Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Wikipedia: Copyrights & Copyleft
Earlier in class we discussed the question of whether Wikipedia copyrights texts and illustrations contained in the free encyclopedia. The short answer is that no, they do not literally file a copyright, although they grant free access under the principle of copyleft. This means that Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free, and content can be copied, modified, and redistributed as long as the new version grants the same freedom to others and acknowledges the source. Authors cannot retract material, and their words and illustrations are in the public domain. This essentially means that nobody can profit from repackaging, excerpting selected articles, publishing books from selected articles, etc. The Wikipedia encyclopedia also details that under the Berne Convention, articles are automatically copyrighted and licensed to the public under the GNU Free Distribution License. Earlier I blogged about free textbooks, accessible on the Internet. After some research, I learned that they also follow this GNU Free Distribution License (GFDL).
Nearing and End to 'Libel Tourism'
Earlier this week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that will prevent foreign libel judgments from eroding free speech protection in the U.S. The Senate needs to act next, and that is what an editorial in today's New York Times calls for--before Congress adjourns. As we learned in class, Britain is a legal libel refuge because of defamation standards rooted in English common law. Their laws essentially assume that any offending speech is false, and the writer or author must prove that what she wrote is in fact true in order to prevail against the charge. What has been happening, as in the case of the book "Funding Evil," is that although the book was never published in England, at least 23 copies were sold online there. A British court heard the libel suit, awarded a substantial amount, and the Saudi businessman who brought the suit is now free to ask American courts to collect the judgment. The upshot is a First Amendment loophole that means that American authors are subject to being sued under British law (as we learned in class). This federal law will close that loophole. As of May 1, 2008, New York state protects writers from foreign judgments in countries that do not meet U.s. free speech standards.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Aerosmith's Steven Tyler Sues Bloggers
Tyler Sues Bloggers
Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler recently sued unknown bloggers for impersonated he and his girlfriend Erin Brady online and sharing intimate details from their lives.
The lawsuit alleges that the bloggers have caused harm to Tyler and Brady by revealing private facts about the couple's lives, using his image without permission, writing about the death of his mother and spreading falsehoods.
So, Tyler has filed suit – presumably for “false light” invasion of privacy – even thought the defendants are unknown. The various articles said he believes this is the same group of bloggers that made similar postings in 2007.
The blogs in question were taken down by Google and are under review to assess any breach of Blogger's terms of service.
If the bloggers remain unknown, what will happen to the suit?
Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler recently sued unknown bloggers for impersonated he and his girlfriend Erin Brady online and sharing intimate details from their lives.
The lawsuit alleges that the bloggers have caused harm to Tyler and Brady by revealing private facts about the couple's lives, using his image without permission, writing about the death of his mother and spreading falsehoods.
So, Tyler has filed suit – presumably for “false light” invasion of privacy – even thought the defendants are unknown. The various articles said he believes this is the same group of bloggers that made similar postings in 2007.
The blogs in question were taken down by Google and are under review to assess any breach of Blogger's terms of service.
If the bloggers remain unknown, what will happen to the suit?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Where There's Fire
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/columnists.nsf/joewhittington/story/FEAB1254C5129D62862574CF000903FE?OpenDocument
This is a story about a lawsuit over trademark infringement. It seems that a West County business is using the same name as a similar business in the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park, KS.
Both companies are named Smoke N' Fire. The plaintiff says that the St. Louis business had previously visited their store and then came up with their name afterwards, so they had prior knowledge of that name.
I thought this article particularly interesting because the plaintiff wants the defendant to cease-and-desist with the use of the website name and destroy any advertising and promotional materials that use the Smoke N' Fire name. This sounds very similar to what we discussed last class with Ozark Airlines.
This is a story about a lawsuit over trademark infringement. It seems that a West County business is using the same name as a similar business in the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park, KS.
Both companies are named Smoke N' Fire. The plaintiff says that the St. Louis business had previously visited their store and then came up with their name afterwards, so they had prior knowledge of that name.
I thought this article particularly interesting because the plaintiff wants the defendant to cease-and-desist with the use of the website name and destroy any advertising and promotional materials that use the Smoke N' Fire name. This sounds very similar to what we discussed last class with Ozark Airlines.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
KSDK's 10pm news tonight had a report about parent's being upset because of the content of books collected in a new "teen" section at a branch of the St. Louis County Library.
The story touches on a few topics we discussed in class:
The St. Louis County Library is funded by taxes so ultimately the tax payers have ownership.
This isn't exactly "banning" books because it's a question of placement in the library. The concern is that books with certain content are being placed in a special section for teens.
One book called into question reportedly was about how a young girl grows up and graphically describes a "sexual escapade". Also, during the investigating the the Director of the St. Louis County System reviewed a book titled "Growing Up Gay in America" and decided to move it back to an adult area of the library. This seems like he is deciding what teenagers topics and ideas are appropriate for teens.
Some are asking for a rating-system similar to TV and movie ratings. A ratings system would seem to be an example of government regulation. Applying the "Miller" test, I doubt these books are examples of obscene speech for adults. However based on the theory of Variable Obscenity, these books could be 'Indecent' for minors thus be more open to regulation. Apparently the library board is meeting soon to review the issue.
Again, I think the whole issue is blurred because they are arguing over the exact placement of books within the library. The book is still available to anyone man, woman or child that walks into the library whether it is displayed at the front door or tucked away on a back shelf. Is the placement or grouping of books within a public library a 1st Amendment issue? What about the old adage "censorship exists as soon as someone makes a list". Are they going to make a list of what books are appropriate for teens?
http://www.ksdk.com/video/default.aspx?maven_playerId=immersiveplayer&maven_referralPlaylistId=23621c078e12728197ba4651acd788ca140d33dc&maven_referralObject=868213960&maven_referrer=staf
http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=155631&catid=3&provider=email
(Hopefully that link stays active, I don't know how long they leave their stories up. On the "video page of their website you can try searching for "I-Team: Book Dispute Flares in St. Louis County")
The story touches on a few topics we discussed in class:
The St. Louis County Library is funded by taxes so ultimately the tax payers have ownership.
This isn't exactly "banning" books because it's a question of placement in the library. The concern is that books with certain content are being placed in a special section for teens.
One book called into question reportedly was about how a young girl grows up and graphically describes a "sexual escapade". Also, during the investigating the the Director of the St. Louis County System reviewed a book titled "Growing Up Gay in America" and decided to move it back to an adult area of the library. This seems like he is deciding what teenagers topics and ideas are appropriate for teens.
