Photo

Sedgwick Claims Management Services v. Delsman

Date: 

04/03/2009

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Robert A. Delsman

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Number: 

09-cv-1468

Legal Counsel: 

Pro Se (trial court); Paul Alan Levy - Public Citizen Litigation Group (appeal)

Publication Medium: 

Blog
Print
Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

Sedgwick, a company that provides insurance claims management services, sued Robert Delsman, a former employee of one of Sedgwick's clients, for copyright infringement, defamation, and other torts, after he created gripe sites, blogs, videos and print materials criticizing the company. Delsman's beef with the company started after he filed a claim for disability benefits in 2006.  According to the complaint, Delsman was unhappy with the way in which Sedgwick handled his claims, and began a campaign of harassment which allegedly included:

  • Hosting pictures of Sedgwick's CEO and COO on his website and blog, which "morph[ed] . . . into images of Adolph Hitler and Heinrich Himmler," and posting a similar video to YouTube
  • Referring to Sedgwick and its employees as "Sedgthugs"
  • Unjustly accusing Sedgwick of engaging in criminal behavior on his website and in emails
  • "Operation Going Postcard," in which Delsman sent postcards to Sedgwick offices, employees, customers and outside insurance agencies in multiple states.  These postcards allegedly contained copyrighted images of Sedgwick's CEO and COO and an image of a human skull containing Sedgwick's trademark in the eye sockets, along with "defamatory, false and libelous statements against Sedgwick.

(Compl. ¶¶ 12-13.)  Sedgwick sought damages, fees, and an injunction preventing Delsman from sending offensive emails or postcards and further defaming or libeling Sedgwick, and requiring him to remove all of Sedgwick's copyrighted material from his website and blog and to destroy all Sedgwick's copyrighted material in his possession.

Delsman, who is representing himself pro se, has filed a motion for summary judgment.  The court has yet to rule on his motion.

UPDATE:

07/17/2009- The court construed Delsman's motion for summary judgment as a motion to dismiss and granted the motion.  The court held that the copyright claim failed because Delsman's use of Sedgwick photographs was fair use.  The court dismissed the remaining claims under California's anti-SLAPP statute.

12/16/2009- Sedgwick filed its opening brief on appeal.

01/29/2010 - Delsman filed its response brief.

03/01/2010 - Sedgwick filed its reply brief.

03/21/2011 - In an unpublished, two-page opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Updated with Ninth Circuit ruling, sent to us by Delsman - AAB 4/1/11

 

Priority: 

1-High

National Portrait Gallery v. Coetzee

Date: 

07/11/2009

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Derrick Coetzee

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Legal Counsel: 

Fred von Lohmann - Electronic Frontier Foundation

Publication Medium: 

Wiki

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

Counsel for the National Portrait Gallery in London sent a cease-and-desist letter to a U.S. citizen in July 2009, complaining about his posting of images of thousands of its portraits on Wikimedia Commons, a site associated with Wikipedia. The gallery claims Derrick Coetzee violated U.K. law by breaching the museum's copyright in the photographs of artworks. In its letter, the gallery demanded that Coetzee remove the images from the site and delete any other copies of the images in his possession.  The deputy director of Wikimedia Foundation stated in a blog post that the site stands by Coetzee's uploads and that Coetzee did not violate any applicable law. The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Fred von Lohmann is representing Coetzee pro bono.  von Lohmann sent a response letter on July 19, disputing the National Portrait Gallery's claims.

