4 ms·

>If they can prove that the listing owner asked them to list their property, Craigslist can't sue. Look at the Rightshaven case. The judge ruled that Rightshav

by learc83 14y ago

>If they can prove that the listing owner asked them to list their property, Craigslist can't sue. Look at the Rightshaven case. The judge ruled that Rightshaven didn't have standing to sue on behalf just because the copyright holder granted it license to. If that theory holds up, Craigslist wouldn't have standing to sue on behalf of the copyright holders. Additionally copyright would only apply if the listings are considered creative works. Most of them are clearly simple statements of fact that wouldn't merit copyright protection in the first place.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
As others have pointed out Craigslist can claim copyright to the collection. The legal theory I would expect them to use is that PadMapper wouldn't know about these listings if they didn't access Craigslist's collection, therefore their use of the collection violated Craigslist's copyright. I did a quick Blekko for the case with the Yellow Pages that was litigated this way (but alas did not find it) where a AT&T sued the maker of a competitive Yellow Pages over using the collection of businesses in their book. The defendant argument was similar to yours, that they could have walked down the street and collected the information so the information wasn't copyrightable, but the judge ruled in favor of AT&T because it was clear the defendant could have done that but they didn't do that. There was some errors and omissions that mirrored the Yellow pages and 'proved' the defendant took their data from the Yellow Pages rather than collect it themselves. For PadMapper to escape liability they have to be able to prove they came to know about these listings in some other way than through Craigslist's collection of them. They argued in their blog that 3Taps did that for them because they got them from 3Taps they aren't liable for what ever 3Taps is doing. And my take on it is that given the case law it will be a very hard thing to prove. If Eric Goldman is reading he could probably whip out a definitive argument here. If it goes to trial I'll definitely follow the case to see how it plays out.
- learc83 14y ago
  See this http://www.copyright.gov/reports/dbase.html http://www.copyright.gov/reports/dbase.html In Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co, a phone directory was ruled to be protected by copyright only if the selection and arrangement of facts was an original creative act (listing numbers alphabetically was not). I'm aware of a case after Feist where a yellow pages for chinese immigrants was copyrightable because of the creativity involved in selection of the facts and the arrangement into categories. But even then the facts themselves are not copyrightable. Craigslist's selection is nonexistent, you send it they publish it. And the arrangement of the subset that padmapper is using is solely by geographic location and time. In addition padmapper is not copying the arrangement.
rprasad 14y ago
That is not what the Righthaven court said. Righthaven did not have a copyright, it had a "right to sue" on behalf of the original copyright holder's copyright. The court deemed that insufficient to give Righthaven grounds to enforce the copyright, because Righthaven did not have any copyright or license therein. A right to sue is not considered a "copy right" because it involves no right to copy the material (i.e., by distribution or reproduction). Craiglist does have a license to copyrighted content. It can actually "copy" the content. Ergo, it has the right to enforce its license against non-licensed users.
- learc83 14y ago
  The judge in the Righthaven case said this... "Because the SAA (lawsuit contract) prevents Righthaven from obtaining any of the exclusive rights necessary to maintain standing in a copyright infringement action, the court finds that Righthaven lacks standing in this case," Craigslist ToS doesn't grant them exclusive rights, thus by that judge's definition they don't have standing to sue.
  - rprasad 14y ago
    >Craigslist ToS doesn't grant them exclusive rights, thus by that judge's definition they don't have standing to sue. That is not what the judge is saying. By "exclusive" rights he does not mean wholly exclusive in the colloquial sense (i.e.,, sole person with such rights); the judge meant "exclusive" in the legal sense that Righthaven could exclude non-licensees from using such rights.

by learc83 14y ago

ChuckMcM 14y ago

As others have pointed out Craigslist can claim copyright to the collection. The legal theory I would expect them to use is that PadMapper wouldn't know about these listings if they didn't access Craigslist's collection, therefore their use of the collection violated Craigslist's copyright. I did a quick Blekko for the case with the Yellow Pages that was litigated this way (but alas did not find it) where a AT&T sued the maker of a competitive Yellow Pages over using the collection of businesses in their book. The defendant argument was similar to yours, that they could have walked down the street and collected the information so the information wasn't copyrightable, but the judge ruled in favor of AT&T because it was clear the defendant could have done that but they didn't do that. There was some errors and omissions that mirrored the Yellow pages and 'proved' the defendant took their data from the Yellow Pages rather than collect it themselves. For PadMapper to escape liability they have to be able to prove they came to know about these listings in some other way than through Craigslist's collection of them. They argued in their blog that 3Taps did that for them because they got them from 3Taps they aren't liable for what ever 3Taps is doing. And my take on it is that given the case law it will be a very hard thing to prove. If Eric Goldman is reading he could probably whip out a definitive argument here. If it goes to trial I'll definitely follow the case to see how it plays out.

learc83 14y ago
See this http://www.copyright.gov/reports/dbase.html http://www.copyright.gov/reports/dbase.html In Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co, a phone directory was ruled to be protected by copyright only if the selection and arrangement of facts was an original creative act (listing numbers alphabetically was not). I'm aware of a case after Feist where a yellow pages for chinese immigrants was copyrightable because of the creativity involved in selection of the facts and the arrangement into categories. But even then the facts themselves are not copyrightable. Craigslist's selection is nonexistent, you send it they publish it. And the arrangement of the subset that padmapper is using is solely by geographic location and time. In addition padmapper is not copying the arrangement.

rprasad 14y ago

That is not what the Righthaven court said. Righthaven did not have a copyright, it had a "right to sue" on behalf of the original copyright holder's copyright. The court deemed that insufficient to give Righthaven grounds to enforce the copyright, because Righthaven did not have any copyright or license therein. A right to sue is not considered a "copy right" because it involves no right to copy the material (i.e., by distribution or reproduction). Craiglist does have a license to copyrighted content. It can actually "copy" the content. Ergo, it has the right to enforce its license against non-licensed users.

learc83 14y ago
The judge in the Righthaven case said this... "Because the SAA (lawsuit contract) prevents Righthaven from obtaining any of the exclusive rights necessary to maintain standing in a copyright infringement action, the court finds that Righthaven lacks standing in this case," Craigslist ToS doesn't grant them exclusive rights, thus by that judge's definition they don't have standing to sue.
- rprasad 14y ago
  >Craigslist ToS doesn't grant them exclusive rights, thus by that judge's definition they don't have standing to sue. That is not what the judge is saying. By "exclusive" rights he does not mean wholly exclusive in the colloquial sense (i.e.,, sole person with such rights); the judge meant "exclusive" in the legal sense that Righthaven could exclude non-licensees from using such rights.