Libel and the Internet

In addition to the example above, I also came across an interesting libel case in which Wikinews was sued for libel. I found this article interesting, as it brings the topic of the fact that those items published on the Internet, if published based on the findings of a credible source, cannot be held accountable for libel issues. (See the article below.)

Wikinews has confirmed through several sources that a lawsuit filed against the Wikimedia Foundation, the parent organization of the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia, by the 'Barbara Bauer Literacy Agency,' has been dismissed. As a result of the associated conflict, edits pertaining to Bauer on Wikipedia were deleted and, following the commencement of legal proceedings, Wikinews exclusively obtained the offending texts and edits.
Judge Jamie S. Perri dismissed the case citing the 1996 Communications Decency Act, promoting free speech over the Internet. The act protects the provider of interactive computer services from liability for publishing content provided by another.

At the start of the court action, Wikimedia asked the court to dismiss the case. "Wikimedia asks the Court to dismiss the claims against it, with prejudice. The claims against Wikimedia are frivolous because they are barred as a matter of law by the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230( c), "Section 230" or the "CDA"), by the First Amendment, and by New Jersey law. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia written by its users, the content of which can be created, edited, or removed by anyone.

You can read the full article at: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Libel_case_against_Wikimedia_Foundation_dismissed

Cage Sues Over Autobiography

I thought this article was interesting after having discussed the issues that face “Public Persons” when dealing with issues of libel.

Nicolas Cage is suing Kathleen Turner over allegations made against him in the actress's autobiography.A spokesperson for the actor confirmed that libel proceedings have been issued against his former co-star at the High Court in London.In “Send Yourself Roses,” Turner alleges that Cage caused problems during the filming of Francis Ford Coppola’s “Peggy Sue Got Married” in a bid to prove he had won the role on his own merit rather than because his uncle was the director.She also claims that the actor was arrested for drunk driving and had stolen a Chihuahua.Cage refuted the claims, telling the New York Post gossip column PageSix that the credibility of Turner's biography and memory is at stake."Fact credibility should have been exercised on (her) part," he continued.

Cage won the case.

Read more at: http://www.hecklerspray.com/nicolas-cage-sues-kathleen-turner-over-dog-stealing/200812391.php and http://www.hollywood.com/news/Cage_Pleased_with_Turner_Libel_Victory/5213542

David Duchovny Sues Tabloid Over Tennis Affair Story
Oct. 23, 2008, 2:07 PM EST



Soon after the story recently broke about David Duchovny and his wife, Tea Leoni, getting a divorce, another story was released by The Daily Mail indicating a possible reason for the separation. The Daily Mail claimed that Duchovny had had an affair with his tennis coach, Edit Pakay. The actor is suing The Daily Mail filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. He is claiming defamation and invasion of privacy. The Daily Mail story claimed that Duchovny sought out Pakay as a coach and the relationship eventually turned into an affair. Duchovny says in the suit that this never happened and that the entire story is not true. He even goes as far as to say that he never hired Pakay as a tennis coach, but instead says that as friends they would occasionally play tennis.



Link to article: http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx/?news=336044



I think that as celebrities, when they choose that profession, they should expect a closer, more invasive eye on their private life than the rest of us. However, if a media source falsifies a story entirely, that is considered grounds for legal action. The Daily Mail is a British newspaper that is printed in tabloid form. I tried to find more on whether or not The Daily Mail is considered a credible source of news and could not find anything that said otherwise. So, either this generally credible paper is making the entire story up or Duchovny is trying to cover up a relationship that could hurt him in the future divorce proceedings.

Accused Guns N’ Roses leaker pleads not guilty

LOS ANGELES - A man accused of placing songs on the Internet from an unreleased album by the rock band Guns N' Roses pleaded not guilty on Monday in federal court.
Kevin Cogill, 27, is charged with violating federal copyright law.
Cogill pleaded innocent to the charge on Monday and no date has been set for the trial, said Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. AThe FBI says that Cogill posted nine tracks from Guns N' Roses' upcoming album "Chinese Democracy" on a Web site called antiquiet.com.
Cogill was arrested in August at his Los Angeles home and released on bail the same day. He faces three years in federal prison if convicted, and five years if the court finds he posted the songs for commercial gain.
Guns N' Roses said in a statement at the time of the arrest that while it did not condone Coghill's actions, "our interest is in the original source" of the material. Mrozek declined to comment on whether there would be any additional arrests.
One of the biggest bands to emerge from the American metal scene in the late 1980s, Guns N' Roses has not released an album of new material in more than 17 years. "Chinese Democracy" will reportedly come out later next month, but the project has been delayed multiple times over the years as singer Axl Rose shed all his original bandmates.

I remember that when I was in college and Napster was first getting big there was a lot of buzz going on about record companies busting students for downloading thousands of songs illegally and making them pay huge fines. Now it seems as if they are targeting someone for posting songs earlier than the release date to make an example of him. The article doesn't go into detail about how he might be trying to make a profit on this but it does suggest there was a motive of monetary gain. I wonder how he got ahold of these songs early, that might be something to look into as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27287280/

Perfect Pushup vs. Pushup Pro

Perfect Pushup Files Suit Against Iron Gym and Pushup Pro Makers
Perfect Pushup Files Suit Against Iron Gym and Pushup Pro MakersLENGTH: 210 wordsDATELINE: MILL VALLEY, Calif. Oct. 8
MILL VALLEY, Calif., Oct. 8 /PRNewswire/ -- Perfect Pushup LLC, designer and distributor of the well-known Perfect Pushup and Perfect Pullup fitness products ( http://www.perfectpullup.com/ ), announced that it has filed suit against Ontel Products Corporation ( http://www.ontelproducts.com/ ) for claims involving trademark and copyright infringement. Ontel recently launched the Iron Gym pull up product on television. The lawsuit alleges eight causes of action and claims that Ontel has systematically copied Perfect Pushup's products and advertising in an effort to confuse consumers. Perfect Pushup previously brought an action against Ontel alleging that the company infringed the Perfect Pushup trademarks with its Pushup Pro product. The new lawsuit includes claims relating to Ontel's alleged failure to perform under an agreement between the parties in the first lawsuit.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for copyright and trademark infringement and requests an injunction to prevent all resellers of the Iron Gym from, "further distributing, selling, causing or authorizing sales and distribution of," the Iron Gym.
CONTACT: Joseph P. Costa, +1-310-576-6161, joseph.costa@costalaw.com
Web site: http://www.perfectpullup.com/
SOURCE Perfect Pushup LLC
Hello Everyone,
The interesting piece of this suit is that the two companies look very similar. It seems that Ontel promotes the perfect pull up on its website. Even though both products are similar; it seems strange to host two different websites to sell similar items. The perfect pull up is on the Ontel website and the Iron Gym is promoted on a totally different website. My thoughts are that the two products are in direct competition, but I wonder if it is indeed a trademark infringement. I am posting the news article and the links plus a blogger comment. It doesn’t appear that the customer is confused by the two products. Although with the name Pushup Pro from Ontel this is awlfully confusing to distinguish the difference between the two companies. Can any of you tell the difference?