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

CMF - 7/29/09

Priority: 

1-High

Florida v. Figueroa-Santiago

Date: 

11/14/2008

Threat Type: 

Criminal Charge

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Omar Figueroa-Santiago; Elvis Eladio Rodriguez; Obduella David Soto

Type of Party: 

Government

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Circuit Court, Lee County, Florida

Case Number: 

08-CF-021458 (Figueroa-Santiago); 08-CF-000169 (Rodriguez); 08-CF-021455 (Soto)

Legal Counsel: 

Joseph Cerino (for Rodriguez ); Gary Hines (for Figueroa-Santiago)

Publication Medium: 

Social Network

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

The State of Florida filed criminal charges against three men for allegedly violating a state law prohibiting the promotion of gang activity over the Internet. The statute, Fla. Stat. 874.11, was adopted on June 30, 2008 as part of the "Criminal Gang Prevention Act," and became effective October 1, 2008. The statute provides:

874.11  Electronic communication.--Any person who, for the purpose of benefiting, promoting, or furthering the interests of a criminal gang, uses electronic communication to intimidate or harass other persons, or to advertise his or her presence in the community, including, but not limited to, such activities as distributing, selling, transmitting, or posting on the Internet any audio, video, or still image of criminal activity, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Violators face a maximum of five years in prison.  The three defendants were arrested in November 2008, along with 12 others.  "Richard Figueroa-Santiago, 22, and Elvis Rodriguez, 30, are accused of posting pictures of themselves making gang hand signals and wearing colors associated with the Latin Kings," according to the Naples Daily News

Lawyers for Figueroa-Santiago and Rodriguez filed motions to dismiss the case, arguing that the statute violates the First Amendment.  Judge Ramiro Mañalich heard arguments on the motions on August 4, 2009, and reserved decision.  The third defendant, Obduella David Soto, did not file a motion to dismiss.

Update:

9/2009 - Soto joins in the motions to dismiss.

1/8/2010 - Judge Mañalich denies the motions to dismiss.

1/12/2010 -  Soto pleads no lo contendre to the charges against him.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Fight at the Museum: London's National Portrait Gallery Takes Aim at U.S. Wikipedia User

The National Portrait Gallery in London has threatened to take legal action against a U.S. citizen who posted images of the gallery's paintings of rich, white, and dead British people onto Wikimedia Commons.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Grebner v. Lennox

Date: 

05/14/2009

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Dennis Lennox; Bradley Dennis; Anthony Giammarinaro

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Ingham County Circuit Court

Case Number: 

09-000684-CZ

Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

$1.00

Legal Counsel: 

Jeffrey Hank (for Dennis Lennox), Thomas Halm (for Bradley Dennis), Frederick Lepley Jr. (for Anthony Giammarinaro)

Publication Medium: 

Wiki

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Settled (total)

Description: 

Ingham County Commissioner and Michigan political consultant Mark Grebner filed a defamation lawsuit in Michigan state court against three conservative activists for allegedly inserting false and defamatory information into his biographical Wikipedia entry.  The defendants were three university students active in Republican politics: Dennis Lennox, Bradley Dennis, and Anthony Giammarinaro.  According to the Michigan Messenger, the allegedly defamatory edits accused Grebner of being a homosexual and of having been convicted of sexually abusing children. One defendant also allegedly inserted a picture of Osama bin Laden into the entry with the caption “One of Grebner’s biggest supporters in the 2004 election.”  Wikipedia removed the edits in question.

After discovery, the case was referred to mediation where the claims against all three defendants were resolved. According to the docket, the complaint against Dennis was dismissed without prejudice and without costs on March 19, 2010. Ultimately, the trial court entered a stipulation and order for entry of judgment regarding the remaining claims against Lennox and Giammarianaro on Feb, 25, 2011 when, according to a report on a local political blog, Lennox agreed to pay Grebner $1,500.

The case was closed on March 11, 2011.

