Pennsylvania school being sued for spying on students

On Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me, a political gameshow with a cynical panel of comedic hosts, mentioned yesterday that there is a lawuit against a school district in Pennsylania. Apparently the school board voted to give all the students at Harriton High School a laptop, except the laptops were equipped with webcams that were used to spy on the students. The spying was discovered when one student, Blake Robbins, came into school one day and was repremanded for improper behavior in the home. The vice principal accused him of popping illegal pills, and the student replied that he had been eating Mike and Ike's (the candy) while doing his homework at home. He then naturally asked how they got pictures of him sitting at home doing homework. As the host of Wait Wait Don't Tell Me quipped, the principal must have then answered "oh....nevermind." The principal denies spying on any students, but the parents of Robbins are suing the school on behalf of all the students for gross privacy violation. Sounds about right to me! I'd sue the pants off them, since they'd probably have a video recording of me with my pants off!

Super Fired

http://blog.newsarama.com/2010/02/28/dc-fires-lawyers-in-siegel-superman-case/

This article features news of DC's legal counsel being fired during the latest Seigel family lawsuit against DC. The copyright and trademark of the first official superhero, Superman, is being fought over. I believe this change of lawyers is a intimidation tactic, which hopefully will stop the Seigel family from continually going after the copyright and trademark of Superman, even after the Seigels have repeatedly settled. If this were the Seigel family's first lawsuit against DC I might be inclined to side with them, but the fact is that this is just the latest. Even if the Seigel family wins half the Copyright and even Half the trademark they still will lose. The reason they would lose is Superman is entrenched so completely in the DC universe that the mere idea of him at another company just doesn't work. Another reason is that AOL Time Warner would still own half the copyright and half the trademark, so it would be their character still but making half the money they make now.

Sarah Palin Is not Amused by Seth McFarlane

I was watching an episode of Bill Mahr, who had the creater of Family Guy, Seth McFarlane, on to discuss several issues, one of which regarded a new episode that FOX recently aired that featured a character with down syndrome. In the episode, Chris (Seth Green) asks out a girl who has down syndrome, voiced by an actress who actually has the condition, only to discover that she is mean and inconsiderate. The "moral" of the story, if there were to be one, is that people with down syndrome can be jerks, just like all other kinds of people. Sarah Palin disapproved of the episode and came onto shows such as the O'Reilly Factor to express her disdain for such disrespect of people with mental disabilites. The girl who played the down syndrome girl on the show spoke out after hearing of Palin's outcry, stating that she was perfectly happy doing the show.

This all ties back to Rom Emmanuel's mistakenly-recorded utterance that certain Democrats were "fucking retards," which sent the Palin brigade out on a tyraid that is still in process. Now it seems that not only can we not say the word "retards" without committing an offense against God, but it also seems that we can't even show or discuss people with mental disabilities, even if they are happy to do so. Following through on Palin's suggestions would result in the chilling of the First Amendment and would ultimately hurt those she's supposedly trying to protect.

New Study Finds False Advertising used by Indoor Tanning and Tobacco Industries

A new study has found that the indoor tanning industry is using similar advertising strategies used by the tobacco industry. In a report published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, dermatologist David A Jones, MD presented results of an observational study that concluded that both the tobacco and tanning industries use advertising strategies to counteract the health concerns in their products. The industries want to positively influence the consumer’s perception of smoking and indoor tanning. The industries also want to drive demand.

Dr. Jones says, “ The indoor tanning industry reported domestic sales in excess of $ 2.7 billion in 2007 and it relies heavily on advertising to sell the misleading idea of a “safe” and “healthy” tan to the public. Even though it is well documented that UV radiation from natural sunlight and indoor tanning devices is a known cause of skin cancer, the public is not always aware of the serious health risks associated with indoor tanning- and the tanning industry’s advertising practices capitalize on this fact.”

Dr. Jones and his colleague, Jennifer Herrmann, MD, reviewed 2,000 advertisements from four large tobacco-advertising databases. Dr. Jones and Dr. Herrman identified 4 key strategy profiles that were used to sell the product. These strategies included:

1) Mitigating health concerns

2) Appealing to a sense of social acceptance

3) Emphasizing psychotropic effects

4) And targeting specific population segments

A collection of 350 tanning advertisements were compiled and evaluated based on the 4 key strategies listed above.

In order to combat the growing concerns of UV exposure, the indoor tanning industry created “harm reduction” campaigns similar to the tobacco industry. An example,is an advertisement promoting tanning beds s “UVB- free” or “99% pure UVA” used in the 1980s. This was a time when research began confirming that UVB rays are carcinogenetic and UVA rays are just as harmful and can cause skin cancer. The ads fails to mention this.

In January 2010 the FTC recognized the seriousness of the indoor tanning advertisements and it issues a consent order. The consent order prohibits the Indoor Tanning Association from making false health and safety claims about indoor tanning.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-study-finds-similar-advertising-strategies-used-by-indoor-tanning-and-tobacco-industries-85361542.html

Magazine's Cover Features Olympic Skier in a Suggestive Pose

After reading Ebony's post on the Scotty Largo's “risky” photos. I thought I would post another blog that dealt with the Olympics and “risky” pictures. Early this month the cover of Sports Illustrated's Winter Olympics preview, February 8, issue featured the American alpine skier Lindsey Vonn. Vonn ‘s pose resembled the exaggerated tuck stance skiers take when barreling down a hill. The cover also had the headline “America’s best woman skier ever.”

