Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Righthaven v. Toronto Star complaint

Righthaven v. Toronto Star complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,473|Likes:
Published by Eric Goldman

More info:

Published by: Eric Goldman on Mar 08, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

11/10/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.:_________________________RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company,Plaintiff,v.TORONTO STAR NEWSPAPERS LTD, a Canadian business entity;METROLAND MEDIA GROUP LTD., a Canadian business entity; andTORSTAR CORPORATION, a Canadian corporation,Defendants.
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Righthaven LLC (“Righthaven”) c
omplains as follows against Toronto Star Newspapers
Ltd (“Toronto Star”),
Metroland Media Group Ltd.
(“Metroland”
) and Torstar Corporation
(“Torstar”; co
llectively with Toronto Star and Metroland
known herein as the “Defendants”)
oninformation and belief, and at all times relevant to this lawsuit, unless otherwise specificallyindicated herein to the contrary:
NATURE OF ACTION
1.
 
This is an action for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501.
PARTIES
2.
 
Righthaven is a Nevada limited-liability company with its principal place of business in Nevada.3.
 
Righthaven is in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State.
Case 1:11-cv-00551-JLK Document 1 Filed 03/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7
 
 
4.
 
Toronto Star is a Canadian business entity.5.
 
Metroland is a Canadian business entity.6.
 
Torstar is a Canadian corporation.7.
 
Toronto Star is a subsidiary of Torstar.8.
 
Metroland is a subsidiary of Torstar.9.
 
Toronto Star is identified by the current registrar, Tucow
s, Inc. (“Tucows”)
, as theregistrant of the Internet domain found at <thespec.com
> (the “Domain”)
.10.
 
Toronto Star is identified by Tucows as the administrative contact and technicalcontact of the Domain (said content accessible through the Domain and the Domain itself known
herein as the “Website”).
 11.
 
Metroland is the self-proclaimed owner of the copyright(s) in the work(s)published as part of the content accessible through the Domain, as evidenced by a copyrightnotice displayed o
n the Website: “
© Copyright Metroland 2011
.”
 12.
 
The Defendants reproduced an unauthorized copy of the photograph entitled:
“TSA Agent performs enhanced pat
-do
wns” (the “Work”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1, anddisplayed said unauthorized copy (the “Infringement”), attached hereto as Exhibit 2, on the
Website.
JURISDICTION
13.
 
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties under thecopyright laws of the United States, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., as well as jurisdictional provisionsof 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).14.
 
Righthaven is the owner of the copyright in and to the Work.15.
 
On or about November 21, 2010, the Defendants willfully reproduced the Work on an unauthorized basis, from a source emanating from Colorado.
Case 1:11-cv-00551-JLK Document 1 Filed 03/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7
 
 
16.
 
On or about November 21, 2010, the Defendants displayed, and continue todisplay, the Infringement on the Website.17.
 
The composition, at least in part, of the Work and the Infringement, is aTransportation Security Administration Agent performing an enhanced pat-down search in theDenver, Colorado airport.18.
 
The focal point of the Infringement is Denver, Colorado.19.
 
The only geographic location that is associated with, and related to, the Work isDenver, Colorado.20.
 
The Work was originally published in
The Denver Post 
.21.
 
The Defendants knew that the Work was originally published in
The Denver Post 
.22.
 
The Defendants knew that the Work originally emanated from Colorado.23.
 
The Infringement, as publicly displayed on the Website, was and is accessible topersons in Colorado.24.
 
The Infringement occurred and continues to occur in Colorado.25.
 
The
Defendants’
display of the Infringement was and is purposefully directed atColorado residents.26.
 
The harm caused by the Infringement, was experienced, at least in part, inColorado.
VENUE
27.
 
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado is an appropriatevenue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (a), because the Defendants are subject to personaljurisdiction in Colorado.28.
 
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado is an appropriatevenue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), because a substantial part of the events giving rise tothe claim for relief are situated in Colorado.
Case 1:11-cv-00551-JLK Document 1 Filed 03/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
jlinford liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->