 

 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

avm- state site is a pay to search, nothing on wl as of 7/8/09

 

Priority: 

1-High

Bring Me his Head and Hands: Unconstitutional Internet Proscription

Dear friends, let’s begin with a little story about the death of liberty at Rome. When Mark Antony had the chance, he proscribed (read: murdered) the orator Cicero.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Abourezk v. ProBush.com

Date: 

05/27/2003

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Probush.com, Inc.; Michael Marino; Ben Marino

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Southern District of South Dakota

Case Number: 

4:03-cv-04146-LLP

Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

$1.00

Legal Counsel: 

Ronald A. Parsons, Jr. - Johnson, Heidepriem, Abdallah & Johnson, LLP (for all defendants); Kimberly J. Lanham - Janklow Law Firm, Prof. L.L.C. (for all defendants)

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Settled (total)

Description: 

On May 27, 2003, former South Dakota Senator James G. Abourezk filed a defamation suit against Michael Marino, one of the co-owners of ProBush.com, a website that "offered unconditional support of the 43rd US President, George W. Bush," based on Abourezk's inclusion in the “Traitor List” posted on site.  Abourezk claims that calling him a traitor “is libelous per se under South Dakota law as it accuses the Plaintiff of a criminal act he did not commit.”  (Compl. ¶ 13.)  He is seeking actual damages of $2 million, punitive damages of $3 million, the removal of all references to him on ProBush.com, and a public apology.  (Compl. 4.) 

On April 29, 2005, Abourezk filed an amended complaint that include Jane Fonda and Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz as co-plaintiffs, and Ben Marino, the other co-owner of ProBush.com, as a co-defendant.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based upon a failure to state a claim, asserting that their speech is protected by the First Amendment, arguing that including Abourezk on the “Traitor List” “does not qualify as a form of verifiable, literal falsehood that could lead anyone to believe that the website was stating a concrete, objective fact about [Abourezk].”  (Memo in Support of Motion to Dismiss 18–19.)  This motion was denied on March 14, 2004 by Chief Judge Lawrence L. Piersol. 

The defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment.  According to Todd Epp, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, this motion was also denied.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.  Before this motion could be ruled on, however, the case was settled and dismissed with prejudice on November 23, 2005.  According to one of ProBush.com's lawyers, as reported by The Associated Press, the settlement amount was $1.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Source: Associated Press/FirstAmendmentCenter

LB 06/05/2009

Priority: 

1-High

Boston College Campus Police v. Calixte

Date: 

04/10/2009

Threat Type: 

Criminal Investigation

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Riccardo Calixte

Type of Party: 

Government
School

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Trial Court of Massachusetts, District Court Department, Newton Division

Case Number: 

0912SW03

Legal Counsel: 

Lawrence K. Kolodney, Adam J. Kessel, Thomas A. Brown - Fish & Richardson P.C.; Jennifer Stisa Granick, Matt Zimmerman - Electronic Frontier Foundation

Publication Medium: 

Email
Social Network

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Subpoena Quashed

Description: 

On March 30, 2009, Detective Kevin Christopher of the Boston College Police Department applied for a search warrant to seize computers, computer equipment, and digital storage devices belonging to Riccardo Calixte, a Boston College (BC) computer science major and employee of BC’s IT department.  Christopher asserted that there was probable cause to believe that these items had been used in, or were evidence of, criminal activity, to wit obtaining computer services by fraud or misrepresentation and unauthorized access to a computer system.  (Warrant Aff. ¶ 1, 4h.)  Probable cause was based upon allegations of one of Calixte’s ex-roommates, with whom he was having domestic issues at the time, that Calixte:
  • Is considered a “master of the [computer science] trade” and has a “reputation as a ‘hacker’”;
  • Often appears with “unknown laptops which [Calixte] says are given to him by Boston College for field testing or he is ‘fixing’ for other students”;
  • “[U]ses two different operating systems to hide his illegal activities,” one of which was described as “a black screen with white font which he uses prompt commands on”;
  • Has “hack[ed] into the B.C. grading system that is used by professors to change grades for students”;
  • Has “‘fixed’ computers so that they cannot be scanned by any system for detection of illegal downloads and illegal internet use”;
  • “‘Jail breaks’ cell phones”;
  • Has “a cache of approximately 200+ illegally downloaded movies as well as music from the internet”; and
  • Has “personally implicated himself in illegal activity to [his ex-roommate] on previous occasions.”