Many feminists are claiming Vonn’s pose on the Sports’ Illustrated cover are provocative and portrays Vonn as a sex symbol versus an athlete. An expert in sports psychology and women in sports, Nicole M. Lavoi wrote in her blog,“ That it is bad enough that women rarely appear on the magazine’s cover. When females are featured on the cover of SI, they are more likely than not to be in sexualized poses and not in action-and the most recent Vonn cover is not exception.”

I’ll let you be the judge.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/02/lindsey-vonn-sports-illustrated-cover-gets-chilly-reception.html

Dannon settles false advertising lawsuit over Activia, DanActive yogurt (Los Angeles Times)

Dannon Co. settled a false-advertising lawsuit Friday, agreeing to set up a $35-million fund to reimburse consumers who bought its Activia and DanActive yogurts(Olivarez-Giles).

The class-action lawsuit, filed in January 2008, alleged that Dannon lied when marketing its Activia and DanActive yogurts by trumpeting health benefits that didn't exist (Olivarez-Giles).

This is a case of false advertising. Activa and DanActive were said to help regulate digetive system based on the Probiotic bacteria that is found in the yougurts. They also said it will help replenish those healthy bacteria at an older age. However, there are no studies that indicate this is correct.

False advertsements do not benfit the company or the ad agency representing the product or service. Dannon Co. had to reimburse consumers who bought the product. Flase advertisement becomes a loss of profit and create a poor image for both the comapny and the ad agency.

Scotty Largo Scandal

Just wanted to post the question to the following situation. Does obscenity issues apply here?

Scotty Largo is a Bronze Medal winner in the 2010 Winter Olympics. After winning his medal he was caught at a party, and some "risky" photos were taken of him.

http://www.bnqt.com/blogs/detail/Scotty-Lago-Scandal/5679

Now the photo themselves were not as obscene as some people might think. However, think of the situation. He is an olympic athlete. Many men, women, and children may look up to him. My question is if an obscentity issue comes into play here.

It is said that the photos were innocent and not his fault. However, Largo did appologize to the Olympic committee and voluntarily left the rest of the olympics. Does obscenity play some sort of factor here because he was a public figure?

Puffery in Advertising

I just wanted to add on to the conversation we had about Advertising Puffery. Actaully, the next day after class last Monday I watched an exact tevelvision commercial about Papa John's Puffery slogan, "Better Ingredients, Better Pizza."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn5n4NFpxe8

In my own opinion I feel that Puffery is a cheap cop-out of advertising. In this commericail Domino's challeneges the fact that Papa John's does use puffery advertising. Domino's that they claim they do not use puffery when they say they have a better tasting pizza, because they beat Papa John's in a national tast test.

Guest Speaker on Monday

As a reminder to everyone, we are having a guest speaker on Intellectual Property Law on Monday. The event is open to the student body at large, so feel free to invite anyone who may be interested. There will be refreshments served in the lobby at Sverdrup Hall across the way from the library from 4:30 until the presentation begins at 5:30.

We will meet in the library conference room (which has now been confirmed) at the start of class and the event will last approximately one and a half hours before we return to our usual room for our team presentations.

The Dean of Communications will be there as well as others, so definitely try to come to the mixer before the presentation as there will be plenty of people to meet.

See you there!

File sharers get some sympathy from the judicial system.

Boston University graduate student Joel Tenenbaum is seeking a reduction in the fine he was ordered to pay to the recording industry. Tenenbaum, who was ordered to pay $675,000 to four labels, and his lawyer, believe the damages he was ordered to pay were excessive.

"If Tenenbaum had bought the songs legally on iTunes, Nesson argued, the student would have paid 99 cents for each, and the record labels would have received 70 cents each from Apple. Thus, Nesson said, total damages should be no more than $21."

Somewhat surprisingly the judge who originally presided over the trial said she was "sympathetic" to the 26 year old grad student's plight.

Another "file sharer" has already had her damages reduced by a judge. Jammie Thomas-Rasset had her damages reduced from 1.9 million to $54,000. The industry offered to settle for 25k, but Rasset rejected the offer and the case is set to go back to trial.

Should the judicial system be reversing damages like this?

To read more go to http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/02/24/smaller_damages_sought_in_music_case/

Good Site for Privacy Reference

So generally when I do these post I just Google the topic we are talking about in class at the time so tonight I Googled "recent privacy issues" and right off the bat the first site was a success.

The following link, http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/Privacy-IssuesList.htm, is for a site called PRC for privacyrights.org. The first issue at hand is for a technology first used at the 2001 Superbowl called facial recognition biometrics. This is where a tape uses video technology to identify you based on the make up of your physical appearance which some believe is a violation to ones privacy under the First Amendment.

I believe this technology to be used as it has been used against identifying possible terrorist in a crowd in most recent cases. I just believe that for us to further protect ourselves in some forums that we at times have to sacrifice a little ourselves. If you've done something illegal and haven't been caught that it kind of your mistake, in my opinion. I'm not excited about the idea of people being able to identify me by just being filmed as I walk into a venue but then again if they caught someone stealing my wallet and were able to catch the person because of biometrics I would be a very happy person.

Google Buzz creating a stir...

A Harvard University Law student has filed a class action suit against Google because of their new social networking application "Buzz". The gist of it is that Buzz attempts to manage all of your social networks by analyzing all of your contacts email addresses. It doesn't ask who you want to "friend" or anything like that. If you are signed up for Gmail, you are already a part of it. The student is suing as she believes the fact that personal information is shared with people she hasn't approved is a violation of privacy law. "Citing that the search engine giant’s new social networking application Google Buzz is disclosing personal information without any form of consent which constitutes a breach of privacy."

