http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars
Monday, December 21, 2009
Fair Punishment?
Another case I discussed in my paper was Capitol Records v Jammie Thomas-Rasset. The label sued a Montana mother for illegally downloading songs via a file sharing service. The case went to trial a first time where Thomas-Rasset lost, then later went to trial again in an attempt to appeal. The punishment and damages were not reversed, they were more harsh! The defendant was sentenced to paying $80,000 per song she downloaded illegally. Do you think the punishment fits the crime in this case?
Kanye West Sued for Copyright Infringement
This article was one of which I discussed in my presentation on digital downloading and sampling. In this article it outlines that Kanye West was sued by a 1980s producer who claimed that Kanye stole the track for his hit "Good Life" from D' Mystro's 1984 song, "Volume of the Good Life". The case is a very interesting copyright infringement case. The plaintiff failed to prove that Kanye had access to the original work to copy it, and also failed to prove substantial similarity between the two songs as they were not close enough to each other to confuse a reasonable person.
http://www.marylandiplaw.com/2008/04/articles/copyrights/maryland-ip-litigation-2008-lawsuit-summary-no-20/
Sunday, December 20, 2009
More on School Rights
I'm fascinated by student rights v. the rights of a school, and of course, as with everything else, the online territory has turned the world upside down. Following the Missouri case of cyber-bullying, in LA another case cropped up involved cyber-bullying and the suspension of the bully. The bully then filed a Federal court case protesting that her rights have been violated. So far, the courts are on her side.
Read more here.
Read more here.
Abreadcrumb & Fish
This article made me laugh. There's a bit of a ruckus in the off-brand t-shirt business. It seems as though in an effort to comment on culture, many small shops have taken to producing Christian-themed parodies of famous brands, such as "iPray," "Abreadcrumb & Fish," and giving a nod to the social media world: "Jesus Christ Wants to Be Your Friend."
Although this seems to clearly fall under parody as far as copyright infringement goes, many trademark claims could be made, and if the big companies go after these smaller ones (if they can track them down), they have a clear shot at winning.
Regardless, some are amused and some are not, and some others may get a Christmas surprise this week, when they receive a hockey goalie jersey that says, "Jesus Saves!"
Check out the article here.
Although this seems to clearly fall under parody as far as copyright infringement goes, many trademark claims could be made, and if the big companies go after these smaller ones (if they can track them down), they have a clear shot at winning.
Regardless, some are amused and some are not, and some others may get a Christmas surprise this week, when they receive a hockey goalie jersey that says, "Jesus Saves!"
Check out the article here.
Chewing on Apple
This is an old article, but I stumbled upon it and thought it was interesting. Several years ago, the City of New York launched a green campaign with an apple design. Apple, Inc. claimed copyright infringement.
There's arguments of dilution and confusion - and ultimately, they say it's up to the consumer. Strangely, I wasn't aware of the survey technique listed in the article. Lawyers are hitting up consumers to see what they think of the logo, and will use that information to pursue a judgment in Court.
Here's the article.
There's arguments of dilution and confusion - and ultimately, they say it's up to the consumer. Strangely, I wasn't aware of the survey technique listed in the article. Lawyers are hitting up consumers to see what they think of the logo, and will use that information to pursue a judgment in Court.
Here's the article.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
D.C. family wins suit over raid on home;
In 2007, A family won lawsuit against the DC government that infringe their constitutional rights of privacy. Laura Elkins and John Robbins house that was under renovation raided after a complaint from the neighbor to the D.C. Historic Preservation Office in an attempt to revoke the permits. As a result they have to stop their renovation works that worth of 70 thousand dollar. According to the The Historic Preservation Office, the house renovation work where a sloped roof in the middle and rear of the house, is against D.C. Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act. Well,Elkins and her husband are professional architects. The plaintiff claim after designing the renovation, they submitted plans that were approved by the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs in 2001. They also had six building permits. In 2002 Ms. Elkins and her husband won their case in D.C. Superior Court when a judge determined that the permits were issued properly.
In 2003, a raid was conducted by about, twelve police officers and the DC consumer regulatory Affairs inspectors. They entered their bedrooms of their teenage children, searched drawers and carpet. The D.C. Historic Preservation Office then persuaded the District to obtain the search warrant and file a lawsuit before the D.C. Office of Administrative Hearings. The inspectors and police seized contracts, invoices and a notebook that contained permits, construction records and financial documents. Actually, their warrant allowed a search for proof that the reformation created "an imminent threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public”. The federal court did not argue whether the inspectors had "probable cause" to search the home. However the warrant did not authorize seizure of specific evidence. As the warrant did not specially state any documents to be seized, the seizure of the documents from the house was declared as outside scope and a violation of plaintiffs fourth Amendment rights. Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, of the U.S. District for the District of Columbia, ruled that the raid was an "unreasonable search and seizure" that violated the family's constitutional rights to privacy. Roger Marzulla attorney for Ms. Elkins and Mr. Robbins.said the search,was unconstitutional. He informed that the family would continue with their renovation, although their costs have increased considerably after six years of delays as the legal challenges increased. Mr. Marzulla commented that District officials have to obey the Constitution. The amount of damages the District should pay to them determined in a different trial. The case shows how officers can violate the power to infringe other people’s privacy life. This is the link to the stories
http://www.lexisnexis.com.library3.webster.edu/us/lnacademic/search/focusSearch.do?risb=21_T8185205746&pap=results_docview_DocumentRenderer&formStateKey=28_T8185205747&format=GNBFI&returnTo=20_T8185205748
In 2003, a raid was conducted by about, twelve police officers and the DC consumer regulatory Affairs inspectors. They entered their bedrooms of their teenage children, searched drawers and carpet. The D.C. Historic Preservation Office then persuaded the District to obtain the search warrant and file a lawsuit before the D.C. Office of Administrative Hearings. The inspectors and police seized contracts, invoices and a notebook that contained permits, construction records and financial documents. Actually, their warrant allowed a search for proof that the reformation created "an imminent threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public”. The federal court did not argue whether the inspectors had "probable cause" to search the home. However the warrant did not authorize seizure of specific evidence. As the warrant did not specially state any documents to be seized, the seizure of the documents from the house was declared as outside scope and a violation of plaintiffs fourth Amendment rights. Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, of the U.S. District for the District of Columbia, ruled that the raid was an "unreasonable search and seizure" that violated the family's constitutional rights to privacy. Roger Marzulla attorney for Ms. Elkins and Mr. Robbins.said the search,was unconstitutional. He informed that the family would continue with their renovation, although their costs have increased considerably after six years of delays as the legal challenges increased. Mr. Marzulla commented that District officials have to obey the Constitution. The amount of damages the District should pay to them determined in a different trial. The case shows how officers can violate the power to infringe other people’s privacy life. This is the link to the stories
http://www.lexisnexis.com.library3.webster.edu/us/lnacademic/search/focusSearch.do?risb=21_T8185205746&pap=results_docview_DocumentRenderer&formStateKey=28_T8185205747&format=GNBFI&returnTo=20_T8185205748
Brokeback Mountain Effect
Privacy and the Internet have been hot topics over the past couple months. Yesterday a class action law suit was filed against Netflix for breaking privacy codes and releasing information about its users' preferences. In October, Netflix had a contest that offered $1 million to anybody who could come up with a way to improve its movie recommendation engine by 10%. Netflix opened the contest to the public and released data to participants about subscribers including political, sexual orientation and other sensitive information.
Researchers at the University of Texas published a paper "How to Break Anonymity of the Netflix Prize Dataset" comparing ratings on Netflix with IMB. The lawsuit was filed by a group of individuals lead by a women who is only identified as a lesbian, who believe that now due to the exposure of this data, the idea that anyone who has the movie in their queue is more likely to be homosexual. This issues raises question of privacy issues and whether or not the data you submit is really anonymous or not.
Read Full Article: http://www.thresq.com/2009/12/facebook-netflix-privacy-complaint.html
Researchers at the University of Texas published a paper "How to Break Anonymity of the Netflix Prize Dataset" comparing ratings on Netflix with IMB. The lawsuit was filed by a group of individuals lead by a women who is only identified as a lesbian, who believe that now due to the exposure of this data, the idea that anyone who has the movie in their queue is more likely to be homosexual. This issues raises question of privacy issues and whether or not the data you submit is really anonymous or not.
Read Full Article: http://www.thresq.com/2009/12/facebook-netflix-privacy-complaint.html
Rolling Stone
Rolling Stone was recently sued for violating trademark and rights of publicity by taking cover images of famous musicians and putting them on t-shirts to sell. Live Nation filed the suit in California over the use of Nirvana, Beyonce and other musicians image, as they apparently have exclusive licensing deals with the artists. The sale of these t-shirts by Rolling Stone would be considered unfair competition and result in loss of money to the company.
Rolling Stone claims they are not infringing the First Amendment under Fair Use and that the "merchandise was expressive non-commercial speech part of a "subscription promotion campaign." The judge is asking for more evidence.
Read Full Article: http://www.thresq.com/2009/12/rolling-stone-merchandise-trademark-lawsuit.html
Rolling Stone claims they are not infringing the First Amendment under Fair Use and that the "merchandise was expressive non-commercial speech part of a "subscription promotion campaign." The judge is asking for more evidence.
Read Full Article: http://www.thresq.com/2009/12/rolling-stone-merchandise-trademark-lawsuit.html
Twitter vs. La Russa
This year, Cardinal's manager sued Twitter on multiple accounts including, invasion of privacy, trademark infringement and trademark dilution. Although the suit was settled outside of court, the situation is not the only of it's kind. Because there are no laws or regulations set on social media and freedom of speech on the Internet, it is difficult point fingers on who is accountable. Social media sites have their own Terms and Conditions, but are left up to the site's owners to interpret and a case by case situation.
Although Tony La Russa was criticized by both Twitter and the public for being over dramatic about the situation, his case brings to attention the flaw in regulation or lack there of, on online forums. Would you be upset if you knew someone was impersonating you? Especially if they made jabs at sensitive issues? I think the Tony La Russa brings up an interesting question of how far one can take parody until it crosses the line. It will be interesting to see if the government makes laws to regulate these issues, or if they leave it in the hands of the social media sites and their Terms of Condition.
Although Tony La Russa was criticized by both Twitter and the public for being over dramatic about the situation, his case brings to attention the flaw in regulation or lack there of, on online forums. Would you be upset if you knew someone was impersonating you? Especially if they made jabs at sensitive issues? I think the Tony La Russa brings up an interesting question of how far one can take parody until it crosses the line. It will be interesting to see if the government makes laws to regulate these issues, or if they leave it in the hands of the social media sites and their Terms of Condition.
Can the law keep up with technology?
CNN recently published an article about the crossroads the law and technology have come to. The law is about five years behind technology. This is due mainly to the fact that it is nearly impossible to predict future innovations in technology. Because the technology is evolving at a faster rate than the laws that govern free speech, many lawsuits are emerging.
Multiple suits involving libel, defamatory statements and invasion of privacy have sprouted up due to the increased utilization of social media sites. The article raises interesting questions such as "How can society balance accountability with free speech?" I found this article to be really interesting as it brought up challenging issues about freedom or speech and censorship on the Internet, that will be closely watched and play a large role in future legislation.
To read the full article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/17/law.technology/index.html
Multiple suits involving libel, defamatory statements and invasion of privacy have sprouted up due to the increased utilization of social media sites. The article raises interesting questions such as "How can society balance accountability with free speech?" I found this article to be really interesting as it brought up challenging issues about freedom or speech and censorship on the Internet, that will be closely watched and play a large role in future legislation.
To read the full article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/17/law.technology/index.html
Follow up on the FTC's new Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising
A few weeks ago my wife told me she volunteered to receive some new training diapers to test and review for a company. The approached her on "Facebook" I believe. I thought it was a hoax but a couple days ago we received the diapers. The package included 3 pair of diapers in two diff sizes and a spreadsheet for an evaluation and a couple of pages for a questionnaire. My wife is really into social networking online and I know she is going to write about it on her "wall" and make 'Tweets," etc. So, it reminded me to look up the new guidelines we talked about in class.
The link below has all the details if anyone is interested
Check out the Actual Guidlines : HERE
The link below has all the details if anyone is interested
Check out the Actual Guidlines : HERE
Hacked e-mails: To publish, or not?
