Week of February 6, 2009 [1]

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...

Arthur Bright comments on the shutdown of college gossip site Juicy Campus.
Juicy No More [2]

CMLP Staff announce internship positions for spring and summer 2009.
CMLP Seeking Law Student Interns [3]

David Ardia reports on several community blogs in Chicago facing subpoenas.
Chicago Developer Shovels Out Subpoenas by the Bucketful Over Wilson Yard Redevelopment [4]

Michael Lindenberger examines the complex intersection of blogging and journalism.
Live-blogging journalism? You betcha. It's just not always good journalism. [5]

David Ardia discusses Fox's potentially new and troubling theory about fair use.
Progress Illinois' YouTube Channel Reinstated After Fox Declines to Sue [6]

Sam Bayard updates readers on a consumer review lawsuit in California.
California Anti-SLAPP Project Takes Up Case for Yelp and Parents Sued Over Negative Dentist Review [7]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Recent threats added to the CMLP database...

Carafano v. Metrosplash.com [8]
Posted Feb. 5, 2009

Koury v. Doe [9]
Posted Feb. 5, 2009

Holsten v. Uptown Update and What the Helen [10]
Posted Feb. 4, 2009

Pressler v. Mills (Lawsuit) [11]
Posted Feb. 4, 2009

Chicago 2016 v. Frayne [12]
Posted Feb. 2, 2009

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Other citizen media law news...

Shepard Fairey Obama poster: lots of questions, few easy answers
Copyrights & Campaigns [13] - Thurs. 02/05/09

Harvard Launches Open Access Legal Journal
Robert Ambrogi's LawSites [14] - Thurs. 02/05/09

New online repository for fed. docs goes live
The FOI Advocate [15] - Wed. 02/04/09

Molto Disgusto: Video Brings Italian Wrath Down On Google
MediaPost [16] - Tues. 02/03/09

Judge Moreno v. Justice: Putting Plea Agreements Online
Wall Street Journal Law Blog [17] - Tues. 02/03/09

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The full(er) Brief...

"You know the economy's bad when even college rumor-mongering isn't making a profit any more.  That's right, JuicyCampus.com, the website dedicated to anonymously posted collegiate gossip, has closed up shop.  In a post announcing the shutdown, Matt Ivester, the founder and CEO, put the blame on 'these historically difficult economic times,' in which 'online ad revenue has plummeted and venture capital funding has dissolved.'  Despite Ivester's hope that Juicy Campus would be remembered as 'a place for the fun, lighthearted gossip of college life,' it seems unlikely that such will be the case. . . .  Speaking of lawsuits, there's one (and only one) downer to Juicy Campus' shutdown, as far as I'm concerned.  The AP alludes to the fact that Juicy Campus may have been protected by section 230 of the Communication Decency Act ("Section 230"), which immunizes websites from liability for content submitted by their users.  Therein lies the disappointment: a lawsuit against Juicy Campus could have served as a very interesting test case for the limits of Section 230 immunity. . . ."
Arthur Bright, Juicy No More [2]

"Are you a law student interested in working on challenging legal issues relating to online speech and non-traditional journalism?  Are you looking for media and cyberlaw experience? Do you want to get involved with the Berkman Center community?  The Citizen Media Law Project is seeking paid interns for part-time work during the spring semester and for full-time work over the summer.  Law students with media and/or cyberlaw experience, or a background in journalism, are especially encouraged to apply. . . ."
CMLP Staff, CMLP Seeking Law Student Interns [3]

"We are still trying to get to the bottom of this one, but it appears that a real estate developer in Chicago has subpoenaed information from four websites that have criticized efforts to redevelop Wilson Yard in downtown Chicago.  The redevelopment work is the subject of a lawsuit filed in December 2008 by community group Fix Wilson Yard against Peter Holsten's development company and the City of Chicago.  According to press accounts, Holsten's company sent a subpoena last month to Google, which hosts the Uptown Update and What the Helen blogs on its Blogger.com service, demanding that it provide 'all the information for [the] two particular sites. . . .'"
David Ardia, Chicago Developer Shovels Out Subpoenas by the Bucketful Over Wilson Yard Redevelopment [4]

"As a young journalist, I remember listening with interest to colleagues recounting long-ago fights for the right to bring cameras into the court room. And while that battle hasn't been won everywhere, it appears nevertheless to be giving way to a new wave of concerns.  As blogger Arthur Bright lays out below, the push is on now for bloggers to not only attend trials but to report them live, blow by blow, on their blogs.  This isn't entirely new -- bloggers covered the Scooter Libby trial, and by many accounts did a better job than the traditional media, at least in the daily coverage.  Nevertheless, the performance of bloggers at that trial and others have left some media observers cold, leaving Bright to ask the question, 'Is it journalism?'  As a journalist who has worked as a reporter and editor for tiny weekly papers, big-city dailies and enormous international newsweeklies -- and along the way did my share of blogging, too -- I'd like to say right away that of course it's journalism. . . ."
Michael Lindenberger, Live-blogging journalism? You betcha. It's just not always good journalism. [5]

"Late last week, YouTube reinstated Progress Illinois' YouTube channel after Fox Television declined to sue for copyright infringement within the 10 day window prescribed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). . . .  Public Citizen, which represented Progress Illinois in the dispute, approached Fox in an effort to resolve the dispute, but was met with a 'chilling demand,' according to Paul Alan Levy. . . .  As Paul notes, Fox appears to believe that because it can receive advertising revenue for short excerpts posted by bloggers, anyone who posts clips without the requisite embedded advertising would not be entitled to invoke fair use because such use would invariably have a negative effect upon the potential market for the copyrighted work. While 'the effect of the [infringing] use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work' is only one of the four fair use factors a court would need to weigh in making a fair use determination, it's often given the most weight. . . ."
David Ardia, Progress Illinois' YouTube Channel Reinstated After Fox Declines to Sue [6]

"On January 21, the California Anti-SLAPP Project (CASP) filed a special motion to strike the complaint of Yvonne Wong, a pediatric dentist who sued Yelp! Inc. and two parents based on a negative review of her services the parents posted on Yelp. . . .  CASP's brief in support of its motion to strike does an excellent job explaining why the alleged misstatements concern matters of public interest ('the quality of dental care and the use of amalgam fillings'), which is required to trigger the protection of California's anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16). It also provides a good explanation of how user-generated platforms like Yelp contribute to public discourse on important issues by increasing the amount of consumer information available.  Somewhat surprisingly, the brief does not go into Yelp's Section 230 defense, nor does it address in any detail the potential deficiencies in Wong's defamation and other claims against Jing and Ma.  In all likelihood, this is because, once triggered, the California anti-SLAPP law places the burden squarely on the plaintiff to come forward with a legally sufficient and factually supported case. . . ."
Sam Bayard, California Anti-SLAPP Project Takes Up Case for Yelp and Parents Sued Over Negative Dentist Review [7]