-
Entertainment Law Update – Episode 3 – Bloggers, Journalism & Defamation
Posted on July 14th, 2009 2 comments (click here),
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Download Episode (right click)
Approximate Running Time: 1:06CLE CREDIT
($19.99)
SHOW NOTES
In this episode:
- MCLE Approval – California Approved Episode 1, pending on 2 and 3. Once we’ve got 4 under our belt, we can apply to be approved as a provider, and the process will be a lot easier.
- Thanks to Mark Saku, an IP attorney in Seattle for his help investigating CLE approval process in Washington, Oregon & Idaho.
LEGISLATION/RULEMAKING/ADMINISTRATIVECopyright Fees are increasing effective August 1, 2009
- http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2009/07/pandora-agrees-to-new-royalty-plan-will-start-char.html
- http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/technology/2009/7/10/riaa_negotiates_rates_with_pandora_online.htm
- http://gizmodo.com/5309421/pandora-agreement-saves-internet-radio
- http://www.marketwatch.com/story/internet-radio-saved-at-a-small-cost?siteid=nwhpm
ASCAP wants to be paid when your phone rings- http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/ascap-wants-be-paid-
- http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/InPropriaPersona/~3/XzhJ0lIJCWM/
CASESJammie Thomas – Rassett loses file sharing suit brought by RIAA – $1.9 Million Verdict!
Capitol v. Thomas, No. 06-1497 (D. Minn., 2009)- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas
- http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/riaa-jury-slaps-2-million-fine-on-jammie-thomas/
- http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10268199-93.html
- Comprehensive List of Links to Commentary
- Comprehensive List of Court Docs
JD Salinger prevents publication of new book
Salinger v. Colting, No. 09-50905 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) Order- http://www.askbeforeyouact.org/blog/post/A-Sequel-to-Catcher-In-The-Rye.aspx
- http://www.askbeforeyouact.org/blog/post/Chapter-Two–No-Sequel-To-Catcher-In-The-Rye-In-The-US.aspx
- http://entertainmentagentblog.com/2009/06/30/catcher-and-the-lye/
- http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/wsj/law/feed/~3/Ei1C17yNSAk/
- http://www.1010wins.com/pages/4512245.php?contentType=4&contentId=4099583
YOUTUBE CASE OF THE MONTHGoogle Class Action: No foreign plaintiffs without US Copyright registrations may be part of the class. (The Football Assn. Premier League v. YouTube)
TENENBAUM LITIGATION(THE CIRCUS CONTINUES)- Labels have made Motion for Summary Judgment re Tenenbaum;s fair use defense.
- Counterclaims re Abuse of Process – Dismissed, Motion to join RIAA – denied, Questions unconstitutionality of Statutory Damages – deferred
- Tenenbaum’s attorney in the crosshairs.
- Some other links about the Tenenbaum case: http://www.entmedialaw.com/?query=tenenbaum
FAIR USE CORNERDoes an Anti-Plagiarism Service Violate Students’ Copyrights when it maintains a database (i.e., copies) of student papers?Supreme Court Denies Cert in Cablevision online DVR case.NOVELTY CASE OF THE MONTHMan sues over use of canned music in British production of a musical… and wins! (UK case)Lindt Chocolate Bunny trademark dispute? (Belgium? Switzerland? EU?)
Yes, Lindt does have a US trademark registration for “Chocolate, chocolate products, namely, a chocolate bunny in a foil wrapper.”
Link to screen shot from pto http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3d26257d-7d8d-46d3-bb2a-4189816626c3
The application was based upon a priority filing date from a foreign application. The US application was initially refused with the examining attorney claiming the proposed mark comprises a configuration of the goods that is not inherently distinctive and would not be perceived as a mark. The refusal was overcome by filing a distinctiveness claim (provision 2(f)) based on continuous use of over 5 years and a claim in an earlier filed US trademark application. The question remains, if the EU registration is cancelled, could the US registration be cancelled because of the priority claim relating to the EU registration, or would the US registration be amended to show a later date of first use?
.jpg "Adrianos Fachetti - California Defamation Attorney")
Guest: Adrianos Facheti, Esq.
DEFAMATIONGUEST – Adrianos Fachetti, Internet Defamation Law Blog http://www.defamationlawblog.com/- New Jersey Court rules Blogger is not a journalist and not subject to reporter’s privilege or shield law
- http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/media_law_prof_blog/2009/07/new-jersey-judge-rules-blogger-cannot-claim-protection-of-shield-law.html
- Where’s the line between journalist and citizen-on-a-soapbox?
- Is a blogger a “media defendant”?
- Does NY Times v. Sullivan elevated standard of “Actual Malice” apply?
- By Contrast, California courts have held that Bloggers ARE journalists:
- http://www.mediabloggers.org/california-courts-rule-bloggers-are-journalists
- Apple Barred From Obtaining Source Of Blog’s Article – O’Grady v. Superior Court - 139 Cal. App. 4th 1423, 2006 WL 1452685 (Cal. App. , 6th Dist., May 26, 2006)
- Sarah Palin resigns, attorney threatens media, bloggers, etc. (Adrianos’ Blog post commenting on state of journalism)
- Would she have a claim? Public Figure? Couched as opinion? Reporting on the fact of rumors?
2 responses to “Entertainment Law Update – Episode 3 – Bloggers, Journalism & Defamation”
-
Jay Moffitt July 18th, 2009 at 13:48
Wow, really great update. There seemed to be a lot of cases covered today.
One note: I really agreed with what Esq. Fascheti said about the ethical burden for bloggers. Just a thought about the “surprising” nature of the decision, though: if the NYT loses a ten-million-dollar lawsuit, it pays, if the blogger loses, he/she just files bankruptcy. I think that’s a fair way to look at why the distinction exists in the way the NJ law is written.
-
Great podcast!
Looking forward to the next one.
Keep up the great work.
Leave a reply
