Flashcards
free expression test 2
Flashcards do conjunto (96)
- 1u.s. v alvarez-alvarez represented himself as awarded metal of honor
-stolen valor act
-sc ruled that stolen valor act violates 1A
-bakers self fulfillment, everyone lies - 2defamationaction of damaging the good reputation of someone
-slander or libel
-privacy law: protected for how they feel personally
-libel law: reputation on the line, how others treat you based on false info - 3slanderaction of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation
- 4libelpublished false statement that is damaging to a persons reputation
-slander in a "fixed form" - 5ventura v. kylein book the life and legend of chris kyle, said that kyle met venture and they fought
-ventura sued - 6people of libel-plaintiff: living individuals
-libel proof: the infamous
-offices in gov cant sue for libel
-individuals within gov. can if claims are made as an individual unrelated to gov role - 7key components of libel case-falsity (verifiable statement)
-publication
-identification
-harm
-fault (depending on public or private) - 8philadelphia newspaper v hepps-newspaper accused hepps of links to crime
-PA SC favored hepps and held that paper was obligated to prove truth
-sc reversed
-plantiff has to prove the falsity - 9libel per-quod-harmful only in context
-libel that is actionable when the plaintiff introduces additional facts to show defamation or claims special damages - 10negligence-private people
-failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another - 11actual malice-public figures
-required to establish libel against public figures
-knowledge that the info was false, or published with reckless disregard of the truth - 12n.y.t. v sullivan-actual malice standard established
-sc held that 1A protects publication of all statements, even false ones, about conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice - 13gertz v robert welch-gertz was attorney hired to sue a police officer who had killed families son
-magazine, gertz was called a 'communist fascist'
-gertz lost libel suit b/c actual malice test not violated as an enforcement officer
-sc reversed decision because wasn't actually public figure
-court esgtablishes all purpose v limited public figure - 14dun & bradstreet v. greenmoss-d&b credit reporting agency, mistakenly reported that greenmoss filed for bankruptcy
-wouldn't release who recieved report, but issued correction
-greenmoss unhappy and sued for defamation
-sc held that didnt apply because not public speech - 15time v firestone-firestone filed for divorce and was counterclaimed with cruelty and adultery
-time printed article reporting her adultery
-firestone wanted retraction, but time refused
-sued for libel
-sc held that actual malice standard for media on public figures doesn't apply - 16hutchinson v proxmire-senator prox implemented "golden flees award of the month" given to gov agencies which wasted tax $
-company sponsoring hutchinson
-sc found that statements were not made with actual malice, not libel - 17actual malice standardrequired to establish libel
1. knowledge of falsity
2. reckless disregard for the truth "high degree of awareness of the probable falsity" - 18curtis publishing v buttsarticle published alleging that coach butts conspired to fix a football game
-buts own libel suit, but curtis moved for new trial rejecting because butts wasn't a public figure - 19privilege of participant-libel defense
speech and debate clause
house floor= privileged - 20reply to defamation pee-wee defense-libel defense
you can ask for a correction of libeled and the suit will go away - 21fair comment-libel defense
right to make statements of opinion on public events - 22milkovich v lorain journalmilkovich testified to physical alteration at wrestling match
-journal published article saying everyone knows he lied
-milk sued for defamation
-court ruled there was no actual malice
-sc ruled no constitutional privilege for opinions "expressions of opinion may often imply an assertion of objective fact" - 23masson v new yorker magazine-masson fired from position at freud archives, ny interviewed
-malcoms article included quotations and was presented as arrogant and condescending
-many quotations fabricated
-masson sued for libel
dc dismissed cause not public figure
-sc granted permission to sue, because direct quote altercation is a gross distortion of truth - 24copyright lawthe congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
- 25save mickey mouse act sonny bono act-copyright term extension act
-life of author + 70 years
-retroactive provision: extends life of existing hire works from 70-90 years
-orphans "opt out" standard: congress automatically renews
-sponsored by orin hatch - 26eldred v ashcroft-eldred challenged sonny bono extension on 1a grounds
-argued that ceta violates limited times and 1a guarantee
sc said didn't transgress constitutional limitations and doesn't violate 1a - 27kahle v gonzaleskahle had internet library of digital copies
-would have ended up in public domain, but orphan act automatically renewed
-challenges new "opt out" standard that was against 1a, can't find who owns material or copyrigh - 28fiest publishing v rural tel svc-rural refused to give licensing of info to fiest as phonebook
-sues
-can't alphabetize phone # as copyright
-wasn't creative work - 29rights of copyright owners1. reproduce copyrighted work
2. prepare derivative works
3. distribute copies to the public
4. perform the copyrighted work publicly
5. display the copyrighted work publicly - 30baker v selden book-keeping case-idea/expression doctrine: limits scope of copyright protection by differentiating an idea from the expression/manifestation
-book doesn't give author the right to exclude others from practicing what was described in the book, only the right to exclude reproduction of materials - 31morrissey v p&gp&g used a contest rule similar to morrissey's which had a copyright
-court used baker v selden
