COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CASES FILED BY STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC



 A core element of copyright infringement is a 'copying' of the protected components of the work. Strike 3 carries the burden to prove the John Does infringed the copyrights.

JOHN DOE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUITS

Did You Received a Subpoena from Strike 3? 

It’s been noticed that in the recent months, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, also known as an adult entertainment corporation, has gone around filing copyright infringement suits in the Texas. You will find that Strike 3 files a subpoena to the John Doe’s (defendant) internet service provider (ISP) in an attempt to uncover their identity. These John Doe subjects are accused of using BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file-sharing site and infringing upon Strike 3’s copyrights.


Once the ISP receives the subpoena, they send notice to the subscriber informing them of the lawsuit. The ISP presents a deadline to file a Motion to Quash or else they turn over the personal identification. If this is the case, Strike 3 will then file an amended complaint containing the John Doe’s identification. 

What Happens If You Get a Notice From Your Internet Service Provider Regarding Strike 3 Holdings, LLC?

As always, you have options. With each option, there comes its own pros and cons.


  1. You can file a Motion to Quash: You can opt for this option to prevent your ISP from giving out your personal information. If the motion is granted, Strike 3 can not obtain the personal information. Therefore, cannot proceed with the lawsuit. However, if the motion is denied, Strike 3 will gain access to the individual’s identification and will resubmit their complaint. It will be up to the court to decide whether the Motion to Quash will be approved or denied, as of now, it’s proven that EDVA has been denying these motions.
  2. You can settle: This will be dependent on different factors. For starters, the amount in which Strike 3 in claiming for the infringement. Also, the location the IP address is located plays a role. Other instances like, financial hardship, and military status can impact this process as well. Ultimately, if you have received a letter from your ISP regarding a Strike 3 lawsuit, it’s best to get in contact with an experienced attorney that can aggressively negotiate and get your case settled.
  3. You can fight the case in court: If Strike 3 happens to obtain your personal information and resubmits an amended complaint, you always have the option of going to court and pleading your case. You should consider the time and cost that go into a litigation suit, but it may be worth it. 

What To Do If You Are Sued by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC?

If you received a notice from your internet service provider pertaining to a Strike 3 lawsuit, you should immediately consult a lawyer and consider making all of your social media accounts private since Strike 3 tries to use publicly available information in their suits. Do not deleted your accounts, or any material in the accounts, but do make them private.


As a defendant in any case, but particularly a Strike 3 case, it’s crucial to have an attorney that understands the nuances of cases like these. The attorneys here at Wilson Whitaker Rynell have experience in negotiating, settling, and defending against cases like those brought by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC.

a blue and orange check mark with the letter w on it as the Wilson Legal Group Logo

17 U.S.C Section 512(H) Subpoena Focus 

Mechanism for Identifying Infringers

The procedural mechanism by which Movant requested the Subpoena at issue is found in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”)—17 U.S.C. section 512(h). This section of the DMCA specifically relates to and is entitled “Subpoena To Identify Infringer.” The purpose of §512(h) is precisely that—to provide a mechanism for “[a] copyright owner or a person authorized to act on the [copyright] owner’s behalf … to issue a subpoena to a service provider for identification of an alleged infringer…” 17 U.S.C. §512(h)(1).


Courts have found that “[u]nder § 512, one must assert ownership of an exclusive copyright, § 512(c)(3)(A)(i), and a good faith belief that the use of copyrighted material is not authorized, § 512(c)(3)(A)(v). In other words, the subpoena notification must establish ownership and unauthorized use—a prima facie case of copyright infringement.” In re Verizon Internet Servs, Inc., 257 F. Supp. 2d 244, 263 (D.D.C. 2003), rev'd sub nom. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs, Inc., 351 F.3d 1229 (D.C. Cir. 2003).


CLIENT MATTERS


5,000+


YEARS OF SERVICE

 25+

Award Winning

Recognized in the legal industry as dedicated board-certified lawyers and Rising Stars.

Expert Team

Your project will be handled by legal experts every time. You will have the most experienced attorneys working for you. 

Quality Representation

You’ll find the support you need to ensure that things run smoothly. We’re here to help with all your legal needs.

