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?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars

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/

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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/

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

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

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

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/

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.

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.

©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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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