MediaTech Law

By MIRSKY & COMPANY, PLLC

Online Content – When is Content “Conduct”?

Posted May 18, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

I wrote last week about the proliferation of the law of libel on the internet, but the same explosion of opportunities for litigation – and risks to would-be publishers – applies via the internet to all forms of speech.  Libel is still libel, but more cases are pushing arguments that speech is conduct that can be sanctioned and criminalized.  And for much the same reasons.

As I wrote:

Because like a lot of things that the internet did not change, it did not change the law of libel.  In terms of what the internet did change, two things in particular are striking: First, the now potentially worldwide audience for anything published.  And second, and sometimes of even more significance, the removal of barriers to entry.  Or put another way: Everyone is a prospective publisher.

Several recent stories vividly illustrate the point, including an article in last Thursday’s New York Times about suicide chat rooms and prominent recent lawsuits in New Jersey and Louisiana involving attempts to “out” the names of anonymous online authors.

The Times reported that a Minnesotan named William F. Melchert-Dinkel was charged with aiding the suicide deaths of a British man in 2005 and a Canadian woman in 2008.  

Read More

Apple App Store Rejects Content – There’s More!

Posted May 7, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

I recently wrote about the dust-up following the awarding of a Pulitzer for political commentary to online cartoonist Mark Fiore, when it was revealed that Apple had rejected Fiore’s proposed iPhone App several months before Fiore’s Pulitzer fame.  As had been widely reported, Apple subsequently invited Fiore to re-apply, which Fiore promptly did and now, evidently, Fiore’s cartoon app is available for download through the store.

Commentary on the episode leaned heavily to the view of “what gall!” of Apple to presume rights to regulate content.  So, for example, Rob Pegoraro wrote in the Washington Post last week:

If this conduct seems arbitrary, that’s because Apple gives itself that liberty.  The Cupertino, Calif., company’s iPhone developer agreement, as published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says Apple can reject an application “at any time” if it thinks rejection would be “prudent or necessary.”

Read More

Online Libel – Reviews, Comments – Libel: It’s Real and It’s Spectacular!

Posted April 30, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

Eric Felten brilliantly skewers the supposed credibility of the online “marketplace of ideas” when he recently wrote last week in the Wall Street Journal:

Spend any time on the Internet and – like the naif in the ‘Casablanca’ gambling room dumbfounded when the wheel comes up 22-black twice in a row – one’s bound to ask, ‘Say, are you sure this place is honest?’

This sort of thing seems oddly hilarious and at the same time naïve in the same way as the fool in Casablanca, in whose defense one could at least say it was a different time.  Last I checked, there was no giant sign over the entrance to the internet saying “tread warily here”, although Felten’s point about the sensitivity of individuals to words being written about them is hardly a new concept.  Just one small point of reference: I handle a fair amount of pre-publication review of publications for libel (i.e. in advance of actual publication), and one thing I usually drill into my publishing clients is being somewhat sensitive to the litigatory likelihood of the person about whom words are being published.

I’m not saying shy away from controversial journalism, and it’s advice that probably did not compel the muckracking vision of Woodward and Bernstein or the “American Century” mantra of Henry Luce.  Nonetheless, don’t ask a libel lawyer for advice unless you’re willing at least to consider whom you’re writing about if one of your goals is simply to avoid getting sued.

Read More

Apple’s Apps and the Pulitzer Cartoonist: Right to Ban Content?

Posted April 21, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

Trumpets Ryan Chittum in the Columbia Journalism Review, “Yes, this is that serious. [The news media] needs to wrest back control of its speech from Apple Inc.  It’s easy to do it now while the press has leverage over Apple.  If the iPad becomes a significant driver of media revenue, and Apple decides to crack down, it will be too late (yes, the iPad has a Web browser, but the monetary leverage it could gain with apps is what’s concerning).”

Here’s an interesting dilemma for a potentially dominant technology or communications platform: Early Twentieth Century Supreme Court cases found a “public” (and therefore “government” and therefore subject to regulation) role of company towns and their attempts to enforce “private” laws through company-supported police powers.

Read More

Andy Speaking at Politics Online 2010!

Posted April 17, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

I will be moderating 2 separate panels on Monday and Tuesday at the 2010 Politics Online conference spectacular here in Washington.

The first will be Monday April 19th at 2pm, and called “Is this Barack Obama’s Real Facebook Page? Domains, Twitter Handles, Online Presence – real or fake? Intellectual Property, Cyber Identity, and More!”.  I will be joined on the panel by Jason Torchinsky of Holtzman-Vogel, Matt Sanderson of Caplin & Drysdale and Neal Seth of Baker Hostetler.

The second will be Tuesday April 20th at 10:30am, and called “Laws Affecting Digital Communications – Copyright, Privacy, Elections/FEC, Advertising, Libel, Contract Law, etc.  Rules, Regs, Fines and Community “Standards” Applicable to Communicating in Digital Media.”  On this panel, I will be joined by Jason Torchinsky of Holtzman-Vogel and John Stewart of Crowell & Moring.

