Case Briefs Unit 3 (COMM 5300) PDF

Preview

Summary

Includes facts, rulings, and takeaways for need-to-know cases for Unit 3. ...

Description

Jasmine Barlow COMM 5300 Case Briefs: Unit 3

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991) 1) Feist Publications, a regional telephone company, requested permission to use the white-page database from Rural Telephone Service, a rural-based telephone company. Rural declined, but Feist proceeded to publish the information anyway. Rural sued for copyright infringement. 2) Feist argued that facts are exempt under copyright law, but Rural believed that the “collection of facts” and “sweat of the brow” doctrine protected their work. However, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Rural’s assertions, with the reasoning being that labor is not rewarded under copyright law, but only if the work is created or arranged in an original way. Thus, a phonebook directory listed in alphabetical order fails to qualify. 3) The ruling has a major impact on the Internet age, considering the influx of online databases. The “novel” or “artful” manner threshold is still relevant today. Clay v. Cameron (2011) 1) Cynthia Clay was an author of a book called Zolloco: a Story of Another Universe. Clay sued James Cameron for copyright infringement, claiming that his film, Avatar, had copied elements of her book. 2) Clay lost her case, as she could not prove that Cameron had, if ever, possessed her book’s contents prior to the release of Avatar. Although she added that her book was sent to publishers, it was not sufficient, verifiable evidence to prove Cameron had seen it, as reasoned by the Court. 3) The case demonstrates that plaintiffs must provide reasonable proof and possibility that the defendant had access to the content, going beyond a plaintiff’s mere speculation. Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp (1977) 1) Sid & Marty Krofft were television producers for a children’s show called H.R. Pufsnuf, and the alleged likeness of their characters were used during a McDonald’s advertising campaign called “McDonaldland.” Needham, the advertising agency that spearheaded the campaign, had reached out to Krofft for prior negotiations, but the two parties never made a final agreement. The Krofft

plaintiffs sued for copyright infringement in response. 2) The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that substantial similarity, both extrinsically and intrinsically, were found in the production and expression of the works. The Court asserted that a reasonable person, not an expert, could observe the similarities based on overall impression. 3) The Krofft Test emerged from the case in determining substantial similarity. It narrows down to extrinsic (objective comparison) or intrinsic characteristics (subjective comparison) for further analysis. Kane v. Comedy Partners (2003) 1) An introductory segment of the Daily Show used a video clip of comedian and former stripper Sandra Kane, wearing little or no clothing on her show while telling jokes. Kane believed this was copyright infringement, and sued accordingly. 2) The material was deemed fair use by a federal court. The reasoning was that the Daily Show was using and exemplifying the material for “critical purposes” of Sandra Kane’s public television access. 3) The “critical purposes” assertion falls within the category of fair use, therefore it was protected and did not require authorization. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) 1) Luther Campbell, founder and leader of 2 Live Crew, created a rap-style version of the song “Oh, Pretty Woman,” with lyrics being “wildly divergent” than the original. Campbell had attempted to seek permission beforehand from publisher Acuff-Rose, only to be denied. Campbell proceeded to release the parody anyway, and Acuff-Rose sued in response. 2) A trial court and Supreme Court agreed that merely looking at the commerciality of the parody would mean a guaranteed copyright protection is near-sighted, and other factors need to be considered to make a balanced ruling. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court failed to look beyond this one element, so the ruling was made in favor of the defendant. 3) The presumptive, swift assumption that the commerciality of parody immediately renders a violation did not hold up as a solid interpretation of fair use. Other factors, such as the degree of copy, should also be considered in the decision of fair use. Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985) 1) President Gerald Ford made a deal with Harper & Row publishers, as well as

Time Magazine, to publish his memoirs. However, an unknown source had given the unpublished manuscript of the memoirs to The Nation magazine, and they published it before Time Magazine had a chance to. Harper & Row sued The Nation on grounds of copyright infringement, with The Nation attempting to use fair use as defense, arguing that they only used 300 words. 2) The Supreme Court disagreed, and ruled in the plaintiff’s favor. The question came down to the right for the first publication, in which The Nation had violated, on top of publishing the most compelling parts of the manuscript. 3) The fair use doctrine failed because The Nation took away the opportunity of the original manuscript to enjoy the debut of its publication. “The unpublished nature of a work is key,” said Sandra Day O’ Connor. The second part of the quote, “though not necessarily determinative”, was not intended to be a blackand-white ruling. Bigelow v. Virginia (1975) 1) A Virginia statute forbade any form of advertising or publication to encourage or procure abortion or miscarriage services. Jeffrey Bigelow, managing editor of the Virginia Weekly, was convicted under the law for advertising an organization that refers women to clinics for abortion. 2) The Court reversed the conviction, as it violated Bigelow’s First Amendment rights. The reasoning was that the advertisement fell within the domain of public interest, rather than a simple commercial product or service. However, commercial advertising is still subject to reasonable regulation. 3) The case granted First Amendment protection to commercial advertising, which was not previously enjoyed prior to the case ruling. The key takeaways were that advertising is “subject to reasonable regulation”, as well as the “marketplace of ideas” extending to products and services in the marketplace. SUNY v. Fox (1989) 1) The State University of New York (SUNY) prohibited students from hosting commercial product demonstrations in their dorm rooms, a rule of the university that barred private commercial enterprises on campus. The students sued in response, claiming their First Amendment rights had been violated....