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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social Media and Libel

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

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

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

What do you guys think?

YouTube Video Helps Cops Catch Speeder

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

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

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

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie File Lawsuit

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

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

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

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

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

Hustler Magazine v. Falwel

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

Public Figures and Defamatory Statements

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