-holding that some kinds of expression are non-copyrightable, such as utilitarian forms - 32miller v universal studios-miller covered story of mackle kidnapping then wrote a book
-universal wanted to make a tv show, used book but changed names
-facts are non-copyrightable as well as writers retrieval - 33creative appropriationreframing meaning
-sampling
-question if work is transformative enough - 34de minimis copyingthe law doesn't worry about minimal things, court wont uphold copyright if changes are minimal
- 35suntrust bank v. houghton mifflin comitchell suing
parody novel counts as fair use
follows campbell v acuff rose music (pretty woman) - 36ringgold v BETringgolds poster was used as decoration on a tv show
poster was de minimis copying
fair use - 37bridgeport music v dimension filmsnwa used a 2-sec guitar chord
-6th circuit ruled sampling violating copyright law
-eliminates de minimus doctrine for digitally sampling recorded music - 38harper and row v. nationford contracted with h&r to publish memoirs, they negotiated with TIME to excerpt 7500 words
-nation published with out permission
-h&r sued nation
-sc ruled nations use was not fair because author has right to control first public appearance - 39copyright fair use1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the work - 40brennans dissentingthe progress of arts and science and the robust debate essential to an enlightened citizenry are ill served by this constricted reading of the fair use doctrine
- 41basic books v kinkoskinkos copied books without consent
-sc ruled that kinkos didn't show that the excerpts were appropriated were fair use - 42princeton university press v. michigan document services-mds printed articles, bound them and sold for profit at MU
-sued mds for copyright infringement, mds argued protected by fair use
-court found mds was making $500,000 extra for distributing - 43worldwide church of god v philadelphia church of god-writes book and distributes copyright to wwc of god.
-pa church of god was created and distributed book
-wwcod sued for copyright and no longer were able to distribute - 44salinger v random houseunpublished letters by salinger
-salinger sued and won because he had the sole right to publishing - 45religious tech ctr. v netcom on-line comm servicesformer minister left and began publishing scinetology documents with trade secrets
-trc held copyright - 46audio home recording actdigital recording devices must implement serial copy management systems
limited immunity for non-commerical home taping - 47digital millennium copyright act-criminalizes circumventing anti-piracy software which prevents downloadingand copying
-prevents fair use
-revised that educational uses are ok - 48fairness in music licensing actcompulsory license: retransmit broadcast as long as it is free and public
blanket: ascap or bmi - 49kelly v arriba soft corpkelly copyright owner of his photos
-thumbnail versions posted
-kelly sued and won
-thumbnails transformative, but reproducing original - 50a&m records v napster-infringing copyright and encouraging others
- 51mgm v grokstercopyright owners can sue companies that encourage sharing of files
- 52capital records v thomas-rasset-tr file sharing infringement
-sued for illegal downloading of music - 53teach act 2002structures teachers for online courses/broadcast
-fair use in classroom for distance education - 54lanham act 1946trademark act
-governs trademarks, service marks and unfair competition - 55distinctiveness classifications for trademarks-arbitrary or fanciful: bears no relationship to product
-suggestive: suggests, but doesn't describe characteristics
-descriptive: describes some characteristic or quality "secondary meaning"
-generic: describes general class of products - 56fruit of the loom v girouard-girouard has clothing line including fruit flops and fruit cup bras
-court says fruit of the loom has secondary meaning - 57two pesos v taco cabanatwo pesos infringed trademark of taco cabana by copyright restaurant design
- 58bally total fitness v fabersued "bally sucks" website dedicated to complaints and commentaries
-court considered sucks not a minor change and website was not competitive
-not a violation of plaintiffs trademark - 59fair use of marknominative: permits use of anothers trademark to refer to the owner's actual goods and services
-traditional (statutory): criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research - 60amf inc v sleekcraft boats-amf urged sleekcraft from using its mark since it was similar enough to slickcraft
-amf sued for trademark infringement claiming boat lines were competitive
-sleek claimed not competitive because their boats were racers
-dc ruled confusion not likely - 61likelihood of confusionsimilarity
relatedness of the competing products
strength
marketing channels
degree of care of purchasers
alleged infringer's intent
evidence of actual confusion
likelihood of expansion - 62zatarains v oak grove smokehouse-z claimed trademark suggestive term and that oak grove liable for infringing
-are descriptive terms protected by trademark without a showing of secondary meaning? No
-descriptive terms not protected by trademark without showing secondary meaning in public eye - 631995 federal anti-dilution acttrademark owner can sue an infringer for "lessening the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of competition between the parties or likelihood of confusion"
- 64ringling bros v utah department of travel-greatest show on earth diluted by greatest snow on earth
-utah attorney general concluded does not impair/violate ringling - 65moseley v victoria secret-alleging "victors little secreted" contributed to dilution of famous marks
-dc granted vs a appeals confirmed
-sc fdta required proof of actual dilution as opposed to likelihood of - 66trademark dilution revision act 2006-overturn moseley decisions to need to show actual trademark dilution rather than likelihood of
- 67fox news v. penguin group-fox enjoin franken from using trademark phrase fair and balanced
-fox's motion denied and suit dropped - 68new york times v republican governors association-nyt sent cease and desist to rga taking issue with the layout sites design infringement of nyt and that it violated lanham act by suggesting sponsorship
-rga changed font - 69statutory defenses (2006 act)1. advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods
2 all forms of news reporting and news commentary
3. any noncommerical use of a mark - 70dallas cowboy cheerleaders inc v pussycat cinema-prohibiting from exhibiting motion picture on grounds of trademark infringement, unfair competition and dilution
-outfit trademarked, likelihood of confusion - 71mattel v walking mt productionsfood chain barbie
sued for trademark and trade-dress infringement, dilution and copyright
-caused no likelihood of confusion - 72burnett v twentieth century fox film corpburnett sues for copyright because family guy shows her as a cleaning lady
-court says offensive
-but the more offensive something is, the less likely public is to think the trademark owner has sponsored it - 73utah lighthouse ministry v discovery computingwyatts website was a noninfringing parody of utah lighthouse ministry website
- 74valentine v. chrestensen-1st time arguing advertising is speech
-chrestensen purchases submarine and gives tours, added political speech to brochure
-sc rules as advertising and not as speech - 75breard v alexandriacant door to door sell, violates 1a
-court says advertising not free speech and can be regulated - 76pittsburg press v. pittsburg commission on human relations-gendered help wanted ads
-sc says government can regulate to prevent discrimination
-reaffirming that advertising isn't speech - 77bigelow v VA-ban advertising abortion in virginia
-ny abortion clinic runs add in VA paper
-sc claims scenario of advertising is different because its more political speech
-this commercial advertising warrants protection - 78virginia state pharmacy board v virginia citizens consumer councilfirst case where sc says commercial speech has 1a protection from government
-pharmacy board write rules on how to pharmacy
-law that pharmacist cant advertise prices of prescription drugs, turn into price war
-right to receive rationale: market works best when consumers are informed - 79carey v population services-ban on contraceptives so people aren't offended
-offense is not a compelling government interest
-avert yourself - 80bates v. state bar of arizona-prohibits attorneys from advertising prices
-bates created law firm for only divorce and bankruptcy with flat fee
-sc right to recieve - 81ohralik v ohio state bar association-prohibiting in person advertising of attorney
-o went to hospitals and was signing contracts to represent
-argued 1a right
-sc ruled intermediate scrutiny because time place manner - 82friedman v rogers-cant operate under trade name
-optometrist name on 2 places, customers not happy cause lesser service in one - 83central hudson-landmark decision
-prohibited from trying to convince people to use more energy, can't promote use
-ch included add on bill that was advertising energy sufficient supplies
-irrational, deferential because law doesnt make sense
-create new standard of review - 84central hudson test1. is the advertising deceptive or misleading or does it promote illegal conduct or products
2. does the state have a substantial interest
3. does the statute directly advance the governements interest
4. is the statute narrowly tailored (not too excessive) - 85metromedia inc v city of san diego-prohibit billboards
-court said overbroad
-targeting commerical speech, but argued political - 86city of cincinnati v. discovery networkcincinnati bans advertising racks because of the clutter
-sc content based, treating advertising differently, unconstitutional - 87posadas de puerto rico associates v. tourism company of puerto rico-law in puerto rico that casinos cant target locals in advertising
-other forms of gambling still allowed
-prevent "secondary effects" (makes it not content based) - 88rehnquists opinionanti commercial speech
-if there is a sufficient fit between gov interest and law, even if the law is not perfect it's ok
-deferential review> central hudson
-greater v lesser power rationale - 89state univ. of new york v. foxcentral hudson 3&4 reinterpreted
-reasonable fit between government interest and statute - 90united states v. edge broadcasting-state banned lottery advertising
-va wants to run ad about lottery, radio station cant cause against law in NC
-SC upholds law, state has right and edge chose where their station is
-treated as business, not speech - 91rubin v coors brewing companyrubin has law that beer labels cant disclose alcohol content
-cause strength wars
-but law that wine had to disclose alchol %
deferential review, two contradicting laws - 9244 liquormart v rhode island-turning point for commercial speech law
-state argues they have right to regulate advertising price of alcohol advertising
-greater power of 21A gives lesser power to regulate advertising
-indirect link to consumption by price wars
-now state has to prove advertising causes demand, no more greater v. lesser - 93greater new orleans v. usprohibits casinos from advertising, except for native american casinos
-court says not directing advance interest - 94lorillard tobacco v reillyno tobacco billboards within 1000 ft of public kid places
- previous settlement gave congress power to regulate tabacco and advertising
-becasue of settlement, mass has no right to regulate
-THIS WASNT DECIDED ON 1A GROUNDS - 95sorrel v ims health-marks end of central hudson test
-prescription confidentiality law: prohibits marketing people to access patterns with out patient consent
-info is available for nonmarketing reasons
-sc as unconstitutional
-speech in aid of marketing should get full 1a protection
-treating information as speech - 96—
Informações
- Descrição
- communication FlashCards sobre free expression test 2, criado por Hannah Bezdjian em 15-03-2017.
- Criado por
- Hannah Bezdjian
- Visualizações
- 1
- Avaliação