Watchtower in Trouble

Depending on opinion, the Lookout man Tower Bible and Tract Society, the supervising body and publisher for the Jehovah's Witness religious group, either doesn't similar criticism, dislikes copyright infringement, or hates both.

Since cracking down on the old is all but incommunicable, Watch Belfry keeps an eye out for people who criticize the organized religion past leveraging its own copyrighted cloth, such as videos or songs, against it.

This ways that opposing opinions become somewhat of a footnote when the grouping launches copyright infringement activeness.

Background: 'Kevin McFree'

'Kevin McFree' (not his existent name) is the creator of the 'Dubtown' series of stop-movement Lego animations that take place in a fictitious Jehovah's Witness town. Some of McFree'due south critical videos apply copyrighted fabric owned past Scout Belfry so in 2018, the group filed an awarding for a DMCA amendment which asked a court to hogtie YouTube/Google to hand over his details.

McFree challenged the subpoena with a motion to quash, arguing that any utilise of Watch Tower fabric was protected nether the doctrine of off-white use. When that case had dragged on for three years without decision, in parallel Lookout man Tower filed a full-diddled copyright infringement complaint against McFree.

In the summertime of 2021, that case also ran into trouble when McFree refused to supply his real name.

Sentry Tower told the court that information technology has "strong grounds" to request service on the accused by email but since information technology has no real name to hand, the clerk of the court wouldn't consequence a summons. Watch Belfry asked the court for advice on how to go along but Judge Cathy Seibel declined, instead indicating a preference to await for the conclusion of Judge Roman, who was presiding over the DMCA subpoena matter and McFree's motion to quash.

That moment has now arrived and it is non what Watch Tower had hoped for.

Should The DMCA Subpoena Exist Granted?

In an opinion and guild handed down at a New York commune court, Estimate Roman acknowledges that McFree criticized the religion, including its "depictions of violence confronting women, the removal of a man of African descent from the denomination's iconography, the denomination's attitude toward technology, and its attitude toward exterior academic pursuits among its followers."

He besides notes that following a Lookout Tower DMCA notice in 2018, the Dubtown video was removed by YouTube. Despite that, Lookout man Tower followed upwards with its DMCA subpoena to YouTube/Google to identify McFree. The big question, then, is whether such a subpoena should exist granted afterward fair apply considerations and alongside McFree's claims that the subpoena was really designed to "disfellowship him as an backslider."

Off-white Use Considerations

In because the commencement factor of off-white use (the purpose and character of the utilize, including
whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes), Approximate Roman rejects Sentinel Tower's merits that the video was non transformative on the basis that it used unedited segments of the video without commentary or criticism.

"While it is truthful that the Dubtown Video displays certain excerpts from Watch Tower's works in their original and unaltered states, physical changes are not required for a new use to exist transformative," the Judge writes.

What matters, he adds, is that McFree expressed "something new, with a further purpose or dissimilar character, altering the first with new expression, significant, or bulletin." Frankly, McFree'due south 'message' was entirely different from that of Lookout man Tower.

Interestingly, the Judge agrees that McFree's apply of the copyright works was indeed commercial, which counts against a finding of fair use. However, considering the video was transformative, this gene is of less significance. Overall and so, the first factor weighs in favor of fair utilize.

In respect of the nature of the copyrighted piece of work, the Judge weighed expression and inventiveness elements against those that were factual or advisory, with the latter receiving greater elbowroom when it comes to a claim of fair use. Once again, the Judge decides slightly in Watch Belfry's favor given the content'due south expressive and creative value.

Addressing the amount of the copyrighted work used by McFree, the Judge notes that the law can allow an declared infringer to copy an entire piece of work, providing the corporeality used is "reasonably necessary" in relation to the work'due south transformative purpose.

Given that McFree used the excerpts to "parody, criticize, and comment" and "interjects, superimposes, and overdubs parodic commentary and music over the excerpted footage", the third factor weighs in his favor.

On the last factor (whether the secondary use usurps the market of the original work) the Gauge too rules in favor of McFree.

"[T]he record shows that in that location is no danger that the Dubtown Video will usurp the market for which Watch Tower intends its works. If anything, the record shows that the transformative nature of the Dubtown Video — namely, to criticize, satirize, and comment on the practices of Jehovah's Witnesses — is clearly not the same every bit Scout Tower'due south target audience," he writes.

With the overall rest tipping in McFree'due south favor, the Judge concludes that since McFree made fair use of Watch Tower's copyrighted works, there is no basis under the DMCA for a subpoena to compel disclosure of his identity.

While this is a clear win for McFree, Watch Tower doesn't seem interested in applying this ruling to its separate copyright lawsuit against McFree, despite it relying on exactly the aforementioned arguments.

Watch Tower Writes to Estimate Siebel

Since Estimate Siebel indicated that a decision in the DMCA amendment matter might bear witness helpful in moving the copyright lawsuit forth, Watch Tower wrote to the court with the ruling in hand.

Once again, Spotter Tower laid out its predicament regarding McFree'due south true identity, noting that it had corresponded with McFree via email last yr and the defendant had refused to waive service because he didn't desire to fight two similar cases at once.

In the wake of the decision in McFree's favor in the DMCA amendment matter, Sentry Tower tried again but got the same answer, i.e a refusal from McFree to waive service.

The email exchange is telling.

"As you likely are aware, Judge Román has granted your movement to quash the DMCA subpoena and that proceeding is now closed. Your status upon which to waive service of a summons in the infringement activity thus is now moot and your rationale therefor no longer applies. Please let us know if you volition concur at this fourth dimension to waive service of a summons in the infringement action," Lookout man Tower's email reads.

In response, a clearly surprised McFree clarified his rationale – it would be unreasonable for Sentinel Tower to pursue two cases "for pretty much the aforementioned affair" at the same time.

"I had hoped that the judgment in the amendment case would result in resolving the whole example," he told the religious group.

"My use of Watchtowers video was judged to be fair utilize. Which is why I wanted to avoid two cases. I believe the subpoena case has resolved everything and that the second instance should now be dropped. I am at a loss to see how Watchtower still feels it tin can merits I infringed their copyright when Judge Roman has already judged it equally off-white use?"

A reasonable assumption – just Sentinel Belfry sees things differently.

"It is Watch Belfry's position that Judge Román's conclusion did not decide the outcome of copyright infringement and fair use for purposes of the infringement activity since the motion to dismiss was non a full and fair adjudication on the merits, including considering no discovery was conducted on the motion to quash," they responded.

Watch Tower did note, however, that McFree hadn't published any more Dubtown videos in years, suggesting that a settlement of the instance might be possible if he agrees that no more will announced. McFree didn't bite, instead referring dorsum to the ruling in the DMCA subpoena matter.

"I must conclude that Estimate Roman's decision in the Google amendment case makes this lawsuit for copyright infringement, invalid. I don't see any adept reason for Watchtower to go on to harass me with more than lawsuits. Considering of this credible harassment, I must refuse to accept service."

As a outcome, Lookout man Tower wants the courtroom to event a summons in the name of John Doe then it can pursue its copyright infringement instance against McFree who, incidentally, has no financial means to hire a lawyer to fight the instance.

Whether one will step forrad on a pro bono basis is unknown but it seems articulate that if Watch Tower prevails, anyone who dares to rely on a fair use criticism of the religious group moving forward will receive the same silencing treatment, even if a judge says they acted entirely inside the law.

The related court documents tin can be constitute here (1,ii,three, pdf)

gallagherbeenot.blogspot.com

Source: https://torrentfreak.com/judge-jehovahs-witness-parodies-are-fair-use-watch-tower-so-what-220220/

Share this post