Details at polc2010.com/.

Read More

E-Books and the Cost of Publishing – What Value? Why the Big Price?

Posted March 18, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

NPR’s Lynn Neary reported last week on the value of e-books (“No Ink, No Paper: What’s The Value Of An E-Book?”), illuminating the nuance about pricing of electronic books. Because books – electronic or otherwise – are still almost entirely issued by old-line publishing houses under the same decades-old operational model, a publisher’s cost of operations still has to be recouped. And for publishers, the sole source of that recoupment remains the consumer purchaser of a book, regardless of the medium of a book’s distribution or purchase or presentation. From this perspective, a more alarming (from the publishing industry’s perspective) competitive threat on the market today is the low-cost pricing of hardcover books (including current bestsellers) at places like Target, Costco and Walmart.

Read More

Do Teachers Own the Copyright to Course Materials?

Posted February 18, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

Can college and university teachers take their course materials, presentations, notes, slides, PowerPoints, syllabi and other teaching resources with them when they leave their current positions?  Can they sell or license these materials to online universities or market them through Amazon?

For a group that tends to dispute everything even a position that would presumably only side in their own interest, academics too must concede the legal ambiguity of the copyright law’s “work for hire” doctrine when applied to the academic setting.  What is probably not in dispute is, as one commentator describes it, that “Traditionally, it was presumed that educators owned copyrights to academic work they have authored or created.”

Read More

Copyright: Work For Hire Doctrine

Posted January 27, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

“Work Made For Hire”, 17 USC §101: An original, copyright-able work (meaning: a work that falls within the subject matter of copyright protection) qualifies as a “work made for hire” if the work either (1) is created by an employee within the scope of his or her employment or (2) qualifies as “work made for hire” under the established evaluative criteria described below.

Significance of “Work Made for Hire”: The significance of a work being deemed “work made for hire” is that the beneficiary of that designation owns full copyright in the work outright and exclusively.  Thus, as between an employee an employer, the employer owns the copyright to any works created by that employee within the scope of his or her employment.  Likewise for a party contracting for the creation of a work from a non-employee.

Read More

A Sherlock Holmes Copyright Mystery?

Posted January 20, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

Sherlock Holmes is still under copyright, even though his author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died almost 80 years ago.  Actually, some of Conan Doyle’s stories are or appear to be under copyright protection in the United States (not in the UK and not elsewhere), by virtue of an oddity in US copyright laws.  Ordinarily, US copyright protection for works published prior to no later than 1930 (the year of Conan Doyle’s death would have expired well before today).

Read More

Social Media and 501(c)(3) – Putting Nonprofit Status at Risk?

Posted October 25, 2009 by Andrew Mirsky 0

A question came up about the new media activities of 501c3 organizations hosting social media platforms for the public (Thank you to Debbie Miller for her assistance with this research):

Question: Can a 501c3 private foundation or public charity put its tax-exempt status at risk by hosting a social media platform?  Specifically, could the advocacy and electioneering activities of individuals and groups using that social media platform be treated as the direct action – or facilitation of direct action – by that foundation of activities inconsistent with its tax exempt 501(c)(3) status?

Read More

Trademarks and Twitter – It’s a Gas Gas Gas!

Posted September 25, 2009 by Andrew Mirsky 0

Oneok, a natural gas distributor based in Oklahoma, sued Twitter last week for trademark infringement.  Then dropped the case one day later.

Oneok claimed that an unidentified third party had operated an account under Oneok’s name and logo (both registered trademarks, evidently) and, more particularly, issued tweets which “had the appearance of being official statements” of the company.  And therefore, gave the impression that these were authorized statements made by authorized users of Oneok’s trademarks.  See Oneok’s complaint here.

The last part would have been particularly critical to Oneok’s claims of infringement because it would have argued against a defense of parody or commentary or other protected “fair use” of the trademarks.

Read More

Who owns advertising data?

Posted August 23, 2009 by Andrew Mirsky 0

First, what data?  This comes up in various contexts.  First example: an agency contracts with an ad campaign client for marketing, issue advocacy, corporate branding, what have you.  It used to be that creative was a “work for hire” (or assumed to be) owned by the advertising client.  With some sort of understanding that the client wouldn’t end-run the agency.

In other words, expectations were governed by historical industry practice.  Copyright and contract law didn’t play much a part.

But what about campaign performance?  What about reports and research and metrics and all the “data” compiled by the agency to make its case?  Forrester and Gartner Group and Corporate Executive Board and their ilk have been selling research reports for years on these sorts of things, but agencies typically didn’t bother with industry best practices-type studies or reports.  Work was done for clients, and work product was owned by the clients (or again, was assumed to be).

Read More

Copyright 2022 Mirsky & Company, PLLC