• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/44

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

44 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Recording Police


US Appellate courts ruled there is a first amendment right to record police while they are preforming their duties to public



Glik v Cunniffe (first circuit, 2011)


ACLU v Alvarez (Seventh circuit, 2012)

Disclosure of Private Facts

In most states, plaintiff must show facts are newsworthy and do not shed false light

Gates v Discovery Communications (2004)

Gates sued discovery for airing San Diego murder (12 years later) for which Gates was convicted for. Claimed program caused him to lose friends, his business, and his divorce



News and Entertainment may use truthful info lawfully obtained even when the info shows ill-will



Cox Broadcasting v Cohn (1975)

Rape victim Cynthia Cohn was identified in public records and Cox used her name is coverage of trial



Sued under Georgia law that made it illegal to publish the name of a rape victim



Ruled there is a constitutional right to publish truthful info obtained in most public records, and Cox was allowed to publish the name

Smith v Daily Mail (1999)

Two WV newspapers published the name of juvenile minor who shot his classmate. Violated WV law to publish minor's name in preceding.



Court said the state may not impose criminal sanctions where the media disseminates name of criminal offenders

Time Inc v Hill (1967)

James Hill and his family were taken hostage by 3 escaped felons. Later a book and movie was published with similar plot. Life published article saying the book was based on the family.



Hill sued for invasion of privacy.



Supreme court ruled person involved in a matter of public interest can not win false light privacy unless it shows the falsehood was published knowingly or with reckless disregard of the truth (actual malice standard)

Cantrell v Forest City Publishing (1974)

Consequences of bridge collapse in Ohio River that kills 44



Reporters interviewed the children (minors) of Melvin Cantrell, but did not speak to the widow but implied they did in the article



Court upheld that the article contained falsehood and reckless disregard of the truth

Gill v Curtis Publishing

Can be sued if legally obtained pictures have misleading or false captions

Carson v Here's Johnny Toilets (9th circ. 1983)

Johnny Carson sued claiming he owned the line



Court ruled it was his brand name and no one else can use it


Sinatra v Goodyear (9th circ. 1970)

Nancy Sinatra sued for Goodyear using girls in cowboy boots and mini skirts in a commercial. She had popularized the look in these boots were made for walking.



Ruled it was not clear, and it was not her brand.

Midler v Ford Motor Company (1988)

Midler sued after Ford used her hit song sung by someone very similar for their Mercury ad.



Midler won because people would likely believe she was singing in the ad

White v Samsung (9th circ. 1993)

Samsung used a blond robot who clearly resembled Vienna White on the ad.



Court allowed it to proceed.

Cher v Forum International (9th circ. 1982)

Cher gave an interview to a freelance reporter who then sold the story to Forum. Forum advertised the story in a way that implied an endorsement from Cher.



Court proceeded with claim.

Booth Rule

Media may use previously published newsworthy materials in later advertising of publication as long as no endorsement is implied

Zacchini v Scripps-Howard Broadcasting (1977)

First amendment does not protect broadcaster from filming and broadcasting the entire act of a performer without consent

CA Celebrity Rights Act

Allows the heir of the deceased celebrity to have rights to publicity for 70 years after passing

1998 Children's Online Privacy Act

Limits the ability of children under the age of 13 to have email accounts without parental consent and requires those who gather data to deal with parents before dealing with them

Intercepting Mail

Employer's can monitor email of employees making them exempt from Electronic Communications Privacy Act

Copyright

Part of Federal Statutory Law



To encourage creativity

Remedies for Copyright Infringment

Injunction


Attorney's Fees


Statutory Damages


Actual Damages (actual loss)


Proving Copyright Infringment

"Substantial Similarity" between alleged work and original work



Infringer had access to pirated work



Copyright is valid and covers legitimate work

9th Circuit Standard


Substantial Similarity

Must be similar in specific expressive elements (plot, theme, mood, setting, characters, etc)



An ordinary audience will find the concepts similar


Second Circuit Standard


Substantial Similariy

Defendent copied from plaintiff's copyrighted work and copying went so far as to constitute improper appropriation

1790 Initial Copyright Duration

14 years and to be extended another 14 years

1976 Copyright Act

Author's life plus 50 years


1998 Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

Extended term to author's life plus 70 years or 95 years for anonymous

Compulsory Licensing

Owners of musical works that have been performed publicly are required to grant anyone permission to make sound recordings of their work. A recording artist that makes the sound recording must pay royalties for each copy of recording that is sold


Works Made for Hire

If you create something on the job, your employer owns it

Fair Use Doctrine

Four factors:


-the purpose and character of the use, profit, or non profit educational use


-the nature of copyrighted work


-the percentage of total work used


-the effect the use will have on the value or profit making potential of the original work

Time Inc v Bernard Geis Associates (1968)

No right to copyright history



Time purchased copyrights of Zapruder film about Kennedy assassination.



Publisher of book used charcoal sketches of pictures from the movie.



Federal District Court ruled fair use

Harper & Row Publishers v The Nation Enterprises (1986)

Time magazine was authorized to run an excerpt from President Ford's not-yet-published memoirs.



Nation scoops the story and published verbatum quotes from the memoirs.



Piracy hurt potential profits of the book. Court ruled it went beyond reporting and resembled piracy and was not in fair use.

Los Angeles News Service v KCAL TV (1997)

LANS authorized several news stations to use tape of Rodney King beating, argued fair use because it was newsworthy.



Cut into KCAL's profits, so case was allowed to proceed

Fisher v Dees (1986)

Dees changed lyrics to "When Sunny gets Blue" to "When Sonny Sniffs Glue"



Court ruled it was unmistakeably a parody and dismissed the case

Fairness in Music Licensing Act (1998)

Exempts small retail establishments from paying royalties for playing copyrighted music

Sony Corp of America v Universal City Studio (1984)

Home video taping is not necessarily copyright infringment

A&M Records v Napster (2001)

said shared copyrighted materials between users constituted copyright infringement

MGM v Grokster (2005)

copyright owners can sue companies who encourage consumers to share copyrighted files

NY Times Co v Tasini (2001)

Freelancers own the electronic rights to their work unless they specifically assign those rights to their publisher

Lanham Act of 1946

governs slogans, logos, phrases, symbols and names under which businesses operate



Trademarks

Trademark Duration

Valid for 10 years, must be reaffirmed in the first five, then renewed every 10 years

Two Pesos v Cabo Cabana (1992)

Two pesos copied the decor of Cabo Cabana



Cabo Cabana had trademark and was "inherent distinct"

Walmart v Samara Brothers (2000)

Can't use trademark protection by merely claiming your design was "inherently distinct"

Trademark Law Revision Act (1988)

Can't falsely malign products



Trademark Dilution Act of 1955

cant sue an infringer for "lessening the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods"



"Enjoy cocaine" on Coca Cola poster