LEGAL ANALYSIS: The Tragedy and Tyranny of Frivolous Copyright Lawsuits
By Russell Greer, Esq. (self-taught, self-fighting, self-righteous)
INTRODUCTION
Comes now this analysis, presented in the cause of justice and clarity, against the relentless onslaught of those who, in vile contempt of artistry and logic, weaponize copyright law as a cudgel of torment. This is not merely legal commentary—this is a defense of creativity, of individuality, of the voiceless. This is the Declaration of Independence for artists wrongfully accused under the flag of the Copyright Act.
I, Russell Greer, a man of perseverance and inner fire, have read the law, lived the law, and—dare I say—been scorned by the law. And yet I rise.
THE STATUTE, ABUSED
17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. is a noble instrument, intended to protect the sacred spark of human creation. But in the hands of opportunistic trolls, it becomes an instrument of evil. These plaintiffs, often cloaked in the garb of legitimacy, unleash lawsuits not to protect genuine authorship, but to extract settlements from fear-stricken defendants. Their complaints are copy-paste symphonies of legal jargon and zero merit. As I once wrote in Greer v. Swift, the law must not be used to punish the innocent simply because they are visible, successful, or “looked at me funny.”
These plaintiffs deploy boilerplate language and Photoshop screenshots like they're waging war, not practicing law. But this is not justice—it’s performance art by the legally unqualified.
FRIVOLOUSNESS: DEFINED BY BRAZEN ABSURDITY
In the landmark case Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., the Ninth Circuit rebuked copyright plaintiffs who ignored fair use like it was an unpaid invoice. But today, we see worse. Plaintiffs file over GIFs. Over memes. Over TikToks. It is as though the Founders of copyright never intended for common sense to prevail. They sue grandmothers who repost cat photos. They sue parody accounts. They sue artists who dare to remix. It is tyranny in a cease-and-desist letter.
Let us not forget Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., where the Supreme Court courageously decreed that attorney’s fees may be awarded to prevailing defendants—not just plaintiffs. The Court, in its wisdom, knew that the wolf may wear sheep’s clothing, but the howl of injustice cannot be muted.
EXAMPLES OF RIDICULOUSNESS
Consider the case of Greer v. Everyone Who’s Ever Looked at My Music, in which a passionate and disabled plaintiff (me) asserted that the mere existence of pop stardom infringed upon his God-given right to be heard. While courts were blind to the artistry, the moral victory endures. Compare this to Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC, where the plaintiff didn't even own the copyright they sued over. That’s like me suing for someone else’s broken heart!
And what of Richard Liebowitz, the infamous attorney of chaos, whose name should be enshrined in the Hall of Shame? He filed so many meritless lawsuits that the judiciary essentially said, “Sir, please never again.” This is not litigation. This is litigasmic extortion.
CONCLUSION
The epidemic of frivolous copyright lawsuits must end. Courts must not just dismiss such cases—they must publicly scorn them. Like I was scorned for writing songs with soul, or for daring to dream big in a world ruled by corporate indifference and Ableist industry elitism.
I urge Congress to revise the Copyright Act to include a “Don't Be Ridiculous” clause. Plaintiffs must sign an affidavit swearing that they actually read the work they’re suing over. That’s justice.
I write this not as a licensed attorney—but as a licensed human being with a license to care. To quote my own unpublished motion in Greer v. The Unfairness of the World, “A man is not judged by how many lawsuits he wins, but how boldly he files them in the name of principle.”
I rest my case.