http://www.ontelproducts.com/about.html

http://www.buypushuppro.com/Default.asp?bhcp=1


http://store.perfectpushup.com/category.php?cat=10&site=pl


Iron Gym October 12, 2008
Filed under: Uncategorized — eng1020 @ 5:55 pm
For my post I decided to analyze a commercial instead of a scene in the movie. The commercial I choose to analyze was Iron Gym which is a pull up bar that turns any door into a gym. The bar is pretty convenient because it doesn’t require any assembly you just hook it to the door and start your workout. The commercial is more like those infomercials you see its longer than a normal commercial running at about a minute long. The commercial features a built man doing pull ups on a normal looking door he does a set of the pull ups and then shows his muscles. The man in the commercial is white and about 6 ft tall he has no shirt on so you can see all the muscles the product will help you strengthen. The man is the only person in the commercial there is no people of color included but I don’t think that it matters because this product is targeted towards anyone that would want to get in shape and look better. I think people are getting sick of these type of infomercials because they see a different one everyday claiming its better than the one before it. The product claims it will give you rock hard abs and oblique’s also it claims that if you use the iron gym just minutes a day you will see real results in 30 days. The problem with that claim is what are real results you could say you are un happy with the results the iron gym has produced but they can still claim you have made some results no matter how big or small they are so the 30 guarantee doesn’t really have any true meaning behind it. The iron gym is just like any other workout machine you see advertised on tv claiming it will make you stronger and help you get bigger even if you only use it just minutes a day. I don’t think many people are buying into those type of commercials because anyone with common sense knows if you want to get in shape its going to take more than just a couple minutes of pull ups a

E-Defamation

Alleging e-defamation, ex-mayor sues blogsCourt quashed earlier action by ManalapanBYLINE: KELLY HEYBOER, STAR-LEDGER STAFFSECTION: NEW JERSEY; Pg. 23LENGTH: 514 words
Last year, Manalapan officials tried - and failed - to get a subpoena to find out the identity of "daTruthSquad," a blogger critical of the local government.
Now the town's former mayor is suing to learn the name of the mystery blogger and dozens of other people who have commented about him online.
George Spodak, a three-time Manalapan mayor, filed a libel lawsuit in Monmouth County Superior Court alleging that critics have been hiding behind screen names to call him a liar, a crook, a bum, a pedophile, an alcoholic, a wife beater - and worse.
The commenters used the names daTruthSquad, Fontina, Bribed Spodak, MyrGreenMeat and others in forums on nj.com, The Star-Ledger's website, according to the lawsuit.
"I'm going to find out who these very astute people are," said Spodak, 68. "They got the wrong tiger by the tail. They thought they could get away with it."
Although he has been out of office for 24 years, Spodak is still active in town politics and frequently speaks at township meetings.
Last fall, Manalapan attorneys subpoenaed Google, insisting that the internet company reveal the name and computer behind daTruthSquad's blogging account. A state Superior Court judge eventually quashed the subpoena, calling the request "an unjust infringement on the blogger's First Amendment rights."
Lawrence Kleiner, Spodak's attorney, said the new lawsuit has a better chance of succeeding because the former mayor has been out of office for more than two decades and is a private citizen, not a public official. The attorney is seeking subpoenas to require internet service providers to disclose the identities of up to 100 of the former mayor's anonymous critics.
"Anonymity is fine," Kleiner said. "But I don't think you can accuse someone of being a pedophile . . . and hide behind the Constitution."
The case has, once again, attracted the attention of national First Amendment groups. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a California nonprofit group that helped defend daTruthSquad in the previous lawsuit, said it will continue to work to keep the blogger's identity secret.
"You have the constitutional right to speak anonymously," said Matt Zimmerman, an Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney. "You can't use the court as an investigatory tool simply to out critics."
Spodak, who is retired after 40 years in the meat business, said he does not know how to use a computer and only learned that people had been talking about him online through friends. He said he was shocked by what people had written about him, including fanciful allegations that he plotted to kill his wife, and that his meat business had been investigated by the FBI.
Spodak said he suspects the commenters are political enemies trying to keep him from criticizing the local government.
"They were abusing my First Amendment right. What they are trying to do is quiet me," Spodak said.
Meanwhile, daTruthSquad has been mum about the new lawsuit on his blog. In his latest post, he credited the earlier lawsuit with bringing worldwide attention to his site and dramatically increasing his readership.
A couple of questions are there any truth to time frame limits to going from public official to private citizen. I would think that once a public official; one is always a public official.

My next question is any thoughts on how libel law is going to change because of technology. The Internet has brought so many issues about libel. Such as disgruntled former and existing employees’ blogging about company policies or people within the company, or people saying horrible things about another person on social sites (some of the comments can harm future employment for people. I have seen this in the elections as well, with people posting some slanderous comments about the candidates. Do you think the laws need to be changed or have new definitions for what is libel and slander? I think the above story suggest a possible yes, but what are some of your thoughts.

Making Punishments Fit the Most Offensive Crimes

In today's Wall Street Journal (10.23.08) an article by Amir Efrati discusses how criminal prison sentences for possession of child pornography, primarily on personal computers, has steadily increased in recent times. It states that "In 1991, a person with no criminal history who possessed violent child pornography images and movies and shared them with others would face a maximum of two years in prison in federal cases. Today, that same person could face more than 20 years." The article goes on to describe cases where there was no sharing of images with others, just viewing child pornography, and the subsequent prison sentences. In recent years judges who view the increased prison term guidelines as excessive have begun to impose their own lesser sentences, spurred on by a U.S. district court judge in Des Moines, Iowa in a case earlier this year in which he stated that the sentencing guidelines for child pornography crimes "do not appear to be based on any sort of [science] and the Court has been unable to locate any particular rationale for them beyond the general revulsion that is associated with child exploitation-related offenses," (Robert W. Pratt, U.S. district judge). Of course we want to protect children, but should the law impose sentences that serve to placate the public but show no sign of impacting the behavior, e.g., actual child abuse, that is supposedly being punished?

Trademark Law in the U.S. & China

After briefly discussing some prominent companies and their well-known trandemarks both here and in other parts of the world, I came across a case that discusses an interesting situation between a well-known company here in the U.S. (Sony Ericsson) and a recent instance of trademark law.

Sony Ericsson is currently of great interest to foreign companies doing business in China. In an article I found the author notes, “a number of famous marks have had problems in China with bad faith registrations by third parties. If somehow the registration of the mark in China has been overlooked, the third parties will register the mark in the Latin alphabet. And if not they will try to register the Chinese characters.”

Sony Corporation has been doing business in China for many years. Its Chinese character name, pronounced "suo-ni", is well recognized throughout China. Ericsson, a Swedish company, was founded in 1876 and it too has a Chinese character name, pronounced "ai li xin". In 2001 the two comapnies formed a joint venture to manufacture and sell mobile phones. The problem of registering the new name Sony Ericsson in Chinese characters as a trade mark then became apparent.

