MormonLeaks Receives Legal Notice From LDS Church

[Buckeye]

37 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Someone posted elsewhere that the didn't see that it was copyrighted (on the slides).  Does it need to be stated?

They were going to check with the copyright office to see if IRI formally copyrighted this power point.  

If not, it may go right back online?  Maybe an attorney can weigh in here who knows.

I do know quite a bit, but rather than offer legal advice on very limited facts on an anonymous message board, I prefer to refer interested people to reputable sources of basic information. For copyright law, here's a nice 12-page primer put out by the US Copyright Office: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf.  I'd also look at the fair use factors (here: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html) that would form the defense by Wikileaks.

And, of course, this is all just copyright. The take-down request could possibly include trade secret, defamation, tortious interference, and many other types of claims.

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by Buckeye

[Duncan]

If the site gets shut down can't they start up again but under a new name? and keep going if they keep getting shut down?

[Johnnie Cake]

 

I noticed that the link had gone dead last night...now I wish I had spoken up...drat I hate being scooped

Edited March 2, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[CA Steve]

I am not a lawyer so my suggestion may not be practical but it seems to me the best way the Church could have responded would have been to send some sort of notification that their property was being used without their permission and then grant permission for it to be used. That way they retain their rights while at the same time showing that the PPP was no big deal. 

Or maybe it was a big deal but, for the life of me, I can't see why.

[Buckeye]

29 minutes ago, Duncan said:

If the site gets shut down can't they start up again but under a new name? and keep going if they keep getting shut down?

That tactic works a lot better in China than the US. Here, an injunction would likely include the site operators and not just the website. If the operators started up again, they'd face a ticked-off judge and sanctions. 

[Johnnie Cake]

Gotta love the internet...

 

If you missed the leaked Power Point presentation....someone has captured it and posted it here...better hurry...its up until its not

 removed

 

I'm thinking that a new bubble will be added to the Power Point presentation  "Mormon Leaks"

[bluebell]

Here's more information-

"In response to the MormonLeaks publication, the Church issued a legal notice to the site, informing them that the PowerPoint presentation was copyrighted and MormonLeaks’s publication of it was a violation of copyright law.

The notice demanded the PowerPoint presentation be removed “expeditiously,” which it has been, though one slide is still on Dehlin’s website.

This is the first time a legal notice has been officially issued to MormonLeaks after several other alleged leaks such as video recordings of LDS senior officials meeting together and other sensitive documents about Church finances.

The Church has declined to comment on the story."

[Tacenda]

I wonder if the 12 came up with training literature to explain the bubbles. Or are the bishoprics just suppose to do their own research before they present to RS & PH presidencies. 

 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

It could be a pyrrhic victory (that's a good spelling bee word . . .  ). That enters into the calculus, the cost/benefit analysis. 

Isn't it a proper noun? Do they allow proper nouns in spelling bees? (I know they don't in scrabble LOL)

[Duncan]

Just now, Tacenda said:

I wonder if the 12 came up with training literature to explain the bubbles. Or are the bishoprics just suppose to do their own research before they present to RS & PH presidencies. 

 

I was under the impression this was for the 12 and not for others, but I could be wrong

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Isn't it a proper noun? Do they allow proper nouns in spelling bees? (I know they don't in scrabble LOL)

They most certainly do allow proper nouns in spelling bees (my son was recently in our county bee). 

It wouldn't be capitalized because it's an adjective. Like "draconian" or "socratic" or "orwellian." 

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

I was under the impression this was for the 12 and not for others, but I could be wrong

If you read the link that apparently is still available you'll see on the last two pages it mentions stake conference, bishopric trainings etc. So I think I answered my own question after re-reading the documents. 

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

If you read the link that apparently is still available you'll see on the last two pages it mentions stake conference, bishopric trainings etc. So I think I answered my own question after re-reading the documents. 

That's referring to visits from GAs for stake conference, or "the water getting to the end of the row" via coordinating councils (GA ---> area authority ---> stake president ---> bishop). 

We very rarely get anything as exciting as slides like this . . .  

[Duncan]

Just now, Tacenda said:

If you read the link that apparently is still available you'll see on the last two pages it mentions stake conference, bishopric trainings etc. So I think I answered my own question after re-reading the documents. 

aha! yeah, training isn't this exciting let me tellya! My bro. never heard of any of these named people and he's the stake clerk so I don't think he, we, them, got this stuff. As i said previously last year we had all these stake conferences and special meetings all with GAs and now I was told this upcoming stake conference there is a Area 70 coming, like don't they have any other places to go to?! we got our leader fix, we're good I think!

