On Monday, Evan Brown noted on his Internet Cases blog that the 2012 presidential election is providing some unexpected material for Internet and intellectual property law enthusiasts to talk about. First, Brown said, the Ron Paul campaign sued certain John Doe defendants in federal court trying to determine who posted an offensive video on YouTube attacking Jon Huntsman. Next, NBC recently objected to Mitt Romney's use of a "Nightly News" video clip from 1997 that showed Tom Brokaw discussing findings of ethics violations by Newt Gingrich.
Today brings yet another campaign development that may interest IP lawyers: a new lawsuit filed against Newt Gingrich's campaign for using the song "Eye of the Tiger" as his entrance music, without authorization, at his campaign rallies. Here are where these three campaign-related disputes stand at the moment:
- Ron Paul case: A Twitter user who purported to be a Ron Paul supporter ("NHLiberty4Paul") posted the offensive video about Huntsman. Internet Cases reports that the Paul campaign sought “expedited discovery” to allow the service of subpoenas on YouTube and Twitter, but the motion was denied. The court ruled that the Paul campaign failed to show the required “good cause” for expedited discovery.
- Romney/NBC: Last week, NBC asked the Romney campaign to pull the ad, saying it is a copyright infringement. Romney's campaign responded this week that it believes its use constitutes "fair use" under the law. Internet Cases agrees.
- Gingrich/Eye of the Tiger: Hollywood, Esq. reports the co-author of the famous "Rocky III" song has alleged in a lawsuit that Gingrich's use of the song is a violation of the song's copyright. The co-author is seeking an injunction to end such use. Hollywood, Esq. adds that "fair use" may again be a key issue, but that the "legality of playing music on the stump is one that hasn't yet been tested in the courts." In addition, it is possible that Gingrich's campaign may have a defense if it purchased a "blanket license" from a performance rights organizations such as ASCAP.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on January 31, 2012 at 04:30 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: My school newspaper ran an article about teens keeping quiet about having sexually transmitted diseases and, for no reason, used my photo with an X superimposed over my mouth as an illustration. What the heck!?! Now everyone is calling me "STD Boy," but I don't even have an STD! Can I sue?
Answer: Of course. You might try suing for "injury to your reputation" resulting in "shame, humiliation, mental anguish, and hurt feelings." (Miami NewTimes, Ronald Reagan High Student Sues After School Newspaper Used His Photo To Illustrate STD Story)
2) Question: I like to keep my money in my underwear or, occasionally, in my bra. It is still legal tender, right?
Answer: Technically, yes, but please be advised that some merchants no longer accept money out of undergarments. (Consumerist, This Seems Like A Perfectly Reasonable Policy To Us)
3) Question: Need a quick yes or no answer here, please don't judge me: If corporations are "people," then can buildings be people? Can I marry a building?
Answer: Despite the video evidence below I'm still going with "NO." (Tosh.0 Blog, Seattle Woman Marries a Building)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on January 31, 2012 at 12:29 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
Last week, I was pleased to stumble upon the Unwashed Advocate, an interesting law blog that I had somehow never come across before. The blog is written by Eric Mayer, a criminal defense lawyer who describes himself on Twitter as "an Unwashed Advocate, Living in Bat Country" (i.e., Kansas).
One of the most interesting items I read on UA is something called 'The List,' a running list of lessons learned in Mayer's first year of solo practice which he believes should apply to anyone "practicing law–whether solo, small, or big." The List is now up to 20 separate entries, and I encourage you to read them all. Here are five of my favorites:
- You’re just as smart as self-titled gurus, business practice experts, SEO gurus, solo practice experts, and law office startup coaches, unless you hire them. Mayer also warns that if any such guru or coach has "been licensed to practice law for less than 5 years, they have no business giving advice. They know precisely squat." And if "they’ve never established their own long-term successful practice, they don’t know anything more than you."
- Blogging is great if you like to write. Blogging to market yourself is stupid and disingenuous. Your mileage may vary, of course, but Mayer says that to date he has gotten a total of zero clients from his blog (or as Monty Python might put it, "nearly one"). "If you don't love to write," he says, "don't waste your time."
- Find a mentor. Be honest with them. Prepare for them to beat you about the head and neck. Learn to enjoy such treatment. Mayer emphasizes that a good mentor will have over 10 years of legal experience. "5-9 years are merely experienced peers. Less than 5 years means that they are still searching for the courthouse bathroom, just like you," he writes.
- Treat everyone at the courthouse like they are a judge. "They deserve respect," he says, "and they tire of dealing with every self-important esquire in the county."
- Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, 4Square, etc., are not good marketing tools. Mayer says these tools are most effective not for legal marketing but for being "stalked by ex boyfriends/girlfriends." I assume he throws Twitter in with these, as well, in the "etc."
Finally, The List incorporates another great list compiled by Mark Bennett on how to best deal with crazy people, which seems to provide excellent advice for lawyers in both their professional and personal lives. To read the complete version of UA's The List, please visit this link.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on January 30, 2012 at 04:20 PM | Permalink
| Comments (1)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: I was arrested last week for trespassing and sent to jail. I am scheduled to be released today on my own recognizance but I cannot find my wallet! Can I simply refuse to leave jail until I find it?
Answer: Yes. But you will be arrested again for disorderly conduct. (The Associated Press, AZ inmate arrested for refusing to leave lockup)
2) Question: If I agree to perform a sex act on a man in exchange for a $2 bill, three $1 bills and an assortment of change, does that constitute prostitution?
Answer: Yes, even receiving that $6 will makes you a pro. (Shelby Star, Police: $6 sex act leads to prostitution charge)
3) Question: I found a million-dollar winning lottery ticket in the "discarded tickets" bin at a convenience store. I want to cash it, but the store manager now says she is entitled to all discarded tickets placed in the bin, and the person who says she accidentally discarded the ticket says it belongs to her! Who gets the million dollars?
Answer: The lottery commission will likely pay you the money. But expect litigation from the other two wannabe winners. (ABC News, Three Women Vying for Ownership of $1 Million Lottery Ticket)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on January 27, 2012 at 02:02 PM | Permalink
| Comments (1)
Welcome back to the latest in LBW's "Thou Shalt Not ..." series. As you may recall, this series seeks to properly memorialize the growing number of instances I see where a corporation rolls out its "death penalty" punishment on a customer: "You can never come here [buy here] [eat here] again!!"
The latest installment in this series:
Thou shalt not visit any of the nightclubs in your hometown until you stop dressing so sexy/trampy.
Meet Lisa Woodman, a 28-year-old mother of four who rocks a "size six figure and 36DD chest." Woodman is now reportedly furious because she has been banned from all three hotspots in her home town of Worcester, West Midlands, because of her preferred wardrobe of "low-cut tops, short skirts and knee-length boots."
According to the Daily Mail, the doormen at all of her city's nightclubs -- which are owned by the same company -- have informed Woodman that she is "banned for life" from the clubs unless she tones down her appearance. Woodman says she is just flaunting her figure after breaking up with the father of her kids last year and getting a boob job in April, but the clubs say she is too old to "wear that get-up." Woodman says she saw "teenagers and girls in their 20s wearing much more revealing outfits but they went straight in.
Nexum Leisure, which runs the clubs, told the Daily Mail that Woodman flunked its dress code of "smart casual." Judge for yourself in the photo below of a sad Woodward and more photos like it here.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on January 26, 2012 at 01:00 PM | Permalink
| Comments (6)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: I'm unemployed. I was called for jury duty but, although jury selection was still going on, I never returned to the courthouse after lunch. The judge got really angry with me and ordered me to spend two days carrying a sign back and forth in front of the courthouse that reads "I failed to appear for jury duty." Can he do this?
Answer: Indeed he can. (ABA Journal, Judge Orders Jury Duty Slacker to Carry Sign in Front of Courthouse)
2) Question: The stupid dog in the apartment next door to mine in Fort Worth, Texas, has been barking non-stop for a full eight minutes! I cannot function in these conditions! What can I do?
Answer: In two more minutes the dog will have met Fort Worth's "10 minute barking" threshold, and you can then call the police and have them issue a citation to its owner. (The Consumerist, City May Issue Fines If Your Dog Barks For Longer Than 10 Minutes)
3) Question: The cruise ship that I was on was shipwrecked off the coast of Italy. The shipwreck was incredibly traumatic and, in fact, there were several fatalities. Will the surviving passengers receive any kind of compensation for this?
Answer: How does a refund and a 30 percent discount on a future cruise sound? (New York Post, Deadly shipwreck line offers victims 30% off their NEXT voyage)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on January 26, 2012 at 11:00 AM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
As I have begun to chronicle in my ongoing "Trust Me, I'm an Expert" series of posts, courts have not hesitated to deem people experts in fields such as "smell" and "lap dancing." On the other hand, courts have refused to accept proposed experts in the field of "shit" and "pimping." Now, I've learned that in a criminal trial where the defendant is alleged to have strangled his wife, but contends that it wasn't he who caused her death but a canine, the court may allow the prosecution to present expert testimony on the possibility of smothering-by-dog.
