Welcome to the Citizen Media Law Brief, a weekly newsletter highlighting recent blog posts, media law news, legal threat entries, and other new content on the Citizen Media Law Project's website. You are receiving this email because you have expressed interest in the CMLP or registered on our site, www.citmedialaw.org. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, you can unsubscribe by following the link at the bottom of this email or by going to http://www.citmedialaw.org/newsletter/subscriptions.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The latest from the Citizen Media Law Project blog...
Michael Lindenberger offers his perspective on whether the Huffington Post is violating copyright law.
Huffington Post: Web Pirate or Prophet?
Marc Randazza examines a copyright decision involving a song parody.
Peter Needed a Jew... Bourne Co Needed a Lesson in Fair Use
Sam Bayard analyzes recent developments in an important defamation case.
Breaking News: First Circuit Denies Rehearing in Noonan v. Staples
David Ardia discusses the impact of jurors using technology in the courtroom.
Mistrial by iPhone, New Technologies Present Challenges in the Courtroom
Sam Bayard reports on a new John Doe case.
Swartz v. Does: Tennessee Court Protects Anonymous Speech Online
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Recent threats added to the CMLP database...
Novins v Cannon (Lawsuit)
Posted Mar. 19, 2009
Novins v. Cannon (Letter)
Posted Mar. 19, 2009
Parker v. United States Chess Federation
Posted Mar. 19, 2009
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Other citizen media law news...
DMCA Take Down Notice: NYTimes Goes To War & Wants to Shut us Down
Apartment Therapy New York - Thurs 03/19/09
Journalist 'shield' law advances in Texas Legislature
The Dallas Morning News - Tues. 03/17/09
Web site arranges funding for freelancers
San Francisco Chronicle - Tues. 03/17/09
WIPO: Cybersquatting Hits Record
Wired/Threat Level - Mon. 03/16/09
Seattle Paper Shifts Entirely to the Web
New York Times - Mon. 03/16/09
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The full(er) Brief...
"I write a blog at my home newspaper, The Dallas Morning News, and when I get 10 or 20 comments on a post, I am feeling pretty good about myself. Arianna Huffington? Her site, Huffington Post, draws around a million comments a month. I struggle with math, but I think that's a new comment every two and a half seconds. Not bad for a site that employs just five full-time reporters. Much of the content is provided by legions of unpaid contributors and the readers they've attracted. But the site also features loads of professionally reported, often in-depth stories as well -- or at least large enough excerpts from those pieces that many readers may decide it's not worth it to read the original. It's this practice that has drawn scrutiny of late. . . . Listen, there is no denying that there is potential for irony here. After all, this post is linking left and right to other sites' work, some of it paid for by others and I'm sure as heck not getting a bill. But of course that's always been part of the calculation made when making use of the copyrighted content of others, and it's part of the fair-use calculations still being made. . . ."
Michael Lindenberger, Huffington Post: Web Pirate or Prophet?
"Congress derives its power to enact copyright laws from the copyright clause, U.S. Const. Art. I § 8, which reads: 'Congress shall have the power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.' Unfortunately, the music industry didn't get the 'progress memo,' and tends to believe that the Copyright Clause gives them a complete monopoly over the use of their material. For example - music publishing company, Bourne Co., the owner of the copyright to 'When You Wish Upon a Star,' objected to a parody of the song in the Family Guy episode, 'When You Wish Upon a Weinstein.' In the episode, Peter Griffin gets scammed into buying volcano insurance on his home in Quahog, Rhode Island. Lois gets fed up with the family's constant financial problems, so peter decides that he needs a 'Jewish money guy' to help him. . . . Any fool knows that parody is "fair use" under Section 107 of the Copyright Act, and constitutes protected speech under Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, 510 U.S. 569, 575 (1994) (finding 2 Live Crew's parody of 'Pretty Woman' not an infringement upon the Roy Orbison original). However, there is a strange wrinkle in copyright law where many courts hold that parody is protected fair use, but satire is not. . . ."
Marc Randazza, Peter Needed a Jew... Bourne Co Needed a Lesson in Fair Use
"The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an order today denying Staples' petition for rehearing en banc in Noonan v. Staples, a decision in which a panel of the First Circuit held that chapter 231, section 92 of the Massachusetts General Laws permits a private figure plaintiff to recover for defamation based on truthful statements made with 'actual malevolent intent or ill will,' at least if the statements relate to matters of purely private concern. The Staples case has generated outcry and tons of media attention because it upends the fundamental notion that defamatory statements must be false. Last week, the CMLP joined a coalition of media organizations and media law advocacy groups in filing an amici curiae brief urging the court to grant Staples' petition for rehearing. The First Circuit stuck by its guns, arguing that Staples had waived the constitutional issue . . . . While the overall result is surely a disappointment, the order makes clear that the constitutionality of the statute is an open question. . . ."
Sam Bayard, Breaking News: First Circuit Denies Rehearing in Noonan v. Staples
"While we are generally in favor of allowing new technologies into the courtroom (e.g., live blogging, webcasts, Twitter, etc.) in order to make it easier for the public to monitor the functioning of our court systems, sometimes technology can be taken too far. The New York Times reports today that a juror in Arkansas used Twitter to send updates during a civil trial that resulted in a $12.6 million judgment against the defendant, which may overturned as a result. The Times also reported that on Monday of this week, defense lawyers in the federal corruption trial of a former Pennsylvania state senator, Vincent Fumo, demanded that the judge declare a mistrial after a juror posted updates concerning the case on Facebook and via Twitter. . . . Besides the fact that these activities could unfairly prejudice the parties in a case, it's likely that judges (already a relatively conservative bunch) will react by banning laptops, cell phones, and other communication devices from the courthouse (in fact, many judges already do). . . ."
David Ardia, Mistrial by iPhone, New Technologies Present Challenges in the Courtroom
"Last Friday, a circuit judge in Nashville, Tennessee ruled from the bench that the First Amendment protects anoynymous Internet speech and adopted the Dendrite International v. Doe standard for balancing the speaker's First Amendment right against the would-be plaintiff's right to legal redress for actionable speech. The judge seemed swayed by the Maryland Court of Appeal's recent adoption of Dendrite in Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 2009 WL 484956 (Md. Feb. 27, 2009). A video of the ruling is available on blip.tv . . . . I'm glad to see another court joining the growing consensus among federal and state courts that would-be plaintiffs must make at least a substantial legal and factual showing that his/her claim has merit before a court will unmask an anonymous or pseudonymous Internet speaker. (See my post on Brodie for more details.) . . . ."
Sam Bayard, Swartz v. Does: Tennessee Court Protects Anonymous Speech Online