Some are asking for a rating-system similar to TV and movie ratings. A ratings system would seem to be an example of government regulation. Applying the "Miller" test, I doubt these books are examples of obscene speech for adults. However based on the theory of Variable Obscenity, these books could be 'Indecent' for minors thus be more open to regulation. Apparently the library board is meeting soon to review the issue.
Again, I think the whole issue is blurred because they are arguing over the exact placement of books within the library. The book is still available to anyone man, woman or child that walks into the library whether it is displayed at the front door or tucked away on a back shelf. Is the placement or grouping of books within a public library a 1st Amendment issue? What about the old adage "censorship exists as soon as someone makes a list". Are they going to make a list of what books are appropriate for teens?
http://www.ksdk.com/video/default.aspx?maven_playerId=immersiveplayer&maven_referralPlaylistId=23621c078e12728197ba4651acd788ca140d33dc&maven_referralObject=868213960&maven_referrer=staf
http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=155631&catid=3&provider=email
(Hopefully that link stays active, I don't know how long they leave their stories up. On the "video page of their website you can try searching for "I-Team: Book Dispute Flares in St. Louis County")
Democrats Sue Michigan G.O.P. on Voters Issue
I thought this article was interesting. It's humorous how certain parties will do all they can to stop or "control" the voting for this presidental election. But then again this was funny because politicans sue over libel???? Really?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Campaign Ads Bend the Truth
http://adage.com/garfield/post?article_id=130958&search_phrase=political+ads
While there is no lawsuit involved with the above article, I found it quite interesting how they discuss that both political parties bend and twist the truth in campaign ads and at times even flat out lie. While I imagine that it is very difficult to press charges or even bring these to trial as we are dealing with very public figures, and at times it is not even the canidate who is running the spot. It amazes me the things that people get away with saying. In the advertising world our clients have to be 100% prepared to back up any and all claims they make regarding their product or sevice. Too many times I have been through "fire drils" to get creative removed from the public view because the claims they were making were no longer valid. Shouldn't we hold political advertisements to the same standards no matter who is providing the ad?
While there is no lawsuit involved with the above article, I found it quite interesting how they discuss that both political parties bend and twist the truth in campaign ads and at times even flat out lie. While I imagine that it is very difficult to press charges or even bring these to trial as we are dealing with very public figures, and at times it is not even the canidate who is running the spot. It amazes me the things that people get away with saying. In the advertising world our clients have to be 100% prepared to back up any and all claims they make regarding their product or sevice. Too many times I have been through "fire drils" to get creative removed from the public view because the claims they were making were no longer valid. Shouldn't we hold political advertisements to the same standards no matter who is providing the ad?
Poltics or Law...Law
The frustrating aspect about the latest student T-shirt ban is that it cannot escape being politicized. Unfortunately, there is a long history of a disproportionate representation of one viewpoint in academia, but that is not the issue when it comes to the law especially for this blog concerning media law. So let us limit the discussion to the law and it is appropriate application. This case is most similar to the Bretton Barber v. Dearborn, which the Tinker standard (material disruption) applies. In the Barber opinion, it came down to the point of actual disruption, (http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/Opinions/dugganpdf/Barberfinal.pdf, Pg 9 and 17) not potential disruption. In the story (http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/1182731,shirt092408.article#), there is evidence that this T-shirt did cause a disruption, and therefore should be banned. The law, Tinker standard as well as the Barber precedent, is quite clear; the T-shirt caused actual disruption(material disruption), Aurora Superintendent of Schools John Barry wins.
Libel Tourism
Libel Tourism’: When Freedom of Speech Takes a Holiday
By ADAM COHEN Published: September 14, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/opinion/15mon4.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq='Libel%20Tourism':%20When%20Freedom%20of%20Speech%20Takes%20a%20Holiday.&st=cse&oref=slogin
As we discussed in class, it is easier to sue for libel in Britain than it is in the US. In this article “libel tourism”, as it is called, is discussed as it relates to a recent case. In this case, Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote “Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It”. In this book she accuses a Saudi businessman as being a founder of terrorism. The book was not published in Britain, but the businessman sued for libel in Britain because a few copies of the book were sold online. The businessman ended up receiving a substantial settlement.
Due to the internet, every American book can be purchased in Britain or anywhere else for that matter, thus leaving American authors open to lawsuits in other countries with less freedom of speech. This lack of protection of the First Amendment has caused outrage. In May, the New York State Legislature passed a bill that stops enforcement of libel judgments from countries that provide less free-speech protection than the United States, and a similar bill has been introduced in Congress. Protecting the entire county, the federal bill would also allow American authors/publishers to countersue.
Do you think American’s have should be able to protect their free speech rights in other countries if the publication is available online? I think it is one thing to actually publish in another country and be libel, but now, with the intranet, we live in a global world and our rights need to be protected.
By ADAM COHEN Published: September 14, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/opinion/15mon4.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq='Libel%20Tourism':%20When%20Freedom%20of%20Speech%20Takes%20a%20Holiday.&st=cse&oref=slogin
As we discussed in class, it is easier to sue for libel in Britain than it is in the US. In this article “libel tourism”, as it is called, is discussed as it relates to a recent case. In this case, Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote “Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It”. In this book she accuses a Saudi businessman as being a founder of terrorism. The book was not published in Britain, but the businessman sued for libel in Britain because a few copies of the book were sold online. The businessman ended up receiving a substantial settlement.
Due to the internet, every American book can be purchased in Britain or anywhere else for that matter, thus leaving American authors open to lawsuits in other countries with less freedom of speech. This lack of protection of the First Amendment has caused outrage. In May, the New York State Legislature passed a bill that stops enforcement of libel judgments from countries that provide less free-speech protection than the United States, and a similar bill has been introduced in Congress. Protecting the entire county, the federal bill would also allow American authors/publishers to countersue.
Do you think American’s have should be able to protect their free speech rights in other countries if the publication is available online? I think it is one thing to actually publish in another country and be libel, but now, with the intranet, we live in a global world and our rights need to be protected.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
"Harry Potter" v "Hari Puttar"
http://www.lexisone.com/news/ap/ap092308a.html
Warner Brother's tried to sue in India to stop a Bollywood film called "Hari Puttar" from being released.
Since our class is focused on US law and regulation, I wonder if Warner Brothers can stop the release (or eventual DVD sales) of the movie here in the US?