The question will be how much privacy should one expect when putting information onto the internet AND how will the updates to terms of use for sites like Facebook change the complexion of this case. Facebook now makes some of your information searchable now.

To read more visit

http://www.seopositive.com/blog/2010/02/23/class-action-suit-filed-against-google-by-a-harvard-law-student/

To Trademark or not

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021102974.html

The Twitter tweet non-trademarked problem continues with twitter send what appears to be cease and desist letter or e-mails to Facebook. As this article points out the term tweet still has not been officially trademarked. With this apparent gross oversight in business procedure one has to wonder whether Twitter has any future legal ownership with the tweet term. The fact that twitter is pretending to have a trademark also makes this student blogger question the contracts they might have set up or look at on a daily basis. While Twitter has a strong mark with the term tweet, it is still unofficial as a mark. I feel that if they don't start practicing better business sense, they may not last the next ten years.

New Credit Card Law

Most of this article doesn't necessarily have to do with media, but nonetheless it is very interesting and very informative. The part I find particularly interesting is the new regulation on how Banks and Credit Card companies market to students, specifically college students.
In Candice Choi and Eileen AJ Connell's LA Times Business Article, they explain:

STUDENTS

THEN: Students arriving on college campuses often confronted a gantlet of credit card marketers handing out T-shirts, pizza and other gifts in exchange for filling out card applications. Credit cards were frequently handed out without checking the applicant's income sources. In 2008, 84 percent of undergraduates had at least one credit card. Average balances topped $3,100.

NOW: Credit cards may no longer be issued to anyone under age 21, unless the applicant has a co-signer, or can show independent means to repay the debt. Colleges must disclose any marketing deals they make with credit card companies. Banks are not allowed to hand out gifts on or near campuses or at college-related events.

I experienced this marketing trend first-hand multiple times while I attended Truman. I never signed up for a card, or participated in the deals, but I knew of many people who did. It always seemed very simple upfront, but later students would learn just what they had signed up for, or fallen into. I think this is a much regulation especially for college students who, most likely, are already accumulating debt from student loans.

School Allegedly Spies on Student

FBI Investigates Webcam Spy Allegations Against School
Parents of a high school student are filing a suit again Harrington High School, claiming they used a webcam to spy on their son. The school distributed laptops (equipped with webcams) to students as part of a technology initiative. Students and their parents were never notified that the laptops' webcams could be accessed remotely--a feature the school says they had in place to find missing or stolen laptops. The whole issue arose when the school accused the student of "improper behavior in his home" and used a photo obtained from the webcam as evidence.Soon after the allegations, the school released statements apologizing for the failure to give notice, and said the webcams were never meant to be used to 'spy' on anyone.
I think this is just stupid. I can't understand how they wouldn't expect the student's parents to get upset over this--especially since the school used photo evidence to prove the son had done something wrong. I think it is a total invasion of privacy and a huge mistake on behalf of the school. I would be outraged if I learned my school was using a webcam to spy on me--without ever telling me they were doing so.
What do you think?

Ruffled Feathers

Remember last May when Oprah Winfrey partnered with KFC to give everyone in American a free two-piece grilled chicken meal? Long lines greeted customers (like me), who tried to cash in on the freebie. I got a rain check when I realized that I couldn't stand in line for an hour on a one-hour lunch break.

James Asanuma and Veronica Mora filed suit against KFC, accusing the chicken restaurant of "false advertising, fraud and unfair business practices." They also said KFC was using the promotion to get customers to spend money they had not planned to. The suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, and it's been removed to Federal Court. Experts say the case might become a class action suit.

Similar suits could be filed against Denny's, which recently had a free Grand Slam meal available, but again, there were long lines out the building and many, no doubt, didn't get served. And this Tuesday, Feb. 23, IHOP will be giving away free shortstacks. Sounds like more potential lawsuits.

March Madness and Office Pools

With March Madness about three weeks away, I was wondering about the age-old question if those office pools and brackets for the NCAA men's basketball tournament are legal. An article in LegalZoom.com explained that the pools are illegal, except in Nevada. Participation in the pool could result in a misdemeanor and up to one year in prison. So, are you still ready to put up $10 or more to be in a pool? The ones more liable seem to be business owners who allow the pools to exist in their companies. Those in favor of office pools say they create good will among employees. Experts suggest owners make sure the bets are low and avoid online brackets. Or the boss could give everyone a free entry and provide prizes. Sounds like a good deal. Why can't my boss do that?

Literary Parodies and First Amendment

Author Alice Randall and her publisher, Houghton Mifflin, published the novel "The Wind Done Gone," which is a retelling of the classic "Gone With the Wind" (by Margaret Mitchell) from a slave's viewpoint. Mitchell's estate sued, saying that "The Wind Done Gone" was too similar to "Gone With the Wind." The case was settled before a court could rule on it.

But the book might have seemed like a parody of the original, which meant that it was protected from copyright infringement by the "Fair Use" doctrine. Some parodies also are defended under the First Amendment.

The book was published after negotiations with the Mitchell family. The family also required that the book be labeled "An Unauthorized Parody" and author Randall had to make a donation to Morehouse College, an African-American college in Atlanta.

I thought the case related to our discussions about parodies in class. That "unauthorized" tag is often required, as we learned.

Hallmark v. Hilton - What's Hot?

