This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
| Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry | |
| United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division | |
| Full case name | Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., Jerald Tanner, Sandra Tanner, et al., U.S. District Court, Utah, Case No. 2:99-CV-808C.1 |
|---|---|
| Date decided | November 30, 20002 |
| Judges sitting | Tena Campbell, United States District Judge.3 |
Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry was a United States district court decision (1999) on the subject of deep linking and contributory infringement of copyright. The result of this case is no new case law or legal precedence.
Contents |
Background
The plaintiff, Intellectual Reserve, Inc., is a Salt Lake City, Utah based corporation which owns the copyright and has the rights to other intellectual property assets used by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church, better known by the nickname 'Mormons'). The defendants, Utah Lighthouse Ministries, Inc., operates a web site which publishes material which is critical of the LDS Church.1
The LDS Church had printed a work of text called the Church Handbook of Instructions: Book 1, Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics. This work had not been published, and had been prepared only for use within the church. The defendants had obtained a copy of the work and published parts of it on their website without reproducing the Intellectual Reserve, Inc. copyright notice. The copyrighted text had also been disseminated to other websites who had published the material, to which the defendants website linked.1
Arguments
The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and argued that:
- they had a valid copyright to the material which the defendants had posted on their website,
- that they were likely to establish at trial that those who had posted the material on the three websites had infringed the plaintiffs copyright,
- that anyone who browsed the three websites were infringing the plaintiffs copyright by making a copy of the material and
- that the defendants actively encouraged the infringement of the plaintiffs copyright.3
The plaintiffs also argued that
- they had demonstrated a likelihood of success and that there was a presumption of injury, and
- that the plaintiffs would suffer "immediate and real irreparable harm" if the defendants were "permitted to post the copyrighted material or to knowingly induce, cause or materially contribute to the infringement of plaintiff's copyright by others".3
Court finding
The court originally granted a preliminary injunction for the plaintiff and the defendant was ordered to remove the material which allegedly was a copyright infringement from the website and to refrain from reproducing or distributing verbatim in a tangible medium any material which allegedly was a copyright infringement.3
The court then issued a permanent injunction, which "dissolved and vacated" the preliminary injunction.2
Impact
Preliminary impact
The defendants did not raise the issue of the doctrine of fair use in their defense.1 The case did not affect situations where the material being linked to is posted by the copyright holder or with the permission of the copyright holder.4 This case did not raise the issue of transitivity, i.e. it is irrelevant, whether the site which is being linked to contains any other questionable publications or links not related directly to the referenced material. If the transitivity was assured, virtually not a single website would be eligible for linking, as the copyright infringement can occur in user comments or user links. The preliminary finding was, as long as a link leads to a material legally published, the link should be considered valid.
Permanent impact
The permanent injunction "dissolved and vacated" any case law created by the preliminary injunction.2
References
- ^ a b c d Summary of Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministries (LDS Copyright Case), Tech Law Journal, last updated on December 29, 1999, retrieved December 31, 2006.
- ^ a b c November 30, 2000 Permanent Injunction and Judgment and Settlement Stipulation
- ^ a b c d Text of the case at the University of Houston Law Faculty website, retrieved on December 31, 2006.
- ^ How to Start an Urban Legend: the Reporting of Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., A Commentary by T. R. Halvorson, LLRX Web Journal.
See also
- Copyright law
- US court cases:
- World Wide Web linking:
External links
- Text of the case at the University of Houston Law Faculty website
- Text of the case at the Harvard University Law School website
- Utah Lighthouse Ministry (defendants website)
- Utah Lighthouse Ministry news and court documents related to the case.
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 22 October 2008, at 14:10.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.