Exam 3 Court Cases

Question 1

Wireless Ship Act of 1910

Answer 1

Required all commercial vessels with 50 or more passengers to have a wireless telegraphy on board.
Established SOS as the official distress signal.

Question 2

Radio Act of 1912

Answer 2

Established government control under the Secretary of Commerce to issue licenses to radio transmitters.

Question 3

Radio Act of 1927

Answer 3

This legislation established the Federal Radio Commission as a separate agency which only oversaw the radio industry.
Telephone was regulated by the Commerce Department.

Question 4

Communication Act of 1934

Answer 4

This legislation established the Federal Communication Commission which oversees the telephone, radio, TV, cable, etc. industries.
Section 326 forbids FCC to “censor” broadcasters.

Question 5

Copyright Act of 1976

Answer 5

Created a Copyright Tribunal to redistribute copyright funds.
Local governments were given the power to regulate franchise agreements.

Question 6

Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984

Answer 6

Allowed “leased access” channels.
Obscene programming is not allowed.
Local and state governments and the federal government have shared authority over cable.
PEG (Public, Education, Government) left up to local governments.

Question 7

Audio Home Recording Act of 1992

Answer 7

This legislation allows people to record one copy or a record or CD for personal use. AHRA is limited to nearly obsolete digital technology.

Question 8

Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998

Answer 8

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act or the Mickey Mouse Protection Act
Makes the works created after 1998 for the life of the author + 70 years in part to “save the Mouse” and in part to line up with the Berne Convention agreements.
Additionally, life of author plus 70 years; for anonymous and pseudonymous and work for hire 120 years from publication or 95 years from creation (whichever is less)

Question 9

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

US Congress signed on to WIPO treaties in 1998 Act:

Answer 9

Prohibits circumvention of technology measures
Exempts ISP from liability when simply transmitting information
Imposes a compulsory licensing and royalty distribution scheme for the transmission of music on the Internet
Three-person arbitration panel presently working on the royalty fee issue.
DMCA protects ISPs from copyright infringement suits, if the ISP removes material that a copyright holder tells the website is posted without permission. This is called a “takedown notice.”

Question 10

Music Modernization Act (2018)

Answer 10

This bill revamps Section 115 of the U.S. Copyright Act.
The goal of this legislation is to bring copyright law up to speed for the streaming era.
Songwriters and artists will receive royalties on songs recorded before 1972.
The MMA created a new, independent entity, called the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), to help streaming services pay copyright holders.
MLC will:
Collect, distribute, and audit royalties generated.
Create and maintain a public database that identifies musical works, their owners, and ownership information.
Provide information to help match musical works with their sound recording.

Question 11

Hoover v. Intercity Radio (1923)

Answer 11

Facts: Intercity Radio was denied a license on the grounds of insufficient spectrum space by the Secretary of Commerce.
Importance: A federal court determined that the Secretary of Commerce had to give a broadcast license to any person who applied.

Question 12

U.S. v. Zenith Radio (1926)

Answer 12

Facts: Zenith Radio was unhappy with its radio frequency. When their application to change frequency was rejected, Zenith moved it anyway.
Importance: A federal court ruled that the Commerce Department lacked the authority to regulate frequency, power or hours the radio station could operate.

Question 13

NBC v. U.S. (1943)

Answer 13

Facts: The FCC adopted a rule that limited the amount of network broadcast time that any affiliate station could carry.
Importance: The USSC held that the FCC can regulate the electronic media and the rules it makes must be obeyed.

Question 14

Fairness Doctrine
In re Mayflower Broadcasting (1941):
In re United Broadcasting Co. (1945):

Answer 14

In re Mayflower Broadcasting (1941): Stations could not use their stations to express opinions or editorialize.
In re United Broadcasting Co. (1945): Stations could not refuse to sell time for discussion of controversial issues.

Question 15

Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees (1949)
Two Provisions:

Answer 15

(1) Devote a reasonable percentage of time to the coverage of controversial public issues and (2) Provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints.