Warner Brother's tried to sue in India to stop a Bollywood film called "Hari Puttar" from being released.
Since our class is focused on US law and regulation, I wonder if Warner Brothers can stop the release (or eventual DVD sales) of the movie here in the US?
Happy Birthday worth $2 million a year in royalties
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=607&docId=l:l:844567599&topicId=13579&source=undefined&start=2&topics=single
Well this article goes back to our old friend (the copyrighted) Happy Birthday song.
The City of Pittsburgh wants to sing the song to celebrate it's 250th birthday. The article touches on the idea of public performances. It gives some estimates at what Movie Studios pay to use the song in a film. It also mentions the bad PR ASCAP got from threatening the Girl Scouts for singing copyrighted songs around the campfire. Interestingly, ASCAP is now offering the city it's entire 8 million song collection for use during public parades and celebrations for only $4000 a year...that seems like a steal to me!
Well this article goes back to our old friend (the copyrighted) Happy Birthday song.
The City of Pittsburgh wants to sing the song to celebrate it's 250th birthday. The article touches on the idea of public performances. It gives some estimates at what Movie Studios pay to use the song in a film. It also mentions the bad PR ASCAP got from threatening the Girl Scouts for singing copyrighted songs around the campfire. Interestingly, ASCAP is now offering the city it's entire 8 million song collection for use during public parades and celebrations for only $4000 a year...that seems like a steal to me!
Boy Suspended After Wearing Anti-Obama T-Shirt
The following was posted on AOL this evening...
Sept. 23) - An 11-year-old Colorado boy was suspended from school after showing up for class in a T-shirt bearing the handwritten motto "Obama a terrorist's best friend."
Daxx Dalton's dad says the fifth-grader was given the choice of changing his shirt, turning it inside out or being suspended -- and he chose suspension.
Daxx maintains his First Amendment right to free expression was violated, and his dad said he intends to sue. The school district said it respects the right to free speech, but has the responsibility to intervene in any situation that disrupts the learning environment.
Is wearing the t-shirt similar to wearing a black arm band? Probably not since the black arm band had an understood meaning wheareas the t-shirt made a statement that was inflammatory. More importantly, the wearer and the audience who saw the t-shirt are elementary school students. I'm fairly certain that the student's dad will not prevail in court.
Sept. 23) - An 11-year-old Colorado boy was suspended from school after showing up for class in a T-shirt bearing the handwritten motto "Obama a terrorist's best friend."
Daxx Dalton's dad says the fifth-grader was given the choice of changing his shirt, turning it inside out or being suspended -- and he chose suspension.
Daxx maintains his First Amendment right to free expression was violated, and his dad said he intends to sue. The school district said it respects the right to free speech, but has the responsibility to intervene in any situation that disrupts the learning environment.
Is wearing the t-shirt similar to wearing a black arm band? Probably not since the black arm band had an understood meaning wheareas the t-shirt made a statement that was inflammatory. More importantly, the wearer and the audience who saw the t-shirt are elementary school students. I'm fairly certain that the student's dad will not prevail in court.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Not about politics...
It is not surprising that Governor Palin has been attacked so vehemently in today's media age. She represents a conservative, traditional point of view, which is at odds with most in both news and entertainment media. Whether you agree with her politics or not, any rational human would conclude that most of these attacks are below the belt. For the record, there have and continue to legitimate inquiries about her record that need to be answered. The most recent publication of Governor Palin's personal emails leaves many questions about the security of private communication, and more germane to the course, what are the legal boundaries of hackers and those that publish hacked material? In the article Legal Analysis by Kurt Opsahl (http://www.eff.org/blog-categories/legal-analysis), Opsahl cites Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001) in which the Supreme Court says (parapharasing) that the publication of illegal information is protected if it was lawfully obtained. The standard applies three tenets:
The publisher had no hand in the illegal activity in obtaining the information.
They received the information lawfully.
The subject matter is of the public concern.
I differ with Opsahl in his conclusion that the posting of these emails will be protected due to the third tenet. Yet, I realize there are some concerns (questions) that the Governor Palin used her personal mail for state business. At this point, whether these concerns are legitimate or not is a matter of pure conjecture. What is certain is that you would open up Pandora's box if mere speculation was just cause for breaking Stored Communications Act, SCA; ends justify the means is grossly insidious to the foundation of a free society.
Yes, there should be limits to speech
Yes, there should be limits to speech…The absurdity of the 2002 ruling by the Supreme Court in regard to Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1996 should give pause to all Americans. Realizing that there is evolution in media law due to technologies, the courts have gone from the restrictive Hicklin Rule/Comstock Act to granting federal protection to the generators of child porn images. The most specious statement in the opinion: “The argument that eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well is somewhat implausible because few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice. Moreover, even if the market deterrence theory were persuasive, the argument cannot justify the CPPA because, here, there is no underlying crime at all.” Is this the Supreme Courts' conjecture or just an apparent logical risk- assessment of a would be pedophile? In fact, this opinion not only a defense of the odious imagery, but those whom produce as well…wow; we have gone from restricting something that would offend the sensibilities of a child to federal protection of smut merchants that produce criminal images.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Ohio School Paper Confiscated over Article
http://www.post-gazette.com/firstamendment/20021223woosterp5.asp
An Ohio school paper was confiscated after an article was published that quoting teen drinkers that attended a party (not a school sanctioned function). The Superintendent claims that the papers were pulled because there were potentially libelous statements and inaccuracies with the article in question. However some students believe that the paper was actually pulled because one of the board members children was one of the students quoted in the article.
The students then contacted the Student Press Center and had the article reviewed by a lawyer on their staff. The lawyer found that there was no libel in the story and that it good journalism.
Was this a violation of the students first ammendment? It appears that this particular school paper is an extra-curricular activity and not part of a class within a public school. While the student paper has an advisor who typically reviews articles, the school officials have little to do with the paper in other aspects. It looks like this could have easily been a cover up as they did not want quotes from the board members daughter getting out to the public regarding her adventures in partying and underage drinking.
An Ohio school paper was confiscated after an article was published that quoting teen drinkers that attended a party (not a school sanctioned function). The Superintendent claims that the papers were pulled because there were potentially libelous statements and inaccuracies with the article in question. However some students believe that the paper was actually pulled because one of the board members children was one of the students quoted in the article.
The students then contacted the Student Press Center and had the article reviewed by a lawyer on their staff. The lawyer found that there was no libel in the story and that it good journalism.
