Righthaven Llc v. Wayne Hoehn
716 F.3d 1166
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Righthaven LLC sued Hoehn and DiBiase for posting Las Vegas Review-Journal articles online without authorization; suits were consolidated on appeal.
- Stephens Media LLC owned the copyrights and had assigned to Righthaven after the infringements, with limitations.
- The assignment stated Righthaven would own rights to sue and seek redress, but the Strategic Alliance Agreement (SAA) reserved Stephens Media’s unfettered exclusive license and control over exploitation.
- Righthaven had to reassign copyrights if settlements weren't pursued and otherwise shared recoveries with Stephens Media, severely limiting Righthaven’s exploitation rights.
- After initial suits, the parties executed a Clarification and Amendment to the SAA to purportedly convey all ownership rights to Righthaven, but the underlying substance still restricted exclusive rights.
- The district court granted dismissals for lack of standing and, in Hoehn, also granted summary judgment on fair use; Righthaven appealed seeking reversal on standing and affirmation of fair use defenses
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Righthaven have standing to sue under the Copyright Act? | Righthaven argues it owns exclusive rights via assignment. | SAA and assignment do not transfer actual exclusive rights to Righthaven. | Righthaven lacks standing. |
| Did the SAA transfer exclusive rights to Righthaven despite its language? | Contractual language shows transfer of ownership. | Substance shows Stephens Media retained exclusive rights and Righthaven had only a bare right to sue. | SAA did not convey exclusive rights to Righthaven. |
| Can amended terms of the SAA retroactively cure standing? | Clarification/amendments intended to grant ownership rights to Righthaven. | Amendments do not create rights that the Act does not authorize; substance remains insufficient. | Amendments do not establish standing. |
| If no standing, may the court reach the merits of a fair use defense? | Court should consider fair use if jurisdiction exists. | Without standing, there is no jurisdiction to reach merits; do not decide fair use. | Court vacates the fair-use ruling; cannot reach merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005) (standing requires ownership of exclusive rights; mere right to sue insufficient)
- Campbell v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ., 817 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1987) (contract language about ownership must be read for substance, not labels)
- Nafal v. Carter, 540 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (transfers purporting to convey ownership can still leave only a right to sue)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (doctrine of hypothetical jurisdiction rejected; standing required for jurisdiction)
- Cetacean Cmty. v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004) (standing intertwines with merits when determining jurisdiction)