Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over Whether To Restore Many Copyrighted Works To Public Domain

By Eriq Gardner
THR, Esq. | Article Link

The United States Supreme Court today considered arguments in Golan v. Holder, one of the most important copyright cases in the country's history and a case that will decide whether millions of creative works, including early-to-mid 20th century foreign masterpieces from H.G. Wells, Fritz Lang, Frederico Fellini, and Igor Stravinsky, will be copyrighted or in the public domain.

The issue presented in the case is whether the U.S. government wrongfully took many foreign works out of the public domain and violated the free speech rights of the American public by joining an international treaty.

Verizon Sues FCC Over Net Neutrality Rules

By Cecilia Kang
The Washington Post | Article Link

Verizon Communications on Friday sued the Federal Communications Commission to overturn controversial net neutrality rules, saying the regulations are too stringent and go beyond the agency’s authority.

In an ironic twist, the suit comes after a separate legal challenge by Free Press this week that says the rules don’t go far enough to protect wireless customers.

The opposition to the FCC rules portends lengthy legal battles for the agency as it tries to put into effect regulatory goals for the Internet at a time when phone and cable companies are transitioning into broadband services.

In its filing at the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Verizon said the rules are illegal.

Can MTV Sue New Jersey For Nixing 'Jersey Shore' Tax Credit? (Analysis)

By Eriq Gardner
THR, Esq. | Article Link

Why Governor Christie would like nothing better than if MTV sued over $420,00 worth of production incentives.

New Jersey governor Chris Christie made headlines Monday by blocking a $420,000 film tax credit that was approved by the state Economic Development Authority to benefit MTV's Jersey Shore. The move went against the advice of the New Jersey State-Ledger, the local newspaper, which advised the politician in an editorial last week to "think twice" about nixing the credit lest the state open itself to an "army of MTV lawyers" that might sue.

Is there really a potential case here?

The local New Jersey newspaper worried that reneging on the promised tax incentive would open the state to to liability for making a decision that was less than "content-neutral."

Free Speech Shouldn't Be a Shield for Online Thieves

By Mike McCurry & Mark McKinnon, Arts+Labs
FierceTelecom | Article Link

The First Amendment is critical to much of what Americans cherish about our freedom to pursue our own lives of happiness.  But the concept of free speech does not include the right of others to steal that speech. This is not an idle question. In the name of "free speech," opposition is organizing around legislation pending in Congress that would shut down rogue website businesses that exist to steal the work of others. Protecting those websites in the name of constitutional free speech rights would be outrageous.

We are not lukewarm First Amendment advocates. One of us went to jail to protect freedom of the press and the other routinely had to defend this freedom to belligerent skeptics on the White House staff.  But we believe it is a misuse of the First Amendment to shield rogue websites whose main purpose is distributing illegal copies of intellectual property--counterfeit drugs, business trade secrets, software, music, and movies, to name a few examples. Wittingly or not, providing cover for the crooks will be the result if First Amendment concerns derail legislation such as the "Protect IP Act," a version of which will soon be introduced in the House.

Internet Theft is a Job-Killer, Too

By Don Henley
USA Today | Article Link

If there is any question about the need for the United States to crack down on foreign websites engaged in criminal commerce, one need only enter keywords such as "MP3," "DVDScreener," or "Oxycontin" into popular search engines and scroll through the countless pages of site listings and sponsored ads.

These listings feature everything from illegal copies of American art and entertainment products to adulterated baby formulas, counterfeit toothpaste containing chemicals found in anti-freeze, and phony medications, including those used to treat high blood pressure and mental illness.

Anonymous Speech in the Internet Age: The Good, the Bad, and the Uncertainty…

By Elizabeth Morris
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal
IPLJ Article Permalink

Have you ever wanted to post bad reviews of a restaurant, but been afraid the restaurant would find out it was you and spit in your food if you decided to give it a second chance? Exactly how anonymous are anonymous postings? Unfortunately for you, it’s likely that a court might say they are hardly anonymous at all. In In re Anonymous Online Speakers, the Ninth Circuit held that the identity of anonymous posters is only afforded limited protection in the context of commercial speech (as opposed to political or religious speech).[1] While the court acknowledged the right to a “robust exchange of ideas” through anonymous Internet speech, it also acknowledged the need to protect businesses from malicious speech. To protect businesses from such defamatory attacks, the Ninth Circuit limited freedom of speech for cases in which comments are potentially harmful to businesses.

What's at Stake in the Shirelles' Lawsuit Against Warner Bros. Over Broadway's 'Baby It's You'

By Eriq Gardner
THR, Esq. | Article Link

On the day that Warner Bros. premiered its new Broadway musical, Baby It's You, surviving members of pioneering American girl group The Shirelles have filed a lawsuit against the studio for using their names and likenesses in connection with the show.

