• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.

Free Justin Bieber!

Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
2,340
Location
ohi-yo


Copyright trolls at its worst

Free FreeBieber.org! Fight for the Future Faces Bogus Legal Threats

Americans have a long history of using parodies and satire in their political and social debates. Whether it’s the Daily Show, the Onion, or books like The Wind Done Gone, humor and poking fun can have a powerful political impact and are plainly protected by law. So what’s with Justin Bieber trying to take down the website freebieber.org?

In case you missed this one: Fight For the Future is worried that some pending legislation commonly called the "illegal streaming bill" (which EFF is also concerned about) might impose criminal penalties for the types of public performances that Justin Bieber used to make his name - posting videos of himself doing cover songs. To raise public awareness about the bill, freebieber.org hilariously posts images of Justin Bieber where he looks like he’s in prison, although it’s obvious that these are just his very famous head superimposed on the bodies of actual prisoners. The website urges viewers to help set Justin Bieber free by opposing the law. The campaign has sparked renewed media interest in the bill, which had been largely under the public radar. Mission accomplished!

Apparently, Justin Bieber (or his lawyers) don’t think the campaign is funny. They issued a cease and desist letter, claiming the site violates Bieber's intellectual property rights – a tactic we’ve seen all too often. EFF jumped in to help and, as explained in more detail in a letter we sent back to Bieber’s lawyers today, explained that those claims hold no water. Freebieber.org makes an obviously transformative use of Bieber’s image and engages in political (aka core First Amendment) speech.

What’s a little unusual here is that Bieber is also complaining that the campaign violates his publicity rights. The right of publicity usually prohibits the unauthorized use of a person’s name, likeness, voice, or other identifiable characteristic for a commercial purposes. However, the law is clear that an individual’s right to control uses of his or her name and likeness must be weighed against important free speech rights. The First Amendment protects transformative uses (like the ones at freebieber.org), especially those that do not intrude on a celebrity’s market for her own identifiable characteristics. So it’s hard to believe that Bieber’s lawyers really think he can prohibit this lawful (and effective) use of his image. More likely they, like so many others, were just hoping to scare Fight for the Future out of exercising its free speech rights.

The kind of important political speech that is the core of the Free Bieber campaign deserves the most protection of all, and we are glad that the folks behind it are willing to stand up and defend their right to Free Justin Bieber – whether he likes it or not.
FreeBieber


In somewhat unrelated cases, there has been bars, clubs and restaurants sued for playing popular songs without a license.

You think this is an act of prohibiting political speech?

You think the internet sole function is to be only a online music store, video rental service, and other forms of entertainment?
 
Do we really want to support legislation that would keep beaver out of prison?
 
In somewhat unrelated cases, there has been bars, clubs and restaurants sued for playing popular songs without a license.

I’m uncertain why you would bring that up. Title holders have the right to license their work to others, and organizations which use such works for commercial purposes have an obligation to pay the title holders for the rights to those works.

As for whether or not the Bieber case is valid, I don’t know. I know that parody is a protected right, but I don’t know if that extends to the use of parody to a political end. It would seem to me that the counter by Bieber’s lawyers is probably overblown but maybe not totally without merit. Using a sliver of a reason claim and expanding it into a grandiose and broad statement is pretty typical for cease and desist letters. The goal really is to the scare the other party, rather than open the door to litigation.
 
Do we really want to support legislation that would keep beaver out of prison?

Why would you jail a beaver? Did it break the law when it decided to build a dam across a stream that is in someone's property? Did it join an Occupy movement?
 
I’m uncertain why you would bring that up. Title holders have the right to license their work to others, and organizations which use such works for commercial purposes have an obligation to pay the title holders for the rights to those works
I think we are at a fundamental difference here. I think that right holders are not to be given the entitlement to rent out their products.

As for whether or not the Bieber case is valid, I don’t know. I know that parody is a protected right, but I don’t know if that extends to the use of parody to a political end. It would seem to me that the counter by Bieber’s lawyers is probably overblown but maybe not totally without merit. Using a sliver of a reason claim and expanding it into a grandiose and broad statement is pretty typical for cease and desist letters. The goal really is to the scare the other party, rather than open the door to litigation.
The website is a public awareness speech on regarding a proposed bill floating around in congress right now. The use of Bieber's image is a parody of itself, not anyway intended for any commercial gain or to blatantly defame said image.

The purpose of this thread is to show how fast copyright lawyers respond to any particular incident regarding their client, and the money scheme behind it. It may be an act of scare tactics, but I highly doubt it will work due to the very nature of the movement behind the site's content.
 
Bieber wants to shut down a website? That dirty, rotten corporate menace! :mad: #Occupy Justin Bieber. :yup:
 
I just have to say that I love that the counter letter sent by EFF references New Kids on the Block.
 
If Bieber (or his handlers) feel that this campaign is assigning him a publically held political opinion without his consent then I can't object to their lawsuits.

Edit: and my 2000th post is about Justin Bieber.
 
I think we are at a fundamental difference here. I think that right holders are not to be given the entitlement to rent out their products.

So.... what would rights holders have then?

As for the article, I would think an Anti-SLAPP motion would apply. Basically a "SLAPP" is a "strategic lawsuit against public participation." E.g., suing someone saying something of public importance that you don't like to shut them up. Anti-SLAPP is legal lingo for the motion to strike brought to dispose of these lawsuits at an early stage of the litigation. They are a useful tool in situations like this and make some Plaintiffs think twice. This case is apparently in CA, and we have one of the strictest anti-SLAPP laws in the nation, so in sum I think ultimately the free beiber folks will prevail on this one. Hope I don't eat my words later though...
 
Wikip-facepalm.jpg


The only reaction to this debacle.
 
If it was some random anonymous joe off the street whose image was being used, I'd say the random anonymous joe would have every right to be pissed and want to take legal action. I've never understood why public figures are not granted the same protections as others.
 
You mean like all the Hanoi Jane posters and websites?

JaneFonda-MugShot.jpg


Or the Obamacare posters?

Copy_of_obamacare.JPG


Should we just make all satire illegal? Allow them to sue people in this forum for libel?
 
The first one is really her, so that's not the same thing at all. The second one, yeah, that's not cool.
 
The website is a public awareness speech on regarding a proposed bill floating around in congress right now. The use of Bieber's image is a parody of itself, not anyway intended for any commercial gain or to blatantly defame said image.

Parody requires some creativity and some artistry to be protected. One of the problems with this website is that it is just butt-ugly and not very creative.

Protection under parody also requires some form of commentary upon the original work. While there is some sort of commentary, I guess, of Bieber, the primary commentary is upon this bill.
 
Back
Top Bottom