Project Veritas Sues To Get Copyrights On James O’Keefe’s Books
First Amended Complaint adds new claim: “Project Veritas is entitled to a declaration that it is the real copyright holder in Breakthrough, American Pravda, and American Muckraker,” and wants “disgorging all income received by O’Keefe” from those books.
Last time we checked in on the lawsuit brought by Project Veritas against James O’Keefe, PV had notified the court in early August 2023 that the parties were engaged in attempts to resolve the lawsuit, with no details given, Project Veritas v. James O’Keefe: Parties “engaged in productive discussions to attempt to resolve this case”.
PV asked to have more time, until October 13, to serve the summons and complaint on the defendants.
Subsequently, there were reports that PV was winding down or suspending operations. PV’s CEO put on its website on September 20, 2023, that:
Project Veritas is continuing to operate, but we are pausing our fundraising efforts and proactively taking steps to honor our donors’ expectations and to preserve the trust the American people have placed in us.
Apparently PV was not able to complete service on time, because on October 10, PV requested an additional 45 days to complete service, which was granted. People tend to take service of process for granted, but it is not always easy, as PV’s request reflects (emphasis added):
Plaintiffs have actively been attempting service on Defendants. Service so far has not been successful. After multiple service attempts at multiple addresses, Plaintiffs have not been able to locate Defendants RC Maxwell and Anthony Iatropoulos at their previously known locate alternate locations for service of those Defendants, but fear service will not be completed by the current deadline of October 13, 2023, and may need to seek leave for alternate service.
After multiple unsuccessful attempts to serve Defendant Transparency 1, LLC d/b/a O’Keefe Media Group directly, Plaintiffs have initiated service upon the registered agent and Delaware Secretary of State via Delaware Sheriff’s Departments, but fear service will not be completed before the current deadline of October 13, 2023.
Plaintiffs have confirmed the correct service address of Defendant James O’Keefe. Defendant O’Keefe publicly announced that he was served with this lawsuit on September 22, 2023. However, Plaintiffs are concerned that Mr. O’Keefe may claim that service was not perfected. Plaintiffs have made multiple attempts to serve at the address since, but attempts have been unsuccessful. Plaintiffs are now attempting additional and alternate means of service through a new process server to ensure it is perfected, but Plaintiff fears that it will not be completed before October 13, 2023.
Plaintiff believes an additional 45 days at this point would suffice to perfect service. Thus, good cause exists to grant a 45-day extension of the current deadline to serve the Complaint and Summons in this matter.
It’s likely that this is what they are referring to as to service on O’Keefe:
This occurred middle of the day yesterday, Thursday September 21st.
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) September 22, 2023
[Update 10-18-2023 – The court docket reflects that service was made by arrangement on the attorney for O’Keefe and O’Keefe Media on October 17, and that the Answer is due November 7]
On October 12, PV also filed a First Amended Complaint, which is similar in most respects to the original Complaint. The core claims remains that O’Keefe spent too much money including on things that were at least in part personal, was rude to people, was generally hard to get along with, and that when the relationship soured he breached his employment contract by leaving, taking donor and other lists, and setting up shop at O’Keefe Media Group.
But there is something added in the First Amended Complaint that is significant and new. PV is claiming that O’Keefe improperly registered the copyrights for his books, and PV wants both the proceeds from the books given back and the copyrights reassigned to PV.
From the First Amended Complaint:
D. O’Keefe Misappropriated the Copyright in the Books He Claimed to Author
90. On or about June 18, 2013, O’Keefe caused to be published under his name as author the book “Breakthrough: Our Guerrilla War to Expose Fraud and Save Democracy” (hereinafter “Breakthrough”).
91. Breakthrough was created as a work within the course and scope of O’Keefe’s employment with Project Veritas.
92. On June 20, 2013, O’Keefe, through publisher Simon & Schuster, Inc., registered the copyright in Breakthrough, Registration No. TX0007736898, with O’Keefe as the copyright claimant.
93. On or about December 27, 2017, O’Keefe caused to be published under his name as author the book “American Pravda: My Fight for Truth in the Era of Fake News” (hereinafter “American Pravda”).
