Internet Lawyer Blog

Bullying has plagued people of all ages for many generations. Now, with the expansion of the Internet, bullies are able to threaten and harass people at an even greater level through cyberbullying. Stopbullying.gov, a government supported website aimed at spreading awareness, defines cyberbullying as any bullying that involves electronic technology such as computers and cell phones. Instances of cyberbullying aimed towards adults are generally referred to as cyber-harassment or cyber-stalking, whereas cyberbullying generally refers to harassment directed towards children.

Since cyberbullying can largely remain anonymous, it can be very difficult to trace the harassment back to a specific user. The effects of cyberbullying also last longer because the inappropriate posts or messages may be difficult to delete and therefore, have a permanent presence on the Internet. Cyberbullying is also not reserved to the Internet, since cyber-bullies often also target their victims in person. However, due to the expansive nature of the Internet, victims face cyberbullying at all times of the day.

Examples of this harassment includes sending vulgar or threatening messages directly to another person, posting inappropriate information about another person online, pretending to be another person online with the intent of ruining a reputation, posting inappropriate pictures of another person online, harassing another person with a multitude of text messages, or hacking into another person's online account. Cyberbullying can take place through email, in online chatrooms, on webpages, or through text messages. Advanced features on social networking sites have also led to increased avenues for cyberbullying. For example, the ability to tag other people in a picture on Facebook has led to instances of cyber-bullies posting inappropriate pictures of other people and tagging them in these pictures.

The unfortunate case of Megan Meier, a 13-year-old girl from Missouri who committed suicide in 2006, brought national attention to the devastating effects of cyberbullying. Megan's neighbor, Lori Drew - an adult female, impersonated a teenage boy on MySpace, a social networking site, and engaged in a relationship with Megan. The relationship ended with a fight and the boy proceeded to post online that the world would be a better place without Megan. Megan hung herself a short time after.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services suggests certain steps that can help prevent and end cyberbullying. For example, parents should make sure to listen to their children's complaints of bullying in order to take proper steps to end the harassment. The Department of Health and Human Services also suggests that victims of cyberbullying should not respond to harassing posts. Instead, they should make sure to save the posts and report them to the appropriate service provider. Service providers may help locate cyber-bullies. Cyberbullying may be criminal in nature if it involves violent threats, extortion, constant telephone calls or text messages, stalking, hate crimes, or child pornography. In these cases, victims may engage the appropriate law enforcement agencies such as the Police or FBI.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

The content of an online search result for an individual generates a profile of the individual. Such content paints a picture for potential employers and colleagues, and the information may not be ideal. Therefore, in order to protect your online reputation and your overall image, it is important to take certain steps to monitor your online content.

First, signing up for social networks like Facebook and LinkedIn allows you to control the content that a web search will produce. Personalized Facebook and LinkedIn pages show up as the first results of a Google online search. This controls the content that attaches to your online reputation.

Andy Beal, who co-authored Radically Transparent: Monitoring and Managing Reputations Online, suggests that people should monitor their online reputation the same way they monitor their credit. This helps catch defamatory online postings in time to prevent a damaging reputation from solidifying. Beal suggests setting up a news feed that notifies individuals when their name is mentioned in an online posting. Google provides this option through Google Alerts, which will accomplish this for full name searches.

Beal also suggests that it is important to register names as a domain name and register for all possible social networks. This prevents against unauthorized impersonations and maintains a presence on the Internet. A Google search will produce all of these social networking pages first, which also allows you to control the content that is available online. Furthermore, if there is unfavorable content on the Internet, it is possible to "crowd out" the content with your own, approved content.

Additionally, it is also important to remember to take online postings seriously. Beal explained that 35% of recruiters have turned down candidates based on their online reputation. Certainly any derogatory remarks about jobs and current employers will have negative implications.

Google has also introduced the option to generate individual Google+ Profiles that will appear as the first item of an online search. The profile links to individual names, photos, contact information, and employment history so that individuals can control the content of an online search and their individual online reputations. As Eric Kopelman, an Internet advertising professional, explains, a person's "name is their brand" and it is important to protect your brand.

Protecting online identity is also important to prevent against identity theft. When filling out online registration forms, it helps to limit the information you provide to only the required fields. Also, enabling a browser's "lock" feature, ensures secure website connections. In instances of online transactions and purchases, this prevents against hacking and helps ensure that personal information such as names and account numbers remain safe.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in matters related to Internet and Cyber law transactions and litigation by using legal knowledge and skills to create solutions for our clients. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

The expansion of the Internet is leading towards an increase in suits for defamation, as more people are able to freely publish their opinions on the Internet and reach a worldwide audience.