(Warrant Aff. ¶ 4b.)  The search warrant application also alleges that Calixte was the author of a mass email to the BC community that stated that his ex-roommate is gay, and included a link to a profile on adam4adam.com, a gay-oriented website, created in his ex-roommate’s name.  (Warrant Aff. ¶ 4d–4f.)

The search warrant was granted and Calixte’s iPods, cell phones, computers, external hard drives, and other digital equipment were seized.  In response, Calixte filed a motion to quash the warrant and for the return of his property, claiming that the search was illegal due to lack of probable cause, based on the fact that none of his alleged conduct constituted criminal activity and that the witness was unreliable.  (Calixte Mem. 6–8, 10, 13–14.)  In their opposition memo, the police stated that Calixte's use of the BC computer system to send a mass email "outing" his ex-roommate and create a "fraudulent profile" on adam4adam.com constituted access for "unauthorized uses" in violation of Massachusetts law.  (Opp'n Mem. 4–6.)  On April 22, 2009, First Justice Dyanne J. Klein of the Newton District Court denied Calixte’s motion, noting that the alleged unauthorized access to the BC grading system to change students’ grades constituted a crime, although the suspected “outing” of his ex-roommate via email over the BC list server did not.  (Trial Ct. Order 1–2.)

On May 21, 2009, in response to Calixte’s appeal, Justice Margot Botsford of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts overturned the Newton District Court’s decision and ordered that “all ongoing forensic analysis of the items seized from Calixte must cease . . . and all items must be returned forthwith.”  Justice Botsford ruled that the search warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause, citing the “troublingly weak evidence of . . . [the ex-roommate’s] reliability” and an insufficient nexus between the items seized and evidence relating to the allegation of unauthorized access.  Finally, she noted that sending an email "outing" another student would not constitute a criminal offense, even if it violated a BC internet use policy.  (Sup. Jud. Ct. Order 6, 9–10.)

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Source: Slashdot

LB 06/02/2009

Priority: 

1-High

La Russa v. Twitter, Inc.

Date: 

05/05/2009

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Twitter, Inc.; Does 1-25

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Organization

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Superior Court of the State of California, City and County of San Francisco; United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Number: 

CGC-09-488101 (state); 3:09-cv-02503-EMC (federal)

Legal Counsel: 

Leslie A Kramer, Rodger R. Cole, Songmee L. Connolly - Fenwick & West LLP;

Publication Medium: 

Micro-blog

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Material Removed
Settled (total)

Description: 

Anthony La Russa, manager of the St. Louis Cardinals, sued Twitter after an unknown Twitter user created an account at twitter.com/TonyLaRussa and pretended to post updates as La Russa. The fake Twitter page included La Russa's photo and a handful of vulgar and apparently Cardinals-related updates. One line of the "profile" suggested it was all a fake: "Bio Parodies are fun for everyone."

La Russa's complaint alleged that the fake Twitter page constituted trademark infringement and dilution, cybersquatting, and misappropriation of name and likeness.  According to the San Francisco Chronicle, La Russa's attorney tried to contact Twitter before filing the lawsuit, but got no response. Hours after the lawsuit was filed, Twitter removed the fake La Russa page and its postings. 

UPDATE: 

6/5/2009 - Twitter removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  STLToday.com reported that the parties had settled, citing La Russa as the source of the information.

6/6/2009 - Twitter denied reports that it had settled the lawsuit.

6/26/09 - La Russa filed a notice of voluntary dismissal after the parties settled the case.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Duran v. Andrew

Date: 

09/15/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Christopher Andrew; Tom Nishio; Does 1-100

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

Case Number: 

4:08CV1400

Legal Counsel: 

David Corwin and Vicki Little - Devereux Murphy

Publication Medium: 

Email

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

On September 15, 2008, Dan Duran, CEO of the U.S. Soybean Export Council, sued two former Council employees and several anonymous Internet users over emails that allegedly defamed him.  Christopher Andrew, one of the former employees, allegedly sent several emails containing defamatory statements about Duran and manufactured a photo of Duran "posing in a friendly manner with Kim Jong-Il, a dictator of an enemy country."

