RTH10260 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:08 pm
Dolly wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:14 am
John Lamb added 2 new photos.Follow
9 hrs ·
IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT MONEY
The leaked body footage video on you tube was reported by Pete Santilli claiming ownership. It was made from discovery. which is public information property of the court and here is his reason why he reported it. I wonder what Pete thinks of Matt Shea and him exposing the Wooten email. Is he a hero or a villain? Matt is my hero
Question for the IAALs: is that correct that discovery material is public court material? I may agree if some matter is put up for evidence. Was this Youtube clip offered as evidence (and no, I am not asking anyone to surf the trial records
) ? Can one party distribute the discovery info of another party openly on the internet, no confidentiality?
As a practical matter, there is probably not a lot of risk in treating most material included in court filings as safe to redistribute. As a theoretical matter, it's much more complicated. (Enough so that, given sufficient motivation and two weeks, I could probably write a 20K-word paper on the topic.)
To the best of my knowledge, the copyright status of a work doesn't change as a consequence of its incorporation in a court filing. Material that is copyright-protected remains copyright protected - and given the extent and automatic nature of copyright protections, virtually everything that is incorporated in a court filing will, at least theoretically, be copyright-protected.1, 2
Thus, absent any exception, making such material available to the public without the permission of the authors could be a potential infringement. In the case of court dockets and similar public records, the exception is the public interest in open judicial proceedings and processes.3
How far this exception extends is another question. Sharing the records as such would, at least in most cases, probably be within bounds. Other uses of the records, maybe, maybe not. That will often be a complex question that depends in part on fair use factors, such as the nature of the use.
Let's take an Orly Taitz filing as a hypothetical. Let's say that I'm teaching an introductory class in advocacy, and want to use one of her filings as a "how not to" example. I could certainly assign my students to go to PACER or RECAP and obtain and read the filing for themselves. I could probably obtain the filing for them and place it on a course website in either edited or unedited form. But could I incorporate the filing in a textbook marketed or sold for profit? I'd be willing to risk it,but wouldn't fault a publisher who was less certain. And, of course, even if the use was acceptable in the USA doesn't mean it would necessarily be acceptable for a UK edition of the exact same book.
It's underpants-headgear insane.
1: The primary US exception being government works.
2: The ownership of the copyright in some works, such as transcripts, may occasionally be difficult to determine, as realist can undoubtedly attest.
3: I'm honestly not sure if this is an express or implicit exception in US copyright law, and lack motivation to look it up at the moment.