A claim for defamation involves an untrue statement that damages a person's reputation. Defamation in written or printed form is categorized as libel, while defamation involving oral statements is categorized as slander.

The elements required for a defamation claim come under question in light of the expansion of the Internet because the Internet gives the average consumer broad freedom to post opinions regarding, among others, people, corporations, events, and politics. Furthermore, the nature of the Internet allows worldwide exposure of a common consumer's opinion, and such a posting may remain on the Internet almost endlessly. Furthermore, since most controversial cyber-postings are anonymous, parties wishing to pursue an Internet defamation claim face the unique obstacle of identifying the party that caused the harm.

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 and subsequent case law further redefined Internet defamation claims. Specifically, according to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, generally Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") can no longer be liable for information or defamatory statements that users publish online. However, ISPs may be required to remove defamatory content from websites under a court order and provide identification information for any individuals responsible for the publication.

Perhaps most noteworthy, it is important to remember that an Internet defamation claim is subject to a statute of limitations. A statute of limitations determines how long a plaintiff has to bring a suit. Different jurisdictions have different time spans regarding how long a party has to bring suit. A claim is null and void once the period specified in the respective jurisdiction runs out. Generally, in the case of Internet defamation claims, the period of time begins to run once the defamatory posting first appears online.

In an Internet defamation case in 2006, a court awarded a woman $11.3 million over a posting that accused the woman of being a "crook, " a "con artist," and a "fraud." In a more recent defamation case, a court award a couple over $13 million for a couple who sued an anonymous commentator who accused them of various deviant behavior.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide California consumers and businesses in matters related to the Internet and Cyberspace by using legal knowledge and skills to create solutions for our clients. Please contact us today online or at (310) 694-3034 to set up a confidential consultation.

We have submitted a petition to ask Congress to review and modify section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in order to limit the protection granted to interactive online services, such as news websites, blogs, forums, and listservs. Also, Congress should set new policies and procedures for interactive online services to confirm the true identity of their users and members. This confirmation of a user's or member's true identity promotes protection against bogus statements made against innocent individuals and prevents the victimization of businesses.

This petition should be signed because consumers and businesses are facing various problems such as defamation, harassment, or retaliation by anonymous users on interactive online services without recourse and protection. Unfortunately, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants broad immunity to interactive online services. By doing so, such immunity tilts the scale of justice and creates an unreasonable result for innocent individuals who are being targeted by anonymous users and have no remedy for protection.

Please visit this link, review and sign it if you are willing to support our request for change in legislation.

What is personal jurisdiction? It is the court's authority to determine a claim affecting a specific person. Generally, providing any type of data or information on the world-wide-web (i.e., Internet) is insufficient to subject a person to personal jurisdiction in each state wherein the date or information is accessed. However, a nonresident's online activity, must be expressly targeted at, or directed to, the forum state in order to establish minimum contacts necessary to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction. In general, personal jurisdiction may not be exercised against a nonresident whose website was not directed toward any state.

If a non-resident defendant publishes statements that fall under the category of defamatory comments concerning the plaintiff on a website, the effects of which were clearly directed at the forum state, result in sufficient contact with the forum to warrant the assertion of jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant. On the other hand, the publication of defamatory comments concerning the plaintiff on a website is not, by itself enough to support the exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant (e.g., when an article was not specifically directed to residents in the forum state, or was not primarily directed at the plaintiff in that state).

Our readers must keep in mind that the tort of defamation can be committed in the jurisdiction (i.e., the state), even if the message was not directed there, if it has effects in that state.

Generally, a court may assert jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a patent infringement action wherein the defendant's website was directed at the forum state. Courts have also found, under particular circumstances, that a defendant's web activity was directed at the forum state, supporting the court's assertion of jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant in an action for breach of contract. Even though a defendant's marketing did not specifically target customers in the forum state, and its business process was completely automated, long-arm jurisdiction may still be based on a finding that it was exploiting that state's market.

Also, if a person routes his/her customer's e-mail through another's mail server (with the knowledge that the unauthorized traffic was causing problems for that person) is evidence showing that defendant purposefully directed his/her conduct at the forum state and can be a basis on which to assert jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant.

If you have any further questions or concerns, contact the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh for a consultation.

In the recent years, online harassment or cyberharassment has become an important issue. This is because the Internet has changed our lives on so many levels. Generally, the law prohibits harassment and our readers should consider taking certain precautions when being harassed.

