Webster University Media Law Class Blog

Body Scanners are headed to 11 major airports. (USA TODAY)

2010-03-05T15:52:00.002-06:00

"Eleven major airports will begin using body scanners to screen passegers as the Transportation Security Administration launches a plan to buy 1,000 of the machines over the next two years (Frank)."

My question here is how far is the privacy line being crossed in order for national security?

These scanners, can scan through clothing and display an image of the passengers body in order to detect hidden weapons and explosives. Don't get me wrong I am all for all needs neccesssary to make sure that mine as well as others' safety is cruscial for transportation. However, I know I would feel violated/uncomfortable with this kind of scanner.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-03-05-bodyscanners05_ST_N.htm?csp=usat.me

Art Gallery Hosts a Swingers Club

2010-03-04T19:59:00.002-06:00

An art gallery in Austria is giving visitors the chance to act out their sexual fantasies. The Secession art gallery in central Vienna is hosting a nightly swingers club. It is part of a two-month project that is aimed at provoking debate about scandal in art. During the day the visitors, who are 18 and older, can walk through the empty scarlet rooms filled with black sofas. At night when the exhibit closes the club opens to dim lights, mattresses, a spa bath and provides a sex haven for visitors, 18 and older. The club gives people the chance to overcome their inhibition and to act out sexual fantasies ranging from leather and latex to a dance floor, body painting and a sado-masochism chamber. The project is the work of Swiss artist Christopher Buchel. Buchel wanted to draw parallels between the controversial Gustav Klimt’s Beethoven Frieze paintings. Klimt’s 1902 painting was once considered obscene and pornographic because of the way women’s bodies were portrayed. The painting is on display in the basement of the Secession and visitors must pass through the swinger’s club to see it.

Austria’s far-right Freedom party is denouncing the project. Gerald Ebinger. Local Freedom Party politician says, “It abuses artistic freedom. The significance of Austria as a country of culture and of Vienna as a cultural capital is being dragged in the mud.” Vienna’s Mayor, Michael Haeupl, is saying he did not approve the club. But the outrage from politicians and newspapers are playing right into the artist’s hands.

I actually heard about this story when I was driving home from Monday’s night class. I was very much caught off guard because this is something you would never hear about in the US. I mean a swingers club at the Met, not going to happen. The exhibit is suppose to draw a parallel between a 1902 painting of a naked woman, that was deemed pornographic, to people acting out sexual acts at night in the gallery. I’m not sure where the sex in art aspect is. Maybe, for the fact that the swinger club is taking place in an art gallery.

Fair Use of Films at Universities

2010-03-04T17:55:00.010-06:00

The University of California at Los Angeles is under fire from The Association for Information and Media Equipment, an educational-media trade group. The issue at hand here is whether the University violated copyright laws by allowing instructors to provide copyrighted videos to students via their course websites. The school argues that their use of the videos fall under fair use because the purpose is merely for education and even falls under the guidelines of the Teach Act. The university believes it is protected by those exceptions and the Teach Act, which allows limited use of copyrighted materials for online education. On the other hand, opponents argue, "fair use" applies to face-to-face teaching.
(http://chronicle.com/blogPost/UCLA-Will-Resume-Streaming/21594/)
This debate suggests that it may be time to alter copyright laws, especially with respect to technology. Advances in technology allow for students and instructors to create an environment where learning can occur on several different platforms. During my Undergraduate studies at Saint Louis University, we were allowed in film courses and other classes to view full films via Blackboard. These videos were a supplement to class material, and at times were the focus of class discussions and learning material. At times it was very difficult to manage and change your schedule so that you could visit the media lab to watch a film; this method is much more convenient and cost-friendly.

I believe that this should be protected under copyright laws due to the simple fact that the films are being utilized for education. In addition, only the students who are enrolled in the specific course and can log into the system have access to the videos. It's not as if anyone can visit the school or course website and watch the videos, access is password and user-protected. I think the media group opposing them just needs something to whine about and are looking for another way to make money-get over it! We are in a new age, a digital age, where almost everything can be utilized in a digital form. It's convenient, less costly, and provides innovative ways to provide education to many people.

Botnets and Social Networking

2010-03-04T17:16:00.006-06:00

Next time you are on Twitter, Facebook, MySpace or any other social networking site, beware of the botnets! Cybercriminals are using the information posted on these websites to create links and e-mails that appease to the victim's interests. Apparently, these criminals are using users' statuses, posts and other personal information to lure the victims into these malicious attacks.

For example, in fall 2009 hackers sent a Facebook message to a few co-workers including a link to photos of a picnic that some of the employees had attended (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2010-03-04-1Anetsecurity04_CV_N.htm). One of the employees mentioned the picnic on his profile page, which was where the hackers found their bait. Another employee received an e-mail who they thought was from their co-worker with a link to the photos from the picnic, but the message was from the criminals. They were exposed to everything but photos-infection of their computer system, where the hackers were able to take control of her Facebook account and company laptop.

With this control, they were able to search the company's network for two weeks. Now I understand why my job does prefer us to access Facebook on their computers. Social networking is providing bait for the hackers of a new generation. This is why individuals should not post sensitive, personal, revealing information about themselves-you never know who and how someone may be able to use this data. So for now on, be careful what you post and be mindful of how someone could use that information to victimize you!

Security and Mobile Shopping

2010-03-03T23:46:00.003-06:00

According to Adage.com, phone applications, specifically those for the iPhone, are revolutionizing the way people are shopping (http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=142318). Consumers can use their phones to compare prices, research products, read product reviews, find coupons and much more, all from their cell phones!

Although these applications are helpful, fun, and new, there should be concerns: are they secure? What types of protection is in place on cell phones to prevent theft of sensitive information? Are cell phones even capable of protecting its users from such threats?

These are a few questions I had regarding the applications, as I am sure that some day someone with nothing to do, and only change in their pockets will find way to steal others' information and use it for their gain. Only time will tell.

