So I know that people/companies who dont do a fair use analysis have been bitch slapped in court for not doing one. I know that only usually happens when someone sues for being DMCAed and this case is the other way around but could that come into play?Punitive damages are awarded to plaintiffs along with actual damages, so it would require a countersuit of some sort. What can be awarded, though, are attorney fees and punitive sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
In either event, prevailing defendants in a copyright action as bogus as this are likely to succeed in a motion for fees.
Costs are usually automatic. They are also a pittance. For fees (under Fogerty v. Fantasy), you generally have to show the lawsuit was "frivolous" or "objectively unreasonable," which shouldn't be as difficult as it usually is because in this case the defendant boasted on social media about the improper purposes, and in court, was unable to articulate any reasonable basis for the suit. That and the fact that the suit involved blindingly obvious fair use isn't good for the defendant.
Also lol @ this.
View attachment 1162403
Playtime for Twitter tards is over.
Wait what? The court gave her a chance to back out before the ruling?The court also told the plaintiff the lawsuit was clearly barred by fair use and gave another opportunity to back out of the frivolous litigation, which the plaintiff was too dumb to take. She was on notice the suit was frivolous and went ahead and pursued it anyway.
So yes, everyone involved did file a frivolous lawsuit and then pursued it in bad faith, in violation of Rule 11.