Was this a violation of the students first ammendment? It appears that this particular school paper is an extra-curricular activity and not part of a class within a public school. While the student paper has an advisor who typically reviews articles, the school officials have little to do with the paper in other aspects. It looks like this could have easily been a cover up as they did not want quotes from the board members daughter getting out to the public regarding her adventures in partying and underage drinking.
Albright Discusses Issues & "Rule of Law"
Tonight on the Webster University campus, former Secretary of State Madeline Albright spoke to an overflowing auditorium about the five issues confronting the next president, the importance of the rule of law, and what is needed to improve the worldwide status of the U.S. She did so without notes, without political rhetoric (though this was planned as an Obama campaign stop), and with energy and eloquence. She took about 12 questions from the audience and from others viewing the event at Webster locations around the globe. When asked what is needed to "improve our worldwide status," Albright replied that at a meeting of the five living former Secretaries of State (to be aired this Saturday night, 9/20/08 on CNN) we need to close Guantanamo, understand the balance between security needs and freedom, understand the importance of our own laws, demand more information and vote, and appreciate how fragile the rule of law is and respect the constitution of the U.S. The event was part of the "Issues for the 21st Century" series and the Holden Public Policy Forum.
Although the auditorium was officially full when I got to the door, my persistance, chat, and smile were ultimately rewaraded with a ftront row sseat on the aisle. Unfortunately, I could not ask a question as those in the from row were asked to stay in our seats throughout the presentation so we wouldn't disrupt the broadcast.
Although the auditorium was officially full when I got to the door, my persistance, chat, and smile were ultimately rewaraded with a ftront row sseat on the aisle. Unfortunately, I could not ask a question as those in the from row were asked to stay in our seats throughout the presentation so we wouldn't disrupt the broadcast.
Download Textbooks Free or Cheaper
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/technology/15link.htlm
Taking a cue from the digital music world, a broad effort to publish free textbooks called "Connexions" is being funded by a large grant from the Hewlett Foundation. Unlike other projects that share course materials, Connexions uses a broad Creative Commons license allowing both students and teachers to rewrite and edit materials, as long as the originator is credited. Teachers put up modules, then mix and match their work with others' to create materials for students. Many of these texts are in statistics and electrical engineering, where updates are important. There have been more than 850,000 unique users per month, with more than half from outside the U.S. Connexions own the copyrights, but I wonder about the implications for copyright law, since there wouldn't be "economic harm" resulting from "violations." A different project called CourseSmart (the business and copyrights are owned by 5 publishers) allows students to subscribe to a textbook and read it online, with the option of printing out portions. Costs are generally half what a print book costs, and there are about 4,000 titles currently. Seems like a win in terms of copyright/public economics/student access.
Taking a cue from the digital music world, a broad effort to publish free textbooks called "Connexions" is being funded by a large grant from the Hewlett Foundation. Unlike other projects that share course materials, Connexions uses a broad Creative Commons license allowing both students and teachers to rewrite and edit materials, as long as the originator is credited. Teachers put up modules, then mix and match their work with others' to create materials for students. Many of these texts are in statistics and electrical engineering, where updates are important. There have been more than 850,000 unique users per month, with more than half from outside the U.S. Connexions own the copyrights, but I wonder about the implications for copyright law, since there wouldn't be "economic harm" resulting from "violations." A different project called CourseSmart (the business and copyrights are owned by 5 publishers) allows students to subscribe to a textbook and read it online, with the option of printing out portions. Costs are generally half what a print book costs, and there are about 4,000 titles currently. Seems like a win in terms of copyright/public economics/student access.
Brand hijacking intellectual property
www.prweek.com, Keith O'Brien column, Sept. 1, 2008 (Possibly available only to subscribers)
What would you do if you owned the copyright for TV show "Mad Men" and fake Twitter accounts for Dan Draper and other "Mad Men" characters showed up? The producers got the fictious accounts, made to look like they were written by the TV show's charcters, pulled down. The columnist in PR Week suggests that this may present some opportunities, and I agree that a fictious Twitter account is a novel way for viewers to interact with "Mad Men."
The columnist continues "There are many legitimate reasons why...the producers should get their lawyers reved up for a confrontation with those who have taken Twitter liberties with the creator's intellectual property." The he continues, saying "It is a big net positive for the show." Futher, "As brand hijacking continues, a careful approach to dealing with those who appropriate material is the smartest bet."
Christy Beckmann
What would you do if you owned the copyright for TV show "Mad Men" and fake Twitter accounts for Dan Draper and other "Mad Men" characters showed up? The producers got the fictious accounts, made to look like they were written by the TV show's charcters, pulled down. The columnist in PR Week suggests that this may present some opportunities, and I agree that a fictious Twitter account is a novel way for viewers to interact with "Mad Men."
The columnist continues "There are many legitimate reasons why...the producers should get their lawyers reved up for a confrontation with those who have taken Twitter liberties with the creator's intellectual property." The he continues, saying "It is a big net positive for the show." Futher, "As brand hijacking continues, a careful approach to dealing with those who appropriate material is the smartest bet."
Christy Beckmann
Delightful Reason to Check Trademark Office Web Site
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122126146880630379.html
Have you ever searched for another bottle of wine like the one you just enjoyed, only to be unable to find any information? You have called local wine stores, but they don't know the brand. You may have Googled the winery, or checked some of the big wine search engines, such as wineaccess.com or wine-searcher.com, but not found it.
The "Wine Notes" column in last weekend's Wall Street Journal (Sept. 13-14, 2008) suggest going to the U.S Patent and Trademark Office web site to look for the registered trademark. Go to usp.gov, click on trademarks and then search the TM database. There you will find who registered the trademark and when, which could also lead you search online records at the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau web site (go to ttbonline.gov/colasonline, then click "public cola registery." I just tried this with a search for a modest California chardonnay I had purchased when lving in the Chicago area, and tracked down a source for it here.
Have you ever searched for another bottle of wine like the one you just enjoyed, only to be unable to find any information? You have called local wine stores, but they don't know the brand. You may have Googled the winery, or checked some of the big wine search engines, such as wineaccess.com or wine-searcher.com, but not found it.