Unfortunatlely for Sony Ericsson, an astute Chinese businessman, Liu Jianjia from Guangzhou, southern China, filed an application to register the mark pronounced "suo'ai" with respect to DVD/CD players, mobile phones, speakers and entertainment goods, cassette players and the like on March 19, 2003 (No. 3,492,439). Sony Ericsson opposed the application but the mark was registered on August 7, 2004. Sony appealed to the Trade Mark Review and Adjudication Board ("TRAB") but it lost again. China is a first-to-file jurisdiction.

Ultimately, Sony Ericsson took Mr. Liu Jianjia to court and a decision was made on Aug. 10, 2008. “The Court said that the joint venture between Sony and Ericsson was widely reported in the press and that therefore Mr. Liu would obviously know about it. Therefore his actions do not have a clear legitimacy. Mr. Liu’s application for the mark was in violation of the principle of good faith. Accordingly the Court ruled that the decision of TRAB in favor of Mr. Liu was overturned and that the opposition by Sony Ericsson to the registration of the mark by Mr. Liu is to be reviewed again by TRAB.

You can read the article in it’s entirety at http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/9104-Sony-Ericsson-and-other-Trade-Marks-in-China.htm

Copyright suit involving Electronic Arts

Since we just got done discussing this in class, I thought this might be a good case to look at. Video gaming company Electronic Arts is getting sued for using the UNLV fight song in their NCAA football games. Here is a link to the entire article: http://www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/32012899.html It will be interesting to see how they rule in this case. The article states that the University has a limited licensing agreement with regards to using the song. I'm assuming the ruling will be determined by what was agreed upon in that arrangement. It should state whether or not UNLV had permission to license the song to another party, in this case EA.

MEDC 5350 Fall 2

Welcome to the Webster University Media Law Class Blog. As you can see, the Fall 1 class was very busy. But their hard work should provide you with an easier time coming up with topics to blog about. One idea might be to check up on some of the news stories they blogged about to see how they have progressed in the past few weeks.

If you have any troubles signing in, let me know. Otherwise, you should be ready to begin posting immediately. Good luck!

MEDC 5350 Fall 1

Thank you again to everyone for contributing to our very first class blog in such a professional manner. Please drop by from time to time to share any new stories you may have or if you are just curious about what is currently going on in the world of Media Law.

McCain Complains to YouTube Over Copyright Issue

Senator John McCain's general counsel has complained to YouTube that they have "inappropriately" removed some McCain TV commercials that contained snippets of news broadcasts. Using provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, news organizations demanded that the commercials be removed from YouTube. In one case, the TV spot contained a clip of CBS anchor Katie Couric taking about sexism in campaign coverage. CBS argued that the editing of the news clip implied that it was endorsing the McCain campaign. McCain's general counsel countered that the excerpts represented fair use, which exempted them from control by the copyright owner. McCain complained also that the copyright act does not permit the video to be put back online for 10 to 14 days, "which can be a lifetime in a political campaign." According to the article on page 8B of the business section of today's New York Times, YouTube is looking to strengthen the fair use doctrine.

Voter in Miami Stopped Because of His T-Shirt

Today TV news reports were covering a story about a potential, temporary First Amendment violation when a Miami voter was denied access to early voting, which began today in Dade County, Florida. The voter was wearing an Obama T-shirt, and was eventually allowed to cast his ballot. Although poll workers are NOT allowed to wear T-shirts reflecting their support for a candidate, voters are allowed to wear buttons, T-shirts, or whatever they want to show their endorsement. (I bet everyone in class could have told them that!)

Use of the word "porno" is going too far says industry

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/15/porno.film.ads.blocked.ap/index.html

A new Kevin Smith movie "Zach and Mira Make a Porno" has a title so controversial, they're having trouble getting their advertisements out. It's a great example of industry regulation as opposed to government regulation.

Unfortunately, when they tried to sanatize the ads by using stick figures, they were accused to creating ads appealing to children...

I wonder if this is setting the precident for use of the word "porno" or if there is other recent precident. Obviously this is a matter of time/culture too. Even 20 years ago, I doubt the word would have even made it in a title for a legitimate mainstream release.

On a side note...I think the class blog will get a lot more random hits on google searches now. Do we get extra credit for bringing more readers to the blog?

DVD ads included in newspapers

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/14/muslim.dvd/index.html

There's a DVD about radical Islam that was included in many swing-state newspapers. Some claim it wasn't clear whether it was an advertisement or an editorial. Some claim it played on some voters' misconceptions that Obama is a Muslim. Some claim it aims at pushing mideast policy to the fore-front instead of the economy as major issues for the upcoming election. I claim it reminds me of New York Times v. Sullivan! The newspapers could be sued for the advertisements they publish...but is there actual malice?

Campaign Buttons in the Classroom

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/nyregion/18button.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=free%20speech&st=cse&oref=slogin

Here is another case that has to do with free speech in the classroom. A New York judge ruled that a district policy that prohibited teachers from wearing political campaign buttons in the classroom was legal, but that the teachers could post information in places accessible to their colleges and not students. The judge maintained that it was up to each district to decide if the buttons would interfere with learning. The article goes on to discuss other cases of political endorsements in schools.

SLU Newspaper

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/62BC2843F2ABD7D58625747F00117F0D?OpenDocument

There has always been tension between the SLU newspaper and university officials. The most recent conflict is that the former official faculty advisor is now banned from the pressroom where he donated his time and experience to the student journalists. The university filed suit against him for copyright and trademark infringement after he started a nonprofit with the same name as the University News (SLU's paper). Avis Meyer claims that he did this in case the students ever decided to take the paper off campus so that they would have more control.

This issue has been going on for years. Even when I was on campus there was a constant struggle between the paper and officials over articles critiquing Biondi and the way that the school was run. This appears to be another attempt by the school to further gain control over the school paper.

Students Win Right to Publish Article on Principal

http://www.examiner.com/a-1353138~High_school_paper_wins_right_to_print_principal_probe_story.html?cid=rss-Washington_DC

Students have won the right to publish an article in their school paper dealing with an investigation into their principals "allegedly unethical side-business practices". The majority of the article was summarizing other articles in local papers that dealt with the princpal's dealings. The article was oringinally declined as the acting principal said it was not newsworthy as the story was covered in other papers. The superintendent overruled the acting principals decision because the students have a right to their freedom of speech and while they did not approve of the article allowed it to run. I agree with the superintendents decision to allow the article to run to allow those students who may not have had all of the information to read it from their peers point of view.

Man Wants to Secretly Sue for Libel

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/business/media/03mob.html?ex=1362200400&en=498085482f7ffe6a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The Chief Executive of a Transportation company wishes to sue an online reporter for libel over information that was obtained regarding potential mob payoffs in the transportation industry. The plaintiff states that the information published on the webstie to be defamatory. Interestingly enough, he wants his case sealed so that it is not available to the public or to the press. As trials are open to the public it is highly unlikely that the plaintiff here will get his wish to have everything sealed as requested. At this point it appears that it is in the State Supeme Courts hands.

