1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc.
1-800 CONTACTS v. WhenU. com was a legal dispute beginning in 2002 over pop-up advertisements. It was brought by 1-800 Contacts, a distributor of various brands of contact lenses against WhenU SaveNow. The suit also named Vision Direct, one of WhenU advertising customers, as a co-defendant. com are in actuality advertisements authorized by, both the plaintiff, 1-800 Contacts, and the co-defendant, Vision Direct, sell and market replacement contacts lenses though their respective websites. The other defendant, WhenU. com was a company that developed and distributed a software application known as SaveNow. The SaveNow program, when installed on a computer, remains resident in memory. It is normally installed as part of a bundle of software programs. Specifically the program contains a directory that match specific URLs or search terms that the user enters into their browser to categories of popup advertisements. William D. Neal, an expert for 1-800 Contacts, conducted a study to determine if consumers were likely to be confused as to the source of the advertisements displayed by the defendants software. The conclusion of this survey was the 76% of users who had the SaveNow software on their system did not realize that it generated pop-up ads as the result of them visiting specific websites. Additionally, he reported that 60% of people who participated in his survey believed that advertisements are placed on the website on which they appear by the owners of that site. Avi Naider, CEO of WhenU. com, testified that the SaveNow program performs contextual marketing and he also argued, through the presentation of a number of screen captures, that the use of pop-ups was analogous to a number of other common computer programs including instant messaging software. As a result, he argues there is an expectation that websites will present users with an experience to users reads like a publication, finally, he testified that a preliminary injunction, if granted, would have some short-term immediate impacts and some chilling long-term impacts. This assertion was based on his belief that users who had chosen to install the SaveNow software would be frustrated in attempts to use the software. The district court held that while the trademark infringement claim was likely to succeed on the merits the copyright infringement claim was unmeritorious. Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that WhenUs actions did not amount to the use that the Lanham Act requires in order to trademark infringement. 1-800 Contacts did not appeal from the adverse copyright ruling, the same commentary notes that plaintiffs in these cases argue that pop-ups and other contextual advertising. Piggy-backs or free-rides on the content that other Web sites provide, the Electronic Frontier Foundation criticized the case, stating that it was not to help fight off adware and spyware but was rather intended to allow companies to gain control over desktop. They argued this lawsuit if successful would create a precedent that would enable trademark owners to dictate what could be open on your desktop when you visit their websites
Arista Records, LLC v. Launch Media, Inc
The lawsuit concerns the scope of the statutory term “interactive service” codified in 17 U. S. C. §114, as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. ”The parties did not materially dispute how LAUNCHcast worked, LAUNCHcast is now known as Yahoo. §114, by providing a service and therefore willfully infringing sound recording copyrights of BMG from November 1999 to May 2001. The district court charged the jury with determining whether LAUNCHcast was a service within the meaning of 17 U. S. C. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Launch, whether a webcasting service that provides users with individualized internet radio stations in this case is an interactive service within the meaning of 17 U. S. C. On March 17,2009, BMG appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that LAUNCHcast is an interactive service as a matter of law. On August 21,2009, the Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court decision, ruling that the service was not an interactive service as a matter of law. ”Since the LAUNCHcast users cannot request a particular song on demand. The primary argument at stake is whether LAUNCHcast enables the user to receive a transmission of a specially created for the user. “In short, to the degree that LAUNCHcasts playlists are created for each user. Indeed, the nature of the playlist helps Launch ensure that it does not provide a service so specially created for the user that the user ceases to purchase music. ”Therefore. Socy of Composers,663 F. Supp, sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, No. Arista Records Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC Text of Arista Records, LLC v. Launch Media, Inc. is available from, CourtListener Findlaw Justia
Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust
