COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT SUIT SERVED TO "JOHN DOE"

John Doe is used to preserve the plaintiff's claim by standing in for an unknown defendant while the defendant's identity is determined.

COPYRIGHT PROTECTION IN TEXAS

Infringement Suit Filed Under "John Doe"

Did you get a notice from your Internet Service Provider regarding a subpoena for your personal identification pertaining to a “John Doe” copyright infringement case? If so, I’m sure you are wondering if you can protect your identity and what you should do next. You’d be happy to know, you have options such as filing a Motion to Quash and not be forced to give up who you are.



Peer-to-peer file sharing sites seem to have an emergence recently, and it has influenced the amount of copyright infringement instances that occurs. There was once a known site called Napster that was similar in nature to the above, which created a channel for substantial infringement violations. In particular, songs and movie are the most sought out infringement cases due to the daily occurrences continuing to happen. 

Tracing an Infringer

As of now, the only way for the copyright owners to trace the infringement is through the infringer’s IP address. They file a claim against John Doe and subpoena the infringer’s Internet Service Provider (ISP). Since the copyright owners do not know who the person is, the courts allow one to file a suit against a “John Doe” until they can properly identify the defendant. Once suit has been filed, they can officially subpoena the ISP for identifying information pertaining to the IP address. If the plaintiff gains access to the information, they will file an amended complaint and go after the named party.


Usually once the ISP gets the letter for the subpoena, they send notice to the defendant, so they have an opportunity to file a Motion to Quash. The courts will then decide if the defendant can proceed anonymously or not. If not, then the case goes to court, or the parties can choose to enter a settlement.

Does the Infringer Have Rights?

In some instances, the defendant may be wondering how the plaintiff can obtain their information when there is a chance the person may have never been involved. Sometimes individuals are listed as the ISP subscriber but have multiple family members linked to their account. It could be that a guest or even a third-party hacker, downloaded the infringing materials. Due to this, these lawsuits are forcing individuals to either settle outside court or try and defend themselves at a hefty cost. Moreover, most of these cases are brought to federal courts outside the state in which the defendant resides, increasing the action exponentially. 


In most cases, when a defendant receives a settlement from the other party, they have little knowledge of the court system and feel faced with extreme legal fees, forcing them to accept the settlement. This allows the plaintiffs to easily coerce individuals into paying when they only submitted a single filing fee. As these cases continue to be filed, the courts are issuing their opinions regarding the fairness. 

a blue and orange check mark with the letter w on it as the Wilson Legal Group Logo

Additional Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Focus

Permissibility of John Doe Lawsuits

Currently, the courts are torn on whether these mass John Doe lawsuits are appropriate. The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits a plaintiff to join parties in a single action if (1) a right to relief is asserted against the defendants with respect to the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) a common question of law or fact will arise in the action. Fed. R. Civ.P.20(a)(2).


There must be a connection between the actions of the defendants in the lawsuit. The actions almost always involve a separate set of facts and defenses, and do not arise out of a single transaction or occurrence. While the suit will highlight that the defendants all infringed on the same material, there is no specific information regarding this. Additionally, it can not be found whether the infringing materials were shared between the other named Does. This does not lay foundation strong enough to support that the individuals downloaded the same materials from the same websites and does not lead to connection for joinder.


With the increase in lawsuits, the federal courts have found themselves conflicted on the issue of joiner and most are leaning towards serving the defendants in these actions. For instance, the District Court in Maryland issued their opinion regarding a case with BitTorrent. In this particular case, a company named Cintel Films filed suit against 1, 052 John Does. The judge assigned, found that not only was joiner improper in this case, but that the joiner issue prior to the defendant being identified could be ruled on. This is because the courts could tell from the suit that the actions could be determined to be separate from the other Does listed. Furthermore, the judge felt that it was consequential to wait on the rule on whether joinder was proper once the ISP revealed the defendant’s information. He proceeded after this to list off other prejudice that could come from the defendants in the same room as hundreds of others being sued for infringement.


Later, the same district issued another opinion regarding the Third Degree Films, Inc. case filed against 108 Does. At first, the court denied it because they felt joiner was proper for serving the subpoenas on the ISP. They came to the conclusion though, that after filing a number of motions to sever Doe for distinct and separate defenses, the court reconsidered. The prejudice mentioned above was substantial in this reconsideration.


In conclusion, Maryland courts find that a Doe defendant has standing to file a Motion to Quash, but they do not find that they have a privilege to protection of their personal identifying information. They find that the individual’s right to right ended when they provided their information to a third party. The Maryland courts has quashed the ISP subpoenas after they determined some of the defendants improperly joined, and they can be dismissed from the action. As the defendant, you have to file a motion to quash for the subpoena issued to the ISP, and file a motion to sever themselves from the case. 

CLIENT MATTERS


5,000+


YEARS OF SERVICE

 25+

Award Winning

Recognized in the legal industry as dedicated board-certified lawyers and Rising Stars.

Expert Team

Your project will be handled by legal experts every time. You will have the most experienced attorneys working for you. 

Quality Representation

You’ll find the support you need to ensure that things run smoothly. We’re here to help with all your legal needs.