Meet Our Team

View All
A person is holding a cell phone in front of a book titled artificial intelligence
By John Wilson February 19, 2025
Copyright and Translated Content: Who Owns the Creative Rights? Understanding Copyright Law and Translation Copyright law protects creative work and bestows sole authority over the work upon the creators. For example, the owner of the work of a novel has the right over the work under the concept of the right under the copyright. Courts have found that “the degree of protection afforded by the copyright is measured by what is actually copyrightable in the publication and not by the entire publication.” See, e.g., Dorsey v. Old Sur. Life Ins. Co., 98 F.2d 872, 873 (10th Cir. 1938) (emphasis added). For translations, the situation is not very clear. Translations involve creative judgments over word translation and not the translation of mere words. Hence the knowledge about the applicability of the concept of the right over the work is essential for establishing the right over the work. For example, a Court in the Northern District of California stated that: “ the determinative question is whether Plaintiff holds a valid copyright. ” Signo Trading Intern. Ltd. v. Gordon, 535 F. Supp. 362, 363 (N.D. Cal. 1981). The Signo Trading Court dismissed Plaintiff’s infringement claims because plaintiff did not have a valid copyright as a matter of law in the translations and transliterations at issue because they lacked the “requisite originality.” Id. at 365. Can Translation Be Considered a Creative Process? The Practice of Translating Translation goes beyond the replacement of one word by the equivalent word from the source text. Translating literary work, poetry, and fiction with deeper meanings beyond the surface text is a complex, artistic process. Translating books like The Iliad, for instance, requires the practice of artistic translation to translate the emotions, thoughts, and the culture correctly. Technical Translations and Legal Translations Conversely, technical writing and texts for the law need less creativity and instead value correctness over all else. These writing forms require strict adherence to the original sense, leaving very little room for artistic interpretation. Translations for these writing forms thus typically involve less creative contribution and less potential for the work being protected by copyright. Why Is Creativity Important for Translations for Copyright? Originality when translating For a work to be subject to copyright, some creativity, however slight, is essential. Even when the translation is taken from the work, the translation also includes some creative work by the translator. This creativity can make the translation subject to copyright. A derivative work must “recast, transform[], or adapt[]” a preexisting work and “consist[] of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship.” Id. In other words, it must change or alter the pre-existing work’s content and must itself be an original work of authorship. The Supreme Court stated that “ [t]he sine qua non of copyright is originality ” and that “ [t]o qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. ” Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991) at 345. “Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.” Id. (citing 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright §§ 2.01[A], [B] (1990)). In granting a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, the Signo Trading Court held that: " It is inconceivable that anyone could copyright a single word or a commonly used short phrase, in any language. It is also inconceivable that a valid copyright could be obtained for a phonetic spelling, using standard Roman letters, of such words or phrases. Although lists of words and translations of larger works may be copyrightable, Plaintiff cannot claim credit for any of the elements which make those things copyrightable. For these reasons, Plaintiff does not hold a valid copyright on the translations or transliterations ... " Signo Trading, 535 F. Supp. at 365. The Problem of the Derivative Work However, translations are generally "derivative works" - derived from the work of another. Because of this, the owner or author of the work is generally required to agree to the translation. Translations made illegally can be held under the classification of copyright violations, even when the translator has added creative elements. Who Has the Right over the Translated Work? Employer-Commissioned Translations Ownership of the copyright for the translation work varies. If the translation is commissioned by the owner of the original work, the owner will retain the right. Even when the translator adds creativity by passing over the original emotions and thoughts, the owner will not necessarily lose the right over the translation work. In some circumstances, the translation work can be accredited by the translator without them holding the right over the work. Independent Translations If a translation is performed independently by the translator, the translator can even be identified as the co-author of the translation. Nevertheless, the author typically has the underlying copyright, restricting the translator’s right over the work. Creative Translations from the Public Domain In certain cases, a translation may be creative enough to warrant its own copyright. For example, a translator adapting a classic work or a book in the public domain into modern language may introduce enough originality to qualify for copyright protection. However, direct, word-for-word translations are typically not considered original enough to receive new copyright protection. What About Machine Translations? The Human Creativity Copyright Requirement Machine-generated translations, including those produced by platforms like OpenAI , operate through advanced algorithms that replicate language patterns rather than capture the human touch. Unlike translations crafted by human translators who often infuse cultural insight and genuine emotion into the work, OpenAI's output is rooted in statistical patterns and data. Consequently, while these translations are impressively efficient and accurate, they typically fall short of the originality required for copyright protection. This distinction underscores the human creativity requirement needed to secure a valid copyright . Ultimately, although machine-generated translations serve as powerful tools, they do not offer the same legal and creative protections as those provided by human translators. The Bottom Line: Navigating Copyright in Translations Translations occupy the middle ground under the law of the copyright. Albeit the right of the original author generally has the right under the copyright, the right under the copyright can also be claimed by the translator provided the translation is creative enough. Central considerations here include the creativity the translator has added, the nature of the work being translated, and whether the work is under the public domain. These considerations establish the right of the owner under the copyright for the translation. Why Wilson Whitaker Rynell for Your Copyright Work? At Wilson Whitaker Rynell, our professional lawyers specialize in the practice of copyright law and copyright litigation , including the complex subject matter of translation work. We can provide you with advice about the ownership of your work under the provisions of the copyright, and protect your creative property. If you are the author, the publisher, or the translator, you can rely upon the advice from our firm. Copyright Translation FAQS
A man is sitting at a desk looking at a computer screen after getting an ISP copyright demand notice
By John Wilson May 27, 2024
How to Respond to a Copyright Infringement Notice from Your ISP: A Step-by-Step Guide
two people are looking at a floor plan of a house
By Kayla Holderman December 7, 2023
Copyright Protection For House Plans
Show More