Authors Guild v. HathiTrust,755 F. 3d 87, is a copyright decision finding search and accessibility uses of digitized books to be fair use. The Authors Guild, other organizations, and individual authors claimed that the HathiTrust Digital Library had infringed their copyrights through its use of books scanned by Google. A federal court ruled against the plaintiffs in October 2012, finding that HathiTrusts use was permissible under fair use, the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Second Circuit, and were rebuffed in 2014. In an opinion by Barrington Daniels Parker, Jr, the remaining claims were settled on January 6,2015. The HathiTrust Digital Library is a spin-off of the Google Books Library Project and it was founded in 2008 by the Committee on Institutional Cooperation and the University of California system. The collections of university libraries were digitized by Google and then combined by HDL. The digitization by Google has been the subject of a separate lawsuit, hDLs main objective is the long-term preservation of the collection. The HDL main functionality is full-text search, when search results are found in works in the public domain, the work is displayed online, and so are works for which the copyright holder has granted permission. For other works, only numbers and the number of search results per page are shown. In addition, the HDL makes its collection available to students with print disabilities by offering them secure system access for screen readers. The collection of works available to print-disabled students through HDL is often larger and easier to navigate than those offered through most university student disability student services offices, additionally, the University of Michigan library administers a project to identify orphan works. An orphan work is a work whose owner cannot be identified or contacted. The Orphan Works Project focuses primarily on works in the HDL, the project originally planned to automatically publish suspected orphan works after a 90-day notice. This plan was never implemented and was suspended indefinitely after the complaint in this case was filed, in its decisions, the district court first discusses the standing of the plaintiffs. Three plaintiffs, the Authors Guild, the Writers Union of Canada and the Australian Society of Authors dont own any copyrights, the court rules that under U. S. law only copyright owners and exclusive licensees may sue for copyright infringement. However, four organizations are allowed to sue on behalf of their members because they have that right under foreign law. The thirteen remaining plaintiffs are copyright owners and all have standing, the court then addresses the Orphan Works Project. However, since the project never made it out of the planning phase, the court is missing crucial information about what that program will look like should it come to pass and whom it will impact
Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc.
Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall. com, Inc.650 F. The defendant sold a service wherein subscribers could receive these recommendations prior to their release by the plaintiffs to the general public, in the procedural lead-up to the trial, the defendants essentially conceded their liability under the copyright claim. The defendants abandoned their defence against the claims and focused solely on the hot-news misappropriation findings. On June 20,2011, the Second Circuit released its decision - reversing the decision of the District Court below, a summary of the Second Circuits decision can also be found below. This misappropriation doctrine was developed further with the aim to protect costly efforts to gather commercially valuable, significantly, the hot news doctrine is concerned with the copying and publication of information gathered by another before he has been able to utilize his competitive edge. In Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall. com, Inc, the defendant did not dispute that the plaintiffs engaged in costly information gathering. Moreover, the time-sensitivity was especially important as the plaintiffs expended resources to be the first to communicate these findings to the client, the defendant did not dispute that the plaintiffs reports and recommendations were time-sensitive. The court defined free-riding as where there is little investment by the defendant to profit off of information generated or collected by the plaintiff at great cost. In doing so, the clientele, already identified as more likely to trade through the source from which they ascertained the news, were less likely to do their trading through the plaintiffs. The court noted that the plaintiffs relied on being the first to report their reports, as such, if other organizations were to preempt the plaintiffs, the knowledge that the plaintiffs had spent money to gather and analyze would be rendered basic. The court found that the defendant had infringed the copyrights of two of the plaintiffs - Morgan Stanley and Barclays Capital, while throughout the pre-trial process, Fly defended its copying of the reports as fair use under 17 U. S. C. §107, at trial, the defendant did not dispute that it infringed the copyrights in these seventeen reports. As such, the court ruled in favor of these two plaintiffs and ordered the defendant to pay them nominal damages, pre-judgment interest on the statutory damage awards, the defendant appealed the rulings of the District Court on hot-news misappropriation to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Court recalled that in order to determine whether a claim is preempted by the federal Copyright Act,17 U. S. C. S. C. §106, and The Subject Matter Requirement, if the work in question is of the type of works protected by the Copyright Act under 17 U. S. C. §102 and 17 U. S. C. The Second Circuit found that the plaintiffs recommendations satisfied the subject matter requirement as well as the general requirement of the Copyright Act. They held that the hot-news misappropriation exemption from pre-emption carved out in the NBA case was intended to be narrow in scope. In addition, they characterized the 5-part test that was set out in NBA, the case was followed widely and several prominent organizations filed amicus curiae briefs as intervenors
Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King
Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King,126 F. The opinion, written by Judge Ellsworth Van Graafeiland, affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New Yorks holding that defendant Richard B. Kings Internet website did not satisfy New Yorks long-arm statute requirements for plaintiff Bensusan Restaurant Corporation to bring a trademark infringement suit in New York, Bensusan Restaurant Corporation was a New York corporation that owned The Blue Note, a jazz club in Greenwich Village, New York. Bensusan owned all rights, title and interest in the federally registered The Blue Note mark. Richard B. King was a Missouri resident who owned The Blue Note club in Columbia, in April 1996, King posted a website hosted on a computer server in Missouri that contained general information about the club in Missouri as well as a calendar of events and ticketing information. The CyberSpot is created to provide information for Columbia, Missouri area individuals only, Bensusan brought suit in the Southern District of New York, asserting claims of trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition. King moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12, Bensusan asserted that New York had personal jurisdiction over King based on two subsections of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules - §302 and §302. The District Court looked both to the meanings of N. Y. C. P. L. R, §302 and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution in analyzing Bensusans claim. The Court of Appeals only addressed the long-arm statutes in affirming the District Courts holding, the Court noted that it takes several affirmative steps by the New York resident. Furthermore, because there was no proof that goods were shipped to New York, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Courts findings, adding only that §302 required defendants to have committed a tort while present in New York state. Because Kings website was created in Missouri, New York did not have jurisdiction over him. It would violate the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution if New York had personal jurisdiction over King, the District Court concluded that even if N. Y. C. P. L. R. §§302, authorized personal jurisdiction over King, such an act would violate the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution, the Court of Appeals explicitly declined to address the due process issue, because the long-arm statute did not confer personal jurisdiction. Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc, Zippo is notable for the creation of the Zippo Sliding Scale test for internet personal jurisdiction. Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. a Florida corporation
Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd.
Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd.448 F. 3d 605, is a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the fair use of images in a pictorial history text. Dorling Kindersley is a publisher of books, including colorful picture books for children. In October 2003, DK and Grateful Dead Productions published Grateful Dead, the book was a 480-page coffee table book that included a wide variety of Grateful Dead-related information and imagery. The book included a timeline running continuously through the book, chronologically combining over 2000 images representing dates in the Grateful Deads history with explanatory text, DK had sought permission from Bill Graham Archives for the use of seven images but after negotiations fell through used the images without permission. The seven images were originally Grateful Dead event posters, and they were reproduced as thumbnails along the timeline, DK declined to pay BGAs licensing demands after publication, and BGA sued. The District Court granted summary judgment to DK on their fair use defense, Bill Graham Archives appealed to the Second Circuit
Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Commission
Bushey v. New York State Civil Serv. Commn,733 F. 2d 220,224 is a US labor law case from the Second Circuit applying the test for affirmative action from United Steelworkers v. Weber. The New York State Civil Service Commission issued an exam for positions of Correction Captain in New Yorks Correctional Services. The exam results are combined with credit for seniority and Armed Forces service to arrive at a ranking list, the specific test in issue was administered to 275 candidates on January 30,1982. Thirty-two of these were minority candidates, and 243 were nonminority, the minority pass rate was 25% compared with the non-minority pass rate of 50%. Under the 80 percent rule, the State determined that the Captains exam had an adverse racial impact, as evidence of adverse impact, see 29 CFR §1607.4. It concluded that the tests minority selection rate of approximately 50% demonstrated an impact on minority candidates. By acting to eliminate the perceived impact of the examination on minorities. They claimed they were bumped down the ranking list by minority candidates whose scores were increased, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. First, it held that the State had properly determined that a prima facie case was made out by reference to the EEOC guidelines, such a rule would actually promote litigation, and would only result in the States waiting to be sued and then settling. Discrimination is not a prerequisite to an employer adopting voluntary, -conscious remedies to comply with Title VII. In a footnote, the opinion refused to distinguish Weber on the ground that this involved a public employer. It nevertheless remanded the case for determination of whether the remedy unnecessarily trammel the interests of nonminority employees, US labor law text of the case
Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.
Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.536 F. 3d 121, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding copyright infringement in the context of digital video recorders. Among other reasons, it is notable for disagreeing with the Ninth Circuits holding in MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, in the case, Cablevision, a cable television provider, sought to create a hosted DVR service. A consortium of copyright holders in the television and film industries sued for copyright infringement on the grounds of unlawful copying. Around March 2006, Cablevision, a television provider, announced the development of a Remote Storage DVR. Similar in operation to a digital video recorder, Cablevisions DVR allowed customers to pause, record. At various points in the system, content was buffered for periods of several seconds, notably, content requested by a particular user was stored separately and independently for that user and replayed only to the user who requested it. The consortium sued only for declaratory relief and injunctive relief on the grounds of copyright infringement. In their response, Cablevision waived any defense based on fair use, Cartoon Network, et al. claimed copyright infringement on three grounds, The buffering of streaming data, necessary for the RS-DVRs operation, constituted the creation of unlicensed copies in RAM. The persistence of complete copies on Cablevision hard drives also constituted the creation of unlicensed copies, transmitting hard drive copies to RS-DVR users in response to a play request constituted unlicensed public performance. Cablevision argued that, Buffered content was de minimis because of the limited duration. The creation of hard drive copies was done by consumers and only facilitated by Cablevision, the transmission of hard drive copies was made only to the user who requested content and to their home, not to the public. On consideration, the court found, Buffered copies were fixed, following MAI Systems v. Peak Computer. Buffering was not de minimis since the effect of the buffering was to reproduce the entirety of the work. Transmission of hard drive copies constituted public performance since Cablevision would transmit the program to different members of the public. The district court awarded summary judgment to the plaintiffs and enjoined Cablevision from operating the RS-DVR system, Cablevision appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Circuit Court reversed and vacated the judgment, and remanded the case in August 2008. The Circuit Court rejected the District Courts reasoning on all three grounds and it found the District Court relied too heavily on the embodiment requirement and did not properly consider the duration requirement. In this, the Circuit Court noted the lower courts reliance on MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, the Circuit Court found this case did not directly address the duration requirement and showed only the necessity of the embodiment criterion, not its sufficiency. Indeed, the interpretation, as the court points out
Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki
Applying the U. S. Supreme Courts recent ruling in City of Sherrill v. The ruling was the culmination of a litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York before Judge Neal Peters McCurn. This precedent has effectively ended the viability of all aboriginal title litigation in the Second Circuit, since the ruling, no tribal plaintiff has overcome the laches defense in a land claim in the Second Circuit. Four dissenting Supreme Court justices had previously adopted the view of the Second Circuit in County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, there, the following year, a class of defendant land owners was certified. In 1983, the Cayuga survived the motion to dismiss. McCurns ruling preceded the U. S. Supreme Courts ruling in County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, in 1987, McCurn ruled on the motions for summary judgement. In 1990, he ruled both the 1795 and 1807 conveyances violated the Nonintercourse Act, and were thus invalid. In 1991, interpreted the reservation terminology in the relevant treaty to also implicate that Act, McCurn also rejected the laches defense, on which the Second Circuit would eventually overturn his ruling. In response to the assertion of sovereign immunity as a defense, the federal government moved to intervene in the lawsuit. Having established liability, the litigation turned to the remedy, in 1999, McCurn ruled on the appropriate method to calculate damages. The court rejected the arguments that damages should be limited to the fair market value of the land at the time of the transaction. That same year, the court rejected ejectment as a remedy, thus ensuring that the Cayuga would be unable to recover possession of the lands, the court also determined that joint and several liability would be inappropriate, and thus that the defendants would require separate trials. Preparing for trial, the court threw out the real estate expert and approved the governments real estate expert. He also clarified his prior ruling, to note that testimony on laches would be permitted inasmuch as it related to pre-judgement interest.42, the court also denied the defendants post-trial motions, but stayed the collection of the judgement pending appeal. The Second Circuit reversed, and entered judgement for the defendants, Judge José A. Cabranes authored the panel opinion, joined by Rosemary S. Pooler. Parsing the Sherrill decision, the court concluded that the dispositive factor there was the nature of the claim itself. The court concluded that the District Court had monetized the ejectment remedy, accordingly, we conclude that possessory land claims of this type are subject to the equitable considerations discussed in Sherrill. The court justified this holding with reference to the sui generis nature of aboriginal title, insofar as the Cayugas claim in the instant case is unquestionably a possessory land claim, it is subject to laches