"No More Blood for Oil" & the First Amendment

Can a person be thrown out of a town hall meeting for a bumper sticker? That is allegedly what happened on March 21, 2005 in Denver. On this date, President Bush was holding a town hall meeting about Social Security reform. At the meeting, three Denver residents were removed for apparently having a "No More Blood for Oil" bumper sticker. I think this is a clear first amendment violation, however, the article talks about the First Amendment violation of the three residents and the presence of state action. So what do you think?

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/2/7/0/p92702_index.html#association

"No More Blood for Oil" & the First Amendment

Can a person be thrown out of a town hall meeting for a bumper sticker? That is allegedly what happened on March 21, 2005 in Denver. On this date, President Bush was holding a town hall meeting about Social Security reform. At the meeting, three Denver residents were removed for apparently having a "No More Blood for Oil" bumper sticker. I think this is a clear first amendment violation, however, the article talks about the First Amendment violation of the three residents and the presence of state action. So what do you think?

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/2/7/0/p92702_index.html#association

Verizon Calls for Industry Adoption of 'Best Practices' to Protect Consumer Privacy in Online Advertising

After doing some more research on behavior advertising I found this article which is an announcement by Verizon which outlines Guidelines they believe should be followed by companies in regards to behavior advertising. The guidelines identified are:

(1) transparency -- "conspicuous, clearly explained disclosure to consumers"; (2) meaningful consent -- affirmative agreement from consumers before a company captures Internet usage data, when consumers surf the Web, for targeted or customized advertising; and (3) consumer control -- ensuring that consumers can at any time act to stop any company from using their Internet usage information.

Not bad but the only guideline I don't see is one that says individuals should have access to the information collected. I'm sure this is something that companies are resisting but I think that if individuals could see what is being captured they may find more value in it, and possibly feel more comfortable about the concept.

Article Link

Salinas backs off business-sign ban

I used to sell advertising to small and medium sized businesses and often I would hear owners say the best form of advertising they have is the sign out front of their store. For some this was true, plus they were spending so much on the lease they couldn't really afford much in additional advertising.

I found this article interesting because it emphasises the fact that a sign is a critical component of a business. However, the law doesn't say owner cannot have a sign it just has to be in compliance. Personally, i think the law is ridiculous but at the same time the owners just need to buck up and buy a reasonable sign. Either way banning the signs has caused a lot of controversy in the town.

Article Link

Bomb Story Yields Media Law ?'s

There were reports that an explosion occurred in Clayton today and the immediate coverage provoke some thoughts n the media's reporting and the law http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/3C78B4C1F6395291862574E4005A77FB?OpenDocument. Starting off with the picture of people being evacuated: Instead of the current headline, the headline Suspect A Large; then that would've brought tort of False Light. If the follow p story includes the victim from his/her hospital bed and they decline to have pictures taken but nevertheless they are published? The questions would be if they were a private citizen or a public figure (private would have a good case). Another question would be if an ailment were derived from the incendiary device were contagious, then would the media have a right to publish information. What if the person decides to take a walk around the hospital grounds and ends up in a place where the public can see them (public gaze). There are many things for media to consider when covering this type of event. The must be responsible or it could cost them.

YouTube, PBS urge people to record voting

PBS and You Tube are encouraging people to video their voting experience. Individuals can then upload their video to a special Youtube site http://www.youtube.com/videoyourvote. The best uploaded videos will be played on PBS. I like the idea but, it does seem a little risky. I can't wait to see the video of people gettting run out of their polling place by volunters who do or don't know the law. According to the article it is legal is some states but in other you are required to stay at least 1oo feet away or are not allowed to video at all.

Article Link

Police Blotter Oops!

The humor site Fail Blog had posted this photo taken from a newspaper correction.

So, is there enough of a degree of fault for this to be a libel?

Restricting speech for the sake of aesthetics

The University of Texas has recently decided to allow students to display political signs in their dorm room windows, reversing a policy that had been set to keep a consistent aesthetic look across the campus.

Scrabble versus Scrabulous

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93041383

http://www.techtree.com/India/News/Scrabulous_Spells_S-U-E-D_for_Indian_Developers/551-91551-643.html

Here is an interesting trademark case. The Indian developers of the popular Scrabulous game on Facebook were sued by Hasbro, the company that owns the rights to Scrabble in North America. Hasbro first threatened legal action in January against the developers and Facebook, but with no avail. Therefore, the lawsuit was filed in New York in Late July. The interesting component of this case is that Scrabulous has not assets in the US, thus a court decision would need to be backed by India’s legal system to be enforced. This is just another case where there are no precedents due to the newness of the Internet.

Hasbro may win their case, which would most likely happen since this seems to be a clear infringement. However, they would not receive any financial benefit without India’s legal system’s support. Nevertheless, by pressing on with the suit they are keeping their trademark active. I guess there is an up and a down to this case.

Google's Street Views an Invasion of Privacy

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0404081google1.html

We all use various mapping programs to find out how to get to a specific place, and if there is a photo of that particular place, sometimes it makes our lives that much easier. However, a Pittsburgh couple is suing Google over posting a photo of their home on their "street view". The couple claims that as they live on a "private street" the photo violates their right to privacy.

Seeing as it is a photo of the exterior of their home (and surrounding area) I am not exactly sure how they are goingto prove this in court, seeing as their are archive photos of their home within government records and such. Also, if you pull up the photos, it appears that all of the photos were taken from the street (which is not on their property). It will be interesting to see how this panns out.

Ernst & Young Files Trademark Lawsuit

http://www.webcpa.com/article.cfm?articleid=28751

E&Y and Entrepreneur Media Inc. are currently suing each other for the rights to use the term "entrepreneur of the year". E&Y claims that they have the rights to use this term and have registered the trademark with the patent office as they have been presenting the "Entrepreneur of the Year Award" for over 2 decades now. EMI claims that the term is generic and anyone can use it.

In my opinion, while this is a fairly specific title, it seems too generic to trademark. I would hate to not allow other companies to announce or proclaim who they feel is the entrepreneur of the year just because another company also has their own opinion on the matter. It's not like they are handing out an Emmy or a Golden Globe. This "title" is more generic and should be able to be used by anyone.

http://gotellmama.org/ I recently bought the shirt above and was surprised to see that they are no longer making them. According, to the website
"We had to modify own Team Obama design based on the Ceast and Desist order from the Harlem Globetrotter's. Haha! printed on 100% cotton tees. Currently, out of medium."
I thought it was a pretty good example of trademark infringement.

“HOBBIT” Domain Names are Reclaimed by Tolkein Enterprises

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

McCain seeks special 'fair use' copyright rules for VIPs

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10066570-38.html

Here is an interesting article apparently the McCain campaign is requesting that VIPS are granted special review privileges for videos uploaded to you tube. The dispute arose when several of McCain's campaign videos were pulled from you tube due to potential copyright violation. The campaign is arguing "fair use" and claiming the video are remixes. However, if the McCain campaign gets it there way political video will have a special review process that requires the questioned videos to be reviewed by a real person before removal. I don't think the idea is impossible but I do think that they should be held to the same standard as every other user, who's videos are removed first and then put back up if approved. That said, the article addresses an interesting "fair use" issue while also letting out the little know fact that congressmen get to skip airport security.