[Gray]

I wonder if they're pushing back on this leak because the document mentions names of specific people they consider threats?

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

I wonder if they're pushing back on this leak because the document mentions names of specific people they consider threats?

Exactly, and the people on these colorful bubbles may have some kind of recourse after having their names being sullied, as in defamation of character. Oh, the weave of this web, or something for those popcorn lovers.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Exactly, and the people on these colorful bubbles may have some kind of recourse after having their names being sullied, as in defamation of character. Oh, the weave of this web, or something for those popcorn lovers.

No way they could sue over a private discussion that was leaked that was as vague as that slide was.

[Duncan]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

No way they could sue over a private discussion that was leaked that was as vague as that slide was.

yup, they'd have to show their reputation was damaged because of it but given that most people haven't heard of Robert Norman, I doubt he could come after anybody and how would they calculate for Dehlin he seems to enjoy this relevancy again

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, JulieM said:

Announced today on their website:

 

"On March 1, 2017 MormonLeaks received the following notice ordering us to take down the PowerPoint presentation that was leaked yesterday. The LDS Church was also successful in getting docdroid.net to take down the document independent of any action on the part of MormonLeaks.

MormonLeaks is committed to making this and all other documents we receive available to the public. We are currently working with our attorneys to find a solution that will allow us to make this document available again and avoid interruptions in the future."

Letter here

Some are stating this is a foolish move by the leaders (legitimizing the leaks) as many were questioning if the Power Point really came from the 12.

I think this PP must have hit a nerve and they're sending MormonLeaks a message (warning).  

Of course the slides are already posted in quite a few places online and many have copies now so this probably won't stop it from being circulated.

Tithing money being put to good use again its seems....  

[Bob Crockett]

10 hours ago, JulieM said:

Someone posted elsewhere that the didn't see that it was copyrighted (on the slides).  Does it need to be stated?

They were going to check with the copyright office to see if IRI formally copyrighted this power point.  

If not, it may go right back online?  Maybe an attorney can weigh in here who knows.

Copyrighting does not depend upon a copyright logo nor on registration.   The first is a warning to make people think twice (as well as help date the document) and the second helps date the document and entitles the copyright holder to certain fees not otherwise available.

Like some religious organizations and non-profit, the church likely adheres to the rule that if you don't aggressively protect your copyright rights in litigation, you lose them.  

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I do know quite a bit, but rather than offer legal advice on very limited facts on an anonymous message board, I prefer to refer interested people to reputable sources of basic information. For copyright law, here's a nice 12-page primer put out by the US Copyright Office: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf.  I'd also look at the fair use factors (here: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html) that would form the defense by Wikileaks.

And, of course, this is all just copyright. The take-down request could possibly include trade secret, defamation, tortious interference, and many other types of claims.

Yes, and there are both civil and criminal penalties.

[Calm]

17 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It will be interesting to watch how aggressively the church goes after Mormon Leaks. The church has the resources to bury mormonleaks and the founder in legal expenses if it chooses to yet I don't think that would be a good PR move. It would look like another example of a corporate giant crushing a little guy. And for what? A power point presentation?

I gather it may be all or in part for copyright and trademark protection.  If they don't defend it, the next time someone uses it, they could argue the Church lost its exclusive right to it.

edit:  looks like someone else has mentioned it, not all caught up yet

Edited March 3, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

17 hours ago, Buckeye said:

 

Edited March 3, 2017 by Calm
Waiting for better info, shouldn't just pass on gossip

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Tithing money being put to good use again its seems....  

I'm sure the Church has their law firm on retainer. A simple take down notice likely is already part of what they pay for. It'd be lawsuits above and beyond that which matter. And I think wanting to keep deliberation private is likely tied to that to avoid frivolous lawsuits. So long term I'd have to imagine this would save more tithing money than it costs and I'm skeptical it costs much if anything in the short term. Probably they were advised to do this legally too.

To an admitted non-lawyer and person only following things superficially it sounded like they largely didn't care because almost all the information was frankly boring and mundane. I'm not sure this Power Point is that significant either, but it's finally verging onto things that can become more problematic legally. However almost certainly this has less to do with what's already been leaked and more to just stop the leaking to avoid future leaks that may actually be more problematic.

Edited March 3, 2017 by clarkgoble

[The Nehor]

The Danites had a more effective and permanent solution but the bleeding hearts in the COB said it was 'too extreme'. Now the PowerPoint we used to present our Final Solution might get leaked.

Edited March 3, 2017 by The Nehor