DeMarco v. Holy Cross High School
This is an employment discrimination case brought under the ADEA. The appellant, Guy DeMarco, was released from employment prior to his eligibility for tenure at the age of forty-nine, the defendant also argued that the plaintiff failed to utilize the administrative remedies available. Citation,4 F. 3d 166 Appellee, Holy Cross High School Appellant, although he was a lay instructor, he also led the class in morning prayer and took the students to mass. Under the terms of his contract of employment, his employment was to last five years with the option to extend that employment in five-year increments at the discretion of the employer. Upon completing his first five-year term of service, appellant was advised that a contract renewal would not be offered to him, at the end of the school, he left the employment of the appellee. He then sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act alleging age played a role in the decision which the school denied, a complaint was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The complaint alleged violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the EEOC subsequently determined that no violation of the ADEA had occurred. A lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the non-renewal of the appellants contract was due to performance issues. Specifically, it was claimed that the appellee did not begin his classes with prayer or attend mass with his students, the district court granted summary judgment. The decision of the court was appealed, resulting in this decision Does the ADEA apply to religious schools. If an employee establishes a prima facie case for discrimination, then the burden of proof shifts to the employer to establish a purpose for the challenged employment action. The inquiry must be focused on the question of whether the stated purpose for the challenged employment action is the actual purpose for that action. The ministerial exception applies primarily to members of the clergy, the court finds that there is a pervasive religious relationship between members of the clergy and their employers. In this case, the duties that were alleged to have been violated were easily isolated and defined. As result of this, the district could separate such duties from the age discrimination allegation for fact-finding purposes, the court noted that other anti-discrimination statutes were held to be applicable to religious organizations, with the exception of statutes that prohibited discrimination based on religious belief. The decision of the court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. Geary v. Visitation of Blessed Virgin Mary School, another case involving ageism claims against a Catholic school Complete text of opinion from OpenJurist. org
Dial-A-Mattress Franchise Corp. v. Anthony Page
Dial-A-Mattress Franchise Corp. v. Page 880 F. Telephone numbers may be protected under trademark law when a competitor attempts to use a similar number. The 1992 Chicago Worlds Fair Commn, however, although a second comer is entitled to use a generic term already being used by a competitor, the second comer may still be enjoined from confusing the public. Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co, plaintiff, Dial-A-Mattress is a retail dealer that sells mattresses primarily over the phone. Since 1976, Dial-A-Mattress phone number in the N. Y. metropolitan area has been 628-8737 or M-A-T-T-R-E-S on the telephone dial, Dial-A-Mattress has long-since advertised this number to the public. Defendant, Anthony Page, was in the business of selling beds before deciding to expand his business into mattresses, Page was fully aware of Dial-A-Mattress’s business number before buying the 1-800 number. A temporary restraining order was issued, enjoining Page from using the 1-800-MATTRESS number and the case was set for an evidentiary hearing. From the start, the noted that Dial–A–Mattress could not claim trademark rights in the word “mattress” used solely to identify its company or its product. ”Miller Brewing Co. v. Heileman Brewing Co. The court then noted that a second comer may be enjoined from passing itself off as the first user, kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. v. 1800Mattress. com Complete Case Opinion On Google Scholar
Engblom v. Carey
Engblom v. Carey,677 F. 2d 957, on rem.572 F. Supp. 44, affd. per curiam 724 F. 2d 28, was a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. While the officers were on strike, some of their duties were performed by National Guardsmen who were activated, at Mid-Orange Correctional Facility striking employees were evicted from employee housing which was then used to house some of the National Guard. Two of the officers at Mid-Orange C. F. Petitioners asserted violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the District Court found for defendants and dismissed the suit. Petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, rendered on May 3,1982, the decision was written for the court by Judge Walter R. Mansfield. It began by affirming the District Courts dismissal of the Due Process claim and it then turned to petitioners Third Amendment claim. e. The majority held that the correctional officers occupancy in the rooms was covered under the rules of tenancy and was therefore protected under the Third Amendment. In the absence of previous precedents on this issue, the standard of knowing illegality was not met, concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Irving R. Absent the consent of the owner, or a declaration of war by Congress, even in the latter case, war, the Guardsmen still would need to be housed in a manner to be prescribed by law
