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...
David O'Brien looks at a textbook example of fair use for political commentary.
Commentary on Obama/Palin Image Generates Questionable DMCA Takedown Notice
Sam Bayard reports that the Supreme Court doesn't want to get its YouTube on.
Supreme Court Blocks Video Streaming of Prop 8 Trial
Justin Silverman casts a skeptical eye on the fearful claims of Prop 8'ers.
Will This Revolution Be YouTubed?
Eric Robinson explains that, under the FTC guidelines, the stars aren't just like us.
Google's "Oprah" Moment, Gwyneth Paltrow's Rave, and Two Tests for FTC's Endorsement Guides
Andrew Moshirnia looks into the secrecy surrounding ACTA, the modern day Schrödinger's cat.
What’s in the Box?! Piercing the Pointless Secrecy of ACTA
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Recent threats added to the CMLP database...
Posted Jan. 14, 2010
Grayson v Langley
Posted Jan. 12, 2010
Castaldi v. Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP
Posted Jan. 12, 2010
United States v. Madison
Posted Jan. 12, 2010
Clem v. Richmond Register
Posted Jan. 7, 2010
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Other citizen media law news...
Is Gawker's "Apple Tablet Scavenger Hunt" Illegal? Probably
Slate - Fri. 01/15/10
Police fight cellphone recordings
Boston.com - Thurs. 01/14/10
Far-Ranging Support for Google's China Move
New York Times - Thurs. 01/14/10
Top Cyberlaw Developments of 2009
Technology & Marketing Law Blog - Mon. 01/11/10
Massachusetts defines open meetings exemptions narrowly
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - Mon. 01/11/10
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The full(er) Brief...
"Last Friday, political commenter and blogger Patrick Frey of Patterico's Pontifications found a chilly email waiting in his inbox. The email purported to be a DMCA takedown notice from photographer Ted Szukalski, who complained about Frey's blog post that reproduced and commented on the photoshopped Obama/Palin image[,] . . . a photoshopped version of Szukalski's photograph of a homeless man shining the shoes of a seated woman. . . . The modified version does away with Szukalski's copyright notice and replaces the heads of the shoe shiner and woman with those of President Obama and Sarah Palin, respectively. The photoshopped image caused a small stir in early January when a Colorado Department of Transportation worker faced discipline for forwarding the image. . . . Frey has a strong argument that his reproduction of the image for political commentary is a highly transformative fair use. . . ."
David O'Brien, Commentary on Obama/Palin Image Generates Questionable DMCA Takedown Notice
"This afternoon, the Supreme Court put the final kibosh on video streaming of the Prop 8 trial to five federal courthouses around the nation. The Court stayed U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's order permitting the broadcast. The stay will remain in force for the foreseeable future, putting an end to the controversy for practical purposes. The Court did not address the recording and dissemination of the trial on YouTube, viewing it unnecessary because Judge Alex Kozinski, the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, had not approved Judge Walker's decision to allow Internet dissemination when the petitioners sought a stay. . . . While steadfastly maintaining that it was not ‘express[ing] any views on the propriety of broadcasting court proceedings generally,' the majority let fly some dicta that tells a different story. Most troubling, the majority seemed to take for granted that ‘witness testimony may be chilled if broadcast,' that Prop 8 witnesses would be exposed to an increased risk of harassment, and (most perversely) that broadcast of trials is particularly problematic in high-profile cases involving matters of public controversy . . . ."
Sam Bayard, Supreme Court Blocks Video Streaming of Prop 8 Trial
"There are a couple of laws in California that the U.S. Supreme Court should consider before it announces tomorrow whether or not the Proposition 8 trial can be broadcast on YouTube: § 240 and § 422. . . . [T]hese sections of the California Penal Code make it a crime to either assault or threaten to use violence against another person. . . . They are significant because the opportunity to view what could be a watershed case for gay rights is being prevented by a concern for the safety of witnesses. . . . ‘The record is already replete with evidence showing that any publicizing of support for Prop 8 has inevitably led to harassment, economic reprisal, threats, and even physical violence,' according to the petitioner's application for a stay. . . . By staying the broadcast of this trial . . . the Supreme Court seems to be advocating curtailment of the press as a means of law enforcement. . . . In a controversial case such as this one, no doubt the unpopular speaker is a nervous one. But I'm skeptical that witnesses already committed to testifying will suddenly shy away because of the prospect of video dissemination. Do they not realize that, without a single camera, the San Jose Mercury News is reporting live accounts that include the names of those taking the stand? That special interest groups will be Twittering their testimony as they speak? . . . Banning a broadcast, I believe, will not change this. But to allow a broadcast, I'm certain, will further enlighten the debate over same-sex marriage, if not provide insight into our judicial system altogether. . . ."
Justin Silverman, Will This Revolution Be YouTubed?
"It could have been a moment right out of The Oprah Winfrey Show. . . . [A]ll the reporters attending the unveiling of Google's new Nexus One mobile phone on January 5 were given a special offer: they could get one of the phones for free, or to opt for a free, 30-day trial, after which the phone will be returned . . . . Nice gesture on Google's part, and good public relations. But . . . it is also a test of the newly updated Federal Trade Commission ‘Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising' . . . . Another test case for the new FTC rules is Gwyneth Paltrow's rave review of La Mamounia Hotel in Marrakesh, Morocco on her Goop lifestyle blog. [T]he FTC guides applicable to bloggers appear to require Paltrow to disclose if she was able to stay at the hotel for free or at a discount. . . . The standards for disclosure of ‘material connections' in the FTC Guides at least theoretically apply to celebrity endorsers such as Paltrow. But [the Associate Director of the FTC's Advertising Division, Richard] Cleland told the Daily Finance that celebrities are different from most bloggers because the FTC guides require disclosure only when it is not obvious that the endorser received a free or discounted product or service. . . . So, because most readers of many of the bloggers who got the Google phones are not likely to understand the arrangement without being told about it, the FTC guides require disclosure. But because celebrities like Paltrow routinely receive freebies, she does not have to disclose if her stay was comp-ed in her endorsement of the hotel. . . ."
Eric P. Robinson, Google's "Oprah" Moment, Gwyneth Paltrow's Rave, and Two Tests for FTC's Endorsement Guides
"By and large, Internet users are an unstable amalgam of apathy and curiosity. When it comes to policies restricting Internet freedom, the easiest way to attract attention is to try to hide your shifty schemes. . . . With that in mind, the Framers of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) must desperately want to draw attention to their little endeavor, because they are keeping their negotiations super-duper ultra-secret. . . . No one is quite sure why these negotiations have to occur in utter secrecy. The Obama administration has denied FOIA requests relating to ACTA, claiming that the information is ‘classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958.' Which is sorta strange, considering that we are talking about copyright laws here (not exactly the latest floating fortresses and rocket bombs) and the information has already been seen by many industry representatives, including the ever-competent and trustworthy MPAA. . . . Forget for a moment that the demands of democracy occasionally force a moment's inconvenience for negotiators. If anything, public knowledge of negotiations helps the process by signaling which parts of a proposed agreement simply won't fly in signatory countries. Open negotiations afford the signers some reasonable certainty that the populace of target nations will actually ratify and follow the drafted document. That is, unless the leaders of those nations never intend for there to be political accountability for the agreement at all. . . ."
Andrew Moshirnia, What’s in the Box?! Piercing the Pointless Secrecy of ACTA
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Join the conversation...
Can't get enough of the Citizen Media Law Project? Join us on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube!