94. American Pravda was created as a work within the course and scope of O’Keefe’s employment with Project Veritas.
95. On February 14, 2018, O’Keefe, through publisher Macmillan Publishing Group, LLC, d/b/a St. Martin’s Press, registered the copyright in American Pravda, Registration No. TX0008583606, with O’Keefe as the copyright claimant.
96. On or about January 25, 2022, O’Keefe caused to be published under his name as author the book “American Muckraker: Rethinking Journalism for the 21st Century” (hereinafter “American Muckraker”).
97. American Muckraker was created as a work within the course and scope of O’Keefe’s employment with Project Veritas.
98. American Muckraker is a Work within the meaning of EA ¶ 10(A).
99. On September 28, 2022, O’Keefe, through publisher Post Hill Press, LLC, registered the copyright in American Muckraker, Registration No. TX0009192779, with O’Keefe as the copyright claimant.
100. Employees of Project Veritas other than O’Keefe contributed, in the course and scope of their employment with Project Veritas, to the creation of American Muckraker, including the provision of editorial services, secondary and supplemental writing, sourcing and formatting of footnotes and end pages, primary communication and coordination with the publisher, coordination of the editorial process with O’Keefe, and overall project management.
101. Notably, approximately a dozen Project Veritas staff members took part in writing chapters of American Muckraker in the course and scope of their employment with Project Veritas.
102. Upon information and belief, employees of Project Veritas other than O’Keefe contributed, in the course and scope of their employment with Project Veritas, to the creation of American Pravda and Breakthrough, including the provision of editorial services, secondary and supplemental writing, sourcing and formatting of footnotes and end pages, primary communication and coordination with the publisher, coordination of the editorial process with O’Keefe, and overall project management.
103. O’Keefe utilized Project Veritas employees and resources to promote American Muckraker, including a book tour for American Muckraker, that utilized Project Veritas staff and finances.
104. O’Keefe also utilized Project Veritas employees and resources to promote Breakthrough and American Pravda.
105. Upon information and belief, O’Keefe has received payments for Breakthrough that were not turned over to Project Veritas.
106. Upon information and belief, O’Keefe has received payments for American Pravda that were not turned over to Project Veritas.
107. Upon information and belief, O’Keefe has received payments for American Muckraker that were not turned over to Project Veritas.
The alleged improper copyright registration is referenced now in some of the preexisting Counts and new Count is added:
COUNT XIII
DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHT
(Project Veritas vs. O’Keefe)266. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 107 hereof, as if fully set forth herein.
267. As set forth above, Paragraph 10.A of the Employment Agreement and, upon information and belief, its predecessors, vests copyright in all works created by O’Keefe in the course and/or scope of his employment with Project Veritas in Project Veritas.
268. Similarly, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 101, a “work for hire” is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of their employment.
269. As set forth above, American Muckraker was created within the course and scope of O’Keefe’s employment with Project Veritas.
270. As set forth above, American Muckraker was authored, in whole or in part, by Project Veritas employees in the course and scope of their employment.
271. As set forth above, American Pravda was created within the course and scope of O’Keefe’s employment with Project Veritas.
272. As set forth above, American Pravda was authored, in whole or in part, by Project Veritas employees in the course and scope of their employment.
273. As set forth above, Breakthrough was created within the course and scope of O’Keefe’s employment with Project Veritas.
274. As set forth above, Breakthrough was authored, in whole or in part, by Project Veritas employees in the course and scope of their employment.
275. Thus, pursuant to Paragraph 10.A of the Employment Agreement and/or its predecessors, and/or pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 101, Project Veritas is entitled to a declaration that it is the real copyright holder in Breakthrough, American Pravda, and American Muckraker.
