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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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/

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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."

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/

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."

Link

"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_

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Sublime Band Members Banned from Using Name

On October 21, the Bradley Nowell estate and merchandising entity filed a trademark infringement against former Sublime band mates Eric Wilson and Bud Gaugh. Bradley Nowell was the lead singer of the 90's puck band Sublime. Nowell died in 1996 of druge overdose, but the remaining band members Wilson and Gaugh have continued to perform. After Nowell's death they began performing under the the cover name Long Beach Dub Allstars, however they just recently revived the bands name Sublime after recruiting a new lead vocalist.

Nowell's family claimed that "prior to his untimely passing, both Bud and Eric acknowledge that Brad was the sole owner of the name Sublime." And "It was Brad's expressed intention that no one use the name Sublime in any group that did not include him." The family also stated that Brad registered the trademark 'Sublime' under his own name. The Judge agreed with the family/estate and issued an injunction blocking the band from using the "Sublime" name and trademark for any performances, merchandise, etc.

Do you think the surviving band members should be blocked from using the band name 'Sublime'? What are your thoughts on the family refraining the remaining band members of using the Sublime name, in order to "protect and preserve Brad's musical legacy" ?

Click here for full story.

60 Minutes: The Movie Pirates

This past Sunday 60 Minutes had an investigation piece about the pirating of movies over the internet and through bootleg DVD's. The investigation explores the how people produce and distribute movies illegally. Furthermore, how the internet has made it very easy for people to distribute and access movies through programs such as Bittorent. File sharing programs allow users to upoad and download media of any kind. Bittorent files are very popular with movie file sharing because it allows big movie files to be uploded and dowloaded very quickley. Such easy accesiblity has created a new industry of conterfiet movies.

I'm sure many people in the class have some experience with file sharing and/or Bootleg DVD's. I have never copied a DVD to sell or make a profit but I admit that I commit copyright infringemnt on a regular basis. We have netflix and I burn the DVD's when we get them because we rarely have time to watch it plus why should I pay $25 for the DVD when I can get for almost at n/c. I'm sure that imost people think the same way as well., especially the younger kids. In the 60 Minutes piece, there was a coment that wen t something like, "It's so easy that it it can't be illegal" Right or Wrong, I personally don't think I'm doing any harm to Hollywood....I still pay my share at the theatre.

To watch the story click here: WATCH STORY
To read the story click here: READ STORY

Daily Mail insinuated Kate Winslet lied about diet and exercise; Winslet wins libel suit

Academy Award-winning actress Kate Winslet accepted $40,000 in damages from the Daily Mail after the newspaper published false information in an article.

Winslet, a longtime critic of excessive dieting and Hollywood's obesession with being thin, sued the paper for libel when an article disputed Winslet's claims that she only worked out 20 minutes each day at home. The paper claimed it was impossible for her to be as thin and muscular as she was by working out for only 20 minutes per day at home--insinuating that Winslet lied and secretly used other means to maintain her weight.

"I strongly believe that women should be encouraged to accept themselves as they are, so to suggest that I was lying was an unacceptable accusation of hypocrisy," said Winslet.

I found this article particularly interesting because it seems unusual (to me). Many celebrity libel lawsuits brought against newspapers or magazines involve more racy or sordid accounts of defamatory press: love affairs, divorce, sex tapes, criminal acts, etc. While the newspaper's claims did call Winslet's reputation into question, many celebrities deal with much more damaging and offensive claims by the media.

http://bit.ly/1QoSBx

You Really "Are What You Tweet"

Apparently, back in March of this year, Courtney Love had a libel suit filed against her by a fashion designer for defamatory comments she posted on Twitter. In recent news, a superior court judge stated that Love’s defense of right to free speech is not applicable in this instance and that the designer has a good chance of winning the suit. On a side note, I wonder why social networking sites aren’t held as responsible for the content users post on their site similar to a newspaper. Any thoughts? Well, here’s the links to the article concerning the suit.



http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSTRE52R00020090331?feedType=RSS&feedName=internetNews

DOL (Dead-On-Line)

Hi folks:

What happens to your online presence when you die? There's an interesting story in today's New York Times about that:

http://tinyurl.com/yz74nmp

Looks like you'll need, at the very least, something in your will that authorizes your survivors to get things like passwords, etc..

YouTube, You Take.......or do you?

Well, this case took place around July of 2009.  It is also one of many cases involving YouTube and the issue of copyright infringement.  It obviously addresses what we have discussed in Media Law class, but I also find it funny that YouTube dodged a bullet based on technicality of the law. 

So, here it is:  

It looks like there was  some footage of a Premier Football League game on YouTube, and of course the group suing wanted punitive damages.  However, because the footage of the Premier Football League was considered "foreign works", they were NOT covered by United States Copyright Law.  The judge that made the ruling also mentioned that the Copyright Act "bars statutory damages for all foreign and domestic works not timely registered" (Sandoval).

 

It is a clear that one of the main uses of YouTube is taking copies of other people's work and uploading them on this website, which is kind of how I came up with part of the title for this post "YouTube, You Take...".  And it only makes it okay if the copyright owner actually does the post, they grant permission by exercising the exclusive rights of copyright ownership and/or the copyright expires and becomes "public domain".  

I guess it would be fair to say that for future references, anyone who may have to sue a company such as YouTube needs to make sure they are covered in whatever court of law they choose to take their case.  It seems that sometimes the evidence is just not enough.

Any thoughts?  Check out the link:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10281571-93.html

Article:  "Judge sides with You Tube on several copyright issues"  By Greg Sandoval

Artists Sued for Copyright Infringement...again.

It seems as if "Birdman," aka Bryan Williams and rapper Lil' Wayne (or Dwayne Carter according to his birth certificate) are being sued for copyright infringement. Thomas Marasciullo, a Florida native, was asked in 2006 by the duo to record some mafia inspired speech, which apparantly he did and never received compensation or notice of the use of the recording. He is seeking unspecified damages against the rappers themselves, the recording company and various distribution outlets for the use of his voice on a total of nine tracks over two albums. Marasciullo discovered that his recording had been used when his daughter was trying to purchase a ringtone of "Respect" by Aretha Franklin and came across a song of the same name by Lil' Wayne. This is not the first time either artist has been sued for sampling recordings without permission, as there are pending cases for other songs they used without permission, but this is the first time an individual is seeking damages instead of a company. You can read more about the case using the links below:
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7016869011?Lil%20Wayne%20And%20Birdman%20Hit%20With%20Copyright%20Infringement%20Lawsuit
http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur57127.cfm

Digital Recorders Violate Copywrite?

In June the Supreme Court chose not to hear a copyright infringement case related to cable companies use of remote storage digital video recording. The case, filed by television and film industry companies, claims that the storage of programming on servers for On Demand use later violates copyright law because it is not done with the permission of the copyright owner.

This is an interesting twist which I'm sure becomes present each time new technologies are introduced. We have talked about it in class with Google Books and, according to the article I found, the Supreme Court heard a similar case in the 1980's related to VCRs. The opposing companies argue, '"This case presents critical questions about the application of copyright law to automated computerized services that are rapidly reshaping how copyrighted works are reproduced, delivered and consumed."'

Although a true statement, where would you draw the line? Consider the internet and the vastness of information available. Is it possible to filter through its entirety and decide what does and does not violate copyright law? The other question is, how much of a profit is Cablevision making off of their on demand services? Will it really destroy the television, film, sports and music industry? I find that doubtful and apparently so does the Supreme Court.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529424,00.html