Duran's original complaint sought a permanent injunction against the defendants preventing them from "[p]ublishing and re-publishing by any means, including electronic mail, any further defamatory, scandalous, desultory, false statements concerning Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s personal life, and Plaintiff’s professional activities."  Duran also sought damages in excess of $75,000.

On October 6, 2008, Andrew made a motion to dismiss the complaint arguing that Duran had not properly filed service of process and failed to state a valid claim.  The court found that Duran had properly stated claims for defamation and injurious falsehood and that Andrew's statements were not opinion protected by the First Amendment.  The court did find that the doctored photos "clearly represent[ed] imaginative expression, rather than assertions of objective fact" and dismissed the claims related to its publication.  

In mid April 2009, Duran made a motion to dismiss the Doe defendants and Tom Nishio.

Update:

5/20/2009 - Jury trial scheduled to begin April 5, 2010. 

 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

RSS

CMLP Notes: 

Note: It appears that Andrew (and maybe others) were fired from their jobs for the same or related e-mails as those at issue in the case.  Whoever edits this entry should look into whether the firings merit a separate threat entry. {MCS}

Source: Volokh Conspiracy

 

RPK

updated 6/18/09 - CMF

Priority: 

1-High

White House Drops License Restrictions on Photos, Flickr Stream Now in Public Domain

Wired/Epicenter reported yesterday that popular photo-sharing site Flickr, in collaboration with the Obama administration, has changed the licensing designation on photos in the Official White House Photostream to reflect that, as U.S.

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

St. Charles County Election Authority v. Doe

Date: 

04/01/2009

Threat Type: 

Criminal Investigation

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

John Doe

Type of Party: 

Government

Type of Party: 

Individual

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Material Removed

Description: 

An anonymous blogger who sponsored a fake campaign for St. Louis Blues hockey player T.J. Oshie to become mayor of O'Fallon, Missouri posted a photograph of a ballot with Oshie's name written in. (Although the blog remains, the photo -- available here -- has been removed.) This is an apparent violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.637 (14), which prohibits a voter from "allowing his ballot to be seen by any person with the intent of letting it be known how he is about to vote or has voted." Violation is a a class-four election offense, punishable by up to a $2,500 fine and/or up to a year in jail.

What the blogger probably saw as a harmless prank was taken seriously by St. Charles County elections director Rich A. Chrismer, who told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the blogger "violated the law, and I'm going to prosecute." "They may have thought the photo was cute," he continued, "but it was very serious."

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

South Carolina v. Craigslist

Date: 

05/05/2009

Threat Type: 

Criminal Investigation

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Craigslist, Inc.

Type of Party: 

Government

Type of Party: 

Organization

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the District of South Carolina

Case Number: 

2:09-cv-01308

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

On May 5, 2009, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster sent a letter to craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster threatening company management with "criminal investigation and prosecution" over the website's erotic services section, as well as "the unrestricted manner in which graphic pornographic pictures are posted and displayed by users on the craigslist site and their accessibility to minors."  The letter demanded that craigslist permanently remove those portions of the site "containing categories for and functions allowing for the solicitation of prostitution and the dissemination and posting of graphic pornographic material" by May 15, 2009. 

Buckmaster posted a response on the craigslist blog, stating that, while the company looks forward to speaking with Mr. McMaster about his concerns, it "see[s] no legal basis whatsoever for filing a lawsuit against craigslist or its principals and hope[s] that the Attorney General will realize this upon further reflection." 

Update:

5/12/2009 - After conferring with other state AGs, craigslist voluntarily dropped its "erotic services" section and said it would replace it with a new "adult services" category that will be manually reviewed by Craigslist staff.

5/15/2009 - South Carolina AG McMaster announced that he had "no alternative but to move forward with criminal investigation and potential prosecution" because the website "continues to display advertisements for prostitution and graphic pornographic material."

