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;
32 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Duncan v. WJLA |
- Inappropriate use of non-stock photos (B-roll) - WJLA needed footage, went back into old footage of a crowd - the story was about how you cannot tell if someone has an STD - The stock footage showed Duncan's face, implying she had an STD - Duncan won because it painted her in a false light |
|
|
Geislerv. Petrocelli, 1980
|
- Has to do with fictionalized accounts - Geisler was a famous tennis player, and he was described thoroughly in a book, but the author made him transsexual - the story gave extreme descriptions, and people actually thought Geisler was transexual - Geisler sued and won because of false light |
|
|
Deteresa v. ABC |
- Deteresa was in plain sight to reporters (Has to do with intrusion) - A man came to his door to talk to reporters and a photographer photographed him - He brought suit saying he was on his personal property and had his photo taken without knowing - Court said there was no legitament expectation of privacy because he was in plain sight |
|
|
Shifano v. Greene County Greyhound Park
|
- Shifano and his friends were sitting in the park and a photographer said they would be shooting images for the use of a brochure - Shifano stayed and they used his image - Shifano sued -Shifano lost, the court said it was implied consent, he stayed there after being warned |
|
|
Time Inc. V. Hill
|
- The issue addressed, does making something fictional constitute false light - SC said, it was not possible to show actual malice, and the account didn't actually damage anyone - actual malice standard of libel law now applies to privacy |
|
|
McFarland v. Miller
|
- Right of publicity rights may only be asserted by the famous - it is a property right - McFarland (famous child actor) asserted that he had the rights to the character he created, people were trying to use his character for advertisments - McFarland died halfway through the case-- but it was not declared moot |
|
|
Midler v. Ford Motor
|
- Bette Midler said no to sing for a Ford commercial - Ford found someone who sounded like her with the implication that Midler supports the product - Midler sued and won |
|
|
Onassis v. Christian Dior
|
- Has to do with approbation tort and look-alikes - Jackie Kennedy was famous but wanted to be a private person - Christian Dior approached her asking if she wanted to be a model and she said no - Dior found her look-alike- an implied product indorsment - She brought suit and won |
|
|
Cohen v. Herbal Concepts
|
- Mother and daughter photographed at the beach-- shot from the back - almost nobody would know who it was - but the daughter was a minor - Cohen sued and won |
|
|
Ali v. Playgirl
|
- Ali brought suit because he would never pose nude - Ali won |
|
|
Cox Broadcasting v. Cohen
|
- A Georgia father brought suit against the TV station that mentioned his daughters name, who was a rape victim - SC said that publishing the name was not an invasion of privacy and Georgias law not releaseing the name of the rape victims were not covered by the first amendment - If it is contained in public records it's no longer private |
|
|
Sony v. Universal City Studios
|
- Sony's new tech allowed people to make recordings of stuff on the airways that were broadcasted on television - People with the beta-maxes (new technology) could record movies without any commercials - Universal brought suit against sony and said sony is making it possible for people to violate their copyright - SC said you have a right to create an archival copy of something that is broadcast on the public airwaves, and we may do so without punishment - you cannot sell it |
|
|
Harper and Row v. Nation
|
- Nation Enterprise got an Advanced Reviewing Copy - The right of first publication belongs to the copyright owner - Unpublished work can never be fair use |
|
|
Salinger v. Random House
|
- Paraphrased material - Salinger (author of Catcher in the Rye) - Random House published an unauthorized biography on Salinger - It included letters Salinger wrote to fans, Random House published paraphrases of the letters - Salinger brought suit, the letters weren't published so Salinger had the right of first publication |
|
|
AP v. INS
|
- Deals exclusively with creative work and passing it off as your own - In order to have the AP you needed a special machine, located in the newsroom - Someone at INS payed for one of the AP news machines, and as the stories would come across, someone sitting in the INS offices would rewrite the stories and send them out as their work |
|
|
Miller v. Universal City Studios
|
- Universal used some of the info from Miller's book to make a movie - It was not a violation - The valuable extension between facts and research |
|
|
Nash v. CBS
|
- Looked at CBS special about John Dillinger (mobster) - Nash had written the belief that claims that Dillinger had died in the shootout were wrong - CBS said what happens if it wasn't really Dillinger in the special - Nash brought suit and said it was his idea - SC said no it was just an idea or it was history-- you cannot call dibs because you were the first one who wrote it down |