Specifically, a 50-year-old man is on trial in Germany for manslaughter after his wife was found strangled to death in their bathroom. According to The Local, the defendant says he and his wife drank heavily the night of her death, and that at one point she fell over in the bathroom and he could not lift her. The defendant claims that he provided his wife with a pillow and a blanket, went to bed, and later awoke to find her dead -- smothered by their 75-pound Labrador Retriever, he speculates.
The man's lawyer argued that, since it is known that dogs sometimes accidentally smother their own puppies by rolling on top of them, this could be the cause of the woman's death. That prompted the prosecution to provide testimony from Hans-Hermann Sangen, an expert from the "Labrador club in Velbert," who said this theory was not plausible. The court allowed Sangen to testify that, while newborn babies might be accidentally smothered by a Labrador Retriever if they snuggled up to them, adults could not be smothered by Labs.
This seems to me like the type of testimony that might be better coming from a medical doctor, not someone from the local Labrador club, but that is probably why I am only a fake judge and not a real judge.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on January 25, 2012 at 12:30 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
Former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno passed away on Sunday, a victim of lung cancer. Paterno's legacy in the wake of the recent child sexual abuse allegations against one of his long-time assistant coaches, Jerry Sandusky, is still being written, but Paterno's death may have an immediate impact in one area, The New York Times reports: the ongoing prosecution against former Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and former university senior vice president Gary Schultz.
Curley and Schultz have been charged with failing to report to the authorities what they knew about a specific incident of alleged molestation that occurred in the shower of Penn State’s athletic facility in 2002, and also with allegedly lying to the grand jury. To summarize, Mike McQueary, a graduate assistant in 2002, reported to Paterno that he had witnessed a sexual assault involving Sandusky and a boy in the showers. Subsequently, McQueary testified to the grand jury, he also told Curley and Schultz about the sexual nature of what he had witnessed.
In his grand jury testimony -- his only sworn testimony in the case -- Paterno corroborated McQueary, testifying under oath that McQueary told Paterno that he saw Sandusky engaged in fondling or "doing something of a sexual nature" to a boy. Curley and Schultz, however, deny that McQueary told them that the shower incident was sexual in nature, which makes Paterno's testimony potentially important. After all, one former prosecutor told The Times, “[w]hy would he have told it to Paterno and not told them? McQueary becomes more credible when you hear Paterno tell his version of it...."
With Paterno's death, however, his grand jury testimony is no longer admissible. As The Times explains, Paterno was not subject to cross-examination in the grand jury proceeding, and using that testimony would therefore violate the Sixth Amendment, which ensures a criminal defendant's right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him."
Thus, unless prosecutors can introduce some other corroborating evidence, it now looks as though the key question of what McQueary told Curley and Schultz about the shower incident will come down to McQueary's word against theirs.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on January 24, 2012 at 05:48 PM | Permalink
| Comments (2)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: We are having a problem with vandalism at our local park. Do you have any ideas on how we can better deter these criminals?
Answer: Security bees. (BBC News, Bees 'could deter vandals' at Greenfield heritage park)
2) Question: I'm a mother and a lawyer, and I'd like to find a position in the law that will allow mw to easily work from home. Thoughts?
Answer: Have you considered senior trial attorney? (The Careerist, Why Leave the Kitchen?)
3) Question: We have been planning our next bank robbery for months, accounting for every possible situation. I defy you to come up with one thing that we have not already planned for!
Answer: Personalized vanity license plates with your last name on them on the getaway car? (U-T San Diego, Vanity plate leads to bank robbery suspect)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on January 24, 2012 at 01:18 PM | Permalink
| Comments (1)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: I'm on the school board. We asked the future students of a new school that is under construction to choose a mascot, and they picked "Cougars." Can we ban this choice as being "disrespectful to women?"
Answer: It is your school district, so it is your call. But you know that cougars are also cats, right? (CBS Las Vegas, Utah School Board Says Cougar Mascot Too Offensive To Women)
2) Question: The guy in the cell next to me says he is doing prison time because he spray-painted the wings of hawks to trick bird-watchers into believing they had discovered a new species of bird. That cannot be true, right?
Answer: Actually, that happens sometimes. That is the crime of "ill-treating an animal." (Herald Sun, Farmer's spray paint prank raised bird watchers' hopes of a new species)
3) Question: I am a ship captain. I know ship captains are not suppose to abandon ship, but as my ship was sinking I accidentally tripped into a lifeboat. I mean, I'm already in the lifeboat!! What am I supposed to get out or something?
Answer: "Get back aboard, damn it!" (The New York Times, Italy Finds a Heroic Foil for Its Scorned Captain)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on January 23, 2012 at 10:00 AM | Permalink
| Comments (2)