Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
A clash between the commercial rights of a scientist and the free speech rights of a critic is heading to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. At issue is whether the critic can post copyrighted materials he obtained only after someone else breached a confidentiality agreement and provided him with proprietary information to which he had no right. Judge Thomas J. McAvoy of the Northern District of New York recently came down squarely in favor of the critic, and the plaintiffs are now seeking a beeline to Foley Square, where they hope to focus on the commercial implications rather than the free speech aspects of the case. NXIVM Corp. v. The Ross Institute,No. 03-CV-1051, arises from an unusual and contentious battle between an innovator who runs an upscale executive training program and a professional cult-tracker. The case distills to whether the cult monitor’s use of proprietary materials constitutes fair use for protected criticism or impermissible exploitation of intellectual property. The NXIVM Corp. operates what it describes as a human potential academy, previously known as Executive Success Programs Inc., where executives, lawyers, and others obtain training in advanced cognitive processes. It is run by Keith Raniere, a prodigy who obtained degrees in mathematics, physics, and biology from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and was once included in the Guinness Book of World Recordsunder the “highest IQ” category. His company is based near Albany, N.Y. Raniere’s “executive success” program costs up to $10,000 for a five-day course and attracts business professionals and government leaders from around the world. However, his sometimes unorthodox practices — students bow to him, wear special garments denoting their respective rank in the school, and address Raniere as “Vanguard” — attracted the attention of Richard Ross. Ross operates an entity called the Ross Institute, which is dedicated to exposing cults and cultist movements. The Ross Institute has been critical of the NXIVM Corp., and its Web site has repeatedly characterized NXIVM as a mind-bending and potentially dangerous cult. What might have been a generic defamation action — Raniere strenuously objects to the characterization of his organization as a cult — took another turn when a former student, Stephanie Franco of Deal, N.J., violated a confidentiality agreement she signed and provided proprietary course materials to Ross. Ross disseminated those materials to two mental health experts who wrote critical articles on Raniere’s program. Those articles, posted on Ross’ Web site ( www.rickross.com), quote extensively from and rely on the materials provided by Franco. Lawyers for Raniere sued and moved before McAvoy for a preliminary injunction. Kevin Luibrand of Tobin and Dempf in Albany, appearing for Raniere, asked the court to enforce the confidentiality agreement signed by Franco, and to extend those restrictions to Ross and his allies. Luibrand also cited the Lanham Act, which allows actions for commercial disparagement and argued that the First Amendment does not serve as both a shield and a sword, and does not trump the legitimate business concerns of his client, especially where the materials at issue were improperly obtained. “Defendants attempt to now clothe their unlawful acquisition, distortion and publication of plaintiffs’ material as sacred First Amendment right is a mockery to that freedom,” Luibrand said in court papers. Arlen Olsen of Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts in Latham, N.Y., also represents the plaintiffs. In an interview, Luibrand says the case has important commercial implications because his client did everything within its legal power to protect the privacy and value of its intellectual property, and McAvoy said that is not enough. The company “trademarked portions of the material. It copyrighted every page of the material. It has a patent pending on the ideas that go into the materials. And anyone who had access to the materials in a legitimate way had to sign a confidentiality agreement. . . . Yet the court’s decision leaves no remedy available to the company to prevent further release of its materials,” Luibrand says. On the other side, Thomas Gleason of Gleason Dunn Walsh & O’Shea in Albany, who is defending the Ross Institute, argues that Raniere has no basis for a restraining order. He suggests that Raniere’s true aim is to stifle critical commentary, which is central to the First Amendment, by concealing a defamation action under the cloak of copyright infringement and the Lanham Act. MOTION DENIED McAvoy ordered Franco to stop sharing NXIVM materials with anyone other than her attorney, Anthony Sylvester of Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti in Morristown, N.J., and his surrogates. However, he otherwise denied Raniere’s motion. The court said that Ross is not in competition with Raniere. McAvoy said the quotes lifted from Raniere’s protected materials were necessary to convey the point of the criticism. “From the allegations and arguments, it’s clear that the essence of plaintiffs’ complaint is that they’re being harmed by the conclusion that they are a cult,” McAvoy said, according to a transcript of a hearing in September. “This opinion is not enjoinable absent extraordinary circumstances, which is not present here. An injunction which may impose a prior restraint on speech is strongly disfavored.” Raniere is seeking prompt review by the 2nd Circuit, arguing that continuing publication of his copyrighted property unfairly infringes his commercial rights. “[O]ur material is not only copied, but also distorted,” Raniere said in an affidavit. “This false story with our copyrighted material released to the public through international media can never be completely reversed. If this is not in the least stopped it is possible it will destroy us.” Gleason, counsel for Ross, says the plaintiff’s argument would carry more weight if his client were running a rival institute. Even then, Gleason maintains, free speech protections would apply if Ross was using the materials to criticize a competitor rather than appropriate a competitor’s product or intellectual property. “I don’t know that it would be totally different from a constitutional point of view because I don’t think your free speech status would be related to your status as your competitor,” Gleason says. “But it would cast a cloud on the nature of the fair use claim because if he could make a credible claim of appropriation or piracy it would strengthen it. But when it is used for purposes of criticism . . . I still think you have free speech coverage.” Luibrand disagrees, arguing that it makes no difference if the improperly obtained materials are praised, criticized, or released without comment. He says the intellectual property invariably devalues once it is placed in the public domain and Raniere loses control of its use — control to which he is entitled through the trademarks, copyrights, and pending patent. The seminal case on the issue, or a similar issue, involved former President Gerald Ford. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court found The Nationguilty of copyright infringement after it quoted extensively from a manuscript of Ford’s then-unpublished memoirs. In Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises,471 U.S. 539, the Court rejected The Nation‘s argument that it was merely reporting the news. Although The Nation,like Ross, only ran a relatively small portion of Ford’s work, it distributed “the heart” of the book in violation of the publisher’s copyright. John Caher is a reporter for theNew York Law Journal, an American Lawyer Media newspaper in which this article first appeared.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.