Hallmark Cards, which is headquartered in nearby Kansas City, decided to use Paris Hilton's trademarked phrase "That's Hot" along with an image of her in a waitress uniform - without her permission. Hilton sued two years ago. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled in August that Hilton is a topic of "widespread, public interest." As such, this was a case of protected free speech that allowed Hallmark to use the phrase and her picture.

But the court also ruled that Hallmark could not rely on its use of her likeness as being in the "public interest" because Hallmark was not reporting information, just selling birthday cards. The court said that she could move forward now with her lawsuit against Hallmark on her appropriation of liknesss claim. Hilton's image in the waitress uniform was taken from an episode of Hilton's previous TV series, "The Simple Life." Sounds like Hallmark might lose on the likeness claim. And anyway, isn't Paris Hilton and her "That's Hot" phrase old news today?

Vanna White vs. Samsung Electronics

The law case of Vanna White suing Samsung was in Nexis-Lexis and began with a paragraph of how different celebrities want privacy in the way their images are portrayed, including the Girl Scouts, Saddam Hussein, and George Lucas. But the article is really about overprotection. At what point do celebrities go too far?

In the case of Vanna White vs. Samsung, the electronic company produced a humerous ad campaign that showed the future of Samsung 20 years from then. Vanna White accused Samsung for infringing on her right of publicity by appropriating her identity. "Under California law, White has the exclusive right to use her name, likeness, signature and voice for commercial purposes."

The writer of the article makes a great point:
"I can't see how giving White the power to keep others from evoking her image in the public's mind can be squared with the First Amendment." I completely agree. The commercial was not an exact replication of her image, it was simply reminding people of her.

Facebook in Prison?

A recent story reveals that prisoners in Britain are using their Facebook accounts to terrorize and harass their victims; some were jailed for murder and assault. The offenders boldly utilize their statuses and postings to prolong their victim's suffering. This revelation raises many issues, particularly the rights of convicts, or those detained by law enforcement in general. British authorities indicated that they ban inmates from accessing the internet, minus educational purposes, but I think many would agree that there is not a large volume of (valuable) educational content on Facebook-profiles, applications, statuses, etc.

Many questions arise, the first of which is, why are inmates allowed or able to gain access to the internet, and even Facebook? Are there laws against inmates and social networking websites? How about restraining orders for victims for the internet? Could the inmates be punished further for terrorizing their victims further via Facebook-a longer sentence, the hole, etc.

These are concerns that more than likely apply to inmates in U.S. prisons and jails. British officials have even considered banning ex-convicts' access to Facebook. How would this idea fair in America? How would this violate or uphold the released prisoners' rights? Is internet access a right that prisoners relinquish when they are incarcerated? Is the internet (social networking sites) now considered a basic right (avenue for freedom of expression) or privilege?

I believe that this issue should be debated, and I am sure it will be in the near future. The fact that prisoners can extend the anguish and anxiety of their victims is saddening; part of the reason they are incarcerated is so that they are not able to harm their victims, or others. It will be interesting to see how Britain handles this situation, along with how it will affect the granted rights of convicts along with policy in U.S. prisons.

Prince William's Girlfriend Suing Paparazzi

Kate Middleton, who is engaged to Prince William of London, is suing the paparazzi for taking her picture on Christmas Day. She was only playing tennis, but since the pictures were published in a magazine and on the Internet, she is claiming invasion of privacy. The articles did not tell where the tennis court was located (public, private property, Buckingham Palace), but they do quote the Daily Express as saying, "The point is it occurred on Christmas Day, a day that most people regard as private."

Personally I think that suing for invasion of privacy because it happened on a holiday is one of the silliest excuses I've ever heard...let's see where this story ends up since she is marrying the Prince.

Jillian Michaels False Advertising Suit

I found the below link while just searching through recent entertainment news cases on Charter.net and stumbled upon this. I also thought it ironic that the subject matter involving this case was going to be talked about next class session regarding Advertising Law.

Apparently a customer who bought her pills that claimed she would loose weight in 30 days in fact did not see results and is suing for false advertising. There is also another they woman who is mentioned as well who has also came forth to protest the same thing.

I'm really interested to here how drugs in general deal with making claims in ad's and making sure they don't make false claims to the public.

Here is the link for the Jillian Michaels story:

http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?id=16157738&ps=1016&cat=&cps=0&lang=en

Comic Parody of Republicans

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/boom-conservative-controversy-repuglicans-100215.html

This article deals with the supposed Captain America tea bagging controversy that was mentioned on fox, and apologized for by Marvel/Disney Editor-in-chief Joe Quesada, who is a Republican in political belief. The main point of the article though is the satire that will be seen in the Repuglicans comic book. It is pure parody for profit, with Fox commentators being zombies. Does it present false light issues, a reasonable person would say no. Is appropriation an issue, maybe, but the comic has yet to come out and Mad Magazine has never had a problem in recent years mocking public figures. Will people be offended, as with anything the answer is yes, because someone somewhere always gets upset over something.

Ken Lay wouldn't have liked Iceland...

Iceland's government is considering legislation that would "create an international repository for leaked documents, exposed corporate and government secrets, and other information provided by investigative journalists and whistle-blowers alike". This comes on the heels of their economy all but crumbling during the world wide recession, many believe due to banking and government secrecy and failure. If passed, this could set an international precedent on governmental and corporate transparency. Imagine, your corporation is based in the U.S. and a whistle blower wants to tell the whole world what a rotten group of people you are (without fear of reprisal or prosecution). They just move on over to Iceland and blow the whistle. In light of the Enrons, Arthur Andersons, and Goldman Sachs etc...of the world that sounds like a pretty good idea. But what happens when a disgruntled employee moves over there and tries to destroy an innocent company? Think of WikiLeaks on steroids...

