This is an interesting article about an interesting ruling. Of course, the overriding fact determined by Judge Pro was that Righthaven did not have standing to

This is an interesting article about an interesting ruling. Of course, the overriding fact determined by Judge Pro was that Righthaven did not have standing to sue. Good for Judge Pro. Also: > "Righthaven did not present any evidence that the market for the work was harmed by Hoehn’s noncommercial use for the 40 days it appeared on the website. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Hoehn’s use of the work was fair and summary judgment is appropriate,” Judge Pro ruled. That sounds to me like he is saying that Righthaven just wrote up the wrong stuff. They did not address the things that the judge considered to be the major issues. But all that aside, there is, IMHO, one very striking thing in this article: > “While the work does have some creative or editorial elements, these elements are not enough to consider the work a purely ‘creative work’ in the realm of fictional stories, song lyrics, or Barbie dolls,” he wrote. “Accordingly, the work is not within ‘the core of intended copyright protection.’” Seriously? The judge is saying that a 19-paragraph newspaper editorial is not covered by copyright law??? That sounds huge, to me. IANAL, so I have a couple of questions for any actual lawyers who may be reading this. (1) Am I correct, that the above statement is, as I said, "huge"? (2) Since that statement was not required for the support of the actual decision -- due to Righthaven's lack of standing -- does the statement that the editorial is not within "the core of intended copyright protection", have the force of legal precedent?