According to the musical's synopsis, Baby It's You tells the story of Florence Greenberg, the woman who changed the recording world forever when she discovered The Shirelles and created Scepter Records, becoming the music industry's first female powerhouse.

Obama, FCC Ask for Indecency Ruling

By Ted Johnson
Variety | Article Link

Supreme court decision could set up programming showdown.

The Obama administration and the FCC are asking the Supreme Court to rule on whether its policy of fining broadcasters for indecent material is constitutional, setting up a potential showdown with implications on the government's ability to regulate program content. The Justice Department, acting on behalf of the FCC, filed a write of certiorari with the high court on Thursday, after a federal appeals court earlier this year threw out a $1.2 million fine on ABC stations over a 2003 episode of "NYPD Blue" that showed a brief clip of a woman's naked behind.

Is There Too Much Free Speech on Facebook? Maybe, Says A Facebook Lobbyist

By Audrey Watters
Read Write Web | Article Link

Rumors have been circulating for some time now that Facebook is poised to make its entry into China - one of the few remaining countries in which the social network has no presence. As it stands, Facebook is currently blocked in China.

But entry into China isn't as simple as unblocking access or launching a Chinese-language version. Should Facebook enter China (or "when Facebook enters China," rather), it is likely it will be required by the Chinese government to censor material and hand over user data.

That requirement is something that Google has struggled with, eventually withdrawing from mainland China last year. While Google remains the largest search engine in the world, that status doesn't extend to China where Baidu dominates. Interestingly, some of the rumors of Facebook's entry into China involve a partnership with the Web services company.

$430K Settlement Reached in Love Twitter Lawsuit

Associated Press (Los Angeles) | Article Link

Courtney Love's 140 character Twitter rants against a fashion designer are costing her more than $430,000, an attorney says.

The singer has settled a lawsuit filed by Dawn Simorangkir, who sued the Hole frontwoman in March 2009 accusing her of making false statements about the designer and her past in a series of postings on the microblogging site Twitter and Love's Myspace blog.

The settlement was confirmed by Simorangkir's attorney, Bryan J. Freedman. The designer's label is called Boudoir Queen, and according to her lawsuit, she first came in contact with Love in 2008 and they met in February 2009 in Los Angeles to discuss some custom clothing.

Copyright and Censorship

By Terry Hart
Copyhype | Article Link

On January 19, 2011, members of New York City’s theater community and human rights supporters gathered to mark the one month anniversary of Belarus’ contested presidential election. The election was widely condemned as fraudulent, accompanied by the arrests of many peaceful protesters in Belarus with thousands more beaten.

Game Over: Supreme Court to Review California’s Violent Video Game Restrictions

By Joey Weiner
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal
IPLJ Article Permalink

Following the attempts of a number of state legislatures, including those of Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana and California, to restrict minors’ rights to purchase violent video games, the Supreme Court will determine whether video games are granted the same free speech protection as other forms of expression.  On November 2nd, the Court began its review of the California Assembly Bill 1179, which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law in 2005.[1] The law imposes a $1,000 fine on anyone who sells or rents a violent video game to a minor[2] and requires that each violent video game imported to or distributed in the state must “be labeled with a solid white ‘18’ outlined in black.”[3]

In February 2009, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to grant the Video Software Dealers Association’s motion for summary judgment to permanently enjoin enforcement of the California Assembly Bill.[4] Though both courts ruled that the Bill would violate the First Amendment, the opinions of the district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reflect varying perspectives regarding the inherent value of video games.  The district court ruled that despite the fact that video games are “mere entertainment” and are “base and malignant,” they are still protected by the First Amendment.[5] The Ninth Circuit, on the other hand, recognized that some games, though violent, may “have extensive plot lines that involve or parallel historical events, mirror common fictional plots, or place the player in a position to evaluate and make moral choices.”[6]

Forbidden Art Nyet! Russian Curator and Exhibitor Convicted for Controversial Art Exhibit

By Sheppard Mullin

Art Law Gallery Blog | Article Link

In March 2007, the exhibition "Forbidden Art-2006" opened at the Sakharov Museum in Moscow, featuring twenty-three provocative works previously banned throughout Russia. Andrei Erofeev, known as Russia's most provocative curator, organized the exhibition and Yuri Samodurov, former director of the Sakharov Museum, provided the exhibit's venue. Both have been found guilty under Russia's Criminal Code for using the exhibit to incite religious and ethnic hatred.

Erofeev installed “Forbidden Art-2006” behind temporarily constructed walls with fitted peepholes, emphasizing the deliberate choice of the audience to view the forbidden works. The controversial works considered anti-religious, pornographic and offensive by the Kremlin, included an iconoclast image of Vladimir Lenin as Jesus Christ impaled on the cross and pious Christians worshipping Mickey Mouse instead of Jesus Christ.