Webster University Media Law Class Blog

Freedom of the Press

2009-11-11T16:43:00.001-06:00

The Obama administration and Congress appear to be moving toward agreement on a federal shield law, which would protect reporters who refuse to reveal confidential sources. The bill that is emerging is not perfect, but it would help ensure that Americans get the information they need about the workings of government, business and other institutions that affect their lives. Do you think this would be good or bad or journalism, the public, sources?
For more info: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/opinion/03tue2.html

Twitter-like "Ameba-now"

2009-11-11T16:21:00.002-06:00

CyberAgent Inc., a company provides media contents and services through the Internet business had announced that they are planning to start mini-blog service named "Ameba-now" which can post short words like "Twitter"during this year. Ameba is one of biggest blog site in Japan that is offered by CyberAgent and they hold many users not only general public but also celebrities and artisits. They have not decided how many words it can tweet nor any other details in this new service.

Similar service 'Twitter," has just started in Japan, but still it is not popular. For this new service, CyberAgent aim to get users from original Ameba blog users so that thay can easily enlarge users to this new service.

CyberAgent is popular media business company in Japan, but what do you feel about this new service? Is it possible for this company to start same service as "twitter"? I hope this will not relate to copyright infringement, but I was interested that Japanese media company started thinking similar system as "Twitter."

Anti-Defamation League on Media's Side

2009-11-11T14:10:00.002-06:00

Woody and Rizzuto are two talk show hosts for a morning program on 105.7 The Point. Earlier this week they had a woman from the Missouri/Southern Illinois branch of the Anti-Defemation League (ADL) on air with the guys to discuss the upcoming counter-protest that they are helping to forward against a group called the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), an anti-gay hate group located in Topeka, Kansas headed by a man named Fred Phelps. Apparantly the WBC is staging a protest in St. Louis at Northwest High School tomorrow (11/12/09) using their slogan "God Hates Fags" against a memorial service for a fallen soldier and because the school has diversity programs. The counter-protest will be held at a church down the street from the high school, with the slogan "God Hates Douchebags" aimed at the WBC. The woman from the ADL was speaking about how the WBC people are extremely litigation-happy. Apparantly Phelps himself used to be a lawyer until he was disbarred, several of his many children are lawyers, and they use their knowledge of the law to perverse ends, obtaining money for the group by seeking lawsuits for emotional distress against people like and winning. Michael Moore did his own mini protest in his show The Awful Truth, driving a pink bus called the Sodomobile filled with gay men and women to the WBC's protests around the country. It's obvious that the group is just attention hungry, but it will be interesting to see if the counter-protest manages to stay peaceful and non-violent, and if any lawsuits come out of it on either side. For more information, click on the links below:

http://www.adl.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_hates_fags

http://www.1057thepoint.com/WAR/

Teacher Forced to Resign Over Content of her Facebook Page

2009-11-11T12:09:00.002-06:00

A former Georgia teacher was forced to resign after the principal of the school she was employed at concluded her Facebook page was inappropriate. To be specific, the two things he was concerned about was the fact that she was holding beer and wine, and the fact that she said the word B****. The "expletive" was used in reference to a restaurant she was going to that featured a game called "Crazy B**** Bingo."

Link

"Family Guy" Case Thrown Out

2009-11-11T06:55:00.002-06:00

In March 2009, music publisher, Bourne Co. filed suit against Fox Broadcasting, "Family Guy's" creator, Seth McFarlane, and producers for breach of copyright in 2007. Bourne Co. owns the rights to Disney song, "When You Wish Upon a Star". Bourne Co. felt that the song's image had been damaged when "Family Guy" used the song in a skit with anti-semetic lyrics.

The case was dismissed as the court ruled "Family Guy" did not violate copyright law because they used the song in a parody. Parodies are protected by 1st Amendment rights. "Family Guy" producers did not use the entire song. They used enough of the song so that it was recognizable to its audience. It was, also, clear to the audience that the song was being parodied since the lyrics were altered to differ from the original song.

Do you agree with the ruling? Do you think this damaged the song or Disney's reputation?

http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2009/03/17/family_guy_copyright_case_thrown_out_

Patent law "case of the century"?

2009-11-10T17:49:00.003-06:00

The Supreme Court heard a case today concerning what can legally be patented. The case, Bilski and Warsaw v. Kappos, concerns Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw, who were denied a patent for a business method. They are appealing a ruling that patents must be tied to something tangible. Most patents concern tangible inventions, such as a new chemical or product. Bilski and Warsaw's method would have made energy expenditures more predictable for organizations.