The "Wine Notes" column in last weekend's Wall Street Journal (Sept. 13-14, 2008) suggest going to the U.S Patent and Trademark Office web site to look for the registered trademark. Go to usp.gov, click on trademarks and then search the TM database. There you will find who registered the trademark and when, which could also lead you search online records at the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau web site (go to ttbonline.gov/colasonline, then click "public cola registery." I just tried this with a search for a modest California chardonnay I had purchased when lving in the Chicago area, and tracked down a source for it here.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Atlantic Monthly McCain Cover Controversy
Photographer Uses Photos From Shoot for Own Political Commentary
Photographer Jill Greenberg took the cover photo of John McCain for October’s Atlantic Monthly and retouched the photo in a way that left him looking respectful, but rather bad. She then doctored additional photos from the shoot to reflect her anti-republican views, added commentary and posted them on her website, manipulator.com.
It appears the McCain link under “names” has recently been deactivated. So, I’ve attached a few of them here for your viewing pleasure.
Atlantic Monthly says they “were not aware of the manipulated and dishonest images Jill Greenberg had taken until this past Friday.” They also stated that Greenberg will not be paid for the session, and that they are considering a lawsuit against her.
Greenberg said, "I am a pretty hardcore Democrat. Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush. So maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for them to hire me." For example, in 2004, she held an art exhibit in L.A. that garnered a lot of press displaying pictures of toddlers crying with the caption "Four More Years" as a visual slam against President Bush. (Images are under "End Times" in her online portfolio.)
Fox News also reported on this story and stated that the editor of The Atlantic Monthly is sending a letter of apology to John McCain.
What are the possible lawsuits here? For McCain, although a public figure, it could be a libel suit given some of Greenberg’s statements and the content in question. I believe that actual malice could be proven. At a minimum it is a case of false light considering McCain posed for the photos to accompany an article in Atlantic about him, not for them to be posted online and brutally manipulated in a defamatory manner. On a smaller scale, depending on the contract Greenberg had with Atlantic, there is likely a breach of contract. And, if the magazine owns the images in question, it could be unlawfully gained imagery potentially used for profit.
Barbie vs. Bratz
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/B3FF686571FFD11F862574B10077FE75?OpenDocument
This is an article about copyright infringement where the court ruled in favor ($40 million) of the Mattel company, who are the creators of the popular Barbie dolls. MGA Entertainment, the creators of the Bratz dolls which are aimed at tweeners, has an ex-Mattel designer who was found to have come up with the Bratz idea while still working at Mattel.
I found it interesting that Mattel received quite an exhoribant amount in damages. Although it was shown that Mattel wanted the complete amount of profit that MGA had earned which was over $1 billion. So the damages were pretty steep, however they were not as much as they could have been. It is intriguing how they come up with a crazy amount of damage money. I suppose it is the nature of the entertainment business.
This is an article about copyright infringement where the court ruled in favor ($40 million) of the Mattel company, who are the creators of the popular Barbie dolls. MGA Entertainment, the creators of the Bratz dolls which are aimed at tweeners, has an ex-Mattel designer who was found to have come up with the Bratz idea while still working at Mattel.
I found it interesting that Mattel received quite an exhoribant amount in damages. Although it was shown that Mattel wanted the complete amount of profit that MGA had earned which was over $1 billion. So the damages were pretty steep, however they were not as much as they could have been. It is intriguing how they come up with a crazy amount of damage money. I suppose it is the nature of the entertainment business.
Bloggers Beware
On September 8th, boston.com reported that a blogger in Cape Cod was being sued for statements that he made on his blog criticizing opponents to a plan to dredge Barnstable Harbor. Joseph F. Dugas is suing the blogger Peter Robbins who in a recent blog told his audience that Dugas was one of the individuals that they should blame if their boats ran aground this summer. The libel suit alleges Robbins was wrong on the facts and wrong to characterize the opposition to dredging as frivolous and malicious. The residents opposed the project because they wanted the town to stop leaving dredged material on their beaches, the suit says.
According to the story this lawsuit is the latest challenge to the freedom of bloggers who are subject to the same libel laws, but not the same editorial standards, as the mainstream media. The article goes on to say that there have been over 500 lawsuits of bloggers filed in the US courts.
Interestingly, Robbin's defense team plans to cite the Massachusetts' anti-SLAPP law, named for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. Such laws were enacted in 26 states so that citizens could voice their opinions about projects without being sued for defamation and silenced by developers or other powerful players.
Two thoughts come to mind, first is that if Joseph Dugas does oppose the dredging project then Robbins declaration of his opposition is a statement of fact and can't be libel, the second is that if Robbins wants to characterize the group and its members as frivolous and malicious that seems to be an opinion and is therefore not libel as well. What may be libelous, however, is Robbins' assertion that if the opposition wins and the dredging does not take place that it is the fault of Dugas and his group.
According to the story this lawsuit is the latest challenge to the freedom of bloggers who are subject to the same libel laws, but not the same editorial standards, as the mainstream media. The article goes on to say that there have been over 500 lawsuits of bloggers filed in the US courts.
Interestingly, Robbin's defense team plans to cite the Massachusetts' anti-SLAPP law, named for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. Such laws were enacted in 26 states so that citizens could voice their opinions about projects without being sued for defamation and silenced by developers or other powerful players.
Two thoughts come to mind, first is that if Joseph Dugas does oppose the dredging project then Robbins declaration of his opposition is a statement of fact and can't be libel, the second is that if Robbins wants to characterize the group and its members as frivolous and malicious that seems to be an opinion and is therefore not libel as well. What may be libelous, however, is Robbins' assertion that if the opposition wins and the dredging does not take place that it is the fault of Dugas and his group.
First Amendment in the Classroom
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1683469
This case from 2006, deals with a teacher’s first amendment rights within the classroom. Teacher Jay Bennish was recorded on tape by one of this students while he made controversial remarks regarding President Bush. Bennish was later suspended with pay by the school districted based on the comments that he made. Bennish later sued the school district claiming his first amendment right of free speech. The suit was actually filed on March 3, 2006. This case received a lot of media attention and Bennish was offered interviews with several major news outlets. On March 10, 2006, the Cherry Creek School District announced that it would reinstate Bennish. As a result, Bennish changed his ways in the classroom, from an open public forum setting to textbook-based learning.
This case has several interesting factors including the fact that the student who recorded the conversation was named in the news articles and the fact that the district was not so concerned with the comments that were made, but the fact that the conversation was one-sided. In the end, Bennish changed his teaching style brining a new level of awareness to open classroom debates. However, I think that open forums that are well balanced are essential to the learning environment. Should students and teachers be able to discuss different political views openly in a classroom?