Hi folks:
Remember a few weeks ago when 4,000 hacked e-mails from climate scientists surfaced and were written about in the press? Well, the Columbia Journalism Review has a fascinating article on the legal issues arising from the incident:
http://tinyurl.com/yamahh5
There are privacy issues relating to the publication of material where the e-mailers have a reasonable expectation of privacy (e-mails sent from one individual to another). Issues also arise about the press's publication of material obtained illegally; case law in the United States holds that they're probably not liable. Elsewhere? I don't know; the e-mails were hacked from a university in England.
On the other hand, the people who wrote the e-mails own the copyright, and if the press reprinted the e-mails verbatim they're violating the copyright. And unlike the issue of publishing illegally obtained material, when something becomes fair game when somebody else has already publised it, no such immunity exists in copyright law; every person publishing copyrighted material without permission is, theoretically, liable. The CJR attempts to provide guidance for journalists on these difficult waters.
Remember a few weeks ago when 4,000 hacked e-mails from climate scientists surfaced and were written about in the press? Well, the Columbia Journalism Review has a fascinating article on the legal issues arising from the incident:
http://tinyurl.com/yamahh5
There are privacy issues relating to the publication of material where the e-mailers have a reasonable expectation of privacy (e-mails sent from one individual to another). Issues also arise about the press's publication of material obtained illegally; case law in the United States holds that they're probably not liable. Elsewhere? I don't know; the e-mails were hacked from a university in England.
On the other hand, the people who wrote the e-mails own the copyright, and if the press reprinted the e-mails verbatim they're violating the copyright. And unlike the issue of publishing illegally obtained material, when something becomes fair game when somebody else has already publised it, no such immunity exists in copyright law; every person publishing copyrighted material without permission is, theoretically, liable. The CJR attempts to provide guidance for journalists on these difficult waters.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Harvard Likes to Rock
With the music industry cracking down on illegal file sharing, the "digital music police" are looking to college campuses first. A Harvard law professor, interested in using the Internet to promote social change, has become an advocate for a Harvard student who recently was fined several hundred thousand dollars for illegal file downloading.
Copyright reform has been a hot topic at the school recently, with seminars on the subject filled to capacity. Read here to find out some of their proposed solutions.
Copyright reform has been a hot topic at the school recently, with seminars on the subject filled to capacity. Read here to find out some of their proposed solutions.
Cases like these might be obsolete soon
If Britian changes their libel laws, cases such as the one Ozzy Osborne just won might be obolete. Apparantly he won an undisclosed amount of libel damages from The Daily Star due to an inaccurate representation of his appearance at an awards show in Britian. They said he collapsed twice and rode around in a buggy behind the scenes in case he got tired, all of which was found to be false. Ozzy's giving the money he won to his wife's charity, which raises money for colon cancer victims. At least he's doing something good with his winnings.
http://www.mister-info.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=10788&format=html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=27087
http://www.mister-info.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=10788&format=html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=27087
Elizabeth Hasselback from the View is sued over Copyright Ingringement
Elizabeth Hasselbeck, one of the hosts of the View, discovered upon returning from her time on the show Survivor, that she had an autoimmune disorder, called Celiac disease, which makes you allergic to gluten.
Self-published author Susan Hasset filed a federal lawsuit in Boston claiming that Hasselbeck’s new book “The G-Free Diet: A Gluten-Free Survival Guide” infringed on her copyrights for her own book “Living With Celiac Disease.”
According a report in the Boston Herald, Hasset claims she sent Hasselbeck, 32, a copy of her book in April of last year, in addition to a homemade cooking video, a business card, personal note and newspaper clipping. Hasselbeck published her book last month.
for the whole story read: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/06/23/views-elisabeth-hasselbeck-sued-copyright-infringement/
Bringing it home
A small Missouri company filed a case with the St. Louis circuit court this week. Bing Information Design is suing Microsoft for naming their search engine the same title, alleging trademark infringement as well as unfair competition. The design company offers computer related illustrations and other services, and has used the name "Bing" since 2000. Microsoft apparantly does not see this lawsuit as viable, although I guess we'll see in court. This should be an interesting case to follow, although its true not much might come of it when you're dealing with a corporation as huge as Microsoft.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20091218/tc_pcworld/designcompanybingsuesmicrosoftovertrademark
http://news.sg.msn.com/sci-tech/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3754611
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20091218/tc_pcworld/designcompanybingsuesmicrosoftovertrademark
http://news.sg.msn.com/sci-tech/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3754611
Limbaugh may have grounds for a Libel suit over the Rams
First off, I just need to state an opinion that I despise Rush Limbaugh, but this story works perfectly with what we've learned in class.
A few months ago Dave Checketts (Chairman of the Blues hockey team) was trying to get a group together for a joint purchase of the Rams. Within the group was Rush Limbaugh. St. Louisians revolted and it was all over the media how fans did NOT want Limbaugh to be part owner of one of our sports teams. In the media spin, a long standing "rumor" became discussed again.
It is said that a topic came up about slavery once. "Slavery built the South," Limbaugh was reported to have said. "I'm not saying we should bring it back. I'm just saying it had its merit. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."
Rush says he never said this. It's become so viral that people do seem to believe he said that. It was brought up again during the Rams negotiations and the negative media attentions he was receiving made Dave Checketts back out of having Rush in the finance group.
Lawyers say that Rush could have a libel case if he truly never said it.
A few months ago Dave Checketts (Chairman of the Blues hockey team) was trying to get a group together for a joint purchase of the Rams. Within the group was Rush Limbaugh. St. Louisians revolted and it was all over the media how fans did NOT want Limbaugh to be part owner of one of our sports teams. In the media spin, a long standing "rumor" became discussed again.
It is said that a topic came up about slavery once. "Slavery built the South," Limbaugh was reported to have said. "I'm not saying we should bring it back. I'm just saying it had its merit. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."
Rush says he never said this. It's become so viral that people do seem to believe he said that. It was brought up again during the Rams negotiations and the negative media attentions he was receiving made Dave Checketts back out of having Rush in the finance group.
Lawyers say that Rush could have a libel case if he truly never said it.
As a public figure, Wiehl said, Limbaugh would have to prove actual malice and damages -- meaning he'd have to show that the media organizations knowingly and maliciously published that information without regard for the truth, and that he suffered because of it.
"It's a higher standard," she said. "If they actually made up a quote that cost him a deal that he would've otherwise gotten, then yeah, he's got a case."
For more, here's the whole article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,566983,00.html
Google loses in French copyright case
Hi folks:
A court in France found that Google's program of digitizing books violates French copyright laws:
http://tinyurl.com/y9tk8xf
I don't know much (well, anything) about the copyright laws in France, so I don't know how they handle "fair use", but possibly the court decided that digitizing in and of itself constituted a copyright violation. That's what the plaintiffs claimed, and there's not enough information in the Times article to figure out whether that's what the court actually found.
Google offers excerpts from in-copyright books in response to searches, while directing users to places where they can buy the books; out-of-copyright books can be downloaded at no charge.
Google made a deal with publishers in the US; we'll see how this affects that. It's also interesting that the French government has its own digitization project planned.
A court in France found that Google's program of digitizing books violates French copyright laws:
http://tinyurl.com/y9tk8xf
I don't know much (well, anything) about the copyright laws in France, so I don't know how they handle "fair use", but possibly the court decided that digitizing in and of itself constituted a copyright violation. That's what the plaintiffs claimed, and there's not enough information in the Times article to figure out whether that's what the court actually found.
Google offers excerpts from in-copyright books in response to searches, while directing users to places where they can buy the books; out-of-copyright books can be downloaded at no charge.
Google made a deal with publishers in the US; we'll see how this affects that. It's also interesting that the French government has its own digitization project planned.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Court denies motion to dismiss AdWords trademark infringement case
Interesting case - and very current.
The company FrangranceNet.com sells perfumes online. They are suing a competitor, Les Parfums, Inc., another online perfume seller of trademark infringement.
How they are doing this is interesting. It's because of the new analytics that online advertisers can use to get a higher ranking on search engine optimization. Essentially you are higher on the google list when you have these certain words embedded in your website.
The Les Parfums, Inc. apparently uses the word "fragrancenet" in their analytics, so if a person searches under "fragrance.net", they, the competitor, would come up on the search list.
This has yet to have a court date, having just had a motion to dismiss denied. Interesting to see how this plays out, because this could be a huge market for future lawsuits.
Here's the article...
http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/12/09/court-denies-motion-to-dismiss-adwords-trademark-infringement-case/
The company FrangranceNet.com sells perfumes online. They are suing a competitor, Les Parfums, Inc., another online perfume seller of trademark infringement.
How they are doing this is interesting. It's because of the new analytics that online advertisers can use to get a higher ranking on search engine optimization. Essentially you are higher on the google list when you have these certain words embedded in your website.
The Les Parfums, Inc. apparently uses the word "fragrancenet" in their analytics, so if a person searches under "fragrance.net", they, the competitor, would come up on the search list.
This has yet to have a court date, having just had a motion to dismiss denied. Interesting to see how this plays out, because this could be a huge market for future lawsuits.
Here's the article...
http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/12/09/court-denies-motion-to-dismiss-adwords-trademark-infringement-case/
Google makes a move against "Making Money with Google" ads
It looks like Google's finally taking legal action against the ads that use Google's name and logo to promote scams. The Make Money on Google ads are all over the internet, and although Google attempted to crack down on them in July, the sites have continued to do well. This is a clear instance of trademark infringement, but Google's also claiming trademark dilution, cyberpiracy and unfair competition. They are also trying to get an injunction to stop the advertisements until the trial can begin. I think Google has a great case as long as they can narrow down who the advertisers actually are. What do you think?
http://www.searchnewz.com/latestsearch/senews/sn-4-20091209GoogleSuesMakeMoneywithGoogleScams.html
http://www.searchnewz.com/latestsearch/senews/sn-4-20091209GoogleSuesMakeMoneywithGoogleScams.html
Stars and bars
Apparantly over the last month several stars have sued small bar/restaurants for copyright infringement over not getting the correct licenses before playing the artist's music. Kid Rock, Dave Grohl, Taylor Swift, Gwen Stefani and Bon Jovi have all filed suits against small-time restaurants and bars to get them to stop playing their music without permission and are asking for damages. Should this really fall under copyright infringement? What if the owner legally bought the cd and was playing it in the restaurant he owned? This seems to me more like playing the radio in an establishment. If this goes through, I see a lot of places scrambling for music to play that won't get them into trouble.
http://www.411mania.com/music/news/124406/Kid-Rock,-Dave-Grohl-Sue-Bar-For-Copyright-Infringement.htm
http://www.411mania.com/music/news/124406/Kid-Rock,-Dave-Grohl-Sue-Bar-For-Copyright-Infringement.htm
http://www.411mania.com/music/news/124406/Kid-Rock,-Dave-Grohl-Sue-Bar-For-Copyright-Infringement.htm
http://www.411mania.com/music/news/124406/Kid-Rock,-Dave-Grohl-Sue-Bar-For-Copyright-Infringement.htm
Larry Flynt in court again, but this time it's his decision.
So Larry Flynt wants everyone to know the adult videos his company makes are classy porn. Or at least that's his stance in a new trademark infrigement suit he's bringing against his nephews. Apparantly the boys, Dustin and Jimmy Jr., reportedly worked for Larry Flynt's company Larry Flynt Publications and were fired in November of 2007 for being terrible employees. The two boys then took it upon themselves to start their own adult video company, with 'FLYNT" in large letters on the boxes. The boys claim they had no intention of being confused with their uncle. Larry disagrees, claiming that the words "Larry Flynt's Private Collection," which appear on many of the trademarked Hustler videos, "is an assurance to purchaser that they're getting the highest-quality porn their money can buy." He never actually trademarked his name, stating "I just never heard of someone using someone else's name." We'll see what happens in court this time, Larry.
For more on the story, follow the link below;
http://blog.al.com/scenesource/2009/12/hustlers_larry_flynt_sues_neph.html
For more on the story, follow the link below;
http://blog.al.com/scenesource/2009/12/hustlers_larry_flynt_sues_neph.html
Jury Awards $100K to Woman Who Says Fictional Character Defamed Her
A Georgia jury awarded $100,000 to a woman who says she was defamed by a character in the book "The Red Hat Club" had a strong mix of her own traits and other false characteristics.
She and the author were childhood friends. The character in the books bares her resemblance, has her same career, even has the same conniving second husband. But, the author portrays the character as a drunk who engages in casual sex. Something the plaintiff claims is completely false.
Typically, this would be dismissed as a writer's use of fiction, but Georgia law says that "modeling a fictional character after a real person is a strict liability offense."
They awarded her $100,000, but not the $1 million her lawyer asked for.