Patenting a method? It may sound strange to some, but I think that if you legitimately create something--regardless of what that item is--you should be able to patent it. While nothing is ever absolute, and there always seems to be an exception, I think that the Court needs to strongly consider the potential effects of their ruling.

It will be interesting to see what the Court decides.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/business/10patent.html?_r=1&em

Stop or I'll Shoot

2009-11-10T13:35:00.001-06:00

Two students at Tarrant County College in Fort Worth have sued the school claiming that the college violated their first amendment rights. The incident started when the students wanted to pass out pamphlets and fliers concerning a campus ban on concealed weapons, and were told that they could only do so at an information table designated by the school. At the same time, the students were also warned that they could not wear empty holsters as a form of protest to the new ban.
Represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the students were at least able to get a temporary restraining order that would allow them to protest the ban without restrictions being placed on the demonstration. The case is scheduled to go to court on November 16th, 2009. Unlike the famous Hazelwood case, were it was determined that the school had the authority and the right to censor information because the school publication was not a public forum; Tarrant County College is in fact a public forum, and may potentially lose the suit on the basis of view-point discrimination. For further information, the article can be viewed at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/us/07brfs-COURTBACKSPR_BRF.html

Photographer sues over "stolen" photographs

2009-11-10T08:05:00.002-06:00

I was searching for topics and came across this case. I found it interesting because the photographer has his own website where he shares the whole ordeal of this stolen photograph and the ensuing lawsuit over copyright infringement. He kept a timeline of the events and ended up representing himself in court.

To summarize, a photographer in Minneapolis with his own business. He has his own website where he sells his photography. He took a photograph in 2004 of the Minneapolis skyline at night for a local magazine. A year later, May 2005, he opens his new Yellow Pages and there is his picture in an advertisement on the front inside cover. He contacts the company and they claim it's not his. This goes back and forth and he tries to take it to court. He blogs about it on his website. The company in turn files a defamation lawsuit against the photographer.

They go to court. The photographer successfully clears the case against the defamation - nothing he wrote on his website could be proven to be a lie. The defamation lawsuit carried on from the end of 2005 to the beginning of 2006. At that same time the photographer started investigating this "supposed" photographer that the company said they paid for the photo. The photographer came to find there was no one of that name. The other photographer was fiction.

In March of 2006 the photographer files his copyright infringement lawsuit. The Company wasn't going away quietly though. By the end of 2006 they filed a counterclaim. The photographer then filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims. The judge denied his motion to dismiss and allowed the counterclaims to go to trail. This case went back and forth for a year. In August 07 the Photographer was granted a Summary Judgment that finds the other party infringed on the photographer's copyright, and they could proceed to trial.

(I'm exhausted already!) From there, the trial started Nov 07. In Feb of 08 came the Judgment - the court found that the other party obtained the photos from his website and willfully infringed on the photographer's copyright. He was awarded $4,462.00 for actual damages of the particular photo, $10,000 for statutory damages for 'willful' infringement of the photo, and $5,000 for the removal of his copyright symbol on bottom of photo.

The other party would not agree to pay the judgment. (They can do that?) The photographer fought and filed motions through the spring of 2008. They finally settled on a payment plan with the company. On May of 2009 the photographer filed a lawsuit for malicious prosecution against the company and the attorneys that represented them.

I found this case very interesting. Great triumph for the little man. Though it makes you realize how hard and long it takes to prevail against a larger company and their attorneys. Many people would probably have given up - either by it taking too long, or they don't have the money for trial/attorney expenses.

Read more at the website - it's way more detailed than what I wrote, but very interesting.
http://www.cgstock.com/essays/copyright_lawsuit

Copyright, Agassi, and crystal meth

2009-11-09T17:29:00.002-06:00

Hi folks:

It seems to be a big deal that, in his new autobiography, Andre Agassi admits to having used crystal meth. A big enough deal, apparently, to violate copyright over:

http://tinyurl.com/ye2e8lo

More objections to Google Books

2009-11-08T18:03:00.003-06:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/technology/internet/31google.html

The latest objection to Google's attempts to digitize books comes from China, where two writers' groups say the search engine has violated international copyright standards by scanning Chinese works. Google Books has been around, and causing similar controversy, for quite some time. But only now have Chinese authors learned that Google had obtained their works from U.S. libraries.

At the moment, Google is close to an out-of-court settlement with a group of American authors and publishers over a class-action lawsuit involving copyright infringement. Will the details of this settlement also apply to those writers outside of the United States? Or will Google face further legal action?