Read more here

http://gigaom.com/2010/02/12/iceland-looks-to-create-information-haven/

Libel law under reform in UK?

The increase in libel law cases has many asking: is English law in need of reform? I know we recently discussed the difference between US libel law and that of other countries. In the US it has become the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove the six elements of libel--but in other countries the burden of proof lay on the shoulders of the defendants. In the case of England, the defendant has to prove the statement made is not libelous.
There is a freedom of speech group in England that has made 10 recommendations for change, and a report they published states, "The report describes a law which has a 'worldwide chilling effect' that has put England at the heart of a clampdown of freedom of speech around the globe".
With libel law getting so much attention in England right now, reform may soon be on the way. To view the full story, go here.

CBS pulls NORML ad at the last minute

To go along with my last post on CBS approving a pro-life advocacy group but not a gay dating service ad for the Superbowl, the company has also recently approved and then rejected a 15-second ad that was scheduled to air on CBS's Super Screen billboard in New York City's Times Square. The ad was sponsored by NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, and promoted legalization of marijuana for the purpose helping the economy through the taxes that could be collected from legalization. After the contract was signed, CBS realized that NORML had actually managed to raise the necessary funding, and they suddenly did an about-face on the agreement, sending the head of NORML a short note that read, "I just received word from CBS and they will not approve your ad. If CBS changes their morals we will let you know."

NORML Foundation Executive Allen St. Pierre responded with the following comment: "Major media corporations like CBS have no problem airing programming that allows them to profit off the public's interest in marijuana and marijuana law reform, such as Showtime's hit seires Weeds and the CBSnerws.com online series "Marijuana Nation." Yet these same corporate entities balk at airing media that calls on reforming America's criminal marijuana policies--policies that have led directly to the arrest of over 20 million Americans since 1965. How can advocates be expected to change these failed policies whent those that control America's airwaves refuse to allow them a public forum to voice their point of view?"

Here's the "immoral" ad if you're interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tqW9Kj8DVU

CBS approves some advocacy ads, but not all

During the Superbowl this year, if you were one of those who's tuned in soley for the commercials, you may have noticed an advocacy group, Focus on the Family, who, according to the NY Times, is "an evangelical organization known for conservative views on subjects like abortion and gay marriage" had a 30-second ad in the mix this year. This is the first year that CBS has approved any advocacy ads for the Superbowl.

What troubles me is that they had earlier denied an ad for a gay dating service, telling the company that they were sold out, then later admitting that the ad was "not within the network's broadcast standards for Super Bowl Sunday" (from Friedman, NPR's The Nation). If it's ok to have a commercial featuring racecar driver Danica Patrick being controlled by men and compelled into climbing in the shower and making out with another woman, I'd say a gay dating service is just fine.

Rape case privacy and our last class guest

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/13/BAV21C0SDL.DTL

This article tie-ins to the guest speaker talking about rape cases being particularly nasty as well as the fact that privacy is coming up in class as a topic. Now the questions this article raises are many, but I feel the most important are few. The first question that springs to mind is should rightfully convicted rapists be given any right to privacy. My opinion is if rightfully convicted then a rapist has practically no privacy rights, because they are likely to rape again. The second major question is are the parole officers equally at fault in this case. My opinion is a simple maybe, because I need more info such as what else may have caused their inaction. One final question is what else has possibly slipped by these parole officers in the past. My opinion is that without more info a conclusion cannot be reached one way or the other on the matter.

Ebay is to Pay Damages to Louis Vuitton

A Paris court ordered eBay Inc. to pay Louis Vuitton 200,000 euros ($275,000) in damage Thursday February 11, 2010. The court found that eBay was harming the Louis Vuitton, Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton (LVMH), brand's image when the site allowed online auctioneers to use the misspelling of the name to be linked to the eBay site. The use of misspelling is sometimes associated with counterfeit items.

Many online businesses pay to have a large number of words call up link to a site, like eBay, when typed in to search engines. The court ‘s ruling reprimanded eBay for buying terms like “Louis Viton” or “Wuiton,” which is associated with selling knockoff LV products. The court said the trading of counterfeit products on eBay damages the Louis Vuitton image. Louis Vuitton will also receive 1,000 euros for every future violation, which will only be applicable in France.

A Louis Vuitton spokesperson said, “ Louis Vuitton welcomes this decision, which confirms established case law that aims to protect the consumer from the illicit use of company trademarks.” Over the years many luxury-good brands have been in legal disputes with eBay over the counterfeits sold on the site. Luxury brands feel the sale and production of knockoffs hurt their upscale image.

However eBay claims the lawsuits from luxury brands is a means to tarnish eBay’s image. Ebay feels these companies are trying to monopolize who sells luxury brands and at what price. Yohan Ruso, eBay France’s managing director, said eBay has no intention to aid the sale of fake products. The terms cited in the lawsuit were merely spelling errors. Ruso claims that eBay employs 2,000 people and spends millions of Euros a year just to combat the sale of counterfeit goods. Mr. Ruso said that eBay might consider appealing to the court. Ruso also feels the court decision and the fine eBay is force pay is “totally disproportionate.” Ruso says this case just proves how LVMH wants to damage the reputation of eBay.

I personally agree with the French courts and the decision. Counterfeits and knockoffs have been a plague for the fashion industry. Luxury brands and designers have tried to combat the problem but have been unsuccessful. Like the illegal music file sharing I think trying to stop the reproduction and selling of fake products is a never-ending battle. But I also feel targeting websites that aid in the sale of counterfeit and knockoff products is a good starting point.