Here's the whole article..
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/jury_awards_100k_to_woman_who_says_fictional_character_defamed_her/
She and the author were childhood friends. The character in the books bares her resemblance, has her same career, even has the same conniving second husband. But, the author portrays the character as a drunk who engages in casual sex. Something the plaintiff claims is completely false.
Typically, this would be dismissed as a writer's use of fiction, but Georgia law says that "modeling a fictional character after a real person is a strict liability offense."
They awarded her $100,000, but not the $1 million her lawyer asked for.
Here's the whole article..
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/jury_awards_100k_to_woman_who_says_fictional_character_defamed_her/
Trimball-EXP200
Yet another "weight loss" product that can't substantiate its claims. This is a diet pill that supposedly expands in your stomach to make you feel full.
The NAD examined print and Internet advertising claims for Trimball-EXP200, following a challenge by the Council for Responsible Nutrition.
Claims at issue included:
- “This all-natural ‘gastric balloon’ which triggers automatic weight loss is a big hit in Japan…”
- “In a few minutes, this amazing capsule expands to become a 100% natural gastric balloon.”
- “…it attracts, surrounds and absorbs some of the fat, carbohydrates and sugars that you’ve
eaten and they are naturally flushed out without having a chance to be absorbed by your
body and converted to excess fat.”
- “This weight loss plan is 100% safe.”
- “The effects were immediate. I ate everything I liked and as much as I liked.”
- “The first month, I lost exactly 33 pounds without any effort. The most incredible thing was
that my stomach quickly became flat and firm.”
- “I could eat all the foods I like and as much as I wanted.”
- “I lost a total of 48 pounds in 7 weeks.”
- “When you use the Trimball-EXP200 capsule, you are going to eat 2, 3 or even up to 4 times
less, as you feel that your stomach is FULL. You will not experience any feelings of hunger.
You will then automatically lose weight.”
- “These two properties have been confirmed by many clinical studies conducted in the USA by
leading dietary researcher, Professor Walsh from the University of Minnesota.”
- “With no dietary changes, the average weight loss for women is 37.5 pounds and for men
42.5 pounds. The least amount of weight loss for anyone tested is 33 pounds.”
- “…they all lost weight quickly with losses of up to 38 pounds in only 30 days.”
- “…the TrimBall-EXP200 capsules contain a natural dietary fiber which is 100% natural and
has no side-effects.”
- “It is the highest concentration of this active ingredient recommended by medical doctors for
a 100% safe usage of these capsules.”
- Implied Claim: TrimBall-EXP200 is prescribed by medical doctors.
The NAD attempted to contact the advertiser and never got a response. The are sending the matter to the FTC and FDA now for criminal action.
to read the full report go to http://www.nadreview.org/start.aspx
Then click on the 5th report down (the one dated Dec 14th) to open the pdf.
The NAD examined print and Internet advertising claims for Trimball-EXP200, following a challenge by the Council for Responsible Nutrition.
Claims at issue included:
- “This all-natural ‘gastric balloon’ which triggers automatic weight loss is a big hit in Japan…”
- “In a few minutes, this amazing capsule expands to become a 100% natural gastric balloon.”
- “…it attracts, surrounds and absorbs some of the fat, carbohydrates and sugars that you’ve
eaten and they are naturally flushed out without having a chance to be absorbed by your
body and converted to excess fat.”
- “This weight loss plan is 100% safe.”
- “The effects were immediate. I ate everything I liked and as much as I liked.”
- “The first month, I lost exactly 33 pounds without any effort. The most incredible thing was
that my stomach quickly became flat and firm.”
- “I could eat all the foods I like and as much as I wanted.”
- “I lost a total of 48 pounds in 7 weeks.”
- “When you use the Trimball-EXP200 capsule, you are going to eat 2, 3 or even up to 4 times
less, as you feel that your stomach is FULL. You will not experience any feelings of hunger.
You will then automatically lose weight.”
- “These two properties have been confirmed by many clinical studies conducted in the USA by
leading dietary researcher, Professor Walsh from the University of Minnesota.”
- “With no dietary changes, the average weight loss for women is 37.5 pounds and for men
42.5 pounds. The least amount of weight loss for anyone tested is 33 pounds.”
- “…they all lost weight quickly with losses of up to 38 pounds in only 30 days.”
- “…the TrimBall-EXP200 capsules contain a natural dietary fiber which is 100% natural and
has no side-effects.”
- “It is the highest concentration of this active ingredient recommended by medical doctors for
a 100% safe usage of these capsules.”
- Implied Claim: TrimBall-EXP200 is prescribed by medical doctors.
The NAD attempted to contact the advertiser and never got a response. The are sending the matter to the FTC and FDA now for criminal action.
to read the full report go to http://www.nadreview.org/start.aspx
Then click on the 5th report down (the one dated Dec 14th) to open the pdf.
Hill's Science Diet asked to modify their Ad
The National Advertising Division - a self-regulation board - asked Hill's, the maker of Science Diet dog & cat food, to modify their "Feeding is Believing" advertisement. This came from a challenge by one of their main competitors, P&G Pet Care.
Both ads focused on Angel, a dog and Othello a cat - both overweight, unhealthy strays - transforming to healthy pets after following the Science Diet feeding regimen.
The issue is that these ads and consumer testimonials are being interpreted by consumers to mean that the Science Diet products alone were responsible for the health transformations depicted. The ads didn't disclose other material facts, including the role of veterinary care. This ommission conveys the message that Science Diet puppy and kitten foods products wre solely responsible for the animals' entire health transformations - including, for example, ridding the animals of manage and fleas - a message that was not supported by the evidence in record.
The NAD recommended the advertiser modify the ad and testimonial to include a accurately reflect the other factors that contributed to Othello's transformation. They also recommended that the before and after photos of the animals disclose exactly the length of time it took the animals to reach a healthy weight.
Hill's, Inc. replied saying that they "strongly support the self-regulatory process, and it appreciates the diligence NAD has showing reviewing the matter. Accordingly, Hill's will take NAD's recommendations into account in its "Feeding is Believing" advertising.
To see the whole report go to http://www.nadreview.org/start.aspx and click on the 2nd report to open the pdf.
Both ads focused on Angel, a dog and Othello a cat - both overweight, unhealthy strays - transforming to healthy pets after following the Science Diet feeding regimen.
The issue is that these ads and consumer testimonials are being interpreted by consumers to mean that the Science Diet products alone were responsible for the health transformations depicted. The ads didn't disclose other material facts, including the role of veterinary care. This ommission conveys the message that Science Diet puppy and kitten foods products wre solely responsible for the animals' entire health transformations - including, for example, ridding the animals of manage and fleas - a message that was not supported by the evidence in record.
The NAD recommended the advertiser modify the ad and testimonial to include a accurately reflect the other factors that contributed to Othello's transformation. They also recommended that the before and after photos of the animals disclose exactly the length of time it took the animals to reach a healthy weight.
Hill's, Inc. replied saying that they "strongly support the self-regulatory process, and it appreciates the diligence NAD has showing reviewing the matter. Accordingly, Hill's will take NAD's recommendations into account in its "Feeding is Believing" advertising.
To see the whole report go to http://www.nadreview.org/start.aspx and click on the 2nd report to open the pdf.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
©opyrighting his own name?
Hi folks:
This former state representative in South Dakota who's in prison is claiming copyright on his own name, and demanding half a million dollars (or, sometimes, two million) every time someone uses it:
http://tinyurl.com/ydezkfy
He hasn't a legal leg to stand on, of course. It's pretty funny. Unfortunately, what he's in prison for isn't funny at all.
This former state representative in South Dakota who's in prison is claiming copyright on his own name, and demanding half a million dollars (or, sometimes, two million) every time someone uses it:
http://tinyurl.com/ydezkfy
He hasn't a legal leg to stand on, of course. It's pretty funny. Unfortunately, what he's in prison for isn't funny at all.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Tiger Makes Brit Law Look Silly
According to the Telegraph, a United Kingdom publication, Tiger Woods is making British law look foolish. Tiger Woods filed and was awarded an injunction in Britain to keep British publications from publishing anything regarding the affair that is currently all over publications. In fact, British publications weren't even allowed to publish a copy of the injunction that prohibited them from publishing information. To me, this is a bit ridiculous. However, it got leaked, and because of its publication in one venue, other ones were able to pick it up. Thought this was an interesting read on how Brit law varies from American, and how that plays out in the days of the Internet.
Update: The North Face sues The South Butt
The North Face is pursuing its trademark infringement lawsuit against 18-year old Jimmy Winkelmann, creator of The South Butt.
Read more in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/3A43D5E8A232E7F88625768C0067B7EB?OpenDocument
Read more in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/3A43D5E8A232E7F88625768C0067B7EB?OpenDocument
MEDIA and LAW......in Australia
Here is another article I found on The Washington Post that seems interesting. Now this particular issue takes place in Australia but it definitely discusses the media and law. Here it is:
The Australian government is looking to create a filtering system for internet in the upcoming year. It looks like the government will come up with a "black list" of websites that users will no longer be able to access. They say the purpose is to protect users (especially young children) from sites with child porn, bestiality, sexual violence, violence in general, and use of illegal drugs. Now this filtering system will obviously prohibit users from sharing material and some say this will be considered unwarranted censorship.
I do think is kind of over the top. It definitely raises question of:
who is the government to determine what is appropriate for users? Especially adults?
Shouldn't blocking websites be up to the parents of children?
What do you think? Check out the entire article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121500737.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
Supreme Court Ruling on Privacy of Texting
Ok, so here is an article that was sent to my cellular phone since I have subscribed to The Washington Post. I find it interesting especially since it is one of the more recent topics we have discussed in class and this is a recent case (Ontario vs. Quon). Here it is:
Looks like a federal appeals court in California ruled that a police officer in the city of Ontario had the right to privacy on a "department-issued" cellular phone. What sparked the case was when the officer's chief read sexually explicit text messages that were sent to the officer's girlfriend. The officer argued more that the chief discovering the messages was violation of protections against unreasonable searches. Now based on the article, I don't believe the officer was fired. I do think he was more so embarrassed. And evidence showed that in a month the officer's phone had 57 of 450 messages that were work related. Now the supreme court is set to rule whether or not employees have privacy when using devices owned by employer.
I think as long as anything is company or department issued, whether it be an computer, email account, cell phone, that who ever is in charge of that has the right to see how the devices are being used. If it is inappropriate, the person should be warned or there should be a consequence policy in place. I feel like if the officer wanted to be nasty with his text messages, he should have use his own phone....not the department phone. Anything work issued, should be used for work only.
Any thought? Check out the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/14/AR2009121403689.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
If you have trouble checking out the link, go to The Washington Post website and search "Court to rule on privacy of texting" or look up the case Ontario vs. Quon.
Monday, December 14, 2009
San Diego Drama
Linebacker of the San Diego Chargers, Shawne Merriman, filed suit last Thursday against Tila Tequila (legal name Nguyen) for copyright infringement. He states that his photograph and trademark of Lights Out, his company, were posted on her web site without his permission, which will cause confusion regarding the connection between Merriman and Tequila. He is seeking $2 million and an injunction. The two have a spotted history after Merriman was arrested based on a complaint that he abused Tequila when she was trying to leave his home, however no charges were tried due to lack of evidence. Tequila has since filed suit against Merriman, so it sounds like the copyright lawsuit is just another piece of their cat and mouse game.
Read Article
Read Article
Sunday, December 13, 2009
More on Tiger
With the talk of celebrities on recent posts, I thought this article on the "brand" that celebrities carry interesting. Although this article doesn't reference any legal issues, it does address the value of "celebrity branding" just in sponsorships and endorsements alone. Tiger seems to be making a choice to back into a "private" figure for awhile; at which, he may be successful. The article references Micheal Jordan, who seems to escape media attention for the time being. How long is one out of the media's eyes before they assume a private life again?
I thought it would be interesting to see if Bruno or Borat got sued by people by making those movies. And of course I fould this article about libel and slander lawsuits against, not only Bruno but also David Letterman and others. They apparantly had a scene where they were hiding and interviewing terrorists, using real people that were unaware or not happy with the 'jokes' that were made.
A few years ago when Borat the movie came out there were also complications with the Romanian village where he was shooting, because they thought he was there to interview them about poverty, but obviously he was not!
Click here for the article: http://tinyurl.com/yaaanaz
Celebrity Impersonation
Anthony La Russa who is the manager of the St. Louis Cardinals, wasnt happy with Twitter someone signed up pretending to be him on twitter. The user was posting 'vulgar and cardinals-related topics'. The unknown user stated on the website: "Bio Parodies are fun for everyone."