AT&T sues Verizon over "There's a map for that" campaign

2009-11-08T16:16:00.002-06:00

AT&T Wireless is suing Verizon Wireless over its "There's a map for that" campaign, which illustrates the density of Verizon's 3G network on a U.S. map compared with that of its competitor's much sparser coverage. AT&T claims the spot is causing the No. 2 wireless carrier to lose "incalculable market share" and "invaluable goodwill."

Many viewers are appreciating the ad's humor, which PARODIES Apple's "There's an app for that" campaign. Apple's exclusive partner for its iPhone is AT&T. The ads show two maps side by side, with Verizon's coverage shown in red dots that blanket the country, while AT&T's service is shown as a cluster of blue dots and mostly white space.

AT&T is seeking injunction that will mandate Verizon to remove the TV ads. Verizon eventually remove the phrase "You're out of touch" in regards to AT&T 3G coverage.

I find this very interesting for two reasons. First, how far can you use 'parodies' and get away with it? and secondly,our subsequent chapters will introduce us on rules governing advertising and the FCC. What can company A say about company B without getting into trouble.

link to article
http://adage.com/article?article_id=140303

Does irreparable harm appy to animals?

2009-11-07T14:09:00.003-06:00

I found an article published earlier this year by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press web site that I thought was interesting because it seems to debate the weight of First Amendment rights versus animal rights.

The case stems from U.S. v. Stevens which concerns a law passed in 1999 where defendants could face up to five years in jail if they "knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain." The law was passed with the intention of banning fetish films known as "crush videos" where women in heels step on small animals. No one has been prosecuted under this law until recently when Robert Stevens was charged for distributing videos of animal fighting. Stevens was sentenced however the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philly cited the law as unconstitutional and is "unwilling to find the tapes entirely unprotected by the First Amendment without guidance from the high court."

The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case and in turn decide if the statute violates First Amendment rights. If the statute is upheld, opposition suggests that, not only will this limit the rights of free speech, it will also be detrimental to the fight for proper treatment of animals. It will limit the media's ability to make public the abuse that is happening and cover common popular sporting such as hunting and fishing.

My question is related to irreparable harm. In class we discussed how one must prove irreparable harm to limit speech before it happens. To whom is the irreparable harm occurring in this case? Although I do feel it is sad that animals are mistreated, I do not believe our government was designed to protect animals at the expense of the rights it promised to its people. Is the content disgusting? Yes. But I do not agree that its suppression outweighs the importance of freedom of expression.

View the article.

Twilight’s Author Sued For Copyright Infringement

2009-11-04T16:46:00.001-06:00

The famous teenage vampire series author Stephenie Meyer has been sued by unpopular author Jordan Scott. The plaintiff, Scott, said Meyer stole ideas from her novel “The Nocturne” when she posted some passages online. The lawsuit was filed in Federal court in California. Scott argues that Meyer’s novel “Breaking Dawn” which was published in 2008 has the similarities in language, plot lines and characters. Fox example, she mentions both books contain passages of a wedding scene and an after wedding scene of sex at the beach. However, Meyer’s publishers defend her by arguing that the story lines in “Breaking Dawn” are more similar to Meyer’s previous vampire books in her series - especially “Twilight. “
I think, from the information available, the similarities claimed by Scott are more general and I wonder - what is the boundary on suing for copyright in this case? Only two similar facts have been mentioned. I would think there would have to be more similarities between the two books or the lawsuit is baseless. Meyer has published more vampire books in her series such as “Twilight”, “New Moon”, and “Breaking Dawn”. There are not enough specific similarities to make me think there is really evidence to support the lawsuit.
Here's the link:http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Twilight+author+sued+copyright+infringement/1913059/story.html

Sublime Band Members Banned from Using Name

2009-11-04T12:08:00.002-06:00

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

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

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

Click here for full story.

60 Minutes: The Movie Pirates

2009-11-03T23:39:00.002-06:00

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

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

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

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

2009-11-03T21:16:00.008-06:00

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

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

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

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

http://bit.ly/1QoSBx

You Really "Are What You Tweet"

2009-11-02T18:01:00.004-06:00

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

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

DOL (Dead-On-Line)

2009-11-02T17:36:00.003-06:00

Hi folks:

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

http://tinyurl.com/yz74nmp

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

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

2009-11-02T10:11:00.002-06:00

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

So, here it is:

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

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

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

Any thoughts? Check out the link:

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

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

Artists Sued for Copyright Infringement...again.

2009-11-02T09:57:00.002-06:00

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

Digital Recorders Violate Copywrite?

