Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC
2011 US copyright infringement case
Righthaven LLC. v. Democratic Underground LLC, 791 F. Supp. 2d 968 (D. Nev. 2011), was a copyright infringement case which determined that a contract giving a party right to sue on behalf of a copyright holder does not give the party legal standing to file such lawsuits. This case is one of over 200 similar cases filed by Righthaven against media outlets using content from Stephens Media. Judge Roger L. Hunt ruled that Righthaven lacked standing to file a copyright infringement suit and ordered Righthaven to show cause within two weeks why it should not be sanctioned for failure to disclose Stephens Media as an interested party.
Background
Democratic Underground (DU) is a website devoted to disseminating and discussing political news and progressive principles. It is run by David Allen. On May 13, 2010, a DU user identified by the name "Pampango" posted a portion of an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal about the polling status of several candidates running in the Republican Senate primary in Nevada. The excerpt posted contained 5 of the article's 50 sentences and linked back to the Las Vegas Review-Journal's website.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC” is 2011 US copyright infringement case. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Righthaven, Democratic and Underground, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “2011 US copyright infringement case” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 30, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7333744. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2011 and 2010.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC primary sources, Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC archive and Righthaven research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.