![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
On May 12, Northland Family Planning Clinic, Inc. filed a copyright action against the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR). Northland provides reproductive health care to women, including abortions. The CBR, a California non-profit, opposes abortions. Northland alleges that the CBR's anti-abortion video infringes upon Northland's reproductive services/abortion video.
Northland authored and registered the copyright for a motion picture entitled, "Every Day, Good Women Choose Abortion." The video was created for use on Northland's website. Northland used the video to provide information about its mission and philosophy and to aid in abortion counseling.
CBR allegedly created a YouTube video containing footage from the Northland video with graphic images of dismembered fetuses added intermittently. According to the complaint:
The CBR YouTube Video was not a comment upon or critique of the Good Woman Video. The CBR YouTube Video received so many complaints that YouTube removed it after less than two hours. An embedded link to the video now reads, "This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy on shocking and disgusting content."
After its removal from YouTube, the CBR video allegedly resurfaced under the title, "The Most Shocking (graphic imagery), Four-Minute Abortion Debate You Will Ever See." Since January 7, 2011, the video has been linked to, re-posted, and/or embedded in a number of other blogs and websites. Northland asserts that the video is chiefly composed of clips taken without permission from Northland's copyrighted "Good Women Video." In the clips of copyrighted material, Northland's logo is visible, along with the copyright legend that reads "CD 2009, Northland Family Planning."
In a March 24, 2011 letter, CBR's counsel admitted that CBR:
is using Plaintiff's copyrighted work, but asserted that "use of the subject video was not an infringement of copyright." Counsel for CBR pointed to "Section 107 of the copyright law" and the concept that "[c]ommenting upon, or critiquing of, copyrighted material is a well established 'fair use."
Northland asserts that CBR's counsel did not explain how intercutting graphic images of dismembered fetuses with the copyrighted work constituted a "critiqu[e]" of the copyrighted material. Northland goes on to allege that its:
reputation has been harmed by the creation and distribution of the Infringing Videos. The Infringing Videos are misleading and create the impression that the images represent abortions performed at Northland's clinics.
The safety and security of Northland's clinics have been compromised by the Infringing Videos. Northland's employees fear that the inflammatory and misleading nature of the Infringing Videos will incite violent acts and hate crimes against Northland's clinics, employees, and/or patients.
View or download the complaint from Northland Family Planning Clinic, Inc. v. The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, et al., 11-cv-00731 (C.D. Ca. May 12, 2011)
For similar content and issues, read:
4-13 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.05 The Defense of Fair Use (Non-subscribers can purchase Nimmer on Copyright at the LexisNexis Store)
In determining whether given conduct constitutes copyright infringement, 1 the courts have long recognized that certain acts of copying are defensible 2 as "fair use." 3 It has been said that the affirmative defense 4 of fair use "permits courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law ....
4-19E Nimmer on Copyright 19E.syn Chapter 19E: Freedom of Speech (Non-subscribers can purchase Nimmer on Copyright at the LexisNexis Store)
Is there a conflict between copyright law and freedom of speech? What is the relationship between the U.S. Constitution's Copyright Clause and its First Amendment? For almost two centuries--from the enactment of the first Copyright Act in 1790 until 1970--the question remained unasked, both in the courts and elsewhere. But in 1970, Professor Melville B. ...
2-8 Nimmer on Copyright § 8.syn Chapter 8: The Nature of the Rights Protected by Copyright (Non-subscribers can purchase Nimmer on Copyright at the LexisNexis Store)
An examination of the rights accorded to an owner of literary property under the Copyright Act might begin with a delineation of certain fundamental limitations inherent in the nature of copyright. In the first place, copyright does not confer an absolute monopoly in the patent sense. As a corollary to the basic principle that copyright may be claimed in an original ....
Peri Hall & Assocs. v. Elliot Inst. for Soc. Scis. Research, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26234 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 20, 2006)
In a suit for trademark and copyright infringement by a company whose website advocated a particular political position, the court enjoined the institute, which advocated an inconsistent political viewpoint, from appropriating the look, feel, graphics, coding, and photos from the company's site.
Wojnarowicz v. American Family Ass'n, 745 F. Supp. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)
Plaintiff multimedia artist, whose work was funded by National Endowment for Art, sued to enjoin publication of a pamphlet by defendants. The pamphlet incorporated sexually explicit images from plaintiff's work.
Maxtone-Graham v. Burtchaell, 803 F.2d 1253 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1986)
Appellant published a book of interviews about women's experiences with unwanted pregnancies. Ten years later, she denied appellee's request to quote from her book, but he did so regardless. He published the quotes in a book critiquing published accounts of women's abortion experiences.
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc., 606 F. Supp. 1526 (C.D. Cal. 1985)
Plaintiff, the publisher of a pornographic magazine, filed a motion for summary judgment and damages in an action against defendant religious leader for mailing to constituents copies of the publisher's parody of himself and for requesting contributions against a personal attack.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.