Estate of Carter v. Commissioner
Estate of Sydney J. Carter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,453 F. 2d 61,62, was a United States Federal income tax case decided by Judge Henry Friendly of the Second Circuit Court. Dorothy T. Carter, the widow of Sydney J. Carter, was the taxpayer, mrs. Carter had been paid by Mr. Carters employer what he would have earned until the end of the fiscal year. Mrs. Carter did not include that amount as income on a joint return she filed, §101, from the trustees of the Salomon Bros. Profit Sharing Plan, which represented the amounts accumulated for Sydney Carters benefit during his years of service, the Commissioner assessed a deficiency for failure to include the former amount. The Commissioners assessment was sustained by the United States Tax Court, mrs. Carter appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court held that the test that applied was that of principal motive, the court was left with the definite and firm conviction that the tax court committed a mistake in finding that the payments were compensation rather than an excludable gift. Text of Estate of Carter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,453 F. 2d 61,62 is available from, Justia Public. resource. Org OpenJurist
Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
Gilliam v. Monty Python had made a series of half-hour comedy shows for the BBC. The BBC granted a license to Time–Life to distribute some of the shows in the United States, Monty Python had been reassured that the programs would be broadcast uncut, and did not discover the drastic editing until several weeks after the first broadcast. The district court found that the editing had indeed impaired the integrity of the work and that is, some of the people who had seen their mutilated work would not watch further episodes and would not become Monty Python fans. On the other hand, the found that if ABC were to withdraw the second special from their program a few days before the date that had been announced in TV schedules. In the end, a disclaimer was broadcast saying only that ABC had edited the shows. They noted that factor was no longer present, since no further broadcasts had been planned or announced, the court referred to Reyher v. Childrens Television Workshop in pointing out that the copyright in the derivative work covered only the novel additions to the underlying work. The agreement did not authorize the BBC to make cuts in the script. Monty Pythons rights under their contract with the BBC had been violated, the permission granted to broadcast the shows did not confer the right to edit the work, which had not been granted by the copyright holder of the scripts. The court also discussed at some other reasons why the cuts might be an actionable mutilation. One of the judges concurred with the finding, but disagreed about the applicability of the Lanham Act. The case has often presented as the first to discuss false or misleading attribution claims. In 1816 Lord Byron obtained an injunction from an English court that prevented publication of a book that was said to contain only Byrons poems, by the start of the twentieth century, U. S
Greenberg v. National Geographic
Greenberg v. National Geographic was a copyright lawsuit regarding image use and republication rights of National Geographic Society to their magazine in electronic form. National Geographic withdrew this archive from the market in 2004 until after litigation was finished, the archive, called The Complete National Geographic on CD-ROM and DVD, contained image duplicates of the print magazines. The plaintiffs argued that the archive was a revision, and thus National Geographic did not hold the license to republish, National Geographic argued that the archive, which included an introductory sequence set to music and a search feature, was a new work. Two federal appellate courts ruled in the various cases, on June 30,2008, the Eleventh Circuit held that National Geographics reproduction of its magazine electronically was privileged under the federal copyright statute. As a result of this ruling National Geographic announced it is releasing the full 120-year version of its magazine at the end of October 2009
Guiles v. Marineau
In Guiles v. Marineau,461 F. 3d 320, cert. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits Congress, among other things, the Fourteenth Amendment likewise prohibits State governments from depriv any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The courts have interpreted the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to encompass the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. See, e. g. Edwards v. South Carolina,372 U. S.229,235, Near v. Minnesota,283 U. S.697,707, Stromberg v. California,283 U. S.359,368. Alongside the picture of the President was a depiction of three lines of cocaine and a razor blade, the wings of the chicken were depicted holding a straw and an alcoholic beverage. At the bottom of and on the back of the T-shirt there was additional verbiage making fun of Bush and, among other things, depictions of Bush, cocaine and alcohol were also present on the sleeves. After plaintiff had worn this shirt several times over a period of weeks, another student complained to a teacher, after the student returned to school, he wore the T-shirt covered by duct tape, on top of which was written the word censored. The student sued the school administrators in order to have the disciplinary referral expunged from his record, the district court, applying the Supreme Court precedent set in Bethel School District No.403 v. Both the plaintiffs and the defendant appealed, can a school discipline a student for wearing a shirt that displays images of drugs and alcohol as part of a political message. The court of appeals held that the T-shirt, in spite of its depiction of drugs and alcohol, was protected speech under the First, in its decision, the court analyzed the facts in light of the following three Supreme Court cases, Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. 