There is a new request for relief as to the copyright claim:
g) Declare that the copyrights in Breakthrough, American Pravda, and American Muckraker belong to Project Veritas alone;
h) Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining O’Keefe and OMG (through O’Keefe and/or based on information from O’Keefe) from: ***v. Causing income from Breakthrough, American Pravda, and American Muckraker to be diverted away from Project Veritas;
***
l) Disgorge … c) disgorging all income received by O’Keefe from sales of Breakthrough, American Pravda, and American Muckraker;
I can’t assess the strength of the copyright claim. While I know a bit about copyright, I’m not familiar with the law on the specific claim of work for hire, or reassigning copyrights. PV does have experienced counsel, Randazza and Associates, which has represented Legal Insurrection and done work for us in the past. Mark Randazza is a fearless defender of the First Amendment, and I’ve interacted with him and Jay Wolman in the past, and referred people to them.
This new aggressive litigation strategy for an entity that either has suspended or severely curtailed operations, is a curious choice. It gets back to what I’ve been saying since this saga first burst onto the public scene: James was Project Veritas in the public’s mind. No James, no Project Veritas.
Maybe PV will win the lawsuit, we’ll see. But the lawsuit is not going to bring PV back, and never had any chance of doing that. Anyone who wanted to salvage PV needed to find a different path.
————–
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
wow. just. wow.
The name of JO’K sold PV product, not the other ways around.
PV isn’t even claiming they ghost wrote the books and slapped JO’K’s name on them as author to promote sales, they’re conceding he authored them.
This is a petty money grab. It’s ludicrous reasoning to try to justify treating the founder of PV as an work-for-hire employee when he WAS PV.
Hannah Giles is now the president of PV. She was with him doing the acorn expose. I do not understand her thought process to go after him.
I wonder if there’s any interview of her out there discussing this and explaining why they are pursuing him so ardently.
My tinfoil hat suggests to me that Hannah Giles is as much in control of PV as Joe Biden is of the White House.
Good point.
Fearless defenders of the first amendment!
Mercenaries wear whatever suits the occasion.
True though we normally do get what we pay for on the higher end of the spectrum.
It is clear that you don’t know Mark Randazza or his work but rather think that all lawyers are unprincipled “mercenaries.”
I have worked with Randazza in the past and his work was done pro bono. Much of his work for First Amendment causes is done pro bono.
Take a look at one of the filings Randazza made in a case:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/File:The_Fuck_Brief.pdf
It is on point, humorous, legally sound, and well written.
Once again, if you are going to take cheap shots at someone, at least know the target rather than “spray and pray.”
Q: Where is the income from Amazon and the like being deposited now, in an account of O’Keefe, or into PV? From the lawsuit, I’m presuming the first. Therefore PV had ample opportunity to assert their copyright claim upon the works already, and waited until now as they go sliding into bankruptcy to sue. The only reason I can see them doing this now is spite. If they can get their mitts on the copyrights before bankruptcy and have some Leftist drone buy them at pennies on the dollar, the books can be pulled from publication indefinitely. Social warfare on the cheap.
Yeah, seems vindictive v a genuine belief in the claim.
James O’Keefe was Project Veritas, and Project Veritas was James O’Keefe. Once JO departed, the existence of PV is a shell of its former self. He left and the donations did too, moving with him.
This isn’t similar to working for a company where an invention belongs to the company as intellectual property. A book does not need to be registered, since copyright recognizes that once an author puts a thought onto paper (or digitally) the intellectual property is the author.
Just because JO used PV employees to edit, provide research, etc., those acts don’t negate his thoughts. They may be able to charge for time spent or other expenses; but the thoughts are still his.
Even a ghost writer waives all claims to the author. Otherwise, the proceeds from the sale of Barack Obama’s books would go to someone other than him, for example.
Which would really be a problem, because Marxists like his ghost writer hate capitalism.
If the work is done under contract, it belongs to the contractor, not the contractee.
For instance, the photographs of Ansel Adams that he took under contract with the federal government were and are considered “public works,” and can be published by anyone. This is why you see some of his work poorly reproduced in some books. The Ansel Adams trust has strict requirements for those works of Adams’ that it licenses. It does not have similar control over those works he did under contract to the federal government.
