Stanford Center for Internet and Society

Michael Savage has one of the most popular shows on the radio. He doesn't hesitate to speak his mind, no matter how controversial his views. He should be applauded for that. Many find those views highly offensive, and level fierce criticism at him. They should be applauded for that. That is the dialogue of free speech. The right to speak and the right to criticize speech you don't like are equally important.

You'd think that Savage of all people, who depends on free speech to do what he does for a living, would understand that. Yet when the Council on American-Islamic Relations ("CAIR") put up a web page last year documenting overtly hostile remarks Savage made about Muslims on his show and urging advertisers to boycott Savage's show, Savage tried to shut down CAIR's criticism of him. He sued CAIR, claiming the snippets of Savage's show CAIR used to document Savage's statements and support CAIR's criticism of him infringed his copyrights in his show. If fair use protects anything, it protects the right to use portions of a copyrighted work to criticize it, so Savage lost his case quickly and decisively.

But the attack goes on. Brave New Films created a similar video and posted it to YouTube. That video likewise documents Savage's comments and urges viewers to do something about them. Brave New Films also created a website, www.nosavage.org to support its efforts to speak out against Savage and the comments he made. Late last month, Savage's nationwide syndicator, Original Talk Radio Network, complained to YouTube about BNF's video. In response, YouTube removed it pursuant to the DMCA.

The Fair Use Project, along with co-counsel Bingham McCutchen, have now sued OTRN and Savage to recover damages for the misrepresentations made in connection with the wrongful removal of the video from YouTube, and declaratory and injunctive relief to vindicate BNF's right to say what it said about Savage in the video, and prevent the suppression of the video in the future.

Not all campaign controversies fill the national stage. But this one should get national attention for being so abusive.

Mark Blanchfield is challenging George Amedore for his New York state assembly seat. Last week, Blanchfield released political ads that include excerpts of an interview Amedore apparently gave to the Albany Business Review in connection with an award he received from the Business Review last May. In that interview, Amedore says he doesn't "look at [his] Assembly position as [his] job."

Blanchfield's radio and TV ad lambast Amedore for this comment. In response, the Business Review turned its lawyers loose on Blanchfield, who received a letter accusing him of copyright infringement and threatening legal action if he does not pull his ads off the air.

This is an abuse of copyright law that should trouble everyone, and cannot be allowed to persist or spread. Copyright is not a tool to censor criticism, and cannot be allowed to become a device to suppress statements that public officials wish they had not made.

What Blanchfield did here is a textbook example of fair use -- and an important one at that. Blanchfield is using a small portion of the video to criticize the views expressed in it by Amedore and to expose to the voters Amedore's attitude about the job he's been elected to do; moreover, Blanchfiled's use of this material will have no conceivable impact on whatever market there might be for the video the Business Review made (assuming there is a market for it in the first place).

We agreed to help represent RDR Books in its litigation against J.K. Rowling because she asserts rights that go far beyond those the Copyright Act gives her, and in doing so threatens to stifle the long-established rights of others to discuss her work, or that of other authors.

In Saturday's New York Times, business columnist Joe Nocera shines a light on exactly this point. In doing so, he provides a fantastic explanation of how important this case is, and why it's part of a larger, and very important, conflict.

Read the article here.

On Friday, we filed our opposition to J.K. Rowling's motion to enjoin publication of the Lexicon. In our brief, we explain both why the Lexicon is the sort of important and transformative work that fair use has long protected, and why Ms. Rowling is not entitled to the injunction she seeks.

H.G. Fuller v. Doe is an anonymous speech case involving an attempt by global adhesives company H.G. Fuller to discover the identity of an anonymous speaker on an online financial message board.