2009-11-01T19:49:00.002-06:00

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

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

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

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

SASUKE vs. Wipeout

2009-10-29T20:29:00.006-05:00

Tokyo Broadcasting System (TBS) Television has sued American Broadcaster ABC, claiming that the TV show "Wipeout" infringes on the copyrights of several Japanese programs. The show was on air from June to September; however the season ended so they are going to renew the program for another season. The concept of show is that contestants challenged by an athletic obstacle course which is similar to the TBS TV shows "Takeshi's Castle" in the 80's and "Sasuke" still-running show. TBS insists that Wipeout is too similar these shows. Furthermore, they mention infringment in few points which are obstacles, formats, and so on.
In this recession, it will be one of big profits to be paid copyright fee espacially from outside of country. TBS expressed their indignation among publics. This is rare case that Japanese media station has sued American media coporation.

This was an interesting article for me, that Japanese media corporation has sued one of major American media company. I agree with TBS's points, but not sure that this arguement will be taken as a copyright infringment. This issue has claimed in beginning of this October, so we must keep an eye on this issue during this class session, and see what is going to happen.

What do you think?

Sasuke http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YngvJENBfBI
Wipeout http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLLYiz_80-4

"Court Dismisses Rather Suit Against CBS"

2009-10-29T15:04:00.000-05:00

A lawsuit against CBS by Dan Rather was brought against the network in 2007 for damages of $70 million dollars. Rather had claimed that

"his contract had been breached by CBS management and his reputation had been
unfairly tarnished by the network's handling of an investigation into his report
on President George W. Bush's National Guard Record."

The appeals court chose to dismiss the suit against CBS saying,

"the motion court erred in denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the
claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and therefore we find
the complaint must be dismissed in its entitety."
http://http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/court-dismisses-rather-suit-against-cbs/

E-SMOKING COMMERCIALS BANNED

2009-10-28T17:00:00.003-05:00

In most parts of Europe, it is illegal to broadcast commercials for cigarette products. It looks like the European Union is trying to make anyone quit smoking by putting discouraging texts on the packages, aweful pictures of patients suffering from long cancer, and promoting tons of products that will help you quit smoking such as the nicotine gum.

However, it is illegal to broadcast commercials for the electronic cigarette. The court in Den Hague in the Netherlands dismissed the proposal of the company E-Smoking to liquidate the commercial prohibition in early 2008. Until the European Commission or the European Court of Justice decided whether the electric cigarette is a medicin or not, the judge thinks that a prohibition of commercials is fair.

Considering that smoking electric cigarettes are indeed more healthy than smoking regular cigarettes, the judges 'easy' dismissal actually seems ridiculous! Electric cigarettes only contain water vapor and are not damaging any vital organs in a persons' body. It is understandable that it has to be considered if it would be a medicin or not, but more important it is clear that it is a healthy replacement for the regular cigarette.

The spokesman of E-smoking comments that it is strange that it is okay for them to sell their products in thousands of stores, but that it is illegal for them to promote their product, "It is not even been mentioned that the E-cigarette is a medicin, so why is my product put in this category?"

E-Smoking is now coorperating with 'De Slimme Sigaret' (The Smart Cigarette) and other related companies to fight against the prohibiton of commercials of electric cigarette products.

NORTH FACE.....SOUTH BUTT

2009-10-28T15:26:00.002-05:00

I definitely found this story interesting because it is local. It is about a West St. Louis County college student who decided to come up with his own line of apparel to help his parents with college expenses. It looks like what he came up with was a clothing line called South Butt, which seems to be opposite of the brand North Face, from the logo to the tag line used. For example, the South Butt tag line is "Never Stop Relaxing" and the North Face tag line is "Never Stop Exploring".

The student even went to the extreme of offering South Butt at a Ladue Pharmacy and online with a You Tube clip. North Face Apparel Corp. and attorneys did contact the teen and basically ordered him to stop selling his product and claimed that their customers would be confused. The South Butt lawyer replied that customers should be able to tell the difference between a face and a butt. This is definitely a case of whether or not Trademark Infringement is at hand.

I do think coming up with the South Butt brand was risky because it is exact opposite of the North Face brand. It would be a little different if South Butt didn't sell clothing and sold a line of comfortable chairs or something. I do, however, applaud the efforts of this college student taking initiative to raise funding for his college education, but he is kind of stepping on the toes of a larger corporation that can cost him more money that he has. Overall, there are some similarities between North Face and South Butt which I think makes it much harder for South Butt to convince any court or judge that trademark infringement is not involved.

Any thoughts? Check out the link below:

http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/2009/09/south_butt_vs_north_face.html#at