This case from 2006, deals with a teacher’s first amendment rights within the classroom. Teacher Jay Bennish was recorded on tape by one of this students while he made controversial remarks regarding President Bush. Bennish was later suspended with pay by the school districted based on the comments that he made. Bennish later sued the school district claiming his first amendment right of free speech. The suit was actually filed on March 3, 2006. This case received a lot of media attention and Bennish was offered interviews with several major news outlets. On March 10, 2006, the Cherry Creek School District announced that it would reinstate Bennish. As a result, Bennish changed his ways in the classroom, from an open public forum setting to textbook-based learning.
This case has several interesting factors including the fact that the student who recorded the conversation was named in the news articles and the fact that the district was not so concerned with the comments that were made, but the fact that the conversation was one-sided. In the end, Bennish changed his teaching style brining a new level of awareness to open classroom debates. However, I think that open forums that are well balanced are essential to the learning environment. Should students and teachers be able to discuss different political views openly in a classroom?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
I found this blog on a record payment in a libel lawsuit in Terre-Haute Indiana in which the Deputy Sheriff sued the local paper, the Terre-Haute Tribune-Star. Hard to understand how the truth in this case was not a defense, perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the trial was before a jury.
The scenario is disturbing. A deputy sheriff sues the Terre Haute Tribune-Star for libel because it published a sworn citizen's complaint against him. After four years of preliminary legal wrangling, an emotional trial ensues. Without regard to time-honored judicial precedent or the expressed purpose of the First Amendment, the jurors find in favor of the deputy sheriff and award him $1.5 million in damages - one of the highest defamation judgments in Indiana history.
How could this happen in a judicial process that is suppose to separate legitimate libel litigation from purely angry complaints by public officials that don't like what the press prints about them? [Original Blog by Michael Silence]Monday, September 15, 2008
Priceless
Does the use of Mastercard's "priceless" style and signature tagline violate trademark and copyright law?
Mastercard thought so. They sued Ralph Nader in 2000 for running campaign ads in their "priceless" style. They were unsuccessful. The ruling came four years later in 2004 in Nader's favor. To view the commercial on YouTube, click here.
Apparently the court ruled that copying the style or format of Mastercard's ad campaign did not break copyright law. However, Florida state gained permission from Mastercard before launching a "priceless" style campaign in 2006 to promote hurricane preparedness among residents. In fact, they used the same advertising agency that created the original priceless campaign.
Would you have found Nader guilty of violating Mastercard's trademark and copyright? Or, after viewing the commercial, do you believe it would qualify as parody?
I am undecided.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Palin's daughter's pregnancy--a private matter?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26496189/
When this story broke and I heard Bristol Palin's age (17), the first thing I thought was "is this a invasion of privacy issue?". I thought this because while her mother Sarah Palin is a public figure and therefore subject to public scrutiny, her minor daughter should not be seen that way. However the more I thought about this, it seems that Bristol might be looked upon as a public figure simply because her mother has been thrust into the national spotlight. Also the textbook brings the question - do people who are closely associated with or related to public persons also lose elements of their right to privacy? The current answer to this is "yes".
The article goes on to mention that Senator McCain views this as a private family matter. This I agree with simply because I'm amazed that the story even came to light. But in this Internet age, it seems that nothing goes unscathed or no stone goes unturned particularly when it relates to politics.
When this story broke and I heard Bristol Palin's age (17), the first thing I thought was "is this a invasion of privacy issue?". I thought this because while her mother Sarah Palin is a public figure and therefore subject to public scrutiny, her minor daughter should not be seen that way. However the more I thought about this, it seems that Bristol might be looked upon as a public figure simply because her mother has been thrust into the national spotlight. Also the textbook brings the question - do people who are closely associated with or related to public persons also lose elements of their right to privacy? The current answer to this is "yes".
The article goes on to mention that Senator McCain views this as a private family matter. This I agree with simply because I'm amazed that the story even came to light. But in this Internet age, it seems that nothing goes unscathed or no stone goes unturned particularly when it relates to politics.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Schwarzenegger Files Suit Against Bobblehead Maker
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/national/18arnold.html?ex=1221192000&en=06a8eba68d93cf13&ei=5070
How different from the celebrity's likeness do toys have to be in order to be considered parody? Should the toy company have to pay royalties for their dolls?
In the end, the case resulted in a settlement where the toy company removed the gun from the doll and some of the proceeds went to one of Swarzenegger's charities.
How different from the celebrity's likeness do toys have to be in order to be considered parody? Should the toy company have to pay royalties for their dolls?
In the end, the case resulted in a settlement where the toy company removed the gun from the doll and some of the proceeds went to one of Swarzenegger's charities.
Missouri Illegal Downloading Case
About four years ago while in college my cousins roommate was sued by the recording industry. Her roommate hired and attorney and provided a sworn affidavit that implicated my cousin was the one who was illegally downloading. Consequently my cousin was served with a lawsuit and has been fighting the lawsuit since.
I am not familiar with the legal details but was able to find a recent court order by the judge that rejected several counter claims filed by her attorney. The counterclaims filed included, racketeering, conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation, prima facie tort. Not sure what prima facie means, but the judge rejected all the counterclaims. After reading through the order it looks like the point that remains to be decided is weather she actually was the individual who downloaded the songs. Her computer was not password protected, and was located in a sorority house where it was easily accessed by others.
Until now I have not taken that much interest in the details of the case however, I'm sure that I will uncover some interesting details once I take the time to read the legal documents available.
I'm not sure how to upload a PDF but if you google search "jenna raleigh riaa" the first listing is the judges order.
"Disturbia" Lawsuit
'Disturbia' Film Faces Lawsuit
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/arts/10arts-DISTURBIAFIL_BRF.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=privacy%20lawsuit&st=cse&oref=slogin
I found the above article on the New York Times Web site, which regards a new copyright lawsuit filed on Monday. The lawsuit, filed by the estate of Sheldon Abend, states that Steve Spielberg, Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks infringed on the rights to the 1942 Cornell Woolrich “Rear Window” short story when they created the film Disturbia.
The question will be how similar the movie and short story really are. This will be an interesting case to watch as it develops. So far, the defendants do not have any comments about the case. In order to be successful the plaintiff has to prove that more than an "idea" was stolen, which will be difficult with differences in the story lines. In my opinion, the plaintiff will not be successful.