La Russa filed suit against Twitter, but eventually La Russa filed 'a notice of voluntary dismissal' after the social network site took action to probably remove the users' profile.
See article: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/la-russa-v-twitter-inc
La Russa filed suit against Twitter, but eventually La Russa filed 'a notice of voluntary dismissal' after the social network site took action to probably remove the users' profile.
See article: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/la-russa-v-twitter-inc
Google wins Street View privacy case
Google wins this case because the plaintiff wasn't able to proof the standard: 'highly offensive to an ordinary reasonable person'. Furthermore, there is no person viewable on the satellite pictures or viewings. How would you feel when your house is viewable on the streets of google maps? Would you file suit against Google?! (If this case wasn't history yet)
Click for the article: http://tinyurl.com/cu6buj
Click for the article: http://tinyurl.com/cu6buj
Sharon Osbourne wins libel case
The follow up on the article of Paul about the different libel laws and regulations in the UK, Sharon Osbourne sued for libel when the Sun falsely accused Sharon of "driving her frail husband Ozzy Osbourne to destruction," as noted in the court papers. I thought it was interesting since I wrote my paper about libel tourism to note that the laws and regulations in the UK are more in benefit of the plaintiff and where the defendant is guilty until proven not guilty, as in comparison with the US, where the plaintiff has a much harder time proving that his reputation was, the rules of the 1st amendment etc.
Click here for the full article: http://tinyurl.com/ybl6quj
Click here for the full article: http://tinyurl.com/ybl6quj
posting headlines and lead sentences copyright infringement?
I found this interesting article about whether it is okay for Internet news providers to be able to continue the practice of posting headlines and lead sentences from stories they link to on other sites. So is this a copyright violation or fair use. My first impression would be fair use, since I think any positive judgement on copyright violation in this case could make it so much harder for further copying and pasting on the web even by individuals?
Click here for the full article: http://tinyurl.com/dyalxb
Click here for the full article: http://tinyurl.com/dyalxb
Friday, December 11, 2009
English libel laws -- will they be changing?
Hi folks:
According to this story from the NY Times, the English libel laws that have made it easy for plaintiffs to win judgements and have led to "libel tourism" are being seriously reviewed by lawmakers:
http://tinyurl.com/yb2ldzw
The US Congress is also considering passing a law making it more difficult for English libel judgements to be enforced here.
According to this story from the NY Times, the English libel laws that have made it easy for plaintiffs to win judgements and have led to "libel tourism" are being seriously reviewed by lawmakers:
http://tinyurl.com/yb2ldzw
The US Congress is also considering passing a law making it more difficult for English libel judgements to be enforced here.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
50 cent and Taco Bell
Okay, so here's an issue that took place last summer (around July 2008), but i recently heard it on a radio discussion and thought it would be good for blog discussion.
Well, I am sure all of us (or most of us) are aware of the 99, 89, and 79 cent menu Taco Bell offers for their food items. They decided to launch a campaign of "Why pay more?" and suggested to the media that rapper 50 cent should change his name for a day to help with the campaign. Now, the suggestion was unofficial, meaning no letter was sent to the rapper but he got word of what they were doing and sued for 4 million dollars in damages for them using his name without permission. Once Taco Bell executives got word of the lawsuit, they offered to pay $10,000 to a charity of 50 cents choice. Of course, 50 cent is not going for that.
I do think the 4 million dollars in damages is a bit much. And it wasn't like Taco Bell used the name 50 cent for ad or the menu. They just really wanted him to endorse them. I do think they should have not made the suggestion to the media and this lawsuit is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure they did not have any customers saying, 'Im coming to Taco Bell because 50 cent said so". or anything else involving 50 cent. Not to mention 50 cent is a way of describing the amount of a good or service and is commonly used in businesses.
Any thought? Check out the link?
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-07-23-50-cent-taco-bell_N.htm
Office Space Star Sues Wikipedia...Sort of
Rob Livingston, star of the cult classic Office Space, is suing an anonymous Wikipedia writer for writing on Livingston's Wikipedia entry that he is gay and in a relationship with Lee Dennison. In reality, Livingston is married to a woman.
He cannot sue Wikipedia directly, as it is an internet service provider and protected by law. Livingston also says that the author create a fake facebook profile for he and "Lee Dennison", listing them as "In a Relationship".
First, Livingston must get Wikipedia and facebook to release the identity of the user.
An interesting libel case for Web 2.0...
http://bit.ly/5JCVZx
He cannot sue Wikipedia directly, as it is an internet service provider and protected by law. Livingston also says that the author create a fake facebook profile for he and "Lee Dennison", listing them as "In a Relationship".
First, Livingston must get Wikipedia and facebook to release the identity of the user.
An interesting libel case for Web 2.0...
http://bit.ly/5JCVZx
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Inappropriate Frosty
I do not think a lawsuit will come out of this one, but it is interesting nonetheless. CBS has created two video ads that melds together clips for the cartoon classic "Frosty the Snowman" with dialogue from the shows "How I Met Your Mother" and "Two and a Half Men." They are tagging them as the "inappropriate snowman" with most (if not all) of the dialogue containing sexual innuendos. Complaints against CBS cite that it is inappropriate to use "imagery in advertising that would naturally attract children in order to market an adult product." The commercials are intended to advertising the showing of "Frosty the Snowman" as well as the two sitcoms.
Read the article
Read the article
Comedian sued...again
It seems that actor and funnyman Sacha Baron Cohen is being sued for libel. Apparantly a scene in his new movie Bruno caused quite a problem in the life of a Palistenian grocer and peace activist, Ayman Abu Aita, who says that since the movie labeled him as a "Terrorist group leader, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade," it's ruined his life. He's received death threats and says that he only met with Baron Cohen because he was told he was a German producing a film about Palestinians, not a comedic actor at all. When Cohen went on Letterman last year in the guise of Bruno, he stated that he had found a "real terrorist" through a contact at the CIA. Abu Aita is suing NBC Universal, Letterman and Baron Cohen for a total of $120 million dollars. I'd say if he can prove the threats and that he's lost business, Abu Aita's got a pretty good case for libel. To read more click on the link; http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/movies/baron-cohen-sued-for-bruno-spoof/article1392231/
SEXTING LAWSUIT
Sexting or nude photos over cell phone is a new issue. A high school student in Pennsylvania was afraid she might be charged with a crime because of a her photo on her cell phone. Infact the photo in question was from a slumber party two years earlier and Miss Miller ws wearing her bra. The 15 year old student denied that she had taken any "nude" picture of her self. However, Dictrict Attorney George Skumanick of Wyoming county said that the "nude" pictures were obcene. He required that Miller and two of her friends attend a class dealing with pornography and sexual violence or he planned to file charges of seual abuse of a minor. If he files charges they might serve time in Prison and have to register as sex offenders. Merrissa Miller and her friend felt it was unfair and filed a lawsuit in federal court against Skumanick. They want the court to stop the Distric Atttorney from filing charges because it would violate their First and Fourth Amendment rights.The lawyer for the girls suspects the girls high school was involved in the investigation that uncovered the picture in the phone. They are thinking about suing the school also... Do they have the possiblilty to win the case? I think in the first place the girls should stay away from doing stupid things.
Link : http:// www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/US/26SEXTEXT.HTNL?-r=1&sq=obscenity&scp
Link : http:// www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/US/26SEXTEXT.HTNL?-r=1&sq=obscenity&scp
Monday, December 7, 2009
A Black and White Trademark Issue
New York entrepreneurs launced a business that makes customized signs that look like New York subway stops. Using the standard black background with a large white text in Helvetica font, they offered a cool urban alternative to personalizing your home. Who wasn’t cool with it? The Metropolitan Transportation Authority. After sending a “polite” letter, the Authority and the business owners made a deal wherein the signs could be sold provided that 10% of the revenue find its way back to the MTA. Not bad. Question is—as one web commenter pointed out—what does the MTA own? Black backgrounds with white fonts? The Helvetica font? The names of the neighborhood? It’s not as quite as black and white as one would believe.
Here’s a link to the story.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Best Soup Ever? Suits Over Ads Demand Proof
Usually, The Lanham Act gives consumers the right to file lawsuits against companies that create false or misleading advertisements. Recently, however, there has been a trend of companies filing lawsuits against each other. Competitors either sue in a court or file a complaint with the National Advertising division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus – making claims of false advertising. So far this year there have been eighty-two formal complaints made by companies, not consumers, to the Bureaus, about false advertising, compared to sixty-two in 2007. This shows a remarkable increase. The purpose of the companies’ filing of complaints and lawsuits actually is not to win money but to make their competitors withdraw or amend their ads. Cases involving products such as Pantene and Dove, Campbell soup and Progresso soup, may look meaningless. The article says that even consumers do not believe the claims made about the products in the ads so why are the companies fighting over these claims? However, according to advertisers, these ads influence and mislead consumers and cause a drop in sales. Some law firms that deal with ads dispute this and say that it is a game for marketers. Last fall, Campbell soup started an ad campaign that claimed i its brand of Harvest Soups were made with “tender loving care” while Progresso soup is made with “Monosodium glutamate” that is, the ads stated Harvest soup is made with “TLC” while Progresso soup is made with “MSG.” Progresso responded with its own ads and both companies argued on. As a result, both companies lost customers based on the messages in the ads. It created confusion among customers. ”
It was not the complaints or the lawsuits that caused the sales of Progresso and Campbell to drop – it was the ads. “Advertisers should write ads that talk about their own products and not their competitors’ in order to avoid complaints and lawsuits and even dropping sales.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/business/media/22lawsuits.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=false%20advertising&st=cse
It was not the complaints or the lawsuits that caused the sales of Progresso and Campbell to drop – it was the ads. “Advertisers should write ads that talk about their own products and not their competitors’ in order to avoid complaints and lawsuits and even dropping sales.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/business/media/22lawsuits.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=false%20advertising&st=cse
Eat Your Words
We discussed in class how restaurant names can prompt tricky trademark issues. There's so many of them, and who is to say that Joe McDonald can't name a burger joint after himself (answer: the megabucks behind the McDonald's chain)? Anyway, in the news is a story about Tavern on the Green, a restaurant that has become a New York City landmark and is located in Central Park. It's currently in bankruptcy court with more than 400 creditors waiting on cash. In the meanwhile, a new licensee has leased the Tavern in the park, but can't use the famous name "Tavern on the Green" until the court (now a federal court) decides who the owner is, and also, how much the name is worth. Current value assigned: $18 million. Now that's a nice dinner.
Isn't this unfair?
According to the director of hotspot provider The Cloud, an owner of a pub in the U.K. has been fined about $13,ooo, because somenone has downloaded copyrighted sources illegally at his pub's open Wi-Fi hotspot.
This kind of case is unique in the U.K. However, other detailed information is not publicized, because the client of The Cloud, which is the pub owner, has not given his permission.
It is convenient that we can use Wi-Fi everywhere, but from this case still open Wi-Fi networks and the liability of those running sysytem is not clear. I think there should be rules and regulations that control Wi-Fi use in businesses because more and more open Wi-Fi spaces are offered to us.
How do you think about this?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10405824-83.html?tag=mncol
This kind of case is unique in the U.K. However, other detailed information is not publicized, because the client of The Cloud, which is the pub owner, has not given his permission.
It is convenient that we can use Wi-Fi everywhere, but from this case still open Wi-Fi networks and the liability of those running sysytem is not clear. I think there should be rules and regulations that control Wi-Fi use in businesses because more and more open Wi-Fi spaces are offered to us.
How do you think about this?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10405824-83.html?tag=mncol
Teachers Checking Student Facebook Accounts?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090726/1526465663.shtml
Very interesting article about a teacher in Missisippi who demanded the username and password of her students to see if they were involved in any illegal activity. While most students deleted their accounts to avoid the teacher accessing their account, not all students did. The teacher proceeded to log in, read through personal messages, and proceeded to make one girl's private information public.
I am not sure if this was a public or private institution, however in either case I do not believe the teacher could argue that she was protecting the interest of the public. This is simply intrusion. It is not the teacher's responsibility or right to invade a student's private life.
Very interesting article about a teacher in Missisippi who demanded the username and password of her students to see if they were involved in any illegal activity. While most students deleted their accounts to avoid the teacher accessing their account, not all students did. The teacher proceeded to log in, read through personal messages, and proceeded to make one girl's private information public.