Wrong on Both Ends

2010-03-03T23:02:00.006-06:00

Students from the University of California-Berkeley are outraged about the decision for a 32% hike in tuition. Many students protested this increase, as they were concerned about the future of their education, careers and lives in general. Several protests included the occupation of buildings on several UC campuses and an alleged attack on the UC–Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau’s home (http://www.campusprogress.org/fieldreport/5135/above-the-law). Hundreds of students were arrested for the protests, but the most peculiar part of the incident is the University's reaction and choice of reconciling the situation.

There is clear conflict between the school's "Code of Student Conduct" and state, along with federal law, specifically the right to protest. A few of the students were suspended, while others received notices to leave their campus housing. The students were not provided due process by the school, which is a federal legal requirement/standard: Does this apply to University and educational proceedings? The school has altered its policy a few times since these issues began this January, which infers that the previous policy was not adequate to assist them presently. Many questions are present regarding this case: To what extent is the University legally able to penalize the students? Did the students' speech fall within the protection of the U.S. Constitution, or did they take things too far?

The students involved probably should not have taken the protest to the Chancellor's home; his space is private property and separate from the dealings of the University. There are several issues to be debated and decided upon due to this incident, and I am sure that the results will encourage major changes in University policy regarding its relevancy to state and federal law.

Coffee + Guns = Starbucks?

2010-03-03T22:14:00.010-06:00

There is an ensuing debate in San Francisco regarding Starbucks allowing their customers to freely carry and wear unloaded guns (more). Starbucks announced today that they would allow their customers to do so, since this is their right; a freedom they have under State law, because open carry is legal. Area gun-control advocates have publicly protested against this decision, citing incidents where Starbucks employees have been killed due to the right of the customer. Those for gun control, most notably the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have made quite an impact on the debate. The group says on their website to Starbucks, "Tell Starbucks: Espresso Shots, Not Gunshots," (website).

What is most interesting to me about this statement is the logo they have created to support their campaign. I think that this logo is too close to the original, it reminds you too much of the actual Starbucks logo. Why they do not have a problem with it, I don't know, but of course, it is political speech, so it's not a big deal, I guess (?). I believe that they could have come up with something else to support their cause, and I feel as if they are wrongfully targeting Starbucks. Yes, they are a worldwide brand, but associating them with these issues are wrong when they are just allowing people to exercise their rights; rights that citizens have fought for.

I totally agree with Starbucks when they say that both groups: gun-control and gun-right/freedom are exploiting Starbucks to bring popularity to their views and efforts. I wonder if Starbucks will respond to some of the comments made by advocates, which in a way could be considered slanderous. If I were Starbucks, I probably would.

Okay the picture cut off...

2010-03-03T20:40:00.001-06:00

Here is the site that outlines that story and it was settled outside of court already. This is kind of a dumb post but an entertaining story to say the least.

http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?d=19243&n=Unknown&s=FL

Found this funny...

2010-03-03T20:33:00.002-06:00

I received this image in an email a few weeks ago and never posted it. It makes me question if Hooters is going to get slammed by Toyota on trademark infringement due to the fact that they used their name in a company wide promotion for their sales associates.

Google Executives Absolved of Defamation Charges

2010-03-03T20:06:00.003-06:00

In Milan, Italy three Google executives were convicted and arrested for showing an internet video of an autistic boy being abused. Many people were worried that this case would define how sites like You Tube could start pre-screening the videos that are uploaded onto the website. "Prosecutors insisted the case wasn't about censorship but about balancing freedom of expression with the rights of an individual." This case caught the attention of advocacy groups for people with Down syndrome as well. The judge sentenced the executives to a 6-month suspension and absolved them of defamation charges. I think the sentence the judge gave them set a negative precedence...I'm not feeling the outcome of this one.

Suspects Caught by Infected Computers

2010-03-03T19:48:00.004-06:00

In San Francisco, three internet suspects were arrested in one of the world's biggest networks of botnets. Botnets are networks of infected computers that have been stolen and when put together hold a lot of information. With this arrest, authorities found a database of stolen credit cards and online banking credentials from at least 12.7 millioned infected PCs. The three people that were in charge of this botnet are just the beginning. They believe that there are more in other countries including Spain. What gave away these suspects was that they "accidentally" cooperated with investigators by using certain internet services. "It turned out that the botnet runners had infected computers by instant-messaging malicious links to contacts on infected computers." The computers included in this bust were those from Fortune 1,000 companies and major banks.

American Needle vs. the NFL

2010-03-01T13:39:00.002-06:00

This case is actually what I did my paper on. To try to make an extremely long story short - here's the readers digest version. In 2002 the NFL signed a 10 year deal with Reebok to be the EXCLUSIVE manufacturer of hats and apparel with NFL logos on them. This effectively cut out every other manufacturer that was making this stuff. A company in Northern Illinois took exception to this and filed suit (based on anti-trust law). American Needle lost and has continued to appeal. It is now being considered by the Supreme Court - based on the NFL's suggestion! The NFL sees an opportunity here. IF they can get the Court to recognize their organization to be viewed as a single entity (rather that 32 separate teams) then they will no longer be subject to anti-trust laws (as far as things just inside the NFL are concerned). If the NFL gets the ruling they want it will change the face of professional sports for ever.

To read more go here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=munson_lester&id=4336261

Pennsylvania school being sued for spying on students

2010-02-28T22:43:00.003-06:00

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

2010-02-28T22:20:00.002-06:00

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

2010-02-28T22:14:00.002-06:00

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

2010-02-28T18:53:00.003-06:00

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

2010-02-28T18:10:00.002-06:00

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)

2010-02-26T21:51:00.002-06:00

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

2010-02-26T19:56:00.002-06:00

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

2010-02-26T18:13:00.002-06:00

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

2010-02-26T18:09:00.002-06:00

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.

2010-02-25T05:07:00.003-06:00

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?

Good Site for Privacy Reference

2010-02-24T20:38:00.002-06:00

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...