Here is the link of the story:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704337004575059523018541764.html

Public Urination - Obscene and Indecent?

This past weekend was the Mardis Gras celebration and the news did a great job of telling people not to bring bottles and backpacks to the parade. However, I never heard the consequences of public urination discussed and I know that this was a huge problem in the past years.

Public urination has been made a crime in many places and the laws are primarily governed by state and local laws (these vary by jurisdiction). It is considered a lewd act when someone exposes his or her genitals. It is considered a Class C misdemeanor which means you can be fined up to $500. Lawmakers are trying to pass a law that if someone urinates in public, they are considered a sex offender and must register themselves on the sex offender list.

What are your thoughts? I even read that some people are trying to ban breastfeeding as this is exposing certain parts of the female body. I am hoping that we cover this in the next chapter of Obscenity and Indecency as I know many people who seem to be breaking both of the aforementioned laws.

Suit filed in City Hall killings. (The St. Louis Post Dispatch)

'A lawsuit faults an unarmed private security office for allowing Charles "Cookie" Thornton into a Kirwood City Council meeting the night he fatally shot six people and was killed by police.

"This wasn't some fellow that was unknow to the city of Kirkwood," says Chet Pleban, attorney for the daughter of Constance Karr, a council member and mayoral candidate slain that night.

"This was a fellow who had an extremely adversarial history with the city and he's permitted to walk into the city building without any sort of scrutiny whatsoever, carrying a sign and two guns after shots were heard int the parking lot."

Thornton had previously disrupted meetings to draw attention to claims the city had
mistreated him over ordinance violations and other issues.'

The main issue here that I wanted to touch on was not that of the security officer, but that of Thorton and his rights as a citizen. I just wonder how this might be a part of public forum, apart from the shooting? I am referring to the entrance into a city hall with just intentions of stating claims of mistreatment. At least aren't the steps leading up to the city hall building a place to have public forum? My main proposed question is how and when do you determine when the puclib forum "spot" becomes no longer a public forum area?

U.S. turns up heat on Monsanto. (The St. Louis Posy Dispatch)

The United States Justice Department has ordered Monsanto to provide the data about its dominance in the genetically modified seed industry. A civil investigation will/or has taken place. This is a formal request for certain information. This is all due to provide a collective data inquiry into competitive practices in the seed industry. (Tomich)

Thomas L. Greaney, a law professor at St. Louis University, said civil investigative demands like those recieved by Monsanto represent the second step in an antitrust investigation and are used by goevernment lawyers to obtain specific documents, depositions and internal memoranda that the company wouldn't voluntarily hand over and that could be useful in preparing an antitrust case. (Tomich)

My question in this case would be, does this infringe on the company's first amendment rights in the terms of privacy? Why is a violatin o0f privacy here not an issue if the company is not doing any harm?

Monsanto rolls out branded onions. (The St. Louis Post Dispatch)

Also going along with out discussion in class about; copyrights, trademarks, and brands, Monsanto has now officailly branded a vegetable with a trademarked name, in the United Staes, that can be sold year-round. Monday, February 8, Monsanto introduced the EVerMild Onion into the branded market, making their appearance in Schnucks stores. The company has already had some branded vegetables in Europe such as, Bella Verde and Dolce Verde.

There are some aspects of the Mickey Mouse and copyright discussion we had in class that correspond to Monsanto branding a vegetable. Through discussion we talked about how Mickey Mouse, after the copyright has expired, could potentially become a different version and eventually become a new branded/trademarked image by doing so. I think this correlates into the fact that a company can even brand/trademark an onion. So what does this mean for other companies who try their hands at producing and selling an onion that can be sold year-round? If copyright or trademark infringement occurs how far will this case go? An onion in federal court?

Six Flags sues Days Inn Eureka over use of name. (St. Louis Post Distpatch)

I thought that I would stay on the theme of topic; copyrights, trademarks, and brands. Along with poor ratings on an online travel site, the Days Inn in Eureka is also facing a federal lawsuit. Six Flags Inc. is suing the Days Inn for trademark infringement. The hotel was billing itself as, "The Days Inn Eureka Six Flags. "

Through a court order the hotel is barred from using Six Flags' name in any way in which brings people to believe that there are any associations between the two to be removed. With the hotel itself, they must remove all ads, trinkets and the like that use the name. The hotel set a mile away from the Six Flags Park was said to have a reason for the use of the name. "A man who identified himself as S.T. Shah and the manager of the hotel, said in a phone interview that Gateway Hotel used Six Flags name only as a way to identify its location, not to imply it ws affiliated with the theme park." (Deere)

I was just thinking about our discussion in class over Mickey Mouse. It is very interesting how quickly infringement on copyrights can come out, and how fast it will got to federal court.

Social Media and Libel

Remember the libel suit involving the girl complaining about her moldy apartment on her twitter account? Well in case any of you were wondering, the case has been dismissed. The apartment management sued the defendant Amanda Bonnon for libel, claiming she published false and defamatory information on her twitter account. The judge in the case dismissed it on the grounds that “the tweet was too vague to meet the legal standards of libel.” Her tweet did not specify which city the apartment complex was in. Horizon Realty could be located anywhere, and since Twitter is a worldwide network, people reading her post would not necessarily associate it with the Chicago, IL Horizon Realty company. Had Amanda been more specific however, Horizon Realty may have won their case. This is something that we all should be thinking about these days, especially those who are active in social media, like myself. People love to use twitter to complain – I actually work for a corporation as their social media intern, and I deal with twitterer’s complaints every day. Everyone has a right to complain about something – it’s free speech – but we need to be aware of the way in which we are phrasing our online complaints because someone may go after us on the grounds of libel, and that would not be good.