I am not sure if this was a public or private institution, however in either case I do not believe the teacher could argue that she was protecting the interest of the public. This is simply intrusion. It is not the teacher's responsibility or right to invade a student's private life.
White House: FOX off-limits
Democratic political strategists have been asked by the White House to not appear on Fox New Channel recently. The reason seems to be that because Fox is not a true news gathering network and more of a Obama-bashing entity that they should not help them with any stories. They also think this will further show how one-sided Fox is.
But isn't denying Fox any statement from the Democratic camp really doing an injustice to themselves? If people are only watching Fox and not other news gathering sites - then how are they going to get any other alternate perspective, even if it is then bashed or taken out of context?
Do you think they are protecting themselves and right to deny a program that has alterior motives anyway or so you think they should take any invite from Fox to appear as a chance to get their side out their - or is that not possible? What do you think the main issue is here anyway? Is any one's rights being violated? - Fox, the general people, or the White House?
But isn't denying Fox any statement from the Democratic camp really doing an injustice to themselves? If people are only watching Fox and not other news gathering sites - then how are they going to get any other alternate perspective, even if it is then bashed or taken out of context?
Do you think they are protecting themselves and right to deny a program that has alterior motives anyway or so you think they should take any invite from Fox to appear as a chance to get their side out their - or is that not possible? What do you think the main issue is here anyway? Is any one's rights being violated? - Fox, the general people, or the White House?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
FOIA Statutory Exception
Hi folks:
Just in time for our class on FOIA:
http://tinyurl.com/ye9bxwp
Congress created a statutory exception to the FOIA for photos of detainees that, in the Attorney General's judgement, would endanger American troops if published. The Supreme Court, taking cognizance of that statute, has vacated a lower court ruling that the photos must be released under FOIA and remanded the case to a lower court.
Just in time for our class on FOIA:
http://tinyurl.com/ye9bxwp
Congress created a statutory exception to the FOIA for photos of detainees that, in the Attorney General's judgement, would endanger American troops if published. The Supreme Court, taking cognizance of that statute, has vacated a lower court ruling that the photos must be released under FOIA and remanded the case to a lower court.
Does it take lawsuits to get some companies to comply?
Apparently, that seems to be the case more often. Earlier this year DirecTV and the cable company Comcast Corp. paid out a combined $3.2 million to settle claims that they broke the do-not-call list restrictions and placed calls anyway.
I thought this was interesting because of our recent class discussions on privacy. It seems that just the month prior to this case, the FTC sued another satellite TV provider - Dish Network for violations of the same sort. Dish Network's accused of being the biggest violator of this based on the number of complaints - more than 20,000.
The no-call registry is supposed to prohibit telemarketers from calling numbers on the list.
I find it a sad comment on our society and business in general when large, well-known companies like these stoop to these type of actions.
Here is the article for more:
http://www.cedmagazine.com/News-DirecTV-Comcast-fined-call-rules-041709.aspx
I thought this was interesting because of our recent class discussions on privacy. It seems that just the month prior to this case, the FTC sued another satellite TV provider - Dish Network for violations of the same sort. Dish Network's accused of being the biggest violator of this based on the number of complaints - more than 20,000.
The no-call registry is supposed to prohibit telemarketers from calling numbers on the list.
I find it a sad comment on our society and business in general when large, well-known companies like these stoop to these type of actions.
Here is the article for more:
http://www.cedmagazine.com/News-DirecTV-Comcast-fined-call-rules-041709.aspx
Monday, November 30, 2009
Privacy, etc.
Hi folks:
There's a complicated story involving journalism and privacy in last week's Riverfront Times:
http://tinyurl.com/y8r6qqu
The gist is this: the "Social Media Editor" of the Post-Dispatch put out a query, and somebody replied in a way the editor thought was offensive. He traced the anonymous poster via his IP address, discovered that it was registered to a local school, and notified the school's headmaster. The person who had sent the post was fired.
Here's where it gets tricky. The employee had no expectation of privacy from his employer; that's been well-established. But what are his expectations of privacy when he replies to an online columnist? Is the columnist ethically justified in tracing an anonymous correspondent's location and notifying the person's employer? Can the person who was fired sue the columnist? I suspect we'll find out pretty soon.
There's a complicated story involving journalism and privacy in last week's Riverfront Times:
http://tinyurl.com/y8r6qqu
The gist is this: the "Social Media Editor" of the Post-Dispatch put out a query, and somebody replied in a way the editor thought was offensive. He traced the anonymous poster via his IP address, discovered that it was registered to a local school, and notified the school's headmaster. The person who had sent the post was fired.
Here's where it gets tricky. The employee had no expectation of privacy from his employer; that's been well-established. But what are his expectations of privacy when he replies to an online columnist? Is the columnist ethically justified in tracing an anonymous correspondent's location and notifying the person's employer? Can the person who was fired sue the columnist? I suspect we'll find out pretty soon.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Whiter Teeth with not so Dazzling Results
How many of you are captivated by ads guaranteeing dazzling white teeth? Well, beware. Apparently, many have been deceived by ads posted by tooth whitening companies on major U.S. sites such as Google and Yahoo which promise a free trial for tooth-whitening products when in fact registering enrolls pretty smile seekers to an expensive subscription that is difficult to cancel.
The consumer protection division of Utah filed an action in September against Farend. In addition the Better Business Bureau initiated an investigation last month looking into the advertising practices of various tooth whitening brands. The CEO of one company, Dazzlesmile, states that Epic, its marketing agency, created the deceptive advertising without the company's knowledge and that relationship has since been severed, however Epic continued to run the ads for Farend's dazzlesmilepro.com web site. Epic, of course, denies the allegations, but is now facing a trademark-infringement cease-and-desist letter from Dazzlesmile.
Yahoo and Microsoft both declined to comment on the specific case but said they are committed to protecting consumers. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out considering ISPs are not held responsible for content posted on their sites. Does this apply to advertising? Shouldn't they have some editorial responsibility for what they are paid to post? I suppose that could get extremely complicated.
view article
The consumer protection division of Utah filed an action in September against Farend. In addition the Better Business Bureau initiated an investigation last month looking into the advertising practices of various tooth whitening brands. The CEO of one company, Dazzlesmile, states that Epic, its marketing agency, created the deceptive advertising without the company's knowledge and that relationship has since been severed, however Epic continued to run the ads for Farend's dazzlesmilepro.com web site. Epic, of course, denies the allegations, but is now facing a trademark-infringement cease-and-desist letter from Dazzlesmile.
Yahoo and Microsoft both declined to comment on the specific case but said they are committed to protecting consumers. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out considering ISPs are not held responsible for content posted on their sites. Does this apply to advertising? Shouldn't they have some editorial responsibility for what they are paid to post? I suppose that could get extremely complicated.
view article
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Social Media Crashes The Courtroom
This was a discussion on npr radio a few months ago regarding the use cell phones in the courtrooms. Online social networking is today's cultural phenomenon and seems that the even the courts can't get away from it. There were several issues discussed but one that I though was the most relevant was with jurors having access to the internet and social networking sites like Tweeter and Facebook. An example disscused on the show was of a juror who Googled the dependent's name and found out some additional info that was never presented in the courtroom. It's easy to see how that sway a juror. Another example is jurors or even attorneys posting comments on Tweeter or Facebook during the trial. Though it would seem fairly innocent to tweet about how "stupid" the trails is or maybe texting your friends that you think the person is guilty. Whatever it may be it's not difficult to see the problem compromising the integrity and fairness of the case.
Most courtrooms ban cell phones but a judge in Nebraska says we need to better educate jurors on the legal process and rights of the persons involved in the trial. The judge goes on to discusses the notion that our generation of citizens have strong need to be connected and it's difficult to get younger people to do their civic duty because it would involve them being disconnected. "if they aren't allowed to have access to personal media, they're going to lose - they're going to lose so much in terms of their convenience, their ability to operate all day long, their ability to - to have a life outside of that courtroom, because being a juror is a temporary thing."
Click Here To Listen To the Show
Most courtrooms ban cell phones but a judge in Nebraska says we need to better educate jurors on the legal process and rights of the persons involved in the trial. The judge goes on to discusses the notion that our generation of citizens have strong need to be connected and it's difficult to get younger people to do their civic duty because it would involve them being disconnected. "if they aren't allowed to have access to personal media, they're going to lose - they're going to lose so much in terms of their convenience, their ability to operate all day long, their ability to - to have a life outside of that courtroom, because being a juror is a temporary thing."
Click Here To Listen To the Show
Miss California sues Pageant Officials
Ok, here is a case that has been going on since June 2009. It looks like Miss California USA Carrie Prejean wanted to sue Pageant officials and accused them of libel and religious discrimination. These accusations occured after Prejean was "dethroned" in June, which she believes was do to her beliefs on same-sex marriage. Her thoughts on that subject were shared through a question she answered during the Miss USA competition in April. It seems like Prejean never backed down from her traditional beliefs, but Pageant Officials say they "dethroned" her because of her failure to follow through with a contract agreement. That included failure to make appereances, etc. Also, some inappropriate pictures came up prior to the Officials "dethroning" Prejean.
So, is there really a case of libel?
I don't think so as long as the claims they have made against Carrie Prejean are true. I am pretty sure they have proof of her missing appearances and the nude photos of her are possibly a violation of Pageant rules. I do think this is more of a matter of Carrie Prejean's feelings being hurt that her title was taken away.
Overall, anyone involved in this kind of business has to be more careful with how they portray themselves, whether it be in the past, present or future. It is clearly a business of image and if it doesn't look good, one can expected to be dismissed. I personally think Prejean knew of the posssibility of those pictures getting out and the consequences to not showing up to an event (regardless of what kind of even it was)....and she took a chance to do what she wanted.
Any thoughts? Check out the links for the articles:
www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/11/04/miss.california.usa.settlement/index.html
www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/08/31/miss.california.usa/index.html
To follow up: It looks like there was a settlement between the Pageant and Prejean made within this month. Details have been made secret but it seems like Carrie Prejean will still no longer carry the title of Miss California USA.
So, is there really a case of libel?
I don't think so as long as the claims they have made against Carrie Prejean are true. I am pretty sure they have proof of her missing appearances and the nude photos of her are possibly a violation of Pageant rules. I do think this is more of a matter of Carrie Prejean's feelings being hurt that her title was taken away.
Overall, anyone involved in this kind of business has to be more careful with how they portray themselves, whether it be in the past, present or future. It is clearly a business of image and if it doesn't look good, one can expected to be dismissed. I personally think Prejean knew of the posssibility of those pictures getting out and the consequences to not showing up to an event (regardless of what kind of even it was)....and she took a chance to do what she wanted.
Any thoughts? Check out the links for the articles:
www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/11/04/miss.california.usa.settlement/index.html
www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/08/31/miss.california.usa/index.html
To follow up: It looks like there was a settlement between the Pageant and Prejean made within this month. Details have been made secret but it seems like Carrie Prejean will still no longer carry the title of Miss California USA.
Watchdog Cites Skechers Ad as Too Cool for School
The Children’s Advertising Review Unit, an advertising watchdog that keeps tabs on marketing that targets kids, has chided shoemaker Skechers for an ad that made its shoes seem too cool.
In the ad, an animated girl named “HyDee” rules her school’s locker hallway because she’s got new Skechers Hy-Tops sneakers. CARU said that it delivered the unrealistic message that girls might become popular in school if they owned a pair. The ruling will doubtless vex marketers who target kids, as making them believe they can acquire “cool” through purchases is the basis of, well, pretty much all kids advertising.
Advertising directed at children has been a highly debated topic for some time. Do you think this ad crossed the line as far as deceiving children in the hopes that they will want their product? Should children be protected from such deceptive advertising?
For more info:http://industry.bnet.com/advertising/10004788/watchdog-cites-skechers-ad-as-too-cool-for-school/?tag=shell;content
- also contains video of the ad
In the ad, an animated girl named “HyDee” rules her school’s locker hallway because she’s got new Skechers Hy-Tops sneakers. CARU said that it delivered the unrealistic message that girls might become popular in school if they owned a pair. The ruling will doubtless vex marketers who target kids, as making them believe they can acquire “cool” through purchases is the basis of, well, pretty much all kids advertising.
Advertising directed at children has been a highly debated topic for some time. Do you think this ad crossed the line as far as deceiving children in the hopes that they will want their product? Should children be protected from such deceptive advertising?
For more info:http://industry.bnet.com/advertising/10004788/watchdog-cites-skechers-ad-as-too-cool-for-school/?tag=shell;content
- also contains video of the ad
The North Face vs. The South Butt: Trademark Infringement?