2010-02-23T06:41:00.002-06:00

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

2010-02-22T00:17:00.002-06:00

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

2010-02-21T17:23:00.003-06:00

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

2010-02-21T17:04:00.003-06:00

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

2010-02-21T00:02:00.001-06:00

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

2010-02-20T23:54:00.003-06:00

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

2010-02-20T23:39:00.003-06:00

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?

2010-02-20T23:12:00.003-06:00

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

2010-02-20T07:54:00.002-06:00

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?

2010-02-18T22:37:00.001-06:00

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

2010-02-17T18:27:00.002-06:00

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

2010-02-16T22:52:00.003-06:00

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

2010-02-16T11:04:00.003-06:00

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...

2010-02-15T16:27:00.002-06:00

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...

Libel law under reform in UK?

2010-02-15T09:47:00.002-06:00

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

2010-02-15T03:00:00.003-06:00

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

2010-02-15T02:41:00.002-06:00

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

2010-02-15T00:12:00.003-06:00

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

2010-02-14T19:28:00.002-06:00

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?

2010-02-14T08:19:00.002-06:00

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)

2010-02-13T21:08:00.002-06:00

'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)

2010-02-13T20:57:00.002-06:00

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)

2010-02-13T20:46:00.002-06:00

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)

2010-02-13T13:37:00.002-06:00

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

2010-02-12T12:13:00.002-06:00

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

2010-02-09T22:55:00.003-06:00

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

2010-02-09T20:41:00.004-06:00

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

2010-02-08T15:43:00.002-06:00

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

2010-02-07T22:32:00.002-06:00

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...

2010-02-07T19:49:00.002-06:00

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

2010-02-07T14:08:00.002-06:00

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

2010-02-05T09:10:00.005-06:00

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

2010-02-04T21:55:00.000-06:00

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

2010-02-03T19:17:00.000-06:00

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

2010-02-03T18:56:00.003-06:00

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

2010-02-01T15:08:00.002-06:00

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.

Old Trademark Issue

2010-01-31T20:37:00.003-06:00

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2010/01/28/comic-book-legends-revealed-245/

This article link contains a verification of truth regarding a comic trademark legend. The issue deals with Marvel having lost or rather abandoning The Champions trademark to a role playing game company that made a comic using the trademark. This is actually a funny story that I had forgotten, even though it was brought up just a few years ago. Now while Marvel/Disney could try to pay for the rights for the trademark, or at least pay the company to stop renewing the trademark, I don't see them doing that right now. The possibility of bad press for even trying to attempt such a measly buyout for a trademark that isn't that well known to the general public makes me think they might not try until two decades from now.

The Reason I brought this article to the class's attention mainly has to do with the factors we didn't really cover in class. One thing is that trademarks can be bought out but at often a hefty price. Another reason is Disney recently officially bought Marvel for 4 billion dollars and thus they like any company want good solid copyrights and trademarks, thus they might try to register a lot of trademarks soon. A trademark has to do with public exposure the total opposite of privacy. My final reason is while it isn't recent it is relevant to the course.

NFL Says They Own the Rights to "Who Dat" slogan

2010-01-31T19:43:00.004-06:00

The NFL is claiming trademark infringement over the use of the phrase “Who Dat’ in t-shirts. The NFL is sending cease-and–desist letters to several T-shirt makers in New Orleans demanding that they stop selling the shirts with the slogan. The league says, “the shirts, some of which use the “Who Dat?’ slogan along with the Saint’s fleur-de-lis logo, infringe on a legal trademark.” However Saint fans are saying the NFL cannot trademark a phrase that has been around for 150 years. The chant has been around longer then the Saints. While the origin to the phrase is unsure. Some claim it came about in the late 19^th century in vaudeville routines. It was also used in a Marx Brothers' performance “ Who Dat Man.” The chant,“ Who dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints,’ is shorten for signs and shirts. It has been used to cheer for the Saints since the 1980s. Republican Senator David Vitter wrote a letter to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell asking the league to concede that the slogan is public domain. Vitter said, “ Please drop your present ridiculous position or sue me.”

I personally think it is a bad move on behalf of the NFL. The league claims it is just a big understanding. However as soon as Tom Benson, owner of the Saints, found out they were going to the Super bowl he applied for a "Who Dat" trademark. I think fans believe in their team and want to support their team using a slogan they cherish. While the NFL,of course, just wants to secure profits.

White House backs FBI use of records

2010-01-31T15:28:00.002-06:00

The FBI has acknowledged that they obtained phone records without any formal legal process or court oversight. Without this formal legal process or court oversight this is a violation of first right amendments to a civialian's privacy. However, who is going to deo anything about it with the white house administrtaion backing up this type of action? Do you feel that this is in violation to privacy?

Repo Car Incident

2010-01-31T14:22:00.002-06:00

On January 15 2010, in San Jose California, a repossession inccident occured. Isabel Leuvano left her car parked in her ex-husband's driveway waiting outside to pick up her daughter, while Alberto Luna jumped in the running car and drove off. Alberto Luna, owner of Alberto's Auto Sales, repossessed the car due to Isabel being behind in her payments. Little did he know that her 2-year-old son was sleeping in the back seat.

An hour and a half later police officers found the child, the same time that Luna realized that there was a child in the car. No kiddnapping charges were made. In some ways this viloates the right to privacy and tresspassing. However, there is no law in California that states a repossession has to take place in a public place or that they have to give warning before hand.

Privacy was violated becuase Luna had to know where to find Isabel outside of her own home. He had to be watching her to know her schedule, to know where she would be at certain times of the day. He also had to be following her. As for tresspassing, Luna did take the car on private property. What do you think? Were privacy issues and tresspassing an issue here?