|
|
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co
|
- While some new compliations of facts may be protected by copyright, the court said, there was no novelty or originality in the compliation of these materials (a telephone book) |
|
|
Walker v. Timelife Films
|
- If you have two stories about the same real event then you are not infringing, because it was reality and history-- no one has a lock on that
|
|
|
Campell v. Acuff-Rose Music
|
- Acuff-Rose wanted to do a parody on Campell work - Campbell said no, Acuff-Rose said they don't care - Campell brought suit Court said it is not a violation, parodies are fair use because it is a twin of the original |
|
|
Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books
|
- Dr. Seuss died but his copyrights lives on - Penguin Books published a book that parodied the OJ Simpson trial named, "Cat not in the Hat" - Dr. Seuss Enterprises brings suit - They were not parodying Dr. Seuss work but using his work to parody something else - parodies must make fun of the original work |
|
|
A&M Records v. Napster
|
- Napster was shut down - the court of appeals ordered napster to stop facilitating the free transfer of recorded music - the court ruled that the music service was abetting copyright infringement by its users |
|
|
MGM Studies v. Grokster
|
- the SC ruled that companies whose goal is to "promote the software use to infringe copyright" is peer-to-peer file sharing were violating copyright law (also violated the DMCA) - the SC did not accept Groksters argument that they couldn't control what people did with its software |
|
|
Zemel v. Rush
|
- the SC has found no unrestrained right of journalists to gather info beyond that of the average citizen
|
|
|
Brazburg v. Hayes
|
- first major court decision against the press - there is no privilege under the first amendment for journalists to refuse to reveal the names of confidential sources or other info when called to testify before a grand jury. - Reporters are no better than average citizens |
|
|
Houchins v. KQED
|
- KQED- a television station (west of Mississippi) - The sheriff’s department was doing a tour of theprison, and wouldn’t let the reporters bring in a video camera - The reporters said this was their trick to trade - The court said no there should not be anunlimited right by the broadcast press because the prisoners haven’t consentedto be on video – violating their right of privacy |
|
|
Baltimore Sun v. Ehrlich
|
- Members of the press have no special right ofaccess to government officials to conduct one-on-one private interviews - Recent cases suggest that government officialscannot selectively deny access to specific reporters from public pressconferences that are open to all members of the news media |
|
|
Desnick v. ABC
|
- Reportersmay face civil liability and criminal prosecution when they trespass - ABC camera crew refused to leave Desnick’sproperty - Consent may be a defense when journalists areinvited or allowed onto private property - When property is generally open to the public(businesses) and journalists do not otherwise interfere with the business use |
|
|
Berger v. Hanlon
|
- Governmentagents (police, firefighters) cannot give permission to reporters orphotographers to enter private property - "Ride along" - Government agents and the journalists can beheld accountable for trespass or violation of the fourth amendment—illegalsearch and seizure - Police officers cannot be a tracking device on aprivate citizens’ vehicle without a warrant |
|
|
Wolfson v. Lewis
|
Journalistswho hound, stalk, or undertake other unreasonable surveillance methods may becharged with harassment
|
|
|
Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972
|
- Butwithout “some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press couldbe eviscerated.” - First major court decision against the press(sort of) - 5 opinions written - Some protections are needed - The Court found that requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries served a "compelling" and "paramount" state interest and did not violate the First Amendment. - On two occasions he was called to testify before state grand juries which were investigating drug crimes. Branzburg refused to testify and potentially disclose the identities of his confidential sources |
|
|
Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corporation
|
Eight book publishers sued Kinko's Graphics Corporation for copyright infringement, alleging that Kinko's violated their copyrights by photocopying copyright-protected materials to create university coursepacks. Kinko's unauthorized copying covered a wide range of materials including text, trade and professional books. Kinko's argued "fair use" but the court disagreed. All told, Kinko's paid almost $2 million in damages, fees and other costs.
|