Bill Kurtis family's 'Little House' museum sued in trademark case

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-phil-rosenthal-little-house-oct15,0,7815297.story

Hurry while there is still time to visit the Little House On The Prairie Museum, in Independence Kansas! I know what I'm doing this spring.

According to the article the TV company that owns the old television shows trademark claims, "trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition. The company not only wants to stop the museum outside Independence, Kan., from using the trademark, it also wants unspecified damages and the money the non-profit group has made from use of the name."

The nonprofit museum does own two trademarks and was offered $40,000 to give them up. The offer was denied and they plan to fight it out in court. All I know is that I can't believe I have been missing this place for so long.

Online tracking and the privacy violations of behavioral marketing

I'm all for behavior advertising as long as its done with a valid consent and an opportunity to opt out. The FTC agrees however, companies are still struggling to implement the technology. The attached article references Charter and their decision to not implement behavior advertising. Even more interesting is that companies who specialize in behavior advertising are closing their doors. Their claim is that the public is not ready for the technology yet, and they have encountered more resistance than anticipated.

I'm convinced that behavior advertising is here to stay. I just hope that companies use the technology responsibly and do not take advantage of the information they hold or gather.

Article Link

TRO Denied...

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20232171,00.html

This article refers to the case of a TRO (temporary restraining order) that model Christie Brinkley sought against her ex-husband. Brinkley sought the restraining order because she didn't like seeing their children in a 20/20 interview that Peter Cook did.

The judge denied the TRO which has to be devasting to Brinkley. This whole chain of events starting with her ex-husband's affair with a teen which ended their 10 year marriage to the denial of the restraining order has contributed to this big mess. Unfortunately when you're in the spotlight like she is, your dirty laundry is aired out for everyone to see.

Cardinal's Message Board

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3100957

I know this was almost 1 year ago, but I was studying for the final exam tonight and ran across in our notes that "the operator of a message board is not considered the publisher of the defamatory statement, so long as it makes an effort to discourage and remove such posts". This note refers specifically to internet message boards...but it reminded me of when the St. Louis Cardinals were sued for allowing an untrue text message to appear on their messaging board in Busch Stadium. I believe this is also a publication/broadcast so they could be sued for libel.

There is actually a person's who's job it is to go through and double check all those messages before they're posted...she must have missed that one I guess. Anyway, as a private person, the girl being harmed would not have to prove "actual malice" just "negligance" to sue for libel. I think they settled out of court...which I'd bet was just a PR decision. I doubt they would have won the case in court.

Happy studying!

Inappropriate clothing in Virginia

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27183387/

This story refers to a vote today banning any type of Obama or McCain clothing, buttons and hats when visiting the Virginia polls by their state board of elections. The board feels that by wearing such clothing, it would look like voters are directly advocating the election or defeat of a specific candidate or issue.

Of course this is looked at as a violation of First Amendment rights as declared by the ACLU. I completely agree with this as I cannot imagine how this could be enforced. So if you're wearing a shirt with your candidate's name on it, will you be sent home like if you wore an offensive shirt at school? Will you not be able to vote until you change your shirt or remove your hat or button?

I would venture a guess that most polling places in Virginia are like mine and staffed with retired workers. Would they be expected to enforce this law? I can't imagine how successful or willing they would be to.

Censorship, I think not…

Censorship is one the most often heard (and irresponsible) charges from the media. Opinion satirist Maureen Dowd was apparently kicked off (barred) the McCain plane for her and her paper the New York Times coverage of John McCain. This legal since the federal open media law is not applicable to access to campaign planes do not qualify under statutes. The first amendment protections are not taken away from Ms. Dowd and New York Times by the McCain camp refusing access to the press plane. "We are first amendment absolutists on this campaign and the press and everyone who wishes to cover this race from a blogosphere and media perspective is constitutionally protected to write whatever they want," said Steve Schmidt, the campaign's chief strategist http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/mccain-camp-goes-to-war-w_n_128297.html. Access is a privilege (media pass campaigns for space on planes) not a right, and it is obvious that the New York continues to exercise their rights with stories about the McCain Campaign. Do I think this is petty, yes? Do I think the New York Times has a bias, yes, but that is my opinion. If you are running a campaign, you are going to run into bias; it is your responsibility to get your message out. When campaigns take this type of action; it as a sign of weakness (mostly). No, they are not violating the first amendment or Sunshine laws; they are highlighting weakness. For the record, Maureen Dowd, like Helen Thomas are Op-Ed writers; not reporters. It does a disservice to the truth to treat them as reporters. Lastly, NY times has fallen along way in journalistic standards since 9/11, but again that is an opinion. Opinions should be challenged and held to account; not run from. Again, there has been no breaking of Media Communications Law.

Support Not Bribery

The correlation between a politicians positions and money they get from certain organization has been viewed as being a sign of corruption. Take Joe Biden and his opposition for amendments to bills that would have limited a citizen’s right to file lawsuits against companies with asbestos liability <http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/7F2795D619460BA8862574D8000FE4AA?OpenDocument>. Though the bill does have compensation mechanism (trust fund) for potential victims, it does shield companies from further lawsuits. With the mere appearance of corruption being the standard set in Buckley v Valeo in 1976, some would argue that the correlation is therefore corruption. This is not only a poor interpretation of the law; it is specious reasoning. Joe Biden may oppose these amendments because he feels it is a legislative overstep to keep citizens from exercising their rights to seek compensation for a company’s irresponsible practice. He may also believe that this right is a check on business power, which protects the citizens against potential future dangerous practices of a company when calculating liability. However, the mere support for legislation coinciding with financial support from a group that has a vested interest in legislation is not against the law; there has to be a quid pro quo, bribery. We have bribery statutes on the books and they have been exercised most recently with Senator Ted Stevens, Representative William Jefferson and Representative Duke Cunningham. Buckley v Valeo also said money is speech and groups should be allowed to support politicians that agree with them.

Office Romance Turns Nasty

Well they say that office romances could cost you your job and if they “sour” your reputation as well. Take a Philadelphia news station where the two anchors have a relationship Lori Delgado, the morning newsreader and Vince DeMentri, the afternoon news anchor. http://www.nypost.com/seven/10092008/gossip/pagesix/new_philly_tv_news_scandal_132735.htm Well, these two apparently had a relationship that soured allegedly resulting in the keying of Lori Delgado's car as well as the taking of certain possessions form her desk (hairdryer). Vince DeMentri was fired for seemingly being the culprit in these acts of harassment. Now Mr. Dementri is suing the station for slander. How does this measure up to the law? In cases of slander, you are talking about personal communication involving a defamatory statement (or statements). As opposed to libel, which are defamatory statements that appear in some permanent form: newspaper, broadcast or emails etc. However, the recent technological advances (chat rooms and live broadcasts) have blurred the line between libel and slander due to the long-term consequences of said communication. The burden will no doubt be on Vince DeMentri to prove actual defamatory statement of fact (not opinion), which is false and has caused actual damages of reputation. Despite the 1964 Supreme court ruling on Sullivan giving the elevated “Actual Malice” standard, it sounds like this case may be a winner or Mr. Demtri.