Question 16

Controversial Public Issues
In re Representative Patsy Mink (1976):

Answer 16

FCC ruled that a station had not met its obligation to air controversial programming regarding strip mining techniques.

Question 17

American Security Council Educational Foundation v. CBS (1979)

Answer 17

Facts: The ASCEF had requested CBS to cover national security issues as if they were controversial public issues.
Importance: A federal court declared when a complaining party and a broadcaster disagree on the characterization of a controversial issue or its public importance, the FCC must accept the broadcaster’s reasonable characterization.

Question 18

In re Syracuse Peace Council (1987)

Answer 18

A station was found guilty of not airing both sides of the nuclear power plant issue.

Question 19

Syracuse Peace Council v. FCC (1989)

Answer 19

Facts: The FCC eliminated the public controversy portion of the fairness doctrine.
Importance: A federal court ruled that the FCC had the right to eliminate the fairness doctrine because it thwarted the discussion of public issues.

Question 20

Personal Attack Rule (P.A.R.)

Answer 20

Attack on honesty, integrity, and character of a person or group.
Must notify as to time, date, and ID of broadcast within one week.
A script or tape or accurate summary must be supplied.
An offer of a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Question 21

PAR Exemptions 47 C.F.R. 73-123 (b)

Answer 21

Attacks on foreign groups or public figures.
Personal attacks made by legally qualified candidates or their associates.
Bona fide newscasts, news interviews or on-the-spot news.

Question 22

Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (1969)

Answer 22

Facts: The Reverend Billy James Hargis sharply criticized author Fred Cook over WGCB. Cook requested free time to reply and the FCC agreed.
Importance: The USSC upheld the FCC’s PAR as constitutional.

Question 23

RTNDA V. FCC (2000)

Answer 23

Facts: The Radio TV News Directors challenged the FCC’s PAR and Political Editorializing Rules and claimed the rules were against the First Amendment.
Importance: The Court ruled the rules were vague and entangled the government in the day-to-day operation of the broadcasters and led to the government second guessing the judgment of professional broadcast journalists.

Question 24

Content Restrictions

Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo (1974):
FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild (1981):

Answer 24

Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo (1974): USSC held that newspapers have different First Amendment rights than electronic media.

FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild (1981): A radio station is free to change its format without considering the impact on the public.

Question 25

Indecent Communication

FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978):
In re WGBH Educational Foundation (1978):

Answer 25

FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978): USSC ruled that the FCC could regulate indecent programming. Obscene programming can’t be aired because of section 1464 of the US Code.

In re WGBH Educational Foundation (1978): The FCC found a public TV station airing programs which contained nudity and “adult” themes. It was not indecent because it was not repetitive use of questionable material.

Question 26

ACT v. FCC (1988)

Answer 26

Facts: Action for Children’s Television wanted the FCC to regulate a broader definition of indecency than the words used in Carlin’s monologue.
Importance: The DC Circuit ruled that the FCC should regulate a broad range of offensive descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory activity.

Question 27

ACT v. FCC (1992)

Answer 27

Facts: Action for Children’s Television wanted the FCC to declare a 24 hour ban on indecent material.
Importance: The US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declared a 24 hour ban unconstitutional.
Today, “adult” themes may be aired from the “safe harbor” of 10pm to 6am.

Question 28

In re Infinity Broadcasting Corp. (1987)

Answer 28

Importance: The FCC stated it would look at the “serious merit” of a program as a factor in determining “indecency”; the reasonable risk of children in the audience; and a warning should precede the program.

Question 29

Sable Communications v. FCC (1989)

Answer 29

Facts: Congress passed a statute to eliminate indecent and obscene dial-a-porn.
Importance: A total ban on dial-a-porn is unconstitutional. Indecent phone messages have some constitutional protection.

Question 30

US v. Edge Broadcasting (1993):

Answer 30

USSC held that a state can regulate commercial speech broadcast such as lottery results.

Question 31

Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists TV, Inc. (1968)

Answer 31

Importance: USSC held that retransmission of a TV signal wasn’t a copyright infringement because it wasn’t a performance.