I found an article on CNN referencing Amanda’s case and Courtney Love’s twitter libel suit. It discusses libel and social media, and how the law sometimes has trouble catching up with the ever-growing world of technology. The article states that one of the reasons why it is so difficult to handle internet cases is because of the fundamental question: “Is the Web a unique, separate space or is it really an extension of real space?” These two cases are probably only the start to many more to come and hopefully help set some precedent to help guide us in social media law. Check out the article here, it poses a lot of interesting ideas surrounding this current debate:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/17/law.technology/index.html

What do you guys think?

YouTube Video Helps Cops Catch Speeder

A salesman for St. Louis Motorsports was recently charged in Chesterfield City Court with speeding 150 miles per hour along the slow lane of Chesterfield Airport Road near Highway 40. He was charged after a video of his escapades in a Lamborghini was posted on YouTube. Chesterfield police noticed and the driver was charged with "careless and reckless driving" - a misdemeanor. The salesman's boss, Jim Mills, said the videos have been pulled from YouTube and that his employee has been reprimanded.

Here's an example of someone getting his 15 minutes of fame and getting in trouble for it. If he was so stupid to put this video on YouTube, then I think he deserves what he got.

Here's the link to the story:
http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-st-louis-motorsports-arrest-020210,0,4091094.story

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie File Lawsuit

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie filed a lawsuit in London against News Group Newspapers Limited. News Group Limited is a unit of Rupert Murdoch ‘s News Corporation. The couple is suing over an article published on Jan 24^th 2010 in News of the World, a British publication owned by News Corp. The article alleged separation plans between Pitt and Jolie.

According to the couple’s lawyer the article included false allegations that Pitt and Jolie agree to separate. The article also said that couple agreed to divide their joint assets and arrange custody of their children. The article has been removed from News of the World web site.

On Monday, the couple lawyer Keith Schilling made a statement saying, “We can confirm unequivocally, and upon instructions that the published claims of a pending break-up of the couple was false.” Schilling went on further saying News of the World failed to meet Pitt and Jolies' “demands for a retraction of and apology for these false and intrusive allegations which have now been widely republished by mainstream news outlets.”

According to a blog on the Wall Street Journal website titled " Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie File Lawsuit Against U.K. Newspaper,"British tabloids are frequently targeted in celebrity lawsuits. U.K.’s legal standards are different then those in the U.S. In U.K. libel suits it requires those being sued to prove truth in their claims versus plaintiff’s proving the truth. In other words the tabloids or publication has to prove the truth in their articles.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/02/08/brad-pitt-and-angelina-jolie-file-lawsuit-against-uk-newspaper/

Hustler Magazine v. Falwel

I have to admit that as soon as I saw this case referenced, I pictured Woody Harrelson's portrayal fighting comically in court (since he was so used to being sued that he seemed to not take it too seriously by the time this case rolled around) in the film The People v. Larry Flynt. If you've never seen it, I would highly recommend it as a good watch for this class; it covers privacy law, First Amendment law, obscenity law, and pretty much everything we're covering in a very entertaining format. Anyway, after learning about privacy law and First Amendment law, it seems odd to me that this case was even brought to trial. I don't think that Jerry Falwell had a leg to stand on. The fake ad that was placed in an article of Hustler that's pictured in our text book demonstrates how the ad was obviously actually a parody of a political figure, which is one of our most protected forms of speech. Falwell is definitely a public figure, which means that the media has every right to make fun of him as long as they aren't stating false facts. They even put a little disclaimer at the bottom of the ad specifically stating that it was a parody. The only reason that Falwell got as far as he did is because of the context of the case, in which a famous Baptist conservative attempted to sue a pornographic magazine. The Hustler was a political underdog, but the law was with them in this case.

Public Figures and Defamatory Statements

Last class we discussed defamatory statements and how public figures have a harder time proving falsity. Now my problem or rather the thing I can't get my head around is how a public figure would potentially have a harder time proving falsity in every case. One example could be someone is accused in a tabloid news story of sexual misconduct at a club, on the same night they were taping a music video somewhere else. Well in this example falsity can be proven by time stamps on the video, dozens of witnesses, possibly even security footage, and the call logs of the cell phones. Another example deals with a private figure who publicly, meaning by name, is accused by a friend or fellow employee's wife or girlfriend of sexual misconduct in an advice column. In the latter scenario it would be easy to prove falsity so long as the accused doesn't have a common name and malice was intended by the public accusation. The problem with falsity is people can lie and lie detectors are fallible.

To keep valid with the theme of the day...

So being that today is Super Bowl I thought I share something that is valid with class discussion involving trademark and that Super Bowl.

Check the following link out:

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2009/01/articles/intellectual-property/dont-use-super-bowl-in-an-ad-without-permission-but-how-about-in-other-programming/

It goes on to talk about how clients should never use the term "Super Bowl" in their Super Bowl ads because is is a trademark of the NFL and can't be used with out proper sanctions. This reminded me of the the conversation in class regarding the use of Mickey Mouse as to what references would be lawful to use without permission from Disney.