393 U. S.503, Bethel School District No.403 v. Fraser,478 U. S.675, in Tinker, the United States Supreme Court held that a school may not ban students from wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. The Tinker case thus stands for the proposition that a student may express his opinions, in Fraser, however, the Supreme Court held that a school could discipline a student for making a speech at a public assembly that is vulgar, lewd, indecent, or plainly offensive. Whether Guiles T-shirt was plainly offensive or not was a question of first impression in the Second Circuit, in this case, considering an analogous decision in Frederick v. Morse,439 F. In Hazelwood, the Supreme Court permitted schools to regulate the content of a school newspaper, the students T-shirt was not school-sponsored, nor was there any appearance of sponsorship by the school, and therefore Hazelwood was inapplicable in this case. Finally, the Guiles court held that the rights were violated even by the limited intervention of the school staff. By covering them defendants diluted the message, blunting its force. Such censorship may be justified under Tinker only when the substantial disruption test is satisfied, as the student had worn the shirt on several days with no disruption to classroom activities, there are no grounds for the school to take any action against him. Amendments to the Constitution of the United States text of the decision on the official web site text of the decision on PreCYdent. com case summary from firstamendmentcenter. org Helen Nguyen
Hedges v. Obama
The principal allegation made by the plaintiffs against the NDAA is that the vagueness of critical terms in the NDAA could be interpreted by the U. S. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on April 28,2014, in May 2012, a federal court in New York issued a preliminary injunction which temporarily blocked the indefinite detention powers of the NDAA on the grounds of unconstitutionality. On August 6,2012 federal prosecutors representing President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta filed a notice of appeal with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals hoping to eliminate the ban. The following day arguments from both sides were heard by U. S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest during a hearing to determine whether to make her preliminary injunction permanent or not. On September 12,2012, Judge Forrest issued a permanent injunction, the court also said that a Second Circuit motions panel will take up the governments motion for stay pending appeal on September 28,2012. On October 2,2012, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ban on indefinite detention will not go into effect until a decision on the Obama Administrations appeal is rendered. The U. S. Supreme Court refused on December 14,2012 to lift the stay pending appeal order issued by the U. S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals on October 2,2012. Oral arguments were heard before the U. S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals on February 6,2013. The U. S. Supreme Court refused again on February 19,2013 to lift the stay pending appeal order issued by the U. S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals on October 2,2012. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in an order issued April 28,2014, lt. Col. Barry Wingard, a military attorney representing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, noted that under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 U. S. Citizens can be detained indefinitely without trial, while they cannot contest the allegations against them because they have no right to be notified of the charges against them. Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I, besides Barack Obama and Leon Panetta other defendants are John McCain, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor. They claim that the law not only put them at risk of arrest but also allows indefinite detentions of U. S. citizens on U. S. soil, and that the provisions are too vague. Naomi Wolf wrote for example in her affidavit that she has refused to conduct many investigative interviews for fear that she could be detained under the auspices of applicable sections of the NDAA, I believe that could leave me in imminent danger of harm, she said. During a hearing on March 29,2012 plaintiffs Alexa OBrien, Kai Wargalla, OBrien for example testified that she shelved two investigations about Guantanamo detainees for fear of reprisal under the National Defense Authorization Act. Hedges stated the National Defense Authorization Act affects him personally, Government lawyers in return did not offer any witnesses in support of the law. This court need not and should not indulge the fiction that section 1021 merely acknowledges authority latent in the AUMF, the plaintiffs outlined the NDAA and AUMF in the memorandum. S. A federal court in New York City issued an order blocking the indefinite detention powers of the NDAA for American citizens after finding it unconstitutional, there is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, Forrest wrote in granting the temporary injunction
Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.
Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. is an influential 1998 Second Circuit fair use case. Annie Leibovitz is a portrait photographer who had published a photograph of celebrity Demi Moore while seven months pregnant. Paramount ran the ad nationally, and Leibovitz sued for copyright infringement, at trial, the Southern District of New York found the use to be fair. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, while Leibovitz had argued that she was entitled to licensing revenue from the photograph, the court found that parodies were likely to generate little or no licensing revenue. The Court took particular note that, while the composition and posing of the models is the same, in the Paramount photo the ring on the models right-hand is, again, garish, and much larger than the ring Demi Moore is wearing on her right hand. These artistic choices on the part of Paramounts designers heighten the parodic effect, the ultimate contrast is that of a healthy pregnant woman, compared with an older mans face superimposed onto a womans body. Buchwald v. Paramount Paramount Communications, Inc. v. QVC Network, United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. full text from FindLaw Miatta Tenneh Dabo, Recent Development, Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. Fair Use Doctrine, When Is Copyright Infringement a Parody, univ. of Baltimore Intellectual Property Law Journal v.7, p.155. Matthew A. Eisenstein, An Economic Analysis of the Fair Use Defense in Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, v.148, no. Jonathan M. Fox, The Fair Use Commercial Parody Defense and How to Improve It, jeremy Kudon, Note, Form Over Function, Expanding the Transformative Use Test for Fair Use, Boston University Law Review v.80, p.579. Michael Lynch, A Theory of Pure Buffoonery, Fair Use and Humor, Dayton Law Review v.24, p.1
Martin v. Hearst Corporation
The case is seen by some as evidence that United States law cannot accommodate a right to be forgotten like the one established in the European Union in May 2014. In August 2010, Lorraine Martin and her two sons were arrested in their home and charged with drug possession offenses. Connecticut news outlets, including some owned by Hearst Corporation, posted accurate news articles online about the arrest, in January 2012, the state dropped its case against Martin and erased her arrest from official records using Connecticuts criminal records erasure statute. Martin then asked Hearst and the defendants to remove the articles from their websites. They refused, and she sued, claiming that the articles had become false, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut held for Hearst Corporation, and Martin appealed to the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit held that the accounts of the arrest did not become false and defamatory after the arrest was erased, so the articles could remain online. But the reports of arrest were true at the time they were published, judge Wesley, who authored the opinion, cited the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám, the Moving Finger has written and moved on. The court also rejected Martins defamation-by-implication claim, however, this was not the case here, according to the court. Wesley stated that eporting on Martins arrest without an update may not be as complete a story as Martin would like, the court also rejected claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy by appropriation and false light. Legal scholars noted the significance in relation to the right to be forgotten. Internet law scholar Eric Goldman noted that Martins suit was an attempt to work around the fact there is not a right to be forgotten in the United States. He suggested that while the result may occur under European law as applied to these news outlets. Law professor Eugene Volokh supported the District Court holding, agreeing that if the statute had been interpreted to enable defamation liability, defamation Expungement Right to be forgotten