5/20/09 - Craigslist filed a lawsuit against McMaster in South Carolina federal court, seeking a declaration that its conduct is lawful and an injunction prohibiting McMaster from making further threats of prosecution and pursuing any such prosecution.

5/22/09- McMaster agreed to entry of a temporary restraining order pending a ruling on the merits of craigslist's claims.  He will refrain from "initiating or pursuing any prosecution against craigslist or its officers and employees in relation to content posted by third parties on craigslist's website."

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Demings v. Harris

Date: 

04/17/2009

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Ezell "Easy" Harris

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

On April 17, 2009, counsel for Orlando Police Chief Val Demings sent a letter threatening legal action against Ezell "Easy" Harris, publisher of Valdemings.com, a website that criticizes her performance in office. According to the Orlando Sentinel, the letter accused Harris of "'maligning' and defaming the chief . . .[and] violat[ing] the law by using her 'persona' and identity."  The letter demanded that Harris take down the website or face a lawsuit.

Among other things, Valdemings.com features a report on the theft of Demings' service weapon, which was stolen from her vehicle in February and has not been recovered.  It also features an "article on a stolen Orlando police car that was found in Parramore and a piece on Demings' husband, Orange County Sheriff Jerry Demings, and his policy against media leaks."  Harris says that he will not take down the website and that he is simply exercising his First Amendment rights.  

In comments to the Orlando Sentinel, counsel for Demings discounted the First Amendment issues at stake:

"Truth is not always a defense," Winthrop said. "I hope he [Harris] gets himself a really good lawyer," he said. 

Marc Randazza at the Legal Satyricon (and CMLP) has taken Demings and her lawyer to task for the weakness of the legal claims.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

updated 6/17/09 - CMF

Blogger Threatened Over Ballot Photo As 19th Century Laws Meet 21st Century Technology, Sensibility

As noted in the Documenting Your Vote section of CMLP's Legal Guide, several states have laws prohibiting voters from displaying their ballots to someone else.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

New Jersey v. Jane Doe

Date: 

03/01/2009

Threat Type: 

Criminal Charge

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Jane Doe

Type of Party: 

Government

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Publication Medium: 

Social Network

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

In late March 2009, the Passaic County Sheriff's office arrested a 14-year-old New Jersey girl and charged her with possession and distribution of child pornography after she posted nearly 30 nude photos of herself on MySpace.com.  This case has has received substantial media attention and elicited public outcry, along with other "sexting" prosecutions relating to teenagers' use of cell phones to send explicit images of themselves.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Source: NPR.org

Priority: 

1-High

Barnes v. Yahoo!

Date: 

05/24/2005

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Yahoo!, Inc.

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Large Organization

Court Type: 

Federal
State

Court Name: 

The Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the District of Multnomah; United States District Court for the District of Oregon; United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case Number: 

0505-05520 (Oregon Circuit Court); 6:05-cv-926 (Oregon Federal District Court); 05-36189 (Ninth Circuit)

Legal Counsel: 

Jeffrey A. Johnson, Thomas W. Brown - Cosgrave Vergeer Kester, LLP; Patrick J. Carome, Samir Jain - Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP

Publication Medium: 

Social Network

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

On May 24, 2005, Cecilia Barnes filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! for negligently failing to remove unauthorized profiles from its Yahoo! Profiles website.  The profiles were created by Barnes' ex-boyfriend, and contained nude photos of Barnes and her work contact information.  According to the complaint, on March 29, 2005, Yahoo! contacted Barnes and assured her that they would put an end to the unauthorized profiles.  However, the complaint alleges that she continued to be harrassed by strange men.  Barnes claims that when Yahoo! contacted her, they undertook an affirmative duty of care under Oregon law, and this duty was violated when they failed to remove the profiles and prohibit them from being posted again.