Meet Our Team

View All
A person is holding a cell phone in front of a book titled artificial intelligence
By John Wilson February 19, 2025
Copyright and Translated Content: Who Owns the Creative Rights? Understanding Copyright Law and Translation Copyright law protects creative work and bestows sole authority over the work upon the creators. For example, the owner of the work of a novel has the right over the work under the concept of the right under the copyright. Courts have found that “the degree of protection afforded by the copyright is measured by what is actually copyrightable in the publication and not by the entire publication.” See, e.g., Dorsey v. Old Sur. Life Ins. Co., 98 F.2d 872, 873 (10th Cir. 1938) (emphasis added). For translations, the situation is not very clear. Translations involve creative judgments over word translation and not the translation of mere words. Hence the knowledge about the applicability of the concept of the right over the work is essential for establishing the right over the work. For example, a Court in the Northern District of California stated that: “ the determinative question is whether Plaintiff holds a valid copyright. ” Signo Trading Intern. Ltd. v. Gordon, 535 F. Supp. 362, 363 (N.D. Cal. 1981). The Signo Trading Court dismissed Plaintiff’s infringement claims because plaintiff did not have a valid copyright as a matter of law in the translations and transliterations at issue because they lacked the “requisite originality.” Id. at 365. Can Translation Be Considered a Creative Process? The Practice of Translating Translation goes beyond the replacement of one word by the equivalent word from the source text. Translating literary work, poetry, and fiction with deeper meanings beyond the surface text is a complex, artistic process. Translating books like The Iliad, for instance, requires the practice of artistic translation to translate the emotions, thoughts, and the culture correctly. Technical Translations and Legal Translations Conversely, technical writing and texts for the law need less creativity and instead value correctness over all else. These writing forms require strict adherence to the original sense, leaving very little room for artistic interpretation. Translations for these writing forms thus typically involve less creative contribution and less potential for the work being protected by copyright. Why Is Creativity Important for Translations for Copyright? Originality when translating For a work to be subject to copyright, some creativity, however slight, is essential. Even when the translation is taken from the work, the translation also includes some creative work by the translator. This creativity can make the translation subject to copyright. A derivative work must “recast, transform[], or adapt[]” a preexisting work and “consist[] of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship.” Id. In other words, it must change or alter the pre-existing work’s content and must itself be an original work of authorship. The Supreme Court stated that “ [t]he sine qua non of copyright is originality ” and that “ [t]o qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. ” Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991) at 345. “Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.” Id. (citing 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright §§ 2.01[A], [B] (1990)). In granting a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, the Signo Trading Court held that: " It is inconceivable that anyone could copyright a single word or a commonly used short phrase, in any language. It is also inconceivable that a valid copyright could be obtained for a phonetic spelling, using standard Roman letters, of such words or phrases. Although lists of words and translations of larger works may be copyrightable, Plaintiff cannot claim credit for any of the elements which make those things copyrightable. For these reasons, Plaintiff does not hold a valid copyright on the translations or transliterations ... " Signo Trading, 535 F. Supp. at 365. The Problem of the Derivative Work However, translations are generally "derivative works" - derived from the work of another. Because of this, the owner or author of the work is generally required to agree to the translation. Translations made illegally can be held under the classification of copyright violations, even when the translator has added creative elements. Who Has the Right over the Translated Work? Employer-Commissioned Translations Ownership of the copyright for the translation work varies. If the translation is commissioned by the owner of the original work, the owner will retain the right. Even when the translator adds creativity by passing over the original emotions and thoughts, the owner will not necessarily lose the right over the translation work. In some circumstances, the translation work can be accredited by the translator without them holding the right over the work. Independent Translations If a translation is performed independently by the translator, the translator can even be identified as the co-author of the translation. Nevertheless, the author typically has the underlying copyright, restricting the translator’s right over the work. Creative Translations from the Public Domain In certain cases, a translation may be creative enough to warrant its own copyright. For example, a translator adapting a classic work or a book in the public domain into modern language may introduce enough originality to qualify for copyright protection. However, direct, word-for-word translations are typically not considered original enough to receive new copyright protection. What About Machine Translations? The Human Creativity Copyright Requirement Machine-generated translations, including those produced by platforms like OpenAI , operate through advanced algorithms that replicate language patterns rather than capture the human touch. Unlike translations crafted by human translators who often infuse cultural insight and genuine emotion into the work, OpenAI's output is rooted in statistical patterns and data. Consequently, while these translations are impressively efficient and accurate, they typically fall short of the originality required for copyright protection. This distinction underscores the human creativity requirement needed to secure a valid copyright . Ultimately, although machine-generated translations serve as powerful tools, they do not offer the same legal and creative protections as those provided by human translators. The Bottom Line: Navigating Copyright in Translations Translations occupy the middle ground under the law of the copyright. Albeit the right of the original author generally has the right under the copyright, the right under the copyright can also be claimed by the translator provided the translation is creative enough. Central considerations here include the creativity the translator has added, the nature of the work being translated, and whether the work is under the public domain. These considerations establish the right of the owner under the copyright for the translation. Why Wilson Whitaker Rynell for Your Copyright Work? At Wilson Whitaker Rynell, our professional lawyers specialize in the practice of copyright law and copyright litigation , including the complex subject matter of translation work. We can provide you with advice about the ownership of your work under the provisions of the copyright, and protect your creative property. If you are the author, the publisher, or the translator, you can rely upon the advice from our firm. Copyright Translation FAQS
A man is sitting at a desk looking at a computer screen after getting an ISP copyright demand notice
By John Wilson May 27, 2024
How to Respond to a Copyright Infringement Notice from Your ISP: A Step-by-Step Guide
two people are looking at a floor plan of a house
By Kayla Holderman December 7, 2023
Copyright Protection For House Plans
Show More