Question 32

Teleprompter Corp. v. CBS (1974)

Answer 32

Importance: USSC held that retransmission by a microwave facility (MDS) wasn’t a copyright infringement.

Question 33

Quincy Cable TV, Inc. v. FCC (1985)

Answer 33

Importance: USSC held that “must carry” rules were unconstitutional.

Question 34

City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Comm. (1986)

Answer 34

Importance: USSC held that lower courts should determine if cable companies should be allowed to compete.
The Court refused to address First Amendment issues of cable, e.g., should cable be treated like print or broadcast.

Question 35

Turner Broadcasting Systems v. FCC (1997)

Answer 35

Importance: The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment test it will use for cable will be the print model.
The Court upheld the constitutionality of the must-carry rule. It ruled it was a “content neutral” regulation.
Every three years a cable company must select the must-carry or retransmission consent of local broadcasters.

Question 36

ABC v. Aereo, Inc., 2014

Answer 36

Facts: Because there were different rulings between Circuits, the USSC granted cert.
Holding: The USSC ruled against Aereo.
Rationale: Aereo was in violation of the Copyright Act because the material that was rebroadcast was determined to be a public performance. Consequently, the Fortnightly and Teleprompter decisions were overturned as supported in the 1976 Copyright Act.

Question 37

National Association for Better Broadcasting v. FCC (1988)

Answer 37

Importance: A federal court determined that DBS is a non-broadcast service. This ruling relieves DBS of regulations broadcasters and cable companies face. Therefore FCC is not involved.

Question 38

Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988

Answer 38

Importance: Satellite viewers can receive signals from networks, so long as they are not in the broadcast area of that network, e.g., in Harrisonburg, a person could receive NBC & CBS, but not ABC.

Question 39

Wainwright Securities Inc. v. Wall Street Transcripts (1978)

Answer 39

Facts: Wall Street Transcripts summarized Wainwright Securities’ report. Wall Street Trans. Then advertised that it was unnecessary to buy the reports.
Importance: The US Court of Appeals held that summaries of commercial reports infringed on Wainwright’s copyright because the summaries made it unnecessary to purchase the original.

Question 40

Harper and Row v. Nation (1985)*

Answer 40

Facts: The Nation published 300-400 words from President Ford’s memoirs which were under contract to Harper and Row. This action by Nation also voided a contract H&R had with Time.
Importance: The USSC held that Nation had captured the “heart” of the book. This action by Nation was determined not to be fair use. First time the Court performed fair use evaluation.

Question 41

Google v. Oracle (2021)

Answer 41

Facts: When Google implemented its Android Operating System (Android OS), it wrote its own programming language based on Java, which is owned by Oracle. To facilitate developers writing their own programs for Android OS, Google’s version used the same names, organization, and functionality as Java’s Application Programming Interfaces (APIs).
Importance: The Court ruled that Google’s new smartphone platform was not a market substitute for Java SE. Because all four factors support a finding of fair use, Google’s limited copying constituted fair use.

Question 42

Salinger v. Random House (1987)

Answer 42

Facts: An author working for Random House quoted from letters written by Salinger for an unauthorized biography. The letters had been donated to a university library collection.
Importance: The Court of Appeals ruled that unpublished letters are assumed to have a copyright on them. The writer of the letters may acquire an injunction to stop publication.

Question 43

New Era Pub. Int’l v. Henry Holt & Co. (1990)

Answer 43

Facts: Henry Holt had a work based on letters by L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology. New Era claimed copyright over the letters.
Importance: A Federal Appeals Court declared a person’s unpublished material is deemed to have a copyright and a court must issue an injunction against any book or magazine violating such copyrights.

Question 44

Sony v. Universal Studios (1984)

Answer 44

Facts: Universal Studios sued Sony claiming the VTR violated copyright law.
Importance: The USSC held that technology wasn’t in violation of the fair use standard because people used the technology to “time shift.” If a piece of technology has a legal use, Congress is more inclined to protect it even if it sometimes violates copyright law.