On June 23, 2005, Yahoo! removed the case from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the District of Multnomah to the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.  On November 8, 2005, the district court granted Yahoo!'s motion to dismiss the case, finding that 47 U.S.C. §230 immunizes interactive service providers, such as Yahoo!, from liability for failure to screen or remove third-party content.  The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in the case on October 14, 2008.

Update:

05/07/2009 - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's order dismissing the case.  The appellate court determined that Barnes' allegations might support a claim for promissory estoppel and held that section 230 would not preempt this claim.

05/21/09 - Yahoo! filed a petition for rehearing.  An amicus coalition consisting of Public  Citizen, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Citizen Media Law Project, and EFF filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief supporting Yahoo!'s petition.

06/22/09 - The Ninth Circuit amended its opinion to remove section II of the opinion and to revise footnote 4.  The court denied Yahoo!'s and Barnes' requests for rehearing or rehearing en banc.

12/08/09 - The district court denied Yahoo!'s motion to dismiss Barnes' promissory estoppel claim.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Couldn't locate Barnes' opposition to Yahoo's motion to dismiss on PACER or elsewhere online.  Seems not to be available in digital form for some reason.{Reed}

Source: David

Priority: 

1-High

First Circuit Webcasting Argument Stems From Long History of Rules on Cameras in Courts

On Wednesday, April 8, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston heard oral argument (mp3) on whether a trial of a Boston University student sued for music downloading, Sony BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, should be allowed to be webcast live. Federal district judge Nancy Gertner had agreed to allow the webcast, but the recording industry plaintiffs appealed.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Duffin v. Does

Date: 

03/01/2009

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

John Does; MySpace, Inc.

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles

Publication Medium: 

Social Network

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Material Removed
Settled (partial)
Withdrawn

Description: 

Cyd Duffin, principal of Colony High School in Palmer, Alaska sued MySpace, Inc. and John Doe defendants for defamation and invasion of privacy over the posting of a fake MySpace profile, which falsely depicted her "as a drug-using racist with a sexually transmitted disease who insults disabled students and likes books about pornography, anarchy and the Ku Klux Klan," according to the Anchorage Daily News.  The Anchorage Daily News also reported that Duffin dismissed MySpace from the case after the company agreed to cooperate by turning over records related to the creation of the fake profile.  

UPDATE:

7/14/2009 - Duffin dismissed the suit after two students confessed to authoring the fake profile. Though the two students were punished, Duffin did not disclose the severity of their punishment.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

RSS

CMLP Notes: 

Source: Anchorage Daily News

checked 6/18/09; no new info - CMF

UPDATED 7/16/09 AVM added information on dismissal

Priority: 

1-High

New York Times v. Newser

Date: 

02/01/2009

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Newser, LLC

Type of Party: 

Media Company

Type of Party: 

Organization

Publication Medium: 

Website

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Material Removed

Description: 

On February 25, 2009, Michael Wolff, founder of Newser, blogged that Newser had recently received a letter from the New York Times requesting that it stop using the Times' "T" logo.  Newser is a news aggregator and curator that links to and summarizes articles from news sources around the web.  The articles are presented as a grid of photographs, each overlayed with the title of the article, the amount of time since it was uploaded, and the source of the article, usually accompanied by a small logo of that source. 

Wolff has not made the letter public, but he told the Neiman Journalism Lab that it came from the New York Times Company's General Counsel's office.  Wolff told Peter Kafka, of MediaMemo, that the letter was "legal boilerplate," warning that the Times would "pursue all available remedies, both criminal and civil" if they continued to use the logo.

Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for the Times, told the Neiman Journalism Lab that they asked Newser to stop using the "gothic 'T' logo," which is trademarked, and asked Newser to take down a photo that was used without permission and misattributed, presumably on the basis of copyright. She also told the Neiman Journalism Lab that Newser took down the photo. The Times' logo still appears on Newser for summaries from the New York Times.  

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Source: Nieman Journalism Lab

Priority: 

1-High

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Photo