Mizzou student Jimmy Winkelmann created a parody clothing line in high school mocking his classmates' obsession with the North Face. The North Face creates clothing for the outdoors and uses the tagline "never stop exploring".
Most people are familiar with the North Face because of the cult-like following the brand has received in recent years. North Face fleeces and coats are a high school and college staple, with the average fleece jacket priced around $160.
Winkelmann's South Butt, now a corporation in Missouri, earned around $4,000 in profits in the first year--not much compared to the mammoth sales of the North Face. After the North Face fired off a cease and desist letter to Winkelmann, South Butt sales took off and inventory sold out.
Is the South Butt a trademark infringement, or clever parody?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/teens-south-butt-apparel-irks-north-face/story?id=8712101&page=1
Most people are familiar with the North Face because of the cult-like following the brand has received in recent years. North Face fleeces and coats are a high school and college staple, with the average fleece jacket priced around $160.
Winkelmann's South Butt, now a corporation in Missouri, earned around $4,000 in profits in the first year--not much compared to the mammoth sales of the North Face. After the North Face fired off a cease and desist letter to Winkelmann, South Butt sales took off and inventory sold out.
Is the South Butt a trademark infringement, or clever parody?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/teens-south-butt-apparel-irks-north-face/story?id=8712101&page=1
Monday, November 23, 2009
Jury finds for Libel defendant in case over truth as defense Noonan V. Staples
Massachusetts Jury confirmed that a truthful email condemning a employee of StaplerInc.,an office supply company could be libelous. In the case Noonan vs Staples an employee filed a libel suit against his employer.Staple sent an email throught the company mentioning Noonan's name and that he had been fired. According to the Company's email Noonan had been fired because he had not followed the Company's rules on expanses. He claimed the Company is purposely ruining his name. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit refused to dismiss the case eventhough the information in the email was true. The Supreme Court of the United State decided in New York v. Sullivian thet truth is defence to libel. In this Noonan case state of Massachusetts was used.Under the law even if a statement is true,it can be libelous if it was made with actual malice.Actual malice here means , intent to hurt someone or ill well.So in Noonan Vs Staples, the court of appeals remanded the case back to district court in Massachusetts because a Jury could find that the email had been sent with actual Malice. In the end, however Noonan lost the case because he failed to proove to the Jury that the email was intentionally sent to harm him.
Link: http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?=11059
Link: http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?=11059
Wikipedia sued by German killers in privacy claim.
How should we protect murders' right to privacy?
As we know, Wikipedia has many types of sources including information about murders, and recently, two German murders sued Wikipedia for right to privacy.
They killed an actor in 1990, and were sentenced to prison in 1993. They were released in 2007 and 2008. This incident became infamous because of the killing a popular actor, and information spread out to many media, especially on the Internet.
However, German courts gave a decision that their names should be removed from media after their prison terms. Their lawyer said that "they should be able to go on and be resocialized, and lead a life without being publicly stigmatized," and furthermore, "a criminal has right to privacy, too, and a right to be alone."
The editors of Wikipedia in Germany already removed murders' name, but in other languages, the names still appear. They appealed to remove their name from English Wikipedia.
Wikipedia administrators have discussed this issue for more than a year; however, there is a deep divergence between German-determined right of privacy and the US First Amendment. In the article, a prominent First Amendment lawyer told, "the US Supreme Court would agree that the Wikipedia artile is easily and comfortably protected by the First Amendment. But Germany's courts have come up with a different balance between the right to privacy and the public's right to know," and also said that "once you're in the business of suppressing speech, the quest for more speech to suppress is endless."
Yet it is not clear that Wikipedia will remove the murders' name from the English site, but since the Internet is a worldwide availabe tool, I think this is on eof important media law issues, which is beyond the border.
Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/13/wikipedia-sued-privacy-claim
As we know, Wikipedia has many types of sources including information about murders, and recently, two German murders sued Wikipedia for right to privacy.
They killed an actor in 1990, and were sentenced to prison in 1993. They were released in 2007 and 2008. This incident became infamous because of the killing a popular actor, and information spread out to many media, especially on the Internet.
However, German courts gave a decision that their names should be removed from media after their prison terms. Their lawyer said that "they should be able to go on and be resocialized, and lead a life without being publicly stigmatized," and furthermore, "a criminal has right to privacy, too, and a right to be alone."
The editors of Wikipedia in Germany already removed murders' name, but in other languages, the names still appear. They appealed to remove their name from English Wikipedia.
Wikipedia administrators have discussed this issue for more than a year; however, there is a deep divergence between German-determined right of privacy and the US First Amendment. In the article, a prominent First Amendment lawyer told, "the US Supreme Court would agree that the Wikipedia artile is easily and comfortably protected by the First Amendment. But Germany's courts have come up with a different balance between the right to privacy and the public's right to know," and also said that "once you're in the business of suppressing speech, the quest for more speech to suppress is endless."
Yet it is not clear that Wikipedia will remove the murders' name from the English site, but since the Internet is a worldwide availabe tool, I think this is on eof important media law issues, which is beyond the border.
Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/13/wikipedia-sued-privacy-claim
Justices Back Employer in Privacy Case : Hernandez vs Hillsides.
Is it fair to have hidden camera in a working area? A company named Hillsides. Inc., that operated a residential centre for abused and neglected children in Pasadena, installed a hidden camera to catch someone downloading pornography late at night. The California Supreme Court backed the employer. The court claimed the center had responsibility to protect the youngsters. Abigail Hernandez and Maria Jose Lopez filed the suit against the company. They said they were surprised and upset when they discovered the company had installed the hidden camera. Furthermore, they believed tthe employer had invaded their personal rights in the office. Hernandez said before she went to the gym sheget dressed or changed clothes in the office and Lopez said sometimes she raised up her shirt and showed her tummy and breast to her friend to prove that she was getting better after pregnancy.However the Camera was never on at these times.
The Court found that, the camera was only on at night and never recorded or taped the women. The Court also commented that the ladies never suffered any real harm. Mark S. Eisenberg, who represented the women, describes this is a “a step backward for civil liberties in the workplace” On the other hand, Paul W. Cane who argued for the California employer says he felt happy because the court recognized the employer’s right to guarantee that the company’s computers are not misused.
The court found there is a tight to privacy but the Camera is permissible because it is a narrowly tailored instrusion to protect the children in the treatment center.
Link:
http://www.lexisnexis.com.library3.webster.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7946830746&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7946830749&cisb=22_T7946830748&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&selRCNodeID=127&nodeStateId=411en_US,1,59&docsInCategory=15&csi=306910&docNo=6
The Court found that, the camera was only on at night and never recorded or taped the women. The Court also commented that the ladies never suffered any real harm. Mark S. Eisenberg, who represented the women, describes this is a “a step backward for civil liberties in the workplace” On the other hand, Paul W. Cane who argued for the California employer says he felt happy because the court recognized the employer’s right to guarantee that the company’s computers are not misused.
The court found there is a tight to privacy but the Camera is permissible because it is a narrowly tailored instrusion to protect the children in the treatment center.
Link:
http://www.lexisnexis.com.library3.webster.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7946830746&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7946830749&cisb=22_T7946830748&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&selRCNodeID=127&nodeStateId=411en_US,1,59&docsInCategory=15&csi=306910&docNo=6
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Ads - true, or not?
Interesting story in Saturday's NY Times about companies suing rivals, alleging false or misleading advertisements:
http://tinyurl.com/yzg85n5
Sometimes, instead of suing, they're filing complaints with unofficial agencies such as the Better Business Bureau. Apparently it's a lot cheaper.
http://tinyurl.com/yzg85n5
Sometimes, instead of suing, they're filing complaints with unofficial agencies such as the Better Business Bureau. Apparently it's a lot cheaper.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
No Doubt Sues Activision
TMZ has reported that the band No Doubt is suing Activision for "the unauthorized use of the No Doubt's name and likeness," in Band Hero, released on November 2. The band is suing for an injunction prohibiting the use of the band members' likenesses in songs other than the three No Doubt tracks included in the game, and seeks an undisclosed amount of damages. This is similar to the lawsuit that Courtney Love has filed against Activision for the use of Curt Cobain's image in the same video game.
Since they both had a contract with Activision, is this more of a breach of contract issue or is it a Right of Publicity issue since they are objecting to the use of their image for songs they would never agree to sing in person? Activision has reported that they feel that the uses of the celebrities images are well within the contract agreement.
Also, lobbyists for the video game industry would like video games to be considered a protected medium and not subject to liability for right of publicity claims. Do you think this will be allowed as an exception like it is for newspapers, or why not?
Further reading:
http://rightofpublicity.com/gwen-stefani-and-no-doubt-sue-activision-over-rock-band-video-game-11-12-09
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/61134
Since they both had a contract with Activision, is this more of a breach of contract issue or is it a Right of Publicity issue since they are objecting to the use of their image for songs they would never agree to sing in person? Activision has reported that they feel that the uses of the celebrities images are well within the contract agreement.
Also, lobbyists for the video game industry would like video games to be considered a protected medium and not subject to liability for right of publicity claims. Do you think this will be allowed as an exception like it is for newspapers, or why not?
Further reading:
http://rightofpublicity.com/gwen-stefani-and-no-doubt-sue-activision-over-rock-band-video-game-11-12-09
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/61134
Court Turns Down Student Over Religious Speech
While valedictorian, Brittany McComb, was giving a speech at her high school graduation, school officials turned her microphone off. McComb did not give the speech the school had previously reviewed and approved for the graduation. Instead, McComb delivered a speech discussing Jesus' crucifixion, her faith, and credited God for her success. The federal district court allowed the lawsuit to proceed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the school's decision to censor her speech by turning off the microphone. McComb, then tried to appeal the decision with the Supreme Court which was declined.
Supreme Court rulings on Tinker, Hazelwood, and Bethel have shown that in the public school system, schools end up having the right to regulate student speech in some way or another. It is logical that a public high school graduation would not be the appropriate forum for a student to deliver religious propaganda. At a school-sponsored event, the school has the right to censor speech.
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1154/11-16-2009/20091116072009_28.html
Supreme Court rulings on Tinker, Hazelwood, and Bethel have shown that in the public school system, schools end up having the right to regulate student speech in some way or another. It is logical that a public high school graduation would not be the appropriate forum for a student to deliver religious propaganda. At a school-sponsored event, the school has the right to censor speech.
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1154/11-16-2009/20091116072009_28.html
Church and State: Football Fans Want Package Deal
Separation of church and state is an American tradition based in part, off the first amendment. However, a school in Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia attempted to blur the lines between the two and ended up having the school district step in. What happened was that the cheerleaders for the football team decided to display religious messages on their banners because they wanted to promote the Bible at their public school.
Still, when a parent complained about the tradition stating that it could potentially result in litigation, specifically a first amendment lawsuit, the school district sided with the concerned parent and ordered that the religious sentiments be removed from all school sponsored programs. In recent news, there has been an increase in the amount of religious messages being displayed at the games, but this time by the crowd instead of the cheerleaders.
From a personal standpoint, I can relate to wanting prayer and other religious things back in the school but I understand why that cannot be. It is not fair to promote any one religion over another in a public forum like a school because it subjects non-believers and agnostics to unwanted religious discourse. It will be interesting to see what the school does about the increase in religious fervor and also what happens the day a sign goes up with non-Christian beliefs on it. Here’s the link (Sorry, still can't figure out how to insert the link):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/us/27cheerleader.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=barred%20from%20field,%20religious%20signs%20move%20to%20stands&st=cse
Still, when a parent complained about the tradition stating that it could potentially result in litigation, specifically a first amendment lawsuit, the school district sided with the concerned parent and ordered that the religious sentiments be removed from all school sponsored programs. In recent news, there has been an increase in the amount of religious messages being displayed at the games, but this time by the crowd instead of the cheerleaders.
From a personal standpoint, I can relate to wanting prayer and other religious things back in the school but I understand why that cannot be. It is not fair to promote any one religion over another in a public forum like a school because it subjects non-believers and agnostics to unwanted religious discourse. It will be interesting to see what the school does about the increase in religious fervor and also what happens the day a sign goes up with non-Christian beliefs on it. Here’s the link (Sorry, still can't figure out how to insert the link):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/us/27cheerleader.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=barred%20from%20field,%20religious%20signs%20move%20to%20stands&st=cse
MIKE TYSON MAYHEM!