Question 45

Basic Books v. Kinko’s Graphics (1991)

Answer 45

Facts: Kinko was sued for putting student course packets together without securing copyright.
Importance: The court declared course packets as commercial ventures in violation of fair use.

Question 46

Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Service (1996)

Answer 46

Facts: Michigan Document Services, Inc. (MDS) (defendant), a for-profit copy shop owned by James Smith (defendant), sold packages of course content assigned to University of Michigan students by their professors. The course packs contained substantial segments of scholarly works—sometimes dozens of pages—reproduced with little or no alteration. Unlike competing shops, MDS neither sought nor obtained permission from academic publishers to reproduce copyrighted content.
Importance: US appellate courts found that fair use did not protect commercial services that profited from developing course packs. Extended the Basic Books ruling.

Question 47

Acuff-Rose Music Inc. v. Campbell (1993)

Answer 47

Facts: 2 Live Crew did a parody of Roy Orbison’s “Pretty Woman” without securing copyright permission.
Importance: USSC ruled that the music parody was not a copyright infringement. It was a transformative use of the original.

Question 48

Burnett v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2007)

Answer 48

Facts: Cartoon character in animated program Family Guy characterized Burnett’s famous cleaning lady character mopping up an X-rated book store with a slightly altered Carol Burnett theme song running in background.
Importance: Court ruled this was a classic protected parody, “The 18-second clip of the animated figure resembling the ‘Charwoman,’ mopping the floor next to ‘blowup dolls,’ a rack of ‘XXX’ movies, and ‘video booths’ in a porn shop is clearly designed to imitate [Ms. Burnett’s] characteristic style.”

Question 49

Marya v. Warner/Chappell Music (2015)

Answer 49

Facts: Rupa Marya filed suit claiming that Warner/Chappell Music did not have a copyright on the song “Happy Birthday.”
Importance: The court held in favor of Marya stating that the original lyrics were in the public domain. Millions of dollars had been collected by Warner/Chappell for the use of the popular song.

Question 50

INS v. AP (1918)

Answer 50

Facts: International News Service (INS) was accused of misappropriating the news from the Associated Press (AP).
Importance: The Court held that a news service could not take material that is a result of organization and expenditure of labor, skill and money. Brings up the question of “unfair competition” - situations where blogging from a sports event has been determined in violation where a group has exclusive rights to the content, such as the NCAA, NFL, etc.

Question 51

Stewart v. Abend (1990)

Answer 51

Facts: Cornell Woolrich originally wrote the short story ”It Had to Be Murder.” He sold movie rights to a production company formed by actor James Stewart and Alfred Hitchcock. The short story was the basis of the movie, “Rear Window.” Woolrich died, and his executor, Chase Manhattan Bank, sold the movie rights to Sheldon Abend. Abend refused to honor Woolrich’s original agreement. The USSC ruled for Abend.
Importance: The Court held that the successor copyright owner’s right to permit the creation of a derivative work passes to the heirs of the work’s author, who are not bound by the original author’s agreement to permit such use.

Question 52

A&M Records v. Napster (2001)

Answer 52

Facts: Napster was founded in 1999 by 18-year-old Shawn Fanning. It provides a platform for users to download compressed digital music files, specifically MP3s, from other users’ music libraries. The Federal Court of Appeals ruled for A&M Records.
Importance: This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing. The court ruled that Napster could be sued for copyright infringement.

Question 53

MGM v. Grokster (2005)

Answer 53

Facts: Grokster and StreamCast distributed free software products that allowed P2P of MGM products. Grokster’s P2P product was found to be in copyright infringement and not in “safe harbor” of DMCA.
Importance: Motion Picture and Recording Companies are free to go after P2P and BitTorrent providers of illegally distributed music and movies.

Question 54

New York Times v. Tasini (2001)

Answer 54

Facts: Tasini served as president of the National Writers Union (UAW Local, 1981). In 1993, Tasini was the lead plaintiff in this case. Tasini claimed infringement occurred when print writers’ works were republished in electronic databases without their permission. USSC ruled for Tasini.
Importance: The Court ruled that the copyright privileges of freelance writers whose works were originally published in print could receive additional compensation when the information was published in an electronic database.

