Unlike traditional newsroom journalists, “citizen journalists” have no formal way to ensure that everyone maintains similar quality standards. Which does not mean that quality standards are necessarily (or consistently) maintained at traditional newsrooms, but rather that a traditional hierarchical editorial structure imposes at least theoretical guidelines.
By definition, citizen journalism’s inherent difference from the traditional editorial process is the dispersion of responsibility for editorial choice. Nonetheless, “trustiness” in journalism is a concept still heavily dependent on a reporter’s or editor’s reputation. Is the New York Times trusted because it’s trustworthy? Or is it trustworthy because it’s trusted?
Thanks to Andrew Mirsky for contributing research and feedback to this post.
Let’s say, like most of us, you run a Justin Bieber fan blog. You try to keep it up to date, especially with his latest songs and footage from recent concerts. This involves going on YouTube, finding the new single, and grabbing the embed code, to throw the video up on your site.
The question is… does embedding video (or photos, etc.) make you liable for copyright infringement?
In a word, the answer is yes, although recent major cases on the subject indicate that convincing a court of such infringement is an entirely different story.
In today’s podcast, we cover trademark cases from both U.S. and European Union courts involving major search engines such as Google and Yahoo. In particular, we look at whether and how search engines can be held responsible for trademark infringement when advertisers buy search result advertisements using the trademarked names of their competitors.
My guest is Howard Hogan, a partner in Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher’s Washington, DC office. Howard’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and counseling, including trademark, copyright, patent, false advertising, licensing, media and entertainment, and trade secret matters.
The trademark issue arises because in many countries, including the US, the search engines allow companies to advertise next to search results using their competitors’ trademarks. We have seen a major shift in the last year. Before 2010, it was clear that at least in France and Germany, it was not appropriate for search engines to sell marks, and Google’s policy reflected that. In the US, there was a divide between the district courts of the Second Circuit and the rest of the country as to whether buying and selling trademarks for search engine advertising constituted a “use in commerce,” but there was very little law on whether that use was likely to cause confusion.
Now, in Europe, the law seems to have shifted against holding search engines liable, but leaving open the potential for trademark holders to go after the advertisers. In the U.S. the “use in commerce” question has been resolved decisively against the search engines, and the debate has shifted to the “likelihood of confusion” question. On one hand, we are starting to see more decisions finding that their sale of the marks are not confusing (Rosetta Stone, Boston Duck Tours, College Network) at the same time as other courts are finding that the use of marks by an advertiser are likely to cause confusion (Storus, Skydive Arizona).
Please press play on the audio player to hear the podcast.