Ownership Trumps Artist’s Objections

The use or misuse of songs in Presidential campaigns has become part of the political landscape. When Ronald Reagan, highlighted the Bruce Springsteen song Born In The USA in a speech and then started to use it as an campaign anthem many were angered by the apparent misinterpretation the lyrics (protest song) as well as the song being used to pump up the crowd at Reagan rallies; Springsteen opposed Reagan’s platform. Now the Foo Fighters are not only taking artistic exception to the McCain camp’s use of the song Hero. Like the group Heart did with the use of the song Barracuda they are able to take legal action (cease and desist letter) to stop the use of the song. This would fall under the copyright statutes specifically ownership and compensation. The McCain has paid the licensing fees and therefore has complied with the applicable statutes. The BBC story states: Republican spokesman Brian Rogers said the campaign "respects copyright.” "Accordingly, this campaign has obtained and paid for licences from performing rights organisations, giving us permission to play millions of different songs, including My Hero." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7660650.stm Regardless of the Foo Fighters feelings about the song, ownership clearly dictates use of the song. This does not impact the “fair use” since ownership is with performing rights organization. Though, when artists to publicly object to use of material, it could theoretically undermine use of the song.

Bon Jovi Steals, No Way!

Bon Jovi, one of the biggest selling bands of all time are now being sued for copyright infringement for their song I Love This Town off the album Lost Highway. Songwriter Samuel Bartley Steele claims that his song (Man I Really) Love This Team http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/oct/14/job-bon-jovi-sued . The Boston native is certainly fired up according to the report from the Boston on Herald: "I know I'm the little fish and they're the big fish, but they fucked with the wrong piranha," he is suing for 4 billion dollars. The would be plaintiff says that Bon Jovi stole the lyrics and the chorus. He is also claiming that they were most likely heard when Bon Jovi was campaigning for John Kerry in 2004 outside Fenway Park where Mr. Steele band plays the song. The relevant facts to copyright infringement are found in the Fair Use doctrine, particularly with the substantial similarities and independent creation measures. These have to amount used as well as the effect on market. Also, the similarities in the works as well as Bon Jovi access to Steele's work. If he can prove that Bon Jovi stole the song by these standards, then he will be compensated monetarily not necessarily to the tune of 400 billion. The burden is on Mr. Steele to prove these claims.

Slander or Opinion

In 2005, Congressmen Jack Murtha went on news broadcast and accused marines in Haditha of being cold-blooded killers. The Marines were under investigation for and had been accused of the killing innocent civilians. The marines have now been exonerated and are suing Murtha for slander http://www.wjactv.com/news/17556169/detail.html. Do they have a case? These were certainly defamatory statements and they were broadcast, which would both fit standards of libel/slander. Though they were a group, they were also identified specifically as the marines in Haditha when incident took place. The plaintiff's will argue that Congressman Murtha is guilty of actual malice (standard for public officials for fault) because he showed reckless disregard in making the statement showing hostility toward the war, which the marines were engaged. The defendant will most likely argue that the statement was an opinion of facts already broadcasts or in the public domain, not a defamatory statement as alleged. They will say that Murtha did not identify the marines specifically and therefore not subject to federal libel/slander law. Lastly, the Plaintiffs will argue that due to their exoneration in court; Murtha's statements are proven false. The Defendants will argue that Murtha was acting in good faith at the time, and again, opining on public information. He may have problem because he would have access to information that would not be public die to his position. I give this to the marines; God Bless them!

No Censorship Here

Was there and incident of censorship at the University of Missouri-St. Louis? The case revolves around a classroom poster that previously had picture of Presidential candidate Barack Obama http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/8FCCA72BB34BBB40862574E200108210?OpenDocument. The picture was removed because of complaints form students that this was a political statement. According to the Post, the university has a policy which prohibits the use of university facilitates in support of political candidates. The decision was reversed by Provost Glen Cope who concluded that the posting of picture was not intended to be used in a “political nature” and therefore, the picture did not violate the school policy. The relevant media law issue under the Tinker and Hazelwood standards: disruption and ownership, respectively. Was it a student poster and what was the purpose of the poster? The poster was one of man emanating from an assignment regarding the production of a poster about character that would appeal to junior high audience. Therefore, the school was responsible for the assignment (ownership). There was a disruption based on an apparent policy of the university. Therefore, the disruption was not because of a picture of Obama; it was the policy of the use of facilities to support political candidates. The school has ownership of the policy and the assignment. It served an educational purpose and would not result in fiscal liability. In regards to the first amendment content concern, it is clear that if the poster would have included a picture of John McCain, the same decision would have been made; content neutral. Provost Glen Cope has followed the law.

Odious But Not Illegal

Politics has long been plagued by irrational behavior and hyperbolic, hate laced statements, which have been false, misleading and irresponsible. According to the associated press, the statements made at a campaign rally from the crowd include "traitor," "terrorist," "treason," "liar," and even "off with his head" http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i4OpiwXT-cn2aMmpTpiUVElig0FgD93NT6S02 The question of taste (poor) is not germane to the law and the rights of these folks freedom of speech. However, I would be remiss if I did not state that in my opinion these statements (excluding liar) are in poor taste and terribly irresponsible. The question of law is do they constitute protected speech or do the cross into regulating areas where the government must institute criminal recourse. The applicable standard here is sedition outlined in the case Brandenburg v Ohio where government may not prohibit speech unless there is an incitement that imminently produces a lawless action; a direct call for lawlessness. In this particular context, these statements do not qualify under this standard. They should be challenged and disavowed by McCain campaign but not prosecuted by the government.

Bush Enacts PRO-IP Anti-piracy Law

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/152214/bush_enacts_proip_antipiracy_law.html

Yesterday, President Bush signed into law a bill that is designed to protect intellectual property further by raising the total amount of fines and pentatlities that can be applied.

Among the seneral provisons in the bill one notable statement is that, "The court may make either one or multiple awards of statutory damages with respect to infringement of a compilation, or of works that were lawfully included in a compilation, or a derivative work and any preexisting works upon which it is based."

This ability to enforece mulitple damages has a huge affect on the amount of damages media companies can sue for.

William Patry a copyright lawyer does a good job outlining the potential damages that can be enforced under the new law. For example a CD can be considered to have 13 potential damages.

"1 for the sound recording as a whole, and 12 for each musical composition. Under this approach, for one CD the minimum award for non-innocent infringement must be $18,750, for a CD that sells in some stores at an inflated price of $18.99 and may be had for much less from amazon.com or iTunes. The maximum amount of $150,000 then becomes three million, seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars per CD. Now multiple that times a mere ten albums, and one gets a glimpse at the staggering amount that will be routinely sought, not just in suits filed, but more importantly in thousands for cease and desist letters, where grandmothers and parents are shaken down for the acts of their wayward offspring.