I once had an employer try to claim copyright on photographs I took while on the job. I pointed out three things to them: 1.) I was not employed to take photographs, therefore the works were made incidentally to my employment, and not as part of it; 2.) that my employer, as a state agency, couldn’t claim copyright on any works made as a part of anyone’s employment (the works would automatically become “public” and freely reproducible – for profit – by anyone, including myself; and 3.) that they were treating me unfairly because they had never attempted to assert copyright over anyone else’s photographs, similarly made incidentally to their employment (group photos at conference, during office parties, etc.). I never heard another peep out of them.
It seems to me that this is a straight up copyright and contract issue. Either O’Keefe had a ‘work for hire’ agreement with PV at the time he wrote those books or he didn’t. If he didn’t, then he owns the copyright to those books. Or perhaps there was some subsequent agreement where he transferred ownership of that copyright to the PV organization, or he didn’t.
This is exactly correct.
Michele Boldrin on why intellectual property in general is a wrong-headed idea, podcast
https://www.econtalk.org/boldrin-on-intellectual-property/
Sounds to me PV was infiltrated by the Left in an attempt to shut him down by firing him and harassing with litigation in perpetuity if he tried to go on his own.
I have no idea if this is true or not, but I have much the same suspicions.
It seems to me that anyone with half a brain and finger on the pulse over there would know that removing O’Keefe would destroy PV irreparably.
A lot of firms have employment agreements that any work done on company time is the intellectual property of the company.
This is for good and fair reasons, as an employer I am not paying you to develop a second career as an author, software developer (code is copyrighted), inventor (patents are IP), etc. These disputes are common in these situations.
However, that being said, this is ridiculous. PV is done, it is not a large independent entity trying to settle sufficient debts for this to be anything other than petty, IMO.
As others have said, JOK was PV and vice-versa. That is the risk you have with a larger than life founder who commingles personal and professional activity, spending, etc – and the risk PV took by ousting him. These issues are not uncommon in these situations, and if PV cared about their nominal mission one whit they would move on.
I’m a fan of what JOK has done – and while I suspect he needs to become more professional and circumspect in his approach to some aspects of the management and operations of what he does from the more mundane aspects of running an entity (expense, policy, corporate by-laws, audit, employment agreements, etc) and would probably be critical of some of his decisions from a corporate governance – I wouldn’t want that to come at the cost of what he is doing or his being the brash effective warrior that he is.
Any donors going forward know what they are getting, and as long as he produces, don’t care. Nor do I – and everyone else involved in PV post-ouster has damaged themselves permanently.
I think they might be angling for a settlement, albeit a salvage one as I don’t think they could win anything close to what they are asking for.
O’Keefe seems to be delaying as long as possible as his side would want any terms to the settlement to only reflect future sales and not past since he will almost certainly not admit any wrongdoing in the original relationship that was defined when he himself filed a copyright.
The older a book gets, particularly non-fiction, the lower its sales tend to be.
So they have ANY donors left? Lol
They need to accept the “L” and move on.
If PV can show JOK was, in fact, under contract to produce intellectual material (writings), including books, for PV, then PV is the rightful claimant.
If PV loses on this issue (JOK having won on the copyright issue), but can show that JOK used company money/employees/resources in the books’ writing and promotion, they could possibly sue for compensation for such use.
I’m afraid if either set of facts (work under contract/use of company resources) is true, JOK can’t have it both ways. He either has to surrender the copyrights or he may be held accountable for the use of company resources. If the attorneys for PV are sharp, they’ll hit up JOK for compensation if they’re handed a loss on the copyright claim. For now, however, if their claims are accurate, JOK is on the short end of the copyright stick. (Yeah, is sucks, I know. But I call ’em like I see ’em.)
Seems like PV would have hit up O’Keefe through the years for what he owed them. Sounds to me like PV are scrapping for any funds they can get.
Sounds like a divorce case in some ways.
Wow! If you can’t run a business successfully, just find a way to rip off its original founder. The guy you shouldn’t have fired if you wanted the business to keep running. These new PV managers are mindblowingly stupid and petty.
All this brings to question — who actually owns PV? Is the current management of PV seeking to enrich itself? Who benefits from what they are doing?