Cyberharassment is different from cyberstalking because it does not involve a credible threat. Cyberharassment occurs when someone sends harassing email messages, instant messages, or posts entries simply to torment another person. Different jurisdictions have different approaches in addressing cyberharassment in codifying their laws. For example, some include language addressing electronic communications in general harassment statutes. However, some states have created stand-alone cyberharassment statutes.

California Penal Code section 653.2 subsection (a) states that, "[e]very person who, with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of the other person's immediate family, by means of an electronic communication device, and without consent of the other person, and for the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment, by a third party, electronically distributes, publishes, e-mails, hyperlinks, or makes available for downloading, personal identifying information, including, but not limited to, a digital image of another person, or an electronic message of a harassing nature about another person, which would be likely to incite or produce that unlawful action, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail, by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

See California Penal Code section 422 related to hate crimes. See also California Penal Code section 653m for more information.

In the recent years, numerous Internet forums (aka "online message boards") have provided a place for Internet users to discuss issues, entities/companies, and persons or individuals, who are often disguised in some form of anonymity. Sometimes, the targets of disparaging comments react by filing lawsuits in state or federal courts against unidentified ("John Doe") defendants for claims such as violation of securities laws, breach of confidentiality agreement, and libel. Generally, in such disputes subpoenas are submitted to the message board hosts so to identify the authors. Notwithstanding the various challenges, the courts differ in their treatment of such subpoenas.

For example, see Jon Hart & Michael Rothberg, Anonymous Internet Postings Pit Free Speech Against Accountability, WSJ.com (March 6, 2002).

In Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, 170 P.3d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) Mobilisa, a communications company, filed a complaint against numerous "John Doe" defendants who had submitted an anonymous e-mail to Mobilisa's management team about the company's founder and CFO's conducts. Thereafter, Mobilisa attempted to compel The Suggestion Box, which was the service provider through which the e-mail was submitted, so to obtain the person's identity who had submitted the e-mail. The trial court granted Mobilisa's request and ordered The Suggestion Box to reveal the identities of the anonymous senders. Thereafter, The Suggestion Box and the senders of the e-mail appealed the trial court's decision.

The Arizona court of appeals ruled that a court considering a request to require disclosure of the identity of an anonymous speaker must consider three factors: (1) whether the defendant was given adequate notice and opportunity to respond to the request, (2) whether the plaintiff's cause of action can survive a motion for summary judgment on elements not dependent on the speaker's identity, and (3) whether a balance of the competing interests weighs in favor of disclosure. Because the trial court considered only the first two factors, the court remanded the case to the trial court to consider the third factor.

Also, in Columbia Insurance Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal.1999), plaintiff attempted to sue anonymous defendants for registering the plaintiff's trademark as the defendants' domain name. The court would not issue a temporary restraining order against the defendants until they were properly served with the complaint, which required the plaintiff to identify the anonymous defendants. Balancing the public interest in providing injured parties with a forum to seek redress for grievances against the legitimate and valuable right to participate in online forums anonymously, the court formulated a four-part test for deciding when to permit discovery to uncover the identity of an anonymous defendant before a complaint has been served.

The district court held that plaintiff must: (1) identify the anonymous defendant with sufficient specificity to allow the court to determine that the defendant is a real person or entity that could be sued in federal court; (2) identify all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant; (3) establish to the court's satisfaction that the plaintiff's suit against the defendant has sufficient merit to withstand a motion to dismiss; and (4) file a request for discovery with the court, along with a statement of reasons justifying the specific discovery requested, and must identify a limited number of persons or entities from which the plaintiff could take discovery that might lead to identifying information making service of process on the defendant possible.

As readers can see, a claimant who is seeking to discover the identity of an anonymous Internet user and seek damages, must prove several elements. Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns relating to this topic.

Pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, no provider of an interactive computer service may be treated as the publisher of information provided by another information content provider. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). The term "interactive computer service" means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

Generally, holding a website operator as the publisher of an allegedly libelous statement by a third party violates the Act. See Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998). Accordingly, the standard pursuant to Zeran is that when an online service provider receives a retraction demand regarding statements the service provider did not write, the demanding party should be re-directed to the third-party originator (i.e., the person who originally wrote the defamatory statement).

California's Retraction Statute under Cal. Civ. Code § 48a states that:

1. In any action for damages for the publication of a libel in a newspaper, or of a slander by radio broadcast, plaintiff shall recover no more than special damages unless a correction be demanded and be not published or broadcast, as hereinafter provided. Plaintiff shall serve upon the publisher, at the place of publication or broadcaster at the place of broadcast, a written notice specifying the statements claimed to be libelous and demanding that the same be corrected. Said notice and demand must be served within 20 days after knowledge of the publication or broadcast of the statements claimed
to be libelous.