William Patry includes a detailed explanation of the law on his blog at http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/12/what-does-it-mean-to-be-pro-ip.html.

Personally, I think the laws are already fairly substantial and this law only serves to discourage consumers, and does nothing to help the media companies affected adjust to the changing distribution structure and environment.

A la carte cable pricing

http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/09/mpaa_comes_out_against_cable_a.php

This article relates to a la carte cable channels, which was mentioned in one of the presentations from last week. The article discusses how the Motion Picture Association of American has warned the FCC to reject consumer requests for a la carte cable channel pricing. The MPAA suggests that a la carte pricing would violate the First Amendment, because Congress did not give the FCC the power to regulate wholesale pricing. So, is this a First Amendment violation? I personally think that the MPAA is stretching a bit. A la carte pricing would be a consumer benefit without violating the First Amendment. There would be no restrictions on speech it would just allow consumers to choose. I really do not see the difference in choosing between the preset cable packages or making your own cable package from an a la carte menu.

(not so) Great White

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/great_white_settles_lawsuit_for_pyrotechnic_nightmare.html

This article refers to the infamous nightclub fire caused by an out-of-control pyrotechnic display at 1980's rock band Great White's Rhode Island show. The February 2003 show killed 100 people when the band's tour manager shot off streams of pyrotechnics at the start of the concert. Sparks from the pyrotechnics ignited inexpensive packaging foam the club owners had used as soundproofing around the stage.

The band was not charged, but the manager pleaded guilty in 2006 to 100 counts of involuntary manslaughter and was paroled in March after serving less than half of his four-year prison sentence. The band offered $1 million to survivors and relatives just last month, but the band admits no wrongdoing as part of this settlement. The state of Rhode Island and the town of West Warwick also agreed to settle for $10 million in Aug '08.

I remember hearing about this incident at the time. I find it baffling that five years later very little has been resolved including settlements which still haven't been distributed. I hope these proposed long overdue settlements get dispersed very soon.

Yahoo starts lawsuit against Spammers

Here is another instance of a lawsuit filed for deceptive advertising and trademark infringement on the Internet. This is an example of phishing (for Internet users personal information) via a Yahoo Lottery Spammers' email scam. They were accused of "mimicking a legitimate communication from a well-known company."

This is the type of activity discussed during some of our presentations on invasion of privacy that harms Internet users' experience. If this behaviour is not regulated and legal action is not taken, it will eventually ruin consumers' Internet experience entirely making all online marketing and advertising efforts suspect.

More lawsuits trip up bloggers on Internet

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/838299.html

The link above is an article published today in the Kansas City Star which comments on the legal risk bloggers are facing. I found it interesting that there have been 280 legal actiona against bloggers this year and that the largest verdict against a blogger so far was $11.3 million.
Also, the article discusses the recent availablity of blogger insurance that covers copyright and defamation risk associted with online publishing. The article doesn't explain the cost of such insurance but my guess is that it is probably pretty expensive and I find it hard to believe that they would be willing to insure anyone.

Defamation suit for Oprah

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27052564/

This is an issue with a the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls near Johannesburg, South Africa. The ex-headmistress of the school claims that Oprah suggested that Nomvuyo Mzamane knew about an abuse at the school and covered it up.

It initially seems that Mzamane may have a strong case because Winfrey's comments were so publicized that it has damaged her future job prospects, as she is currently unemployed.

I think with the statements that Oprah made, she may have to dole out a few dollars out of her mega-empire.

Steve Jobs heart attack rumor hits stocks

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/03/technology/apple/index.htm?postversion=2008100318

This article discusses a drop in Apple stock prices as a result of a posting on ireport.com which claimed that Apple's CEO, Steve Jobs had suffered a major heart attack.

This was the posting:

"Steve Jobs was rushed to the ER just a few hours ago after suffering a major heart attack. I have an insider who tells me that paramedics were called after Steve claimed to be suffering from severe chest pains and shortness of breath. My source has opted to remain anonymous, but he is quite reliable. I haven't seen anything about this anywhere else yet, and as of right now, I have no further information, so I thought this would be a good place to start. If anyone else has more information, please share it."

The stocks dropped 10% around 9:30am when the report was issued. The SEC is investigating to find out if the article was posted with the intent of lowering the stock's price. However, the interesting point for me is that the article's author cites an "insider" as an "anonymous" source. I do not believe ireport.com would be cited as a news media outlet. I think the author (not a professional journalist) might be sued by Apple and might be subseonaed to discover the source of information. I believe he would not be protected, therefore, by shield laws. I think he may be sued for libel...however, since the stocks recovered...are there really damages?

Google vs American Airliens

http://news.digitaltrends.com/news-article/13915/google-sued-by-american-airlines

I saw this article tonight and it reminded me of Amandas and Michelle's presentations on Internet Advertising and how Google uses key-word based advertising (AdWords) to sell advertising space to the highest bidder. American Airlies claims that Google is making a profit off of their trademarks and is confusing consumers.

Once again money talks, the highest bidder gets the ad space (or more of it). Sad to say that once agian this will most likely be worked out outside of the courts, so we may never know what will happen if if the government will step in to regulate.

"That One 08" Already Trademarked

During Tuesday night's debate, John McCain referred to Barack Obama as "that one," and kicked up a storm, with radio callers, political bloggers, and the spin room all commenting. Although some suggested that McCain used the term frequently and had simply been clumsy this time, many others objected and labeled the phrase disrespectful. Some apparent Obama supporters saw a merchandising opportunity, creating a web site, www.thatone08.com and a related Facebook page to sell T-shirts with the Obama logo and the new slogan: "That One 08." The Obama logo was been trademarked for a long time, and a trademark application submitted for "That One 08"--reminding us all of the value of moving quickly to secure smart, money-making trademark concepts. Some of the T-shirts are already sold out, and some of the shirts actually look good. Check it out for yourself.

Free White Paper: What Every PR Professional Needs to Know About Copyright Compliance

As all of us in this class know, digital news content is very easy to share and as a result it is also very easy to violate copyright law. In my snail mail yesterday was a card from BurrellesLuce, a company that for decades has provided news clipping services to PR and communications professionals. The card promotes their free white paper, which I think is actually very good. According to them, some publishers are getting tougher on digital news clip sharing, and the White Paper offers some simple guidelines, describes the basic concepts of copyright and offers steps you can take to follow copyright law. You can read the White Paper at: www.burrellesluce.com/knowcopyright2 or call 877-839-9772.

The Google Defense

A defense lawyer in Florida attempted to use Google as a defense for his client in an obscenity trial this past summer. Since the case was settled with a bargain agreement it's difficult to say how this would have played out in court. No doubt it won't be the last time this defense is used.

An Apple a day...

A business school in Canada has been asked by Apple to change their logo, as Apple feels it too closely resembles their own. Because the school is involved in the computer field, it is felt that there is a possibility of confusion between the two, not to mention a potentially suggested relationship. Below is a picture of the logo at work.

