence of Muslims” after it was uploaded to YouTube.com and she discovered that her brief performance had been partially dubbed over so that she appeared to be asking, “Is your Mohammed a child molester?”
These, of course, are fighting words to many faithful Muslims and, after the film aired on Egyptian television, there were protests that generated worldwide news coverage. An Egyptian cleric issued a fatwa, calling for the killing of everyone involved with the film, and Garcia soon began receiving death threats. She responded by taking a number of security precautions and asking that Google remove the video from YouTube.As summarized by the court:
The panel concluded that the plaintiff established a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim of [copyright] infringement of her performance within the film because she proved that she likely had an independent interest in the performance and that the filmmaker did not own an interest as a work for hire and exceeded any implied license to use the plaintiff’s performance.Volokh Conspiracy has an extensive analysis of the decision. (See prior related posting.)
UPDATE: On Feb. 28, the 9th Circuit issued a revised preliminary injunction (full text) making it clear that the injunction "does not preclude the posting or display of any version of “Innocence of Muslims” that does not include Cindy Lee Garcia’s performance." [Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]