Statute of Limitations - Extensions or Excuses

We found out the statute of limitations for slander is two years from when the plaintiff first learns of the defamatory statement, however this is different from state-to-state. Some states only allow a year, or a year and six months and a few states allow up to three years. In some civil cases the statute of limitations can be delayed due to certain circumstances...one of them made me raise my eyebrow, but here goes: (1) if you were hospitalized in a coma for a year; (2) if you were a minor at the time; (3) if you were in combat zone; 0r (4) you were not able to afford a lawyer...Of course the 4th "excuse" has not been used yet.

Kurt Warner photo

St. Louis Post-Dispatch photographer Robert Cohen had to turn down two readers recently who wanted to buy copies of a great photograph he took of Rams quarterback Kurt Warner. The photo ran in 1999 and again when Warner retired recently. The photo can be used in the Post-Dispatch, which has the copyright on it, but the NFL doesn’t let the media sell the photo to readers or commercially without its permission. And guess what? The NFL has its own photo division, so it doesn’t let this sale of individual photos happen very often. It’s a shame that the NFL or the No Fun League has such a stranglehold on everything football-related. It almost seems it’s a battle of one copyright vs. another. And the NFL wins.

Case Report

Case Report: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Limit your answer to no more than two pages total.

Case Citation
What court of law decided this case?
Who are the parties and what is their relationship to each other?
When was the case decided?
What were the issues debated here?
Briefly, what was the majority opinion?
Briefly, what was the minority opinion?
What is your opinion?

NFL and Copyright

After reading Madeline’s post about the NFL trying to claim they own the copyright to “Who Dat,” I happened to come across another ridiculous story about the NFL and copyright law.

http://www.portfolio.com/industry-news/sports/2010/02/03/could-hosting-a-super-bowl-party-break-the-law/?ana=e_pft

This article states that if you own a TV that is larger then 55 in you could technically be violating an NFL copyright law. The law in fact does state that:

"no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than six loudspeakers."

The writer of the article looked into this and found that it was put in place to prevent people from hosting large functions and making a profit off the NFL game. If you are watching privately at home you are in the clear. Two years ago a church got in trouble by hosting a super bowl watch party where they charged people to watch the game on a big projector screen. The NFL went after them, and angered many people and church groups across the country. Yet this law is still in place, so if you were thinking about doing something similar, I would think again.

The NFL has also trademarked the words “Super Bowl” which lead advertisers to use the words “The Big Game” instead – the NFL then tried to trademark those words they had already been claimed by two ivy league universities.

Creative Reviews and Ownership

Last week, we discussed Intellectual Property and Copyright. A recent article on adage.com focuses on Advertising Agencies and Intellectual Property: Agencies Defend Intellectual Property Rights in Reviews.

This article specifically deals with the creative process, where ideas, thoughts, and inventions are expressed and solidified during the review stage. The review is a collaborative effort in which the advertising agency and client exchange ideas and create a plan. An interesting aspect of the article concerns client rights and the rights of the advertising agency. It mentions that more and more advertisers and marketers want additional rights regarding what is produced during these reviews. Many of the contracts secretly decree that the client expects to own everything that results from the review process.

The reason for this is economical; they do not want to be sued if they choose another agency but end up with a finished product that is similar to another agency's ideas. For example, one agency may be less expensive to produce a similar idea with the same variety (or more) of avenues to distribute the product. This directly deals with property rights and who reaps the ultimate rewards and bragging-rights for the material. The issue raises the question of what would happen to creativity and productivity if Ad Agencies were bought out by clients for their work. This, in many ways, compromises the purpose of the Ad Agency, which is to produce material on behalf of another company, but still own the image or idea and use them as a way of promoting their services and talents.

It seems as if the Executive Vice President of the American Association of Advertising Agencies is taking a stand by encouraging all creative agencies to clarify what belongs to whom during the creative process. A letter was sent by the AAAA to its members with tips on how to protect their work. Hopefully an agreement is made that shields the agencies from unfairness and upholds the purpose of their services. Overall, if clients want to own the product that they hire an outside agency to produce, they are creating a selfish relationship in which they receive the longstanding rewards and benefits.

Amazon vs. Macmillan: the e-book revolution

I heard on NPR this morning that because of the release of the iPad (a stupid name in my humble opinion that brings images of electronic maxipad to mind), Amazon is now fighting with Macmillan, a big publisher, about e-book prices. Up until the iPad, the Amazon Kindle had a pretty good monopoly over the e-book business, and Amazon chose to set the prices of all e-books at $9.99, which is way less than some books run, especially hardcovers. Publishers like Macmillan haven't been able to do much about it so far, but Apple's policy is to let the publishers set their own prices, so now Macmillan is also demanding that Amazon let them pick their own prices as well. After initially refusing to agree to those terms, Amazon removed all Macmillan-published books from their site, but that only caused buyers to go through third parties, so eventually they caved into Macmillan's demands and will allow the publishers to set the prices.

This presents an interesting example of the way that the internet and electronic media can complicate IPR-related situations, such as who has the right to set the prices when the publisher sells an electronic version of a book to be distributed to a distributer like Amazon or Apple? It seems that once the publisher's sold the rights to distribute, that the distributer then has the right to choose how much to sell the product for. On the other hand, the reason why Macmillan was so upset is because selling all books at $9.99 obviously discourages some people from going out and buying a hardback copy for three times that price. Is it right to undersell the publisher? On the third hand, if I had one, having an electronic version of a book isn't necessarily as valuable as buying the actual book, especially since the distributer has the right to remove the purchased book from your Kindle/iPad at any time, so in a sense you're only renting an e-book. Some food for thought.