Grand Mufti of Egypt Denounces Use of Religious Ringtones

2010-01-31T12:07:00.003-06:00

A growing trend among Muslim cell phone owners is the use of verses from the Quran or the Muslim prayer call for ringtones. The Grand Mufti of Egypt and the country‘s highest religious legal authority, Mufti Ali Gomaa, is denouncing the use of Muslim prayer or verses from the Quran as cell phone ringtones. Mr. Gomma says, “ It trivializes the word of God and violates the sanctity of the divine words.” The Grand Mufti issued a fatwa, Islamic religious ruling, about the religious ringtones after he received inquiries regarding its appropriateness.

The Arabic and Muslim new site Al Arabiya quoted the fatwa saying, “Picking up the phone is sure to interrupt the verse and this is disrespectful to the holy book. Prayer calls should not be used as ringtones because it might confuse people and make them believe it was actually time for prayer.”

I found this blog from the Wall Street Journal interesting because I think as a culture we tend to take for granted the freedoms we have, especially pertaining to First Amendment rights. Obviously other countries and cultures don’t exercise these same rights. And while it might not be in good taste to quote bible excerpts as cell phone ringers, we can still do it.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/01/22/a-fatwa-against-muslim-prayer-ringtones/?mod=

Social Networking and Copyright Laws

2010-01-30T18:22:00.003-06:00

So from the class discussions and the posts that people have been posting it seems that Facebook has run into some issues pertaining to privacy, copyright infringement, and other issues involving marketing/advertising companies illegally using content from user pages. With that being said I got the idea of trying to research how the law may interact or conflict with the use of social networking sites.

I Googled "Social Networking and Copyright" which led me to a very useful link right at the top of the list. This link: http://technology.findlaw.com/articles/00006/010966.html gives a very informative account of laws and how it deals with social networking in regards to copyright infringement.

The most interesting thing I found is that there is a statute that protects the site itself from any responsibility as to what users post. So in situations where a users my be uploading data, whether it be photos or music, which could be in violation of copyright laws the site itself is not at fault. The fault falls on the user, which I can see but I found it interesting that the site itself is clear of being held accountable. I would figure that they can't control what a user does but you'd think they could monitor it which I would think make them some what accountable.

Facebook resists records subpoena

2010-01-30T10:35:00.003-06:00

A former St. Louis police officer has filed a suit in Madison (Ill.) County Circuit Court in Edwardsville (just across the river from St. Louis) to force Facebook to release information about 23 Facebook users who are investigating or might have witnessed a shooting at a bar in November 2008. Bryan Pour, the officer who was off-duty at the time of the shooting, was fired by St. Louis police after he shot at a man at a bar. The lawyer for the officer was quoted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as saying, "We believe law enforcement had pre-existing and subsequent relationships with material witnesses" that will show up on Facebook accounts.

Facebook spokesmen have said that company policy prohibits them from commenting on individual Facebook user accounts. Facebook lawyers have said in the past that the social network is prohibited by federal law from disclosing information. Facebook contends that defendants' requests for Facebook information are "hopelessly overbroad and vague."

I'm sure that Facebook gets these requests in tons of legal cases, and obviously, not all can be granted. In most cases, I don't think these requests should be granted. Each case should be judged on its merit. Perhaps in a murder case, the information might be released. In a bar shooting when no one was killed, no.

Lawsuit targets 'rip-off' of 'Catcher in the Rye'

2010-01-29T15:24:00.002-06:00

Reclusive author J.D. Salinger has emerged, at least in the pages of court documents, to try to stop a novel that presents Holden Caulfield, the disaffected teen hero of his classic "The Catcher in the Rye," as an old man.

Lawyers for the author of "Catcher in the Rye" call "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye" a rip-off.

Lawyers for Salinger filed suit in federal court this week to stop the publication, sale and advertisement of "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye," a novel written by an author calling himself J.D. California and published by a Swedish company that advertises joke books and a "sexual dictionary" on its Web site.

"The Sequel infringes Salinger's copyright rights in both his novel and the character Holden Caulfield, who is the narrator and essence of that novel," said the suit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in New York.

full story at http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/books/06/03/salinger.catcher.lawsuit/index.html?iref=allsearch

I went and researched a little bit more into this subject, and on many of the web pages there are equally hot and cold comments left bypeople saying that since its an entirely new story with similarities to "Catcher", there should be no reason why a federal judge would rule to ban the US publication of the book since, according to some, it is merely a derrivative work. For others, for example a blogger on another website who was responding to a different article on the same subject, said people think "that only verbatim copying can constitute "copying" for purposes of an infringement/fair use analysis. This is simply not the case. There are two forms of similarity that are relevant - "fragmented literal similarity" (actual copying) and "comprehensive non-literal similarity." If you take enough of another person's work, even if it isn't literal expression, it can rise to the level of actionable copying." This is not to say that any work cannot be influenced by another work, however respectable dues have to be credited for an author's original work. And while there are certain people who would say that Mr. California doesn't copy word for word Mr. Salinger's work, it does seem he wants to exploit the value of Holden Caulfield by Salinger and has not been sufficiently transformative of his story to claim fair use.

My favorite response concerning copyright law was from some guy who wrote:

"There goes my trilogy book deal, Duke of the Bracelets, about Freddo Baggets' journey to destroy his "one bracelet to govern them all", on the Isle of Martyr where the silhouttes lie."

Sometimes a picture can be worth a thousand....or more.

2010-01-29T13:32:00.003-06:00

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-29/obama-hope-artist-fairey-may-plead-the-fifth-in-ap-lawsuit.html

This week a Manhattan judge announced that there is currently a criminal investigation going on involving Shepard Fairey and his wife Amanda – who are accused of one of the most well known copyright cases of 2009. Fairey may be invoking his 5^th amendment rights not to answer legal questions as this investigation is under way.

This case involves a work of art that can be seen in the homes, streets, and apparel of Americans across the country and throughout the rest of the world. The image is a patriotic stenciled drawing of Barack Obama, and it became a symbol of “hope” and “change” throughout his presidential campaign. Fairey created the famous poster image, and it currently hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in Washington. The problem is that the Associated Press claims that Fairey took the original image (taken by an AP photographer) from them without permission, and used it to create his poster. Fairey is under fire not only for that, but for also providing false evidence in court to mislead them on where he obtained this image from.