OK! So we all know Mike Tyson is a little different from the average person. But with this incident I actually understand how he felt. So here it is:
Right before the weekend Mike Tyson was traveling with his family through the Los Angeles International Airport. It is obvious he got annoyed by a photographer who was following him all over the place because the night ended with both Tyson and the photographer arrested. Tyson took it upon himself to punch the photographer in the head.....and yes, the photographer hit the floor. Both of the men filed battery complaints against each other. There is no word on what is to come with this incident.
Now, I guess this takes us to the idea of having privacy. But unfortunately for Tyson he won't have much of it in a public place and he is a celebrity. As a result, he is going to be followed. I do think Tyson could've handled the situation better by ignoring the paparazzi. I'm sure this isn't the first time he has been followed. I must say though, this type of incident from Mike Tyson doesn't surprise me.
Any thoughts? Check out the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/11/mike.tyson.detained/
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Medill student journalists subpoenaed
The students at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism (one of the nation's most prestigious) have for over a decade been involved in an "Innocence Project" --- researching the possible wrongful convictions of prison inmates. The school's efforts have resulted in the freeing of several individuals.
In their latest effort, the State of Illinois has subpoenaed a broad spectrum of materials from the students, including class notes and even grades:
http://tinyurl.com/ycphyh3
One issue to be resolved: are the students journalists, and so covered by Illinois' press-shield law? Or merely students-in-training, and not covered? And is the state entitled to materials and information that would normally be considered private? This should be an interesting case.
The link is to a column in the business section of yesterday's New York Times. They've run several articles on the case as it develops; search their site using "Medill" as the search term.
In their latest effort, the State of Illinois has subpoenaed a broad spectrum of materials from the students, including class notes and even grades:
http://tinyurl.com/ycphyh3
One issue to be resolved: are the students journalists, and so covered by Illinois' press-shield law? Or merely students-in-training, and not covered? And is the state entitled to materials and information that would normally be considered private? This should be an interesting case.
The link is to a column in the business section of yesterday's New York Times. They've run several articles on the case as it develops; search their site using "Medill" as the search term.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Jon Gosselin sues TLC
Jon Gosselin is suing the network that made he and his family famous. Jon alleges that his family was not adequately paid for television show due to their signing a complicated contract without the advice of a lawyer. Gosselin also says that the network violated child labor laws related to his eight children working on the show.
Interestingly, Gosselin is also suing TLC because production on the show “Jon and Kate Plus 8” has been halted, and the series is slated to end on November 23—leaving him unemployed. In addition, Jon is suing because he is he is unable to gain non-entertainment related employment because of the media’s interest in his daily life.
While it is probably true that he won’t be able to secure a “regular” job for a while, is that something one should sue over? In Gosselin’s case, he technically signed up to be famous. Can or should you sue for trying to get your old “private” life back? What do you think?
Interestingly, Gosselin is also suing TLC because production on the show “Jon and Kate Plus 8” has been halted, and the series is slated to end on November 23—leaving him unemployed. In addition, Jon is suing because he is he is unable to gain non-entertainment related employment because of the media’s interest in his daily life.
While it is probably true that he won’t be able to secure a “regular” job for a while, is that something one should sue over? In Gosselin’s case, he technically signed up to be famous. Can or should you sue for trying to get your old “private” life back? What do you think?
No Doubt vs. Activision
The popular band No Doubt recently filed a suit against Activision, creators of Guitar Hero, for using their likeness in a way they did not intend in the new game Band Hero. No Doubt signed a contract with Activision allowing the company to use their likeness and music in the new game, however is unhappy with the "character manipulation feature." This will allow players to make No Doubt avatars play songs from other bands and even alter their voices. Activision made a statement saying it procured all of the legal documentation necessary to secure rights and receive No Doubt's permission.
This could be an interesting case depending on how tight the contract is which Activision claims to have. It would be interesting to see the wording of the contract, but even more interesting to find out how that contract will be interpreted in court. This is not the first time the company has received complaints, however it is the first time a lawsuit has been filed.
View the article
This could be an interesting case depending on how tight the contract is which Activision claims to have. It would be interesting to see the wording of the contract, but even more interesting to find out how that contract will be interpreted in court. This is not the first time the company has received complaints, however it is the first time a lawsuit has been filed.
View the article
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Appellate Court Rules School District violated First Amendment rights of Students
The 8th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that Watson Chapel School District, violated First Amendment rights of students who wore black armbands to school to protest the school dress code policy in the case of Lowry v. Watson Chapel School District. The court confirmed the lower court decision which was in favor of students: Chris Lowry, Colton Dougan, Michael Joseph. The students brought a lawsuit against the School District, the Superintendent, the Principal, and the school board members in 2006. The students argued that they had the right under the First Amendment to wear the black armbands.
The lower court’s decision which was upheld by the 8th Circuit is will probably be appealed to the Supreme Court. According to American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas Staff Attorney, Holly Dickson who represents the students in the case, they expect the school district to appeal the case to Supreme Court.
The lower court decided the case based on the 1969 Supreme Court Decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District where three students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. This case has been a rule for 40 years. On the other hand, the School District’s attorney, Ivy Lincoln, argued that these cases are not similar. In the Tinker case the students were protesting an issue outside of the school - the Vietnam War. In the Lowry case the students are protesting the Dress Code policy within the school. If the appeal is accepted in the Supreme Court end result of the case could become law for this country.
Here is the link http://splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1803
The lower court’s decision which was upheld by the 8th Circuit is will probably be appealed to the Supreme Court. According to American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas Staff Attorney, Holly Dickson who represents the students in the case, they expect the school district to appeal the case to Supreme Court.
The lower court decided the case based on the 1969 Supreme Court Decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District where three students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. This case has been a rule for 40 years. On the other hand, the School District’s attorney, Ivy Lincoln, argued that these cases are not similar. In the Tinker case the students were protesting an issue outside of the school - the Vietnam War. In the Lowry case the students are protesting the Dress Code policy within the school. If the appeal is accepted in the Supreme Court end result of the case could become law for this country.
Here is the link http://splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1803
Friday, November 13, 2009
Killers in Wikipedia
Hi folks:
Since we're about to discuss privacy issues, a story in this morning's New York Times is pertinent. A couple of German guys who killed a well-known actor, were convicted, and have served their sentences are suing the parent company of Wikipedia, demanding that their names be removed from the Wikipedia story about the actor:
http://tinyurl.com/gerkill
Seems like German law states that, once you've paid your debt to society, your privacy rights revert to those of any other citizen, and you have the right to demand that your name not be used in stories about your crime. My guess is that the case will ultimately turn on jurisdiction: does Wikimedia, Inc. do business in Germany? (The story says they have no assets there -- presumably including servers.) If not, then presumably German courts have no jurisdiction.
Since we're about to discuss privacy issues, a story in this morning's New York Times is pertinent. A couple of German guys who killed a well-known actor, were convicted, and have served their sentences are suing the parent company of Wikipedia, demanding that their names be removed from the Wikipedia story about the actor:
http://tinyurl.com/gerkill
Seems like German law states that, once you've paid your debt to society, your privacy rights revert to those of any other citizen, and you have the right to demand that your name not be used in stories about your crime. My guess is that the case will ultimately turn on jurisdiction: does Wikimedia, Inc. do business in Germany? (The story says they have no assets there -- presumably including servers.) If not, then presumably German courts have no jurisdiction.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Freedom of the Press
The Obama administration and Congress appear to be moving toward agreement on a federal shield law, which would protect reporters who refuse to reveal confidential sources. The bill that is emerging is not perfect, but it would help ensure that Americans get the information they need about the workings of government, business and other institutions that affect their lives. Do you think this would be good or bad or journalism, the public, sources?
For more info: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/opinion/03tue2.html
For more info: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/opinion/03tue2.html
Twitter-like "Ameba-now"
CyberAgent Inc., a company provides media contents and services through the Internet business had announced that they are planning to start mini-blog service named "Ameba-now" which can post short words like "Twitter"during this year. Ameba is one of biggest blog site in Japan that is offered by CyberAgent and they hold many users not only general public but also celebrities and artisits. They have not decided how many words it can tweet nor any other details in this new service.
Similar service 'Twitter," has just started in Japan, but still it is not popular. For this new service, CyberAgent aim to get users from original Ameba blog users so that thay can easily enlarge users to this new service.
CyberAgent is popular media business company in Japan, but what do you feel about this new service? Is it possible for this company to start same service as "twitter"? I hope this will not relate to copyright infringement, but I was interested that Japanese media company started thinking similar system as "Twitter."
Similar service 'Twitter," has just started in Japan, but still it is not popular. For this new service, CyberAgent aim to get users from original Ameba blog users so that thay can easily enlarge users to this new service.
CyberAgent is popular media business company in Japan, but what do you feel about this new service? Is it possible for this company to start same service as "twitter"? I hope this will not relate to copyright infringement, but I was interested that Japanese media company started thinking similar system as "Twitter."
Anti-Defamation League on Media's Side
Woody and Rizzuto are two talk show hosts for a morning program on 105.7 The Point. Earlier this week they had a woman from the Missouri/Southern Illinois branch of the Anti-Defemation League (ADL) on air with the guys to discuss the upcoming counter-protest that they are helping to forward against a group called the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), an anti-gay hate group located in Topeka, Kansas headed by a man named Fred Phelps. Apparantly the WBC is staging a protest in St. Louis at Northwest High School tomorrow (11/12/09) using their slogan "God Hates Fags" against a memorial service for a fallen soldier and because the school has diversity programs. The counter-protest will be held at a church down the street from the high school, with the slogan "God Hates Douchebags" aimed at the WBC. The woman from the ADL was speaking about how the WBC people are extremely litigation-happy. Apparantly Phelps himself used to be a lawyer until he was disbarred, several of his many children are lawyers, and they use their knowledge of the law to perverse ends, obtaining money for the group by seeking lawsuits for emotional distress against people like and winning. Michael Moore did his own mini protest in his show The Awful Truth, driving a pink bus called the Sodomobile filled with gay men and women to the WBC's protests around the country. It's obvious that the group is just attention hungry, but it will be interesting to see if the counter-protest manages to stay peaceful and non-violent, and if any lawsuits come out of it on either side. For more information, click on the links below:
http://www.adl.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_hates_fags
http://www.1057thepoint.com/WAR/
http://www.adl.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_hates_fags
http://www.1057thepoint.com/WAR/
Teacher Forced to Resign Over Content of her Facebook Page
A former Georgia teacher was forced to resign after the principal of the school she was employed at concluded her Facebook page was inappropriate. To be specific, the two things he was concerned about was the fact that she was holding beer and wine, and the fact that she said the word B****. The "expletive" was used in reference to a restaurant she was going to that featured a game called "Crazy B**** Bingo."
"Family Guy" Case Thrown Out
In March 2009, music publisher, Bourne Co. filed suit against Fox Broadcasting, "Family Guy's" creator, Seth McFarlane, and producers for breach of copyright in 2007. Bourne Co. owns the rights to Disney song, "When You Wish Upon a Star". Bourne Co. felt that the song's image had been damaged when "Family Guy" used the song in a skit with anti-semetic lyrics.
The case was dismissed as the court ruled "Family Guy" did not violate copyright law because they used the song in a parody. Parodies are protected by 1st Amendment rights. "Family Guy" producers did not use the entire song. They used enough of the song so that it was recognizable to its audience. It was, also, clear to the audience that the song was being parodied since the lyrics were altered to differ from the original song.
Do you agree with the ruling? Do you think this damaged the song or Disney's reputation?
http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2009/03/17/family_guy_copyright_case_thrown_out_
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Patent law "case of the century"?
The Supreme Court heard a case today concerning what can legally be patented. The case, Bilski and Warsaw v. Kappos, concerns Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw, who were denied a patent for a business method. They are appealing a ruling that patents must be tied to something tangible. Most patents concern tangible inventions, such as a new chemical or product. Bilski and Warsaw's method would have made energy expenditures more predictable for organizations.
Patenting a method? It may sound strange to some, but I think that if you legitimately create something--regardless of what that item is--you should be able to patent it. While nothing is ever absolute, and there always seems to be an exception, I think that the Court needs to strongly consider the potential effects of their ruling.
It will be interesting to see what the Court decides.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/business/10patent.html?_r=1&em
Patenting a method? It may sound strange to some, but I think that if you legitimately create something--regardless of what that item is--you should be able to patent it. While nothing is ever absolute, and there always seems to be an exception, I think that the Court needs to strongly consider the potential effects of their ruling.
