Another Anna Nicole Smith lawsuit, only this time an author’s going to court

Howard K. Stern wants $60 million, alleging journalist Rita Cosby and her publisher are guilty of false and defamatory accusations against Stern. Cosby’s book,Blond Ambition, says the South Florida Sun-Sentinel in a story on Tuesday, figures in the lawsuit because the book alleges Stern committed, “among other things, criminal lewd acts, homosexual acts, illegal possession and use of cocaine, conspiring to commit murder and kidnapping for ransom.” Furthermore, a John or Jane Doe also was named as a defendant. Stern has had a busy time since Smith’s death, what with trying to prove he fathered a baby he didn’t father.

There is supreme irony in this partial statement, “defendants” referring to the author and publisher: “Defendants have exploited Ms. Smith's life and death…”

Whatever the outcome, the lawsuit will continue the media circus that was Smith’s life before and after her death. I covered the aftermath of Smith’s death in The Sunshine State at my news site, Covering Florida.

I predict the legal battle will be drawn out—Rita Cosby isn’t a naïve journalist. Here’s a snapshot of her credentials, taken from her author bio at amazon.com:

...interview with Slobodan Milosevic while he was imprisoned at The Hague; an exclusive interview with Yasser Arafat when his compound was under siege; she was the first journalist to see the suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo and witness an actual interrogation; and a rare, private meeting with Pope John Paul II after receiving an exclusive letter from Timothy McVeigh explaining why he carried out the Oklahoma City bombing. Having interviewed more than a dozen world leaders and four US Presidents, she also made headlines for her interviews with Michael Jackson, David Berkowitz and Dr. Jack Kevorkian. She has been a featured guest on hundreds of television and radio shows worldwide and earned her two bachelors' degrees from the University of South Carolina.

If Cosby is as careful as most investigative journalists, she’s covered herself by documenting her claims.

Either way, this latest lawsuit in the publishing world will certainly be fodder for pundits, columnists and tea party-goers.

I purchased the book this morning; I’ll give you my opinion once I’ve read it.

---

---

Read my latest Web Savvy column at The Writer magazine--Writing for Web Sites that Pay. (premium content)

The wild wild Web, where copyright is becoming an oft-repeated word

I read a post at a discussion forum—the author found a Web site had copied her content verbatim. She contacted the owner of the site, who basically told her to shove it—there was nothing she could do. The site owner did remove the content, however. In August, I wrote a column about a lawsuit filed by an author who took issue with a bad review of his book. The reviewer didn’t just bash the book; illustrations from the work were reproduced. The author had provided the book, so the case isn’t black and white.

In a perfect world, no one would lift your content without asking. But people do. One reason I added the ‘Copyscape’ banner to both my sites involves providing notice that I do check for copied content. Copyscape works beautifully to this end.

Technically, you don’t have to officially register a work to protect it. The U.S. Copyright Office Web site notes:

No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration.

Here’s the note referenced above:

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time.

It is a good idea when you post to your blog or Web site to add a copyright notice, and it’s an even better idea to file the forms to protect your work.

And if you have your eye on sharp content written by another, ask before you lift. Chances are if you run a quality site, you’ll receive permission unless you’re asking a large commercial concern. And always, if you’re given permission, be mannerly and include a link to the site where the work was first featured.

There’s an excellent site explaining the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, organized by the Association of Research Libraries. This government act offers some protection for your Web content, and restricts use of your content to fair use guidelines, including the amount of content in relation to the whole work. Fine to lift a line or two when you’re reviewing a book or poem. Not so fine to lift the whole item.

Meanwhile, you can drop your URL in at Copyscape to see if your work is being used without your knowledge.

©KayBDay/2007

Intellectual property rights: what a tangled Web we’re weaving

The Web is heating up with news of another copyright battle, Viacom’s $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube.

I predict lawsuits will continue to increase in the next few years because technology available on the Web creates gray areas in copyright and other intellectual property rights issues.

I don’t think disputes will be limited to sites owned by media conglomerates, and I think a number of disputes will transcend intellectual property rights, moving into areas like libel and slander.

Traditional media is suffering transition pains right now because there’s so much free content available on the Web. Who watches TV anymore?
For instance users at YouTube upload whatever they want, and if they do infringe on a copyright, it’s up to the owner of the property to flag YouTube to remove the content.

That process sounds like a good plan until you consider the numbers. Last month, according to BusinessWeek.com, Viacom spokesman Jeremy Zweig said Viacom demanded the removal of more than 100,000 “unauthorized clips” from YouTube. That request was followed by Viacom’s discovery of another 50,000 unauthorized clips.

I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. Right now there’s a move among print media as well as online media to take advantage of “citizen journalists”—partly because the content is free and partly because this approach involves the reader/guest in the publication’s development. Circulation declined for many traditional newspapers last year, and investors are running a little scared.

The approach sounds all well and fine until you consider the lack of standards. Who will make certain stories adhere to fact and not fiction? Who will make certain there’s no copyright infringement? Who will deal with libel threats that will surely ensue? And will quality suffer even more, considering the current quagmire engulfing the English language at the moment?

I interviewed best-selling author James Redfield (The Celestine Prophecy) for the St. John’s Sun not long ago, during his residency at Flagler College. He likened the Web to “Chicago in the ‘30s.”

We will certainly face interesting challenges as individuals with no professional background in media transform into content providers.

Here’s hoping the content they provide will be legal. But I wouldn’t always bet on it.