This case really interests me because I worked in the online photography news industry for a year, where I gained rights and clearances to use AP photos every day. My company had a subscription with AP, and we could browse their site and download the photos we wanted. Our subscription was EXTREMELY expensive. Newspapers pay a lot of money to use agency images and I don’t think many people realize this. One might wonder, why would this cost so much, it’s just a photo? The bottom line is that the photographers who shot these pictures worked hard and they deserve compensation. People grab images from the web all the time to use on their blogs and websites, and they often don’t have permission. This is a recurring problem for photographers today because everything they do is on the web. But if you are using someone’s image to make money, you need to compensate the person who provided the photographic work. It’s the same as stealing music online. It happens all the time, even though it’s illegal. But if you are going to make millions, like this guy did, you should probably consider getting permission; it will save you millions in the end. These people will come after you, and I would not mess with the AP.

Chinese Female Writer Sues Google

2010-01-27T15:24:00.004-06:00

I read an article about a writer in Beijing who sued Google for publishing an entire copy of her novel, "Acid Lover." Google did not ask for her permission or pay her. Mian Mian, the author, is extremely upset with Google for "only showing respect regarding copyright protection to famous American publishing houses." She is asking for $8,785 US dollars for economic and mental compensation. The China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS) claim Google has scanned 18,000 books by 570 Chinese writers without permission. If Mian Mian wins this lawsuit, it could open up many lawsuits for the other writers.

I feel that Google completely disobeyed the Copyright laws by displaying Mian Mian's work publicly. The novel was her original work and Google should have asked for her permission. Since her book was published by the Shanghai Joint Publishing Company, Mian Mian's rights to her books (through the publishing company), belong solely to her.

This one hits close to home...Clean Coal and Wash U

2010-01-25T15:08:00.002-06:00

Wash U is part of a group called the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization. They've got a nice little website and some major sponsors (their website identified Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, and Ameren as lead sponsors). The CCCU's stated purpose is to to "foster the utilization of coal as a safe and affordable source of energy, and as a chemical feedstock, with minimal impact on the environment."

Well, an environmental activist named Brian DeSmit launched a spoof site painting the consortium's goals and visions in an unfavorable light.

Peabody energy sent a demand letter to Mr. DeSmit basically telling him to shut down the entire site, first citing copyright infringement, but then also getting into what else they felt was wrong with the site.

DeSmit's lawyer has since sent a response letter and the legal wrangling continues. I don't think Peabody has a leg to stand on and it's my belief that they were just trying to scare/bully DeSmit into taking down a website they don't like. DeSmit never purports to be a part of the organization and even has a statement on the site saying "This website is not endorsed by or connected with Washington University and the 'Clean Coal' Consortium."

To decide for yourself or just read more, visit the following link.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/peabody-energy-corporation-v-desmet#description

Truman Student Tweets anti-Semitic threats

2010-01-25T13:08:00.005-06:00

Story from the Index, Truman State University's campus newspaper

Beginning of the story:
Sophomore Rachel Oetting found her Tweets popping up on anti-hate speech Web sites last week.
Oetting Twittered the offending post on Jan. 11, which said, "Can we go on a jew killing spree soon? i need to release some anger and jews are always worthy targets."

As a recent grad of Truman, and a former staff member on the school's newspaper, I found this story extremely relevant to what we have been talking about in class. I think the most interesting aspect of the story is Truman's part in the matter. The school's Conduct Code does not have a speech code, but it does cover threats of violence and harassment. No disciplinary action has been taken against the student, and I don't think there will be. Truman is stuck in a difficult situation: while they do not encourage hate speech, they do encourage every students' freedom of speech. Taking action against the student would seem to cause more harm then good--creating a debate between the school's right to discipline the student, and the student's right to say what she wants.

Abolish patents or What the Huffington Post Suggests

2010-01-24T23:38:00.003-06:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-k-levine/save-the-whales-abolish-p_b_434595.html

This article focuses on the problems intellectual property patents can cause. These problems are something the average person needs to know more about, especially with invention shows around like Shark Tank. Now often times I, like probably everyone else, look at the pros that come from protecting inventive or unique ideas through copyright or trademarks or patents; the problem is getting a hold of the rights before someone else. What I mean by that is basically that a lot of things can't even be physically created or developed due to someone having secured the rights through some means for example like publishing a paper or blue print. The author of the article, David K. Levine, while using a ridiculous title for his blog entry, makes some valid points. One of the better examples clearly shows a con of patents, which is that patents owned by a opposing company or person can and often do scare off investors.

While I don't agree completely with the author on all points, especially the complete abolishing of patents, I do think we can do somethings about patents. One thing is embracing the public domain, what I mean by this is letting rights and patents into the public domain after a certain amount of time, that includes characters like Mickey Mouse, Spider-Man & Superman and Archie & Scooby-DOO. Note this public domain idea, probably won't happen. A more realistic thing that can be done is creating a time limit on patents where if a person or company doesn't do something to exploit or physically create an item with in the time limit then they lose the patent.

Weight Watchers is suing Jenny Craig

2010-01-24T20:44:00.003-06:00

Weight Watchers is suing Jenny Craig over false and misleading advertising. The Jenny Craig ad features the spokeswoman Valerie Bertnelli in a lab coat saying, “ A major clinical trial shows Jenny Craig clients lost, on average, over twice as much weight as those on the largest weight-loss program,” referring to Weight Watchers.

An article in the Wall Street Journal says Weight Watchers filed a complaint in the federal New York court. Weight Watchers is saying Jenny Craig conducted no study and is manipulating and twisting the findings of 10-years-old Weight Watcher study, which isn’t even relevant. The Weight Watcher suit is seeking injunctive relief and damages.

Another article and segment aired on ABC news mentioned Jenny Craig continues to stand behind their message. The company believes that when the court hears all the evidence the courts will side with them. Jenny Craig thinks the courts will ultimately agree that Jenny Craig’s advertising claims are truthful. The article also mentions that a federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order preventing Jenny Craig from showing the ad. The action taken by the federal judge is being labeled as an unusual action in a commercial libel suit.