It will be interesting to see what the Court decides.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/business/10patent.html?_r=1&em
Stop or I'll Shoot
Two students at Tarrant County College in Fort Worth have sued the school claiming that the college violated their first amendment rights. The incident started when the students wanted to pass out pamphlets and fliers concerning a campus ban on concealed weapons, and were told that they could only do so at an information table designated by the school. At the same time, the students were also warned that they could not wear empty holsters as a form of protest to the new ban.
Represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the students were at least able to get a temporary restraining order that would allow them to protest the ban without restrictions being placed on the demonstration. The case is scheduled to go to court on November 16th, 2009. Unlike the famous Hazelwood case, were it was determined that the school had the authority and the right to censor information because the school publication was not a public forum; Tarrant County College is in fact a public forum, and may potentially lose the suit on the basis of view-point discrimination. For further information, the article can be viewed at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/us/07brfs-COURTBACKSPR_BRF.html
Represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the students were at least able to get a temporary restraining order that would allow them to protest the ban without restrictions being placed on the demonstration. The case is scheduled to go to court on November 16th, 2009. Unlike the famous Hazelwood case, were it was determined that the school had the authority and the right to censor information because the school publication was not a public forum; Tarrant County College is in fact a public forum, and may potentially lose the suit on the basis of view-point discrimination. For further information, the article can be viewed at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/us/07brfs-COURTBACKSPR_BRF.html
Photographer sues over "stolen" photographs
I was searching for topics and came across this case. I found it interesting because the photographer has his own website where he shares the whole ordeal of this stolen photograph and the ensuing lawsuit over copyright infringement. He kept a timeline of the events and ended up representing himself in court.
To summarize, a photographer in Minneapolis with his own business. He has his own website where he sells his photography. He took a photograph in 2004 of the Minneapolis skyline at night for a local magazine. A year later, May 2005, he opens his new Yellow Pages and there is his picture in an advertisement on the front inside cover. He contacts the company and they claim it's not his. This goes back and forth and he tries to take it to court. He blogs about it on his website. The company in turn files a defamation lawsuit against the photographer.
They go to court. The photographer successfully clears the case against the defamation - nothing he wrote on his website could be proven to be a lie. The defamation lawsuit carried on from the end of 2005 to the beginning of 2006. At that same time the photographer started investigating this "supposed" photographer that the company said they paid for the photo. The photographer came to find there was no one of that name. The other photographer was fiction.
In March of 2006 the photographer files his copyright infringement lawsuit. The Company wasn't going away quietly though. By the end of 2006 they filed a counterclaim. The photographer then filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims. The judge denied his motion to dismiss and allowed the counterclaims to go to trail. This case went back and forth for a year. In August 07 the Photographer was granted a Summary Judgment that finds the other party infringed on the photographer's copyright, and they could proceed to trial.
(I'm exhausted already!) From there, the trial started Nov 07. In Feb of 08 came the Judgment - the court found that the other party obtained the photos from his website and willfully infringed on the photographer's copyright. He was awarded $4,462.00 for actual damages of the particular photo, $10,000 for statutory damages for 'willful' infringement of the photo, and $5,000 for the removal of his copyright symbol on bottom of photo.
The other party would not agree to pay the judgment. (They can do that?) The photographer fought and filed motions through the spring of 2008. They finally settled on a payment plan with the company. On May of 2009 the photographer filed a lawsuit for malicious prosecution against the company and the attorneys that represented them.
I found this case very interesting. Great triumph for the little man. Though it makes you realize how hard and long it takes to prevail against a larger company and their attorneys. Many people would probably have given up - either by it taking too long, or they don't have the money for trial/attorney expenses.
Read more at the website - it's way more detailed than what I wrote, but very interesting.
http://www.cgstock.com/essays/copyright_lawsuit
To summarize, a photographer in Minneapolis with his own business. He has his own website where he sells his photography. He took a photograph in 2004 of the Minneapolis skyline at night for a local magazine. A year later, May 2005, he opens his new Yellow Pages and there is his picture in an advertisement on the front inside cover. He contacts the company and they claim it's not his. This goes back and forth and he tries to take it to court. He blogs about it on his website. The company in turn files a defamation lawsuit against the photographer.
They go to court. The photographer successfully clears the case against the defamation - nothing he wrote on his website could be proven to be a lie. The defamation lawsuit carried on from the end of 2005 to the beginning of 2006. At that same time the photographer started investigating this "supposed" photographer that the company said they paid for the photo. The photographer came to find there was no one of that name. The other photographer was fiction.
In March of 2006 the photographer files his copyright infringement lawsuit. The Company wasn't going away quietly though. By the end of 2006 they filed a counterclaim. The photographer then filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims. The judge denied his motion to dismiss and allowed the counterclaims to go to trail. This case went back and forth for a year. In August 07 the Photographer was granted a Summary Judgment that finds the other party infringed on the photographer's copyright, and they could proceed to trial.
(I'm exhausted already!) From there, the trial started Nov 07. In Feb of 08 came the Judgment - the court found that the other party obtained the photos from his website and willfully infringed on the photographer's copyright. He was awarded $4,462.00 for actual damages of the particular photo, $10,000 for statutory damages for 'willful' infringement of the photo, and $5,000 for the removal of his copyright symbol on bottom of photo.
The other party would not agree to pay the judgment. (They can do that?) The photographer fought and filed motions through the spring of 2008. They finally settled on a payment plan with the company. On May of 2009 the photographer filed a lawsuit for malicious prosecution against the company and the attorneys that represented them.
I found this case very interesting. Great triumph for the little man. Though it makes you realize how hard and long it takes to prevail against a larger company and their attorneys. Many people would probably have given up - either by it taking too long, or they don't have the money for trial/attorney expenses.
Read more at the website - it's way more detailed than what I wrote, but very interesting.
http://www.cgstock.com/essays/copyright_lawsuit
Monday, November 9, 2009
Copyright, Agassi, and crystal meth
Hi folks:
It seems to be a big deal that, in his new autobiography, Andre Agassi admits to having used crystal meth. A big enough deal, apparently, to violate copyright over:
http://tinyurl.com/ye2e8lo
It seems to be a big deal that, in his new autobiography, Andre Agassi admits to having used crystal meth. A big enough deal, apparently, to violate copyright over:
http://tinyurl.com/ye2e8lo
Sunday, November 8, 2009
More objections to Google Books
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/technology/internet/31google.html
The latest objection to Google's attempts to digitize books comes from China, where two writers' groups say the search engine has violated international copyright standards by scanning Chinese works. Google Books has been around, and causing similar controversy, for quite some time. But only now have Chinese authors learned that Google had obtained their works from U.S. libraries.
At the moment, Google is close to an out-of-court settlement with a group of American authors and publishers over a class-action lawsuit involving copyright infringement. Will the details of this settlement also apply to those writers outside of the United States? Or will Google face further legal action?
AT&T sues Verizon over "There's a map for that" campaign
AT&T Wireless is suing Verizon Wireless over its "There's a map for that" campaign, which illustrates the density of Verizon's 3G network on a U.S. map compared with that of its competitor's much sparser coverage. AT&T claims the spot is causing the No. 2 wireless carrier to lose "incalculable market share" and "invaluable goodwill."
Many viewers are appreciating the ad's humor, which PARODIES Apple's "There's an app for that" campaign. Apple's exclusive partner for its iPhone is AT&T. The ads show two maps side by side, with Verizon's coverage shown in red dots that blanket the country, while AT&T's service is shown as a cluster of blue dots and mostly white space.
AT&T is seeking injunction that will mandate Verizon to remove the TV ads. Verizon eventually remove the phrase "You're out of touch" in regards to AT&T 3G coverage.
I find this very interesting for two reasons. First, how far can you use 'parodies' and get away with it? and secondly,our subsequent chapters will introduce us on rules governing advertising and the FCC. What can company A say about company B without getting into trouble.
link to article
http://adage.com/article?article_id=140303
Many viewers are appreciating the ad's humor, which PARODIES Apple's "There's an app for that" campaign. Apple's exclusive partner for its iPhone is AT&T. The ads show two maps side by side, with Verizon's coverage shown in red dots that blanket the country, while AT&T's service is shown as a cluster of blue dots and mostly white space.
AT&T is seeking injunction that will mandate Verizon to remove the TV ads. Verizon eventually remove the phrase "You're out of touch" in regards to AT&T 3G coverage.
I find this very interesting for two reasons. First, how far can you use 'parodies' and get away with it? and secondly,our subsequent chapters will introduce us on rules governing advertising and the FCC. What can company A say about company B without getting into trouble.
link to article
http://adage.com/article?article_id=140303
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Does irreparable harm appy to animals?
I found an article published earlier this year by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press web site that I thought was interesting because it seems to debate the weight of First Amendment rights versus animal rights.
The case stems from U.S. v. Stevens which concerns a law passed in 1999 where defendants could face up to five years in jail if they "knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain." The law was passed with the intention of banning fetish films known as "crush videos" where women in heels step on small animals. No one has been prosecuted under this law until recently when Robert Stevens was charged for distributing videos of animal fighting. Stevens was sentenced however the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philly cited the law as unconstitutional and is "unwilling to find the tapes entirely unprotected by the First Amendment without guidance from the high court."
The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case and in turn decide if the statute violates First Amendment rights. If the statute is upheld, opposition suggests that, not only will this limit the rights of free speech, it will also be detrimental to the fight for proper treatment of animals. It will limit the media's ability to make public the abuse that is happening and cover common popular sporting such as hunting and fishing.
My question is related to irreparable harm. In class we discussed how one must prove irreparable harm to limit speech before it happens. To whom is the irreparable harm occurring in this case? Although I do feel it is sad that animals are mistreated, I do not believe our government was designed to protect animals at the expense of the rights it promised to its people. Is the content disgusting? Yes. But I do not agree that its suppression outweighs the importance of freedom of expression.
View the article.
The case stems from U.S. v. Stevens which concerns a law passed in 1999 where defendants could face up to five years in jail if they "knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain." The law was passed with the intention of banning fetish films known as "crush videos" where women in heels step on small animals. No one has been prosecuted under this law until recently when Robert Stevens was charged for distributing videos of animal fighting. Stevens was sentenced however the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philly cited the law as unconstitutional and is "unwilling to find the tapes entirely unprotected by the First Amendment without guidance from the high court."
The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case and in turn decide if the statute violates First Amendment rights. If the statute is upheld, opposition suggests that, not only will this limit the rights of free speech, it will also be detrimental to the fight for proper treatment of animals. It will limit the media's ability to make public the abuse that is happening and cover common popular sporting such as hunting and fishing.
My question is related to irreparable harm. In class we discussed how one must prove irreparable harm to limit speech before it happens. To whom is the irreparable harm occurring in this case? Although I do feel it is sad that animals are mistreated, I do not believe our government was designed to protect animals at the expense of the rights it promised to its people. Is the content disgusting? Yes. But I do not agree that its suppression outweighs the importance of freedom of expression.
View the article.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Twilight’s Author Sued For Copyright Infringement
The famous teenage vampire series author Stephenie Meyer has been sued by unpopular author Jordan Scott. The plaintiff, Scott, said Meyer stole ideas from her novel “The Nocturne” when she posted some passages online. The lawsuit was filed in Federal court in California. Scott argues that Meyer’s novel “Breaking Dawn” which was published in 2008 has the similarities in language, plot lines and characters. Fox example, she mentions both books contain passages of a wedding scene and an after wedding scene of sex at the beach. However, Meyer’s publishers defend her by arguing that the story lines in “Breaking Dawn” are more similar to Meyer’s previous vampire books in her series - especially “Twilight. “
I think, from the information available, the similarities claimed by Scott are more general and I wonder - what is the boundary on suing for copyright in this case? Only two similar facts have been mentioned. I would think there would have to be more similarities between the two books or the lawsuit is baseless. Meyer has published more vampire books in her series such as “Twilight”, “New Moon”, and “Breaking Dawn”. There are not enough specific similarities to make me think there is really evidence to support the lawsuit.
Here's the link:http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Twilight+author+sued+copyright+infringement/1913059/story.html
I think, from the information available, the similarities claimed by Scott are more general and I wonder - what is the boundary on suing for copyright in this case? Only two similar facts have been mentioned. I would think there would have to be more similarities between the two books or the lawsuit is baseless. Meyer has published more vampire books in her series such as “Twilight”, “New Moon”, and “Breaking Dawn”. There are not enough specific similarities to make me think there is really evidence to support the lawsuit.
Here's the link:http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Twilight+author+sued+copyright+infringement/1913059/story.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)