This isn't the first time Apple has attempted to protect their logo. In April, they were concerned with a new logo for New York's GreeNYC campaign.

One Kathy Griffin is probably enough

Comedian Kathy Griffin is suing the owners of KathyGriffin.com claiming they are profiting from unauthorized use of her name and image. While the site has since been changed to include a link to her actual site, KathyGriffin.net, it still seems as if this is a pretty strong case.

Intellectual Property Czar...perhaps

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10053294-38.html

Apparently the house and senate has passed legislation that would create a new position in the White House to coordinate enforcement of intellectual property rights across federal agencies and departments. It was passed on Sept 29th but I could not find any information as to whether it's made it to the President or not. According to the article, it was unclear whether the President would sign it or not.

Intellectual Property Czar?
Secretary of Intellectual Property?
Nope, it's not that cool sounding...it will be called the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (okay, sort of cool).

Here's an article about it from the American Federation of Musicians (who of course support it):
http://www.afm.org/news/congress-passes-intellectual-property-bill

I originally spotted this news on cnnmoney.com...
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/ee04eb1c2ab6ee57a3fa490d78056006.htm
I liked their article because it also gave a response from the opposing side, stating "the public-interest advocacy group Public Knowledge said the legislation 'only adds more imbalance to a copyright law that favors large media companies.'"

New Regulations for Pharmaceutical Advertisements

This article has to do with drug advertisement regulation, a topic we discussed a few weeks ago in class. The article, Doctoring Drug Ads by Jennifer Wedekind, was featured in the Multinational Monitor September/October 2008 issue. According to the article, drug manufactures have agreed to new advertisement regulation after pressure from lawmakers. In June, the manufactures agreed to wait six months, after FDA approval, to advertise new drugs directly to the consumer. Furthermore, there will be stricter regulations on how doctors are used in the ads. If the doctor in the advertisement is an actor, under the new regulation this must be stated in the ad. And, if the doctor is an actual physician the ad must state whether he/she was compensated to appear in the ad. These new regulations came about due to the Vioxx disaster that killed between 35,000 and 55,000 people.

Suppreme Court Returns, Will Hear Case Concerning Dirty Words on TV

The new Supreme Court term begins tomorrow, Monday, Oct. 6, with a number of interesting cases on the docket. In particular, the justices are scheduled to hear a case (on Election Day) concerning dirty words on television. The appeals court argument itself, which involves swearing by Cher and Paris Hilton on a prime-time awards show, is laced with expletives. Apparently when Cher appeared on the Billboard Music Awards in 2002, she used a four-letter word connoting sex. The next year, on the same show, banter between Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie included that words and another obscenity. In the Federal Communications Commission v Fox Televisions Stations, the court will decide whether the F.C. C,. has the power to punish broadcasters for airing "fleeting expletives." As we have been discussing recently in class, obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. In addition, it is difficult to define, but the test has several parts including whether the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole must appeal to prurient interest in sex, and the material is offensive because it affront community standards, and it must be without redeeming social value. What do you think here?

Illinois Now Requires Pornography Data from Computer Technicians

Under a new Illinois law, computer technicians must report to law enforcement any customers whose computers contain child pornography. The law applies to those who work at stores and people who repair computers in homes, such as the Geek Squad and others. It is an expansion of an existing law that requires photo processors to report potentially criminal images. Gov. Rod Blagojevich approved the law as part of a package of legislation to prevent the exploitation of children. The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois on Friday, Oct. 3, questioned the wisdom of the law that requires untrained technicians to make judgments about what constitutes child pornography. What do you think about this law?

Mockolate anyone?

Here's the piece on Hershey switching out chocolate for vegetable oil in some of their products.

While this seems to be more of an FDA issue than anything else, just thought I'd share.

We can do a taste test tonight in class.

Big Brother watching NY

The NYPD is being sued by the New York City Liberties Union over security cameras placed throughout Manhattan. Despite turning over 91 pages of documents, the NYCLU still feels it doesn't have enough information about the location of the cameras and what the data is used for.

New York is clearly trying to take a page from London, who used their CCTV system to help find the terrorists involved in the July 2005 attacks.

So what sort of an invasion of privacy is this? The cameras are placed in public areas with the intent of preventing future terror attacks.

I still haven't made up my mind on the idea of CCTV systems being used here. I can certainly see their advantage and recognize that my comings and goings can already be tracked by something as small as my credit or debit card transactions.

Is Ragu fresh?

I came across a short article in the October 2008 issue of consumer reports that dealt with deceptive advertising of Ragu pasta sauce. Ragu has new pasta sauce in pouches for single servings. For advertising purposes, these pouches were labeled as “Fresh & Simple”. The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus concluded that “fresh” could not be used, because the product was in fact not fresh. Ragu claimed that fresh referred to the single-serving portion of the pouch and therefore, a fresh pouch must be used every time. Regardless of their argument, Ragu agreed that it would remove the “Fresh & Simple” wording from its packaging and advertising.

This example of advertising regulation is exactly what we talked about in class last week. How could a product be labeled as fresh when it comes from a pouch or a can. In this instance it was not truthful advertising or puffery, but merely misleading.

I could not post the article due to copyright.
For my Webster classmates:
If you would like to see the full article please log on to Webster’s library and search the title “Truth in advertising? Industry group rules on claims”.

You can view NAD’s decisions on other ads by visiting nadreview.org.

Georgia State Sued for Copyright Infringement

http://ourgeorgiahistory.com/ogh/copyright_lawsuit_against_georgia_state_university

GSU is currently being sued by several publishers for copyright infringement. All of this has stemmed from the University allowing student to download "course packets" that contain works from the publishers that are under copyright.

In July of 2008 the University appeared before the court claiming that the materials were used under the copyright's Fair Use Exemption which allows for schools to copy and use a limited amount of work that is under copyright for educational purposes.

The publishers maintain that too much of the material was used and therefore violates the Fair Use Exemption as multiple entire chapters and lartge excerpts are used in these course packets.

An intersting facet of this lawsuit is that these materials were made available on-line and not in printed form. Needless to say the decision the court makes could have a huge impact on colleges across the country.

He Said, He Said

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3620965&categoryId=2459789&n8pe6c=1

This is a story about the Oakland Raiders who fired their coach Lane Kiffin on Tuesday 'with cause', meaning they won't pay him. In this link ESPN's legal analyst Roger Cossack is asked if there will be a lawsuit since the team is refusing to honor the coach's contract.

Cossack mentions that this is a "lawyer's paradise" because you have two sides each claiming the other is lying, and the team is claiming a breach of a contract action. The owner, Al Davis, says the ex-coach did, the coach says he didn't and is still owed the money. Cossack says this will go to court, but cooler heads will prevail and most likely there will be a settlement.

It got even more interesting with the owners press conference in which Davis goes into detail what the coach didn't do, lied, etc. Davis lambasted his ex-coach which I thought was interesting because it was an amazing sight to see such an airing of dirty laundry.