I think Weight Watchers has the right to be upset. The supposed study Jenny Craig refers to is 10 years old and most definitely out of date. The ABC news article also mentioned a question in their article, which I think make a lot of sense. The questions being as the case continues to persist will the ad be deemed false and misleading and will an ordinary person be impacted by Jenny Craig’s ad’s claim?

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100119-709765.html

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/weight-watchers-sues-jenny-craig-ad-featuring-valerie/story?id=9622727&page=1

FBI Digitally Edits Photo of Osama bin Laden

2010-01-24T15:50:00.003-06:00

Last week the FBI released a digital picture of what they believe Osama bin Laden would look like today. However they used a photo of Spanish politician Gaspar Llamazares and a younger picture of bin Laden and to get the digital photo. Llamazares is extremely angry with the FBI for posting this picture which will now make it hard for him to travel. The FBI never asked if it was alright to use his photograph that is now posted all over the world and now the news and the Internet. I'm mentioning this story because his rights were violated. The FBI are using their freedom of press to post this picture all over and at the same time ruin the reputation of Llamazares. It reminded me of the homework assignment and how people abuse situations and other people's rights to further themselves. The FBI has yet to offer any kind of apology.

California Student Rights on Free Speech

2010-01-23T08:35:00.002-06:00

As I was doing my Question of the Week for class I got to thinking something and decided to research it more. In the book when reading on the First Amendment rights of students it states that some states have expanded the rights given to students regarding free speech.

The link below will pull up a PDF that shows exactly what students can do within school or on campus when wanting to freely express their opinions about certain issues.

http://www.comdsd.org/pdf/hs_1.pdf

The only reason I point this out is because I kind of assumed that there wasn't a First Amendment violation of rights in the proposed scenario based on the Hazelwood ruling but reading the material on the link posted I'm wondering if there actually is a violation against the students.

Facebook and Internet Privacy

2010-01-22T20:56:00.006-06:00

Most of us have heard many strange, almost outrageous, stories lately about individuals who have lost their jobs or faced disciplinary action based on the content of their social networking profiles. The offenders have specifically been placed in the spotlight for their pictures and/or online postings.

A story from November 2009 has been updated with new information, which brings greater exposure to the conflict between internet privacy and freedom of expression. Here is an excerpt of the story reported by CBS Atlanta:

"A former high school teacher is suing a north Georgia school district, alleging she was forced to resign over photos and expletives on her Facebook page. Ashley Payne, 24, claimed the Barrow County school district violated state labor law because she was never told she was entitled to a hearing…Payne resigned Aug. 27 after her principal questioned her about her Facebook page, which included photos of her holding wine and beer and an expletive. She had worked at the school for two years."

(Quote from http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/21573759/detail.html)

Here are a couple of pictures, which were taken in Europe:

They are tourist shots of Payne on vacation in Europe, sitting at pubs and beer gardens. According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution (November 13, 2009), of 700 vacation photos, 10 were of her with alcohol. She was also chastised for her use of the word "b***h". The school is referring to when Payne posted that she was headed out to play "Crazy Bitch Bingo", a popular game played weekly at Joe’s On Juniper in Atlanta.

As of today, the deposition was released by Payne's lawyer, which reveals that the cause of all this drama was an anonymous e-mail, supposedly sent by a "concerned parent" who was disturbed by the teacher's photos and use of language. The message composer stated in the e-mail that the photos made Payne "an unfit role model for Barrow students." The principal of the school pushed Payne to resign by falsely informing her that she would be suspended or fired due to the concern of the author of the anonymous e-mail.

Also, Payne was told that the letter indicated that she permitted students to access her Facebook page. Payne said that was impossible since she had tight privacy settings and had never accepted a student as a friend. Payne alleges that she was told to consider resigning rather than face losing her teaching license.

The reason I mentioned this case is that it speaks to the need for society to examine the affects of online social networking, along with how much the content can and should affect people's lives. The teacher involved was engaging in activities after hours, on her own time, on vacation in another country. Another issue is that she was not informed that she was entitled to a hearing. This case is outrageous to me because a teacher's rights were violated; she was pushed to resign due to a letter that was sent from an individual who conveniently chose to remain anonymous. If unknowns have the ability to cause people to lose their jobs base on unfounded claims, then what other powers do they have? I believe that this is an issue of the First Amendment, and needs to be addressed before instances like these get even more chaotic and ridiculous.

PETA Uses First Lady's Image Without White House Consent

2010-01-19T21:50:00.003-06:00

I have never been a huge PETA lover. Don’t get me wrong- I don’t condone the mistreatment of animals. However I don’t agree with PETA guerilla tactics. Therefore, I was kind of excited when I read the article featured in the New York Times “PETA Didn’t Get First Lady’s OK for Anti-Fur Ad. The recent anti- fur PETA campaign features Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Carrie Underwood and Tyra Banks. The ads appeared in Washington’s metro stations, magazines and Peat’s Web site. Michelle Obama’s image was used without her permission. The president of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, said her organization chose not to get First Lady Obama’s consent for the anti-fur ad because the organization knows Mrs. Obama can’t make such an endorsement.

I found this article interesting because the issue deals with the right of privacy. Appropriation is a branch of the privacy law. Appropriation is the unauthorized commercial use of a person’s name or picture in an advertisement, poster, public relations or any other commercial context. To some the use of Michelle Obama’s image could be considered fair game because she is a public figure. However the unautherorized use of a picture to promote a product or a cause is a violation of the right of privacy and/ or the right of publicity. Under the privacy law PETA had no right to use First Lady Obama’s image without her consent.

Just as a side note PETA is urging the White House to stand against another unauthorized use. The Ringling Bros. circus recently debut their newest performer- elephant "Baby Barack." According to PETA the use of Obama's name for the elephant is more troubling then the Michelle Obama Ad. When in all reality both issues are complete opposites.