More information about the suit:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_en_mo/film_disturbia_lawsuit
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/arts/10arts-DISTURBIAFIL_BRF.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=privacy%20lawsuit&st=cse&oref=slogin
I found the above article on the New York Times Web site, which regards a new copyright lawsuit filed on Monday. The lawsuit, filed by the estate of Sheldon Abend, states that Steve Spielberg, Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks infringed on the rights to the 1942 Cornell Woolrich “Rear Window” short story when they created the film Disturbia.
The question will be how similar the movie and short story really are. This will be an interesting case to watch as it develops. So far, the defendants do not have any comments about the case. In order to be successful the plaintiff has to prove that more than an "idea" was stolen, which will be difficult with differences in the story lines. In my opinion, the plaintiff will not be successful.
More information about the suit:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_en_mo/film_disturbia_lawsuit
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Harry Potter Author Wins Copyright Ruling
Just yesterday, the author of the Harry Potter series, J.K. Rowling, won her claim that a fan violated her copyright with his plans to publish a reader's companion or Potter encyclopedia. Jude patterson in Federal District Court said that Ms. Rowling pproved that "Harry Potter Lexicon" would cause her ireperable harm as a writer, and permanently blocked publication of the reference guide.
Last year Rowling sued RDL Books to stop publication of material from the Harry Potter Lexicon Web sit. The site was run by Mr. Vander Ark, and served as a guide to the seven Potter books. In his ruling, the Judge said that reference materials were generally useful to the public, but that in this case, Mr. Vander Ark went too far, and that it was not "fair use." Ms. Rowling testified earlier this year that the lexicon was principally a rearrangement of her material, not just a reference guide.
This news is covered in today's New York Times, and probably many other daily papers.
Christy Beckmann
Last year Rowling sued RDL Books to stop publication of material from the Harry Potter Lexicon Web sit. The site was run by Mr. Vander Ark, and served as a guide to the seven Potter books. In his ruling, the Judge said that reference materials were generally useful to the public, but that in this case, Mr. Vander Ark went too far, and that it was not "fair use." Ms. Rowling testified earlier this year that the lexicon was principally a rearrangement of her material, not just a reference guide.
This news is covered in today's New York Times, and probably many other daily papers.
Christy Beckmann
A Journalists Right to Privacy
http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201800551
I found this article in Information Week and found it very interesting. Back in August of 2007 four journalists and one family member actually sued HP for Invasion of Privacy. Turns out that HP began investigating these journalists in order to determine who inside their company was leaking information to the press. HP proceeded to obtain the journalists (and one family members) personal phone records, watched one of their residences and followed the woman on a family vacation to Disney.
I could understand it if HP pulled the phone records of the calls that employees made from their offices, but to actually go after the journalists on a personal basis appears way out of line, especially watching the one in her home and following her on vacation.
HP made full acknowledgement of these claims and stated that this was part of their "standard investigation" practices.
Did HP go too far? It is my opinion that they did. I am sure there are other (more legal) ways to find leakswithin a company other than personally investigating the journalists that are reporting on the company.
I found this article in Information Week and found it very interesting. Back in August of 2007 four journalists and one family member actually sued HP for Invasion of Privacy. Turns out that HP began investigating these journalists in order to determine who inside their company was leaking information to the press. HP proceeded to obtain the journalists (and one family members) personal phone records, watched one of their residences and followed the woman on a family vacation to Disney.
I could understand it if HP pulled the phone records of the calls that employees made from their offices, but to actually go after the journalists on a personal basis appears way out of line, especially watching the one in her home and following her on vacation.
HP made full acknowledgement of these claims and stated that this was part of their "standard investigation" practices.
Did HP go too far? It is my opinion that they did. I am sure there are other (more legal) ways to find leakswithin a company other than personally investigating the journalists that are reporting on the company.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Copyright Violation?
Judging from the Wilson sister's response to the use of their song, Barracuda, during the Republican National Convention, it made me wonder if the Republican Party had permission to use the song, or if they needed it.
Heart to McCain/Palin: Back off on 'Barracuda'
Obviously their reaction to the use of their song was much more negative than how Kix Brooks reacted to the use of his song during the Democratic National Convention.
'Only in America' could Obama borrow the GOP's favorite Brooks & Dunn song
Heart to McCain/Palin: Back off on 'Barracuda'
Obviously their reaction to the use of their song was much more negative than how Kix Brooks reacted to the use of his song during the Democratic National Convention.
'Only in America' could Obama borrow the GOP's favorite Brooks & Dunn song
Friday, September 5, 2008
Comics : Web Comics
I have an issure with corporations that sell their consumers data base to third party companies. They offer up valuable information on the comsumer without the permission of that consumer. There have been times when I recieved something either in the mail or e-mail and wondered..."How the h*** did they get my information?" Quite clever as it may be, these advertisments are targeted directly to me. It's not appealing but disturbing.
http://www.comicbookbin.com/Marvel_Users_Privacy_Problematic001.html
http://www.comicbookbin.com/Marvel_Users_Privacy_Problematic001.html
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Magazine Copyright
To magazine publishers, sharing is not caring.
Preview By: . Advertising Age, 8/4/2008, Vol. 79 Issue 30, p18-18, 2/5p, 1 color; (AN 33538678)
Above is an editorial article from Advertising Age that refers to the use of websites like mygazines.com that allow online sharing of magazines. In this article, The Magazine Publishers of America are claiming that these sharing sites are an infringement on their copyrights. However, the author of this article does not believe that these sites infringe on copyrights since magazines receive that majority of their revenue from advertisements. Nevertheless, in my opinion, this site and others like it are infringing on copyrights and harming the magazine publishers. Therefore, these sites should be shutdown. However, draw your own conclusions; the author makes some interesting points.
Preview By: . Advertising Age, 8/4/2008, Vol. 79 Issue 30, p18-18, 2/5p, 1 color; (AN 33538678)
Above is an editorial article from Advertising Age that refers to the use of websites like mygazines.com that allow online sharing of magazines. In this article, The Magazine Publishers of America are claiming that these sharing sites are an infringement on their copyrights. However, the author of this article does not believe that these sites infringe on copyrights since magazines receive that majority of their revenue from advertisements. Nevertheless, in my opinion, this site and others like it are infringing on copyrights and harming the magazine publishers. Therefore, these sites should be shutdown. However, draw your own conclusions; the author makes some interesting points.
NFL marketers want 'Big Game' trademark
http://www.sfisonline.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/01/MNG4BODB1Q1.DTL&hw=blacked&sn=105&sc=419
With the start of the football season I thought it would be interesting to read a little about the NFL's copyright and trademark policies.
