Lawrence Lessig -- a name to remember

You should recognize the name Lawrence Lessig for several reasons -- he's a Stanford Law professor and expert in copyright law; he argued the case for Eldred in Eldred v. Ashcroft before the U.S. Supreme Court; and he was one of the founders of Creative Commons.

He also founded Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society (which sponsored "A Fair(y) Use Tale").

Here's a speech he gave at a conference called TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design). It's an annual conference where speakers are challenged to give the speech of their life in 18 minutes.

Lessig talked about copyright law and digital technology.

Think about these questions on your own. As you watch the speech, consider current copyright law. What is Lessig's argument about creativity and today's culture? What is his hope about digital technology? What did you think about the three mashups? What is his idea about (re)creativity? Are you persuaded by his argument?

Feel free to return here to post a comment about what you thought of the speech.

FCC v. Fox Televisions Stations

Here's the case I mentioned in class this week. The U.S. Supreme Court announced their opinion on this case on Tuesday, April 28, 2009.

Click here to read the news article by the Washington Post.

After you read it, consider whether you agree that the government should fine broadcasters for "fleeting expletives." Also, do you think a First Amendment argument will prevail against this FCC policy? Why or why not? Post your comments.

Want to review copyright law?

Thanks to Geoff Earle and Stephanie Pridgen (both in the TTh 12:30 class) for bringing this to my attention.

Eric Faden, an associate professor of English and film studies at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania, created a video that summarizes copyright law and the fair use doctrine. The interesting thing is that he uses clips from a wide range of familiar Disney movies to tell his story.

He asserts that the use of Disney's copyrighted material is a fair use.

The name of the video is "A Fair(y) Use Tale" and it was created with the help of Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society.

It's a bit jarring at first, but since you are familiar with basic copyright principles, it shouldn't be too bad.

You can find the video by clicking here.

After you watch the video, post a comment about what you think of the video. Was it effective? Was it clever? Do you think Faden's video constitutes a fair use? Be sure to explain why or why not.

Octomom trademark

As I mentioned in class, Nadya Suleman, who was dubbed "Octomom" after she gave birth to eight babies in January, has filed applications to trademark the nickname, "Octomom."

Read this short article from the American Bar Association Journal. But also check out the trademark application at SmokingGun.com. Be sure to look through each of the seven pages of the application.

It's interesting to see that a company in Austin filed a trademark application for the term "Octomom" before Suleman did.

After you review the article and the application, post a comment about what you think of Suleman's trademark application. Do you think "Octomom" is marketable? In other words, will the trademark help sell those items?

Same-sex marriage and the legacy of Roe v. Wade

The New York Times published an interesting commentary about recent developments involving states recognizing same-sex marriage.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg makes an interesting point about how the Roe v. Wade decision may have gone too far. She suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court should have stayed out of deciding the abortion case and let state legislatures work it out. I think it's an interesting perspective.

Here's a link the article: http://tiny.cc/kglJp

As you read the article, think about where the issue of same-sex marriage fits in with the privacy/government intrusion cases we talked about.

After you read the article, post a comment answering this question: Do you think that same-sex marriage will eventually become legal? Why or why not?

Libel case against New York Times settled

Take a look at an interesting libel case against The New York Times that was settled last month before going to trial.

Basic story goes like this. During the presidential campaign in August, The New York Times published a long news article about the then-presumptive Republican candidate for president, John McCain, long known as an ethics reformer. The news article reported that Mr. McCain "had at times been blind to his own potential conflicts of interest."

In particular, it reported about a close relationship with Washington lobbyist Vicki L. Iseman. The article said that some McCain advisers worried that the relationship between McCain and Iseman had become romantic. After the article was published, both denied that they had had an affair.

So, Iseman sued the newspaper for libel.

But both parties agreed to settle the case out of court.

Here's what I'd like you to do. Click here to read The New York Times article that tells of the settlement. On that page, you'll see links to other articles: 1) A Note to Readers; 2) Statement from Iseman's lawyers; and 3) Joint Statement.

(As an option, if you want, you can also read the original complaint and the original New York Times article that led to the libel complaint.)

After reading all of that, post a comment about what you think would've happened had the case gone to trial. Would the newspaper have won, as they say in their statement? Or, do you agree with Iseman's lawyers that she would likely have been classified as a private person, making it easier for her to win?

What do you think, and why?

Judge Smith's visit

We were fortunate to have Judge Steve Smith in my media law classes on Thursday. Below are a few photos of his whirlwind visit.

Judge Smith made the two-hour drive from Bryan the night before. He and I had dinner with Dr. Bruce Smith, Dr. Sandy Rao and Dr. Beth Clark at Palmer's Restaurant in San Marcos. We had an interesting discussion about the state of the newspaper industry and media coverage of the trials and the court system.

Today, Judge Smith visited my 9:30 and 12:30 media law classes and talked about a wide range of issues, including First Amendment-Sixth Amendment conflicts, cameras in the courtroom and his presiding over the civil cases involving the fatal bonfire collapse at Texas A&M University in 1999.

For those in the TTh classes, feel free to post a comment about what you thought of the judge's visit.

For the MW class, we'll watch a video of his visit in class on Monday.