2. If a correction be demanded within said period and be not published or broadcast in substantially as conspicuous a manner in said newspaper or on said broadcasting station as were the statements claimed to be libelous, in a regular issue thereof published or broadcast within three weeks after such service, plaintiff, if he pleads and proves such notice, demand and failure to correct, and if his cause of action be maintained, may recover general, special and exemplary damages; provided that no exemplary damages may be recovered unless the plaintiff shall prove that defendant made the publication or broadcast with actual malice and then only in the discretion of the court or jury, and actual malice shall not be inferred or presumed from the publication or broadcast.

3. A correction published or broadcast in substantially as conspicuous a manner in said newspaper or on said broadcasting station as the statements claimed in the complaint to be libelous, prior to receipt of a demand therefor, shall be of the same force and effect as though such correction had been published or broadcast within three weeks after a demand therefor.

4. As used herein, the terms "general damages," "special damages," "exemplary damages" and "actual malice," are defined as follows:

(a) "General damages" are damages for loss of reputation, shame, mortification and hurt feelings;

(b) "Special damages" are all damages which plaintiff alleges and proves that he has suffered in respect to his property, business, trade, profession or occupation, including such amounts of money as the plaintiff alleges and proves he has expended as a result of the alleged libel, and no other;

(c) "Exemplary damages" are damages which may in the discretion of the court or jury be recovered in addition to general and special damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing a defendant who has made the publication or broadcast with actual malice;

(d) "Actual malice" is that state of mind arising from hatred or ill will toward the plaintiff; provided, however, that such a state of mind occasioned by a good faith belief on the part of the defendant in the truth of the libelous publication or broadcast at the time it is published or broadcast shall not constitute actual malice.

A defamatory statement is one that injures the reputation of another. The common-law torts of libel and slander punish the publication of statements that are both defamatory and false. Generally, a libelous statement is a false and defamatory statement published in writing. A slanderous statement is a false and defamatory statement expressed orally. False and defamatory oral statements broadcasted over the radio or television are now widely considered libel, rather than slander. In some cases, money damages may be awarded to compensate the victim of libel or slander for the reputational injury caused by publication of the false and defamatory statement.

However, in recent years there has been significant tension between the common-law protections of reputation and the mandate of the First Amendment to the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . ."

To ensure that debate on public issues remains "uninhibited, robust and wide-open," New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964), the United States Supreme Court has found that the First Amendment limits the circumstances under which a speaker or publisher may be punished for making false and defamatory statements: "Neither lies nor false communications serve the ends of the First Amendment . . . [b]ut to insure the ascertainment and publication of the truth about public affairs, it is essential that the First Amendment protect some erroneous publications as well as true ones." St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 732 (1968).

As such, in order to recover for libel or slander, a plaintiff must establish not only that: (1) defendant published a defamatory statement; (2) statement was made about the plaintiff; and (3) the statement was demonstrably false; but a plaintiff must also prove that the statement was made with "fault."

The degree of fault plaintiff must establish depends on whether the plaintiff is a public official or public figure, or a private figure. A public official or public figure must establish constitutional "actual malice" (i.e., publication with knowledge of falsity or subjective awareness of probable falsity). A private figure need only demonstrate that the wrongdoer/defendant was "at fault" in publishing the false statement at issue and a showing of negligence is sufficient in most states.

For more information see: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 732 (1968); Gertz v. Robert Welch, 418 U.S. 323, 347 (1974); Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 768 (1986); and Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990).

The issue of online service provider liability comes up often in today's high-tech world. In order to promote free discussion and private investment in the Internet, the United States Congress immunized providers of "interactive computer service[s]" against liability arising out of content provided for publication by any other "information content provider." See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230. This section does not limit the application of intellectual property laws or criminal laws, but it protects Internet service providers and website operators against a broad range of tort, contract, and other claims arising out of content created by third parties.

Section 230(c)(2)(A) states that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of...any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

Section 230(c)(2)(B), provides immunity for "any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to [such material]." The immunity offered under Section 230(c)(2) is also referred to as the "Good Samaritan" protection.