This article was published over a year a go but it is a pretty interesting story. Basically, the NFL was attempting to trademark the saying, "Big Game" Primarily, the NFL is trying to prevent companies from avoiding licensing fees for advertising associated with the Super Bowl. However, the conflict is that the Stanford and UC Berkley rivalry game has been known as, "The Big Game" since 1902. Considering the NFL didn't even exist in 1902 the universities have a pretty good case and have both taken steps to oppose the trademark request.
I'm curious to find out what the final outcome was and if the NFL received their trademark but I'm willing to bet they didn't. It is probably more likely that the trademark has been granted to the Universities.
With the start of the football season I thought it would be interesting to read a little about the NFL's copyright and trademark policies.
This article was published over a year a go but it is a pretty interesting story. Basically, the NFL was attempting to trademark the saying, "Big Game" Primarily, the NFL is trying to prevent companies from avoiding licensing fees for advertising associated with the Super Bowl. However, the conflict is that the Stanford and UC Berkley rivalry game has been known as, "The Big Game" since 1902. Considering the NFL didn't even exist in 1902 the universities have a pretty good case and have both taken steps to oppose the trademark request.
I'm curious to find out what the final outcome was and if the NFL received their trademark but I'm willing to bet they didn't. It is probably more likely that the trademark has been granted to the Universities.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Illegal downloading isn't worth it...
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/story/D7D1DFD50628988D862574AC00029FE0?OpenDocument
Ironically I found this while reading the newspaper after our first class. I thought it fit it perfectly with what we discussed since it referenced a person who settled a lawsuit with record labels for what she illegally downloaded on Kazaa.
Also I found it ironic that she tried to argue her side of her use of the Kazaa program since many users don't feel that it is illegal to download music for free. I have a friend who previously used Kazaa but moved on to other sites to avoid getting caught and sued like this woman did. My friend and one of my co-workers use the bit-torrent method to obtain music these days.
It is hard to believe this woman had to pay $756 per song in the settlement. And to think she could have just paid $7.92 to itunes or any other "legal" downloading site for the same eight songs.
Alan
Ironically I found this while reading the newspaper after our first class. I thought it fit it perfectly with what we discussed since it referenced a person who settled a lawsuit with record labels for what she illegally downloaded on Kazaa.
Also I found it ironic that she tried to argue her side of her use of the Kazaa program since many users don't feel that it is illegal to download music for free. I have a friend who previously used Kazaa but moved on to other sites to avoid getting caught and sued like this woman did. My friend and one of my co-workers use the bit-torrent method to obtain music these days.
It is hard to believe this woman had to pay $756 per song in the settlement. And to think she could have just paid $7.92 to itunes or any other "legal" downloading site for the same eight songs.
Alan
Libel Lawsuit for Illustration Is Ground Rarely Walked
"Libel Lawsuit for Illustration Is Ground Rarely Walked"
NY Times (9/27/04)
Suing a cartoonist is rare because their work is seen as satirical versus factual and more often than not involves persons deemed public figures.
In this case, Conrad M. Black, a Canadian media magnate and former CEO of Hollinger International (now the Sun-Times Media Group), sued Barry Blitt for illustrating Lord Black arriving in hell for an article in Toronto Life entitled "A Toast to Lord Black on His Arrival in Hell." Lord Black sought 1.6 million U.S. dollars in damages arguing that Blitt's "illustration implied that Lord Black's conversion to Catholicism was a sham and that he was so irredeemably evil that he belonged in hell."
In the U.S., Black would be considered a public figure and therefore not qualify to file suit for defamation. But, in Canada the public figure rule for libel does not apply. According to this article, the plaintiff must prove that most average people would take the defendant's illustration as a statement of fact versus opinion.
Do you think that cartoonist/illustrators should be fair game for libel suits in some cases? When they've gone maybe a bit too far?
NBC's Law & Order sued for Libel
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1205923904352
Here is an interesting article from Law.com that explains a libel lawsuit filed against the creators of Law & Order by a lawyer in NYC. The lawyer claims that in the episode titled "Floater", the lawyer depicted in the show is him and that the show was damaging his image/reputation.
To make matters even more interesting and twisted, during the course of the episode the detectives uncover a corruption scandle involving the attorney and a judge. The plaintiff here was alledged (but never proven) to be part of a bribing scandle involving judges in the NY area. Due to the amount of coverage this scandle received, the judge deemed the plaintiff a "public figure".
While there are multiple similarities between the lawyer in the episode and the plaintiff, he will still need to prove that the audience believed that the character portrayed in the episode was in fact him and not a fictional character.
Question being: If he has to prove the audience believes that this character was him, are we referring to the nationwide audience or just the NY audience? If we are talking about the nationwide audience, I think it would be extremely difficult for him to prove that this character was in fact him.
It is my opinion that the plaintiff in this case is going to have a difficult time proving that the lawyer decpicted in this particular episode was in fact him. While there are many similarities between the character and the plaintiff, I find it hard to believe that the majority of Law & Order viewers would make the association if they were not following the press regarding the scandle that he was linked to. Feel free to let me know your thoughts.
Chrissy
Here is an interesting article from Law.com that explains a libel lawsuit filed against the creators of Law & Order by a lawyer in NYC. The lawyer claims that in the episode titled "Floater", the lawyer depicted in the show is him and that the show was damaging his image/reputation.
To make matters even more interesting and twisted, during the course of the episode the detectives uncover a corruption scandle involving the attorney and a judge. The plaintiff here was alledged (but never proven) to be part of a bribing scandle involving judges in the NY area. Due to the amount of coverage this scandle received, the judge deemed the plaintiff a "public figure".
While there are multiple similarities between the lawyer in the episode and the plaintiff, he will still need to prove that the audience believed that the character portrayed in the episode was in fact him and not a fictional character.
Question being: If he has to prove the audience believes that this character was him, are we referring to the nationwide audience or just the NY audience? If we are talking about the nationwide audience, I think it would be extremely difficult for him to prove that this character was in fact him.
It is my opinion that the plaintiff in this case is going to have a difficult time proving that the lawyer decpicted in this particular episode was in fact him. While there are many similarities between the character and the plaintiff, I find it hard to believe that the majority of Law & Order viewers would make the association if they were not following the press regarding the scandle that he was linked to. Feel free to let me know your thoughts.
Chrissy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)