Project Veritas Sues To Get Copyrights On James O’Keefe’s 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:

[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 Author90. 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 XIIIDECLARATION 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.

————–

Tags: James O'Keefe, Project Veritas

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY