MediaTech Law

By MIRSKY & COMPANY, PLLC

Dirty Needle: Tattoo Parlor Sues Competitor for Defamation

Posted November 9, 2011 by Kate Tummarello 0

Two dueling tattoo parlors down the road from one another in Mobile, Alabama. It could be the premise of a TLC reality show.  It’s not (yet) a TV show, but it IS a court case recently decided by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. In September, that court ruled in favor of Chassity Ebbole, owner of “LA Body Art” tattoo parlor in Mobile, who had sued the owners of the competing “Demented Needle” tattoo shop for libel and wrongful invasion of privacy.

Ebbole claimed that Demented Needle owner Paul Averette had been telling customers and others that Ebbole’s shop used equipment infected with diseases such as Hepatitis C and HIV, claiming also that Averette had told the world that Ebbole had infected herself.

Read More

DC’s Qualified High-Technology Company (QHTC) – Tax Credits

Posted October 25, 2011 by Kate Tummarello 0

Eleven years ago, the District of Columbia announced the “New E-Conomy Transformation Act of 2000”, which set up tax benefits encouraging technological innovation.  The Act became effective April 3, 2001.

“My vision for our city is to become the technology capital of the world….  We want to attract and retain leaders in the fields of e-government, e-commerce, e-business, and technology,” said then-mayor Anthony Williams.

New E-Conomy Transformation Act

The District’s final rulemaking for the Act, setting out terms of qualification for the Act’s various tax benefits to qualifying businesses, can be found here.

Among many other tax incentives, the Act granted tax benefits to “Qualified High Technology Companies” (QHTCs), those DC-based, for-profit organizations that make most of their revenue from the sale of products and services related to information technology.  

Read More

Actual Halloween (Trademark) Story (Part 2): “Field of Screams”

Posted October 3, 2011 by Kate Tummarello 0

In March of this year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied the preliminary injunction that the Pennsylvania “Field of Screams” had sought against the Maryland “Field of Screams.” Andrew Mirsky wrote about this case last fall, a trademark infringement action involving a haunted amusement house in Pennsylvania operating under the name “Field of Screams” and a Maryland operation of the same name.

The court’s opinion denying the preliminary injunction can be viewed here.  The preliminary injunction was denied on the grounds that the plaintiff was unable to show that its case was likely to succeed in court – the standard required to obtain a preliminary injunction.  

Read More

Update: Privacy for Mobile Apps – The Limits of Transparency

Posted September 8, 2011 by Kate Tummarello 0

In June of this year, Senator Al Franken (D. Minn.) introduced the “Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011” (S. 1223).  According to the bill summary available on Franken’s website, a 2010 investigation by the Wall Street Journal revealed that 47 of the top 101 mobile applications for Apple iPhones and Google Android phones disclose user location without consent of the user.

According to Franken’s bill summary, current law prevents disclosure of user location during telephone calls without user consent. Currently, no similar legislation protects user location when a user accesses information through a mobile web browser or mobile application. Franken claims that his bill will close loopholes in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act that allow for this distinction.

If S. 1223 passes, companies will be required to obtain permission not only to collect mobile user location information but also to share that information with third parties. Additionally, the bill seeks to put in place measures to prevent stalking through location information.

As of this writing, Franken’s bill has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and is being cosponsored by Sens. Blumenthal, Coons, Durbin, Menendez, and Sanders.

Original Post (published 9/8/2011)

When was the last time you read a license agreement after installing software or downloading an app on your smartphone? If you’re like most people, the answer is probably never.

According to some estimates, fewer than 8 percent of us actually read the entirety of those agreements, despite rising concerns about digital privacy and data collection.

Read More

Apple Changes App Store Guidelines, Developers Seek End-Around

Posted August 24, 2011 by Kate Tummarello 0

Kate Tummarello is a Research and Social Media Intern with Mirsky & Company and a reporter at Roll Call/Congressional Quarterly.  Follow Kate on Twitter @ktummarello.

Apple’s App Store is full of subscription-based content providers. Whether you’re watching a movie on the Netflix app, reading a book through the Kindle app or streaming a TV show using the Hulu Premium app, you’re probably used to paying for the app and then paying more for the content.

But that’s changing, thanks to Apple’s new policy, which will prohibit developers from requiring users to make a second purchase to access content once they have purchased the app itself.

Apple rumor website MacWorld reported earlier this summer that Apple was planning on this new policy. The article quoted Section 11.14 of Apple’s App Store guidelines:

Apps can read or play approved content (specifically magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video) that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app, as long as there is no button or external link in the app to purchase the approved content. Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues for approved content that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app.

Previously, developers could charge one price for the app and then offer more content for a second price within the app. Unlike purchases made through the app store, where Apple receives 30 percent of the profit, profits made from purchases within the app itself would go entirely to the developer. In eliminating the possibility for in-app purchases, Apple is ensuring that it retains its 30 percent.

But developers are looking to find ways around this policy. According to MacWorld, Netflix has found a loophole in instructing users to “visit Netflix.com” without providing a button for users to do so.

Others are turning to the much anticipated HTML5. According to Piotr Steininger, co-founder of Tapangi Consulting [http://tapangi.com/] based in Washington, DC, HTML5 may open floodgates for apps that are accessed through a device’s web browser rather than through an app store.  Or in other words, “Rather than buying an app in the app store you just go to a URL and you’ve got an app to go,” Steininger says. “You load it once on the iPad and download a book locally, and you’re good to go.”

Amazon has already unveiled an HTML5-based Kindle app that works within a device’s browser, including on the iPad. The app synchronizes with a user’s Kindle library, and users can shop for Kindle content within the app. According to many reports, other content providers, including Wal-Mart, are similarly attempting to use HTML5-based apps to avoid the Apple App Store and its rules and fees.

Read More

Does Demand Media Really “Suck”? Fair Use and Freedom to Bash Your Boss

Posted August 3, 2011 by Kate Tummarello 0

Kate Tummarello is a Research and Social Media Intern with Mirsky & Company and a reporter at Roll Call/Congressional Quarterly.  Follow Kate on Twitter @ktummarello.  Andrew Mirsky of Mirsky & Company contributed to this post.

Gone are the days of bashing your boss in the breakroom. Now, colleagues gather online to anonymously air their grievances.  A group of disgruntled Demand Media, Inc. employees did just that with their website DemandStudiosSucks.com.  Then Demand Media struck back.

Late last month, attorneys for Demand Media, a content production company whose properties include eHow, LIVESTRONG.com, Cracked.com, typeF.com, Trails.com and GolfLink, sent a letter to DemandStudiosSucks.com asking it to remove content that had been copyrighted by Demand Media.

The media company accused the people behind this censorious website of creating and maintaining “a forum in which users can, and do, post and misuse Demand Media’s trademark, copyrighted material, including confidential and proprietary copy editing tests.”  The letter also referenced “an internal presentation regarding the company’s business plans”, published without permission on DemandStudiosSucks.com.

Immediately, of course, the letter was posted on DemandStudiosSucks.com.

The next day, a user named “Partick O’Doare,” who has posted the majority of the content on the site, published an open letter addressing the claims made by Demand Media’s attorneys.  Although the website removed the content addressed in the letter, O’Doare explained that the site’s creators had not acknowledged any infringement in removing the content.

Instead, those behind the website claimed that their use of the Demand Media content fell under fair use guidelines, specifically protections for commentary and criticism.  “Let’s be honest,” the open letter says, “if ever there was a case of unequivocal fair use, this would be it.”  A statement which should raise flags to anyone who previously felt similarly.

Fair use is a defense to a claim of copyright infringement, but not other claims.  A fair use argument cannot simply succeed on its merits where other legal rights are violated.  Context matters.  So, for example, as seen in some Facebook “suck site” cases, fair use will not protect against a claim of defamation.  Employees who publish company trade secrets and other proprietary information cannot rely on fair use to defend against claims of violations of corporate and employment law.

O’Daire’s letter proudly boasts that the voices behind DemandStudiosSucks.com were fully prepared to defend themselves, citing the fair use cases Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. and Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc.

Read More

Copyright 2022 Mirsky & Company, PLLC