Generally, most courts have applied the protection of Section 230 broadly, ruling that ISPs (e.g., AT&T, TimeWarner, AOL) and those operating websites enjoy immunity from liability. Stated otherwise, as long as the material complained of was written by a third party, rather than an agent or employee of the ISP or website, the ISP or website is immune from liability. In addition, the operator of a website may choose to exercise control over the content of its site by removing or editing content provided by third parties without becoming liable as the "publisher" of the third-party statements.

In 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that even if a publisher or website is put on notice that it is distributing a libelous statement posted by a third party, it cannot be held liable for failure to remove the statement. The court also held that the scope of Section 230 extends to "any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service." See Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998).

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment limits common-law defamation claims brought by public officials. The Court held that to recover for publication of a defamatory falsehood, a public official must prove that the challenged statement was "of and concerning" the public official plaintiff, that the statement was false, and that the defendant acted with "actual malice." The Court defined "actual malice" as publication with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether the statement was false or not.

Later, the Supreme Court extended the standard announced in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to defamation cases brought by "public figures." Public figures include individuals who voluntarily inject themselves into public controversy, as well as those who are involuntarily thrust into the limelight, even if only with respect to a particular activity or incident.

A private-figure defamation plaintiff can recover damages based on the defendant's negligence (or a more speech-protective standard, under the law of some states). In no instance, however, can a private-figure plaintiff recover damages for defamation without a showing of fault amounting to, at least, negligence. Any lesser standard, the Supreme Court concluded, would unduly burden free speech. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347 (1974). And, at least when the speech relates to an issue of public concern, a private-figure plaintiff must bear the burden of proving falsity; the defendant speaker is not obligated to prove the truth of the challenged statements. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 768 (1986).

A defamatory statement is one that injures the reputation of another. The common-law torts of libel and slander punish the publication of statements that are both defamatory and false. Money damages may be awarded to compensate the victim of libel or slander for the reputational injury caused by publication of the false and defamatory statement.

A libelous statement was traditionally a false and defamatory statement published in writing. A slanderous statement is a false and defamatory statement expressed orally. False and defamatory oral statements broadcast over radio or television are now widely considered libel, rather than slander.

Click here to review Sections 44-48 of the California Civil Code.

To reconcile the tension between libel law, which punishes speech, and the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances under which a publisher may be punished for making false and defamatory statements.

A libel plaintiff must prove that the challenged statement is false; the publisher does not have the burden of proving truth.

A plaintiff that is a public official or a public figure can only recover for libel if he/she/it can prove that the defendant published the defamatory statement either with knowledge that the statement was false or with serious subjective doubt about the truth of the statement.

A private figure plaintiff must prove, at a minimum, that the defendant was negligent in publishing the allegedly defamatory falsehood.

Courts have long distinguished among those who publish or republish a defamatory statement, those who deliver or transmit material published by a third party, and those who merely provide facilities used by a third party to publish defamatory material.

"Publishers," such as newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters, control the content of their publications and are, accordingly, held legally responsible for any libelous material they publish.

"Distributors," such as bookstores, libraries, and newsstands, cannot be held liable for a statement contained in the materials they distribute unless they knew or had reason to know of the defamatory statement at issue. Distributors are under no duty to examine the publications that
they offer for sale or distribution to ascertain whether they contain defamatory statements.

Common carriers, such as telephone companies and Internet service providers, which do no more than provide facilities by which third parties may communicate, cannot be held liable for defamatory statements communicated through those facilities unless they have participated in preparing the defamatory material.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes the provider of an "interactive computer service" from being held liable as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by "another information content provider." With only a few exceptions, courts have interpreted Section 230 broadly, immunizing publishers from liability for freelance content, bulletin-board postings, and other third-party content. Also, click here for more information.

No other country enjoys defamation laws that are as speech-protective as those of the United States. A number of U.S. publishers have been sued for libel in foreign jurisdictions based on statements published on their websites, which are accessible worldwide.

Many states have retraction statutes that protect writers and publishers by requiring that a potential libel plaintiff give notice before filing suit to allow the publisher and/or the writer to issue a clarification, correction, or retraction, if warranted. Depending on the state, publishing a retraction that conforms to the statutory requirements can reduce the damages available to the plaintiff or even bar a libel claim completely.

It is not clear that all categories of online "publication" fit within the definitions of such statutes. However, courts have indicated that the closer an online publication is in form and content to a protected "traditional" printed publication, the more likely the online publisher will be protected under the retraction statute. Similarly, the more broadly the statute is written, the more likely "new" media publishers will be able to argue successfully that the statute applies to them.

Courts have ruled that an electronic version of a print original does not constitute "republication." Archived copies of original publications are likewise part of the original publication (and not separate "republications").