back to article US lawyer's email not creative enough for copyright protection

A lawyer's email was not creative enough to be protected by copyright laws, a US court has ruled. The critical email had been forwarded outside of an email group without the consent of author Kenneth Stern, who then sued the person who forwarded the message for breach of copyright. Stern's email lacked originality and a …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. BristolBachelor Gold badge
    Troll

    Common sense ruling...

    ...now punish him for bringing the law and lawyers in general into disrepute.

    Hey, if we hanged all the lawyers that did that, the world would be a far better place for everybody (including all reasonable lawyers).

    1. Tom 13

      @BristolBachelor: Well, you might be able to get him on the first count,

      but the second one is never going to fly. Lawyers in the US are already in so much disrepute it isn't possible to bring any more upon them.

      Which means that if you bring suite on both counts, another good lawyer will probably get him off on the first count as well.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    Ah Ah Ah...

    Or When Dubious Lawsuits Go Bad :)

  3. Anonymous John

    Quite right too!

    © Anonymous John 2011

  4. yoinkster
    Thumb Up

    Love it

    "The judge ... asked for more details of the fees incurred by the Weinsteins before settling on the figure for which Stern will be liable."

    If that was me, I'd put in costs for kleenex for wiping away the tears of laughter, administrative costs of reading Stern's communications, wear and tear caused on pens used for replying and wear caused on phones used to call him and all sorts of other random junk. When Dubious Lawsuits Go Bad And Deservedly Bankrupt The Idiot.

  5. Tom Kelsall

    Eedjit

    At least SOME Judges in the US recognise when a case has absolutely zero merit. In the UK you could be charged with the offence of being a Vexatious Litigant... in extreme cases, and barred from bringing any action in Court again.

  6. lglethal Silver badge
    Go

    One Question...

    ... How could a situation like this be responsible for "aggravating athritis in his hip"?

    Good work that judge for showing some common sense!!!

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm confused.

    I agree with the judgement in a litigation case in the USA. Something is wrong with the world.

  8. Fuh Quit

    Do this qualify for The Streisand Effect?

    Ken - meet Barbie :-)

  9. Avalanche
    WTF?

    Copyright certificate?

    I thought the US subscribed to the Berne Convention, meaning that the copyright exists as the work is created, without any registration or other forms of government intervention.

    Why would that guy have requested a copyright certificate? Why does the US government even issue copyright certificate as they are - re the Berne convention - without value.

    1. Tom 13

      We do use the Berne Convention,

      but if you register the copyright with the US Office, it removes certain burdens of proof required under the convention. Therefore most lawyers will tell you to make sure you have the certificate on file before filing the case.

      1. Dave Bell

        US Copyright Registration

        It also allows for additional damages, I suppose on the principle that you can't argue that you didn't know it had been copyrighted.

        There's a couple of quirks of US Copyright Law-- "fair use" is an important one--but every country has a few quirks. The Berne Convention is a minimum.

        On this particular legal point, if the lawyer had written his comment as a limerick, he would have been OK.

  10. Vic

    "Their dubiousness aside"

    That's Judge-speak for "you lying twat".

    Well done, that man :-)

    Vic.

    1. asiaseen

      OR

      Well done that woman - on the rather bold assumption that Dolly is not a usual name for a man.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    copyright troll

    Back under your bridge.

This topic is closed for new posts.