Nuremberg Files - More Research

2010-01-19T16:15:00.002-06:00

The Nuremberg Files mentioned in class and on page 51 of our text book intrigued me so I searched the Internet for a little more information. We all know the outcome of the case, but what the book does not tell us is that not only was the website naming abortion doctors, but they were also posting pictures, addresses, phone numbers, drivers license plate numbers, social security numbers and even the names and birth dates of the doctors' spouses and children. Neighbors and friends of these doctors were encouraged to send in videotapes of them leaving their homes, driving, and doing day-to-day activities. At what point was the abuse of privacy brought into this case?

Ask God What Your Grade Is

2010-01-19T12:42:00.003-06:00

I found an interesting case from last year involving a student at LA City College and freedom of speech and religion.

The student, Jonathan Lopez, wasn't allowed to finish his in-class speech against same-sex marriage. His professor disagreed with what the student was saying and called the student a "fascist bastard." When the student asked what his grade was, the professor replied, "Ask God What Your Grade Is."

The student, who is described as a Christian in the suit, has filed a lawsuit suit in the incident. He didn't appreciate being called a "fascist bastard" by the professor or the reference to God and his grade.

I think the student's freedom of speech and religion were violated. The professor in this speech class should have allowed the student to finish his speech. I think the student will win the case.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/16/local/me-speech16

Reminder- No class tonight

2010-01-18T15:09:00.002-06:00

As one last reminder, we will not have class this week due to the holiday. Work on the Media Law Question of the Week instead, and I will see you all again next Monday. Enjoy your night off!

Media Law Question of the Week

2010-01-18T15:03:00.000-06:00

Media Law Question of the Week

Given our discussion last week covering freedom of speech in schools and the Hazelwood v. Kuhlemeier case, what is your response to the following scenario:

Your cousin Andrea is the Student Editor of the student newspaper at East Beverly High. Although she is just a high school student, the burden of the entire operation ultimately rests on her shoulders. It is Andrea’s job to assign stories to student reporters, select photos taken by student photographers for print, and oversee the proper layout of the stories on the pages of the paper. With only one hour out of the regular school day allotted to this task, Andrea gets most of her work done after school.

For this week’s paper, student reporter Brandon interviewed Kelly, a student at East Beverly High. The story was about plastic surgery. Kelly’s opinion was solicited because she had had a nose job. But Brandon’s interviewing technique was unfocused and he wandered into a variety of other areas. During the questioning, Kelly let slip for the first time that another student, Steve, raped her the previous year. After reading Brandon’s notes from the interview, Andrea recognized that this was quite a scoop, considering Steve is very popular and has never been in any serious legal trouble before. Andrea’s final edit of the article included the full interview with Kelly.

The paper already went to print last night. This morning, the teacher assigned to oversee the paper saw Brandon’s article for the first time and immediately brought a copy of the paper to the Principal. The Principal, appalled by the subject matter and concerned for Kelly and Steve’s reputations, agreed that the article had to go. Since the paper had already been printed, the page with Brandon’s article was removed from every copy before distribution to the student body.

What do you think her rights are here, and what should she do?

For this first question, don’t worry about being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Just identify what issues you think are going on here and how what we discussed in class (or what you read in the book) applies in this case. Remember to keep your answer limited to one page. Email your answer before the start of class next week.

Thank you, and remember to try to have a little fun with it.

Team Presentations

2010-01-18T14:52:00.000-06:00

As it states in our syllabus, each student must participate a small group to produce a presentation that will be delivered to the rest of the class on the last night of the semester. I have selected three broad categories for you to choose from. What your team does with these categories is up to you, but you must work together.

The categories are:

1) The First Amendment and the Internet

2) Copyright Law and the Internet

3) Personal Privacy and the Internet

As you can see, there is something of a theme going on here. But the categories are still broad enough that you will have enough room to do what you want, so long as you all work together and stay on topic. Email me your choice of topic sometime between now and next Sunday and I will tell everyone the results in class next week. We have 12 students enrolled, so I may need to adjust who is in what group based on how many people sign up for each category to get it to even out at four per group.

Take your time choosing, and remember that your personal research paper needs to be on a different topic than your team presentation topic.

Watch Out - Vulgar Comments Online Can Get You Fired!

2010-01-18T11:58:00.002-06:00

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-editors-desk/the-editors-desk/2009/11/post-a-vulgar-comment-while-youre-at-work-lose-your-job/

This was quite the local controversy a few weeks ago when the social media editor of the St. Louis Post Dispatch asked readers the question, what is the craziest thing you’ve ever eaten? One commenter posted something vulgar, which I won’t repeat here, and the editor deleted the comment right away. Then when the guy reposted it, the editor tracked down where it came from, and it happened to be a school downtown. He forwarded the info to the school and the guy (a teacher) was fired from his job. There are a lot of different ethical questions raised here, but to me it brings to mind issues of free speech and how it seems as though some people have different standards of free speech when it comes to the internet. There are a lot of websites that allow comments to be posted beneath their stories. I think that if a web site allows this function, they should be aware that some posts might be a little off-color – it is only natural to expect that a few vocal people are going to take the opportunity to see their thoughts posted online and feel important for a minute or two. This has not gone to court yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it does once the ex-teacher realizes he can't get another job.

It is interesting to think about the rise of social media, blogs, and the internet and how they fall under free speech. Many people out there admonished the editor for what he did. You can see the response in the comments section in the article I’ve posted. There is even a website out there that is strictly devoted to saying lots of really bad things about this editor. He has faced a lot of backlash and it is interesting to see what the future has in store for his career – and for internet free speech cases.

Recent Case Dealing with Copyright Infringement

2010-01-18T00:25:00.002-06:00

Actually this dates back to October of 2009 but it's interesting and appropriate being that Chapter 6 is what we would be going over tomorrow if class was in session which focuses on copyright laws.