Question 55

Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)

Answer 55

Importance: The USSC upheld the Bono Extension Act. The Court ruled that the Constitution gives Congress “wide leeway to prescribe ‘limited times’ for copyright protection.”

Question 56

Chamberlain Group v. Skylink Technologies (2004)

Answer 56

Facts: Chamberlain markets a “Security+” line of garage door openers, which includes rolling code software. In 1992, Skylink produced a universal transmitter that works with rolling and non-rolling codes. The federal court of appeals ruled for Skylink.
Importance: The Federal Circuit went on to clarify the nature of the DMCA’s anti- circumvention provisions. The DMCA established causes of action for liability and did not establish a property right. Therefore, circumvention is not an infringement in itself. The plaintiff must have a copyright interest to sue.

Question 57

Lenz v. Universal Music (2008)

Answer 57

Facts: In February 2007, Stephanie Lenz posted on YouTube a 29-second clip of her 13-month-old son dancing to the Prince song “Let’s Go Crazy.” The audio was poor quality, and the song was audible for about 20-29 seconds. The total length of the original song is more than four minutes. In June 2007, Universal Music Corp., the copyright holder for “Let’s Go Crazy,” sent YouTube a takedown notice as enabled by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), claiming that the video was a copyright violation built upon an unauthorized copy of the song.
YouTube removed the video and notified Lenz of the removal and the accusation of infringement. Lenz, in turn, sent YouTube a counter-notification, claiming fair use and requesting that the video be reposted. The federal court of appeals ruled for Lenz.
Importance: The court declared that copyright owners must consider fair use defenses and good faith activities by alleged copyright infringers before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the Internet.

Question 58

Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.Com (2019)

Answer 58

Facts: Wall Street.com obtained licenses to several articles produced by the Fourth Estate. Under the license agreement, Wall Street was required to remove all of the content produced by the Fourth Estate from its website before canceling its account. However, when Wall Street canceled its account, it continued displaying the articles the Fourth Estate produced. Fourth Estate sued for copyright violation. USSC ruled for Wall-Street.Com
Importance: Registration of a copyright claim “has been made,” not when an application for registration is filed but only after the copyright office has processed the application and registered the copyright.

Question 59

Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith (2023)

Answer 59

Facts: Andy Warhol created a series of prints and pencil illustrations (“Prince Series”) based on a copyrighted 1981 photograph by Lynn Goldsmith. Goldsmith sued and the Warhol Foundation utilized the fair use defense. AWF’s use of Orange Prince on the cover of Vanity Fair served essentially the same commercial purpose as Goldsmith’s original photograph. Thus, the first fair use factor—the purpose and character of use was violated.

Question 60

WCVB-TV v. Boston Athletic Association (1991)

Answer 60

Facts: The trademark holder of the “Boston Marathon” did not want a TV station to use the phrase in its coverage of this athletic event.
Importance: A federal court rejected the trademark holder’s argument.

Question 61

Matal v. Tam (2017)

Answer 61

Facts: Simon Tam and his band, The Slants, sought to register the band’s name with the U.S. Trademark Office. The Office denied the application because it found that the name would likely be disparaging towards “persons of Asian descent.”
Importance: USSC ruled that the disparagement clause (prohibiting trademarks that are immoral, disparaging, or deceptive) violates the First Amendment.

Question 62

Trademark Infringement

Lanham Act:

Answer 62

defines trademark infringement occurs when a mark is likely to cause confusion/mistakes/deception as the:
Affiliation/connection/association of such person with another
Origin/sponsorship/approval of one’s goods, services, or commercial activities by another.

Question 63

Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products (2023)

Answer 63

Facts: VIP Products LLC, a company that manufactures dog toys, created a plastic toy that resembles Jack Daniel’s iconic bottle. Jack Daniel’s sue for trademark infringement.
Importance: The USSC ruled for Jack Daniel’s. The Court stated, “The parodic use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s likelihood- of-confusion analysis.”