This case is interesting though because it deals with a a company, Excel Research, giving students the go ahead to copy a program only if it was for educational use but it's sounds like they failed to get permission from the publishers. The passage I found with this case is found on the link below.

http://counsel.cua.edu/Copyright/cases/cases.cfm

On page 257 in the text it talks about safe harbors of copyright infringement where it talks of the Internet and gives the impression that if the reproduction of copyrighted material is not for monetary gain that it is not an infringement, if I read that correctly but this case kind of adds a different thought into that statement.

The courts in the case talked about in the link I posted, Blackwell Publishing v. Excel Research, make it sound like that the defense given by Excel Research was thrown out because they didn't get permission from Blackwell to let students copy the software because the rights belonged to them and not Excel. I thought that was an interesting factor to the dispute that even though Excel was making no profit for okaying the copying of the software they were still committing some violations against some copyright infringement laws.

Kirby copyright case and free speech

2010-01-15T14:51:00.005-06:00

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/01/kirby-family-attorneys-respond-to-marvel-lawsuit/ Presents a new legal battle regarding copyright law and the media. While copyright law has not yet been discussed in the graduate class, I feel that this will be a big case. While not completely similar to Superman's Siegel family vs DC/Time Warner case, both the Kirby heirs and the Siegel family have the same lawyer. The Kirby case may simply end with a settlement deal due to Disney (the new owners of Marvel) wanting to keep the full rights to the Kirby characters mentioned in the heirs claims. On the other hand like the Superman case it could stay in the courts for years, with neither side giving, up with or without settlements. No matter what happens this is a case that most likely will affect creator rights and copyright law.

Now regarding free speech, which is the recent topic covered in class, I feel that more free speech should be allowed in public schools such as minor curse words like crap. Crap which is a pretty harmless word when compared to other words should not be considered outside the rights of free speech. I do think racial slurs should be banned. Racial slurs are not political speech and too often they are presented in books, jokes, and other media sources that have no educational value of teaching it is wrong to hate someone for looking different. Major curse words like the f-word should be banned from the radio and public high schools on down to pre-school, but never college.

South Butt Parody Case

2010-01-13T22:47:00.003-06:00

Last week on 1/6 I was reading the St. Louis Post and found an interesting story about a small T-shit company created by a local St. Louis High School student called "The South Butt". I had never heard of it and as I read the issue is regarding issues of free speech and making a parody.

Apparently there is another company called "North Face" that makes apparel as well and this high school students clothing line is a parody of it, to mock it or poke fun. This has actually went to court and there is a link I found on STLToday.com which is listed below if anyone wants to check it out.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/20e8a5cf90d0af188625769d008353a4?opendocument

Parody is actually mentioned in Chapter 6 where it sounds like the Supreme Court ruled that parody can be used fairly even though it can hold commercial purpose and copies the core of the original piece (The Law of Public Communications 261). So in my opinion it sounds like North Face may not have much of a case against South Butt.

Google is backing out of Chinese market

2010-01-13T15:41:00.002-06:00

I just saw this article on the BBC entitled "Google May Pull out of China after Gmail Cyber Attack." Here's the link to read the full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8455712.stm. It's about how Google, who agreed to enter the Chinese market by conceding to China's censorship stipulations in 2006, (China is really bad about censoring it's people, at least in my humble opinion. All of the papers and media are completely state-run and controlled, and dissenters are not tolerated) is considering pulling out of the Chinese market because many of its gmail users, particularly those involved in human rights, have been "routinely accessed by third parties." Represenatives at Baidu, the top Chinese search engine, say it's just because Google is losing its market share and is not as successful in China as they are.

I found this article interesting because it really demonstrates the juxtaposition of the Chinese view on the rights of the media and the people's access to media compared to ours. The U.S. is probably one of the most interested in protecting speech and press rights, whereas the Chinese come from a very different perspective. To them, it's about protecting the state from the people, not the people from the state. The collective comes before the individual for them, wheras we arguably value indivualism more than anyone else in the world. This shows through in our takes on what the media is supposed to be and do.

New word of the day - orthogonal

2010-01-12T15:54:00.002-06:00

Yes, I am a word person, so discovering a new word uttered by a law professor speaking before the Supreme Court piqued my interest.

The professor - Richard Friedman of the University of Michigan - used the term "orthogonal" when defining the scope of the confrontation clause, according to a posting on the ABA Journal online. It seems the mathematical term was being used to mean two propositions were at right angles or unrelated or irrelevant.

Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that the new word should be used in the opinion on the case they were hearing. I say, why not use it in a research paper, especially a media law class like this!

Carolyn Olson

Update on mold comment made on Twitter

2010-01-12T15:44:00.002-06:00

There isn't much new in the case involving Chicagoan Amanda Bonnen who used her Twitter account to tell 20 followers that there was mold in her apartment owned by Horizon Group Management. She tweeted this in May, and on July 27, Horizon filed a $50,000 defamation lawsuit against her. I haven't found anything else on multiple sites about the case.

The issue is if tweeting is considered publishing or is it just a conversation between friends in a public forum. Those 140 characters could cost Amanda Bonnen $50,000. Tweeting is publishing, to me, but the company has made a PR blunder in pursing it.

Carolyn Olson

Welcome

2010-01-10T20:01:00.001-06:00

Welcome to the Spring 1 class of MEDC 5350 Media Organizations and Regulations at Webster University. Invitations to this semester's students have been sent out and you should be able to post once you follow the links within your invite.

Fair Punishment?

2009-12-21T01:15:00.002-06:00

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

2009-12-21T01:11:00.002-06:00

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

2009-12-20T20:57:00.003-06:00

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

2009-12-20T17:24:00.002-06:00

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

2009-12-20T16:26:00.002-06:00

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;

2009-12-19T23:16:00.001-06:00

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

2009-12-19T17:59:00.001-06:00

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

2009-12-19T16:49:00.002-06:00

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

2009-12-19T16:31:00.002-06:00

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?

2009-12-19T16:22:00.002-06:00

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