Media Law Final Flashcards
AP v. INS (1919)
Decided federal courts had the power to declare and create binding law in commercial matters such as bills, notes, and torts such as negligence and business interference.
Rosemont Enterprises v. Random House (1966)
The court determined that the district court erred by unjustifiably restricting the fair use defense to scholarly works written and prepared for scholarly audiences.
Time, Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates (1968)
Landmark Decision
While creative expression can be protected by copyright law, factual information cannot be monopolized by a singular platform. Court reaffirmed that the 1st Amendment protects free speech, and the people’s access to factual material.
Sid and Marty Krofft Television v. McDonald’s (1977)
Established the intrinsic/extrinsic test as a standard for determining copyright infringement. Assesses whether a work is substantially similar to a copyrighted work in a way that would constitute infringement.
Triangle Publications v. Knight-Ridder (1980)
Ruled in favor of Knight-Ridder on the basis of fair use, with the basis that there was no attempt to claim Triangle Publishing’s product as their own. It opened the door for a different look into the Fair Use exemption.
Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp of America (1984)
Established the principle of “substantial non-fringing uses” which means technology cannot be held liable for copyright infringement if it also has lawful uses. Noncommercial home recording of television broadcasts for the purpose of “time shifting” was fair use, providing clarity and protection for manufacturers.
Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises
The court reasoned that the unpublished nature of a work is a key, though not necessarily determinative, factor tending to negate a defense of fair use. The four factors of fair use were not satisfied.
Salinger v. Random House (1987)
Imposed limitations on the quotations of unpublished materials and these quotations are almost never fair use. The fair use defense is a test of analysis and investigation, creating the per se rule which protects unpublished writings from being reproduced under ordinary circumstances.
Basic Books v. Kinko’s Graphic Corp (1991)
Unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material does not fall into protection of the Copyright Act, even when performed by copying service companies for educational purposes. Not considered fair use to copy educational material for commercial profit without licensing.
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster
Napster was issued an injunction that prohibited them from engaging in distributing copyrighted musical compositions and sound recordings, but it also determined that the plaintiff must notify Napster of the copyrighted material since it couldn’t fully police the files as the website did not verify copyright ownership.
Recording Industry of America v. Diamond Mulitmedia Systems (2001)
A device complies with the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 if it can copy from a transmission of a digital music recording.
Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)
Affirmed Congress’ authority to extend copyright terms, impacting the duration of copyright protections for works created after the Copyright Clause.
Viacom v. YouTube (2010)
Ruled that YouTube had no actual knowledge of any specific instance of infringement on Viacom’s works, and therefore could not have “willfully blinded itself” to the infringement.
The Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (2023)
The fair use defense to copyright infringement promotes creativity by recognizing that some secondary works make unauthorized use of original works but serve a different purpose, add new expression, or convey new ideas.
Pharrell Williams v. Bridgeport Music, Inc. (2014)
Strikes conversations around newly produced songs taking inspiration from initial pieces have the ability to rekindle interest in original songs/artists. Musicians often are influenced by previous works, and there is very little that is completely original.
Michael Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin (2016)
Reaffirmed the principle that copyright protection does not extend to common musical elements or ideas, but only to original expressions of those ideas.
2020 Trial Update: USSC declined to hear the copyright case against Led Zeppelin despite previous reversals, the 2016 verdict cleared them of plagiarism.
U.S. v. One Book Called “Ulysses” (1931)
Established that a court applying obscenity standards should consider
1: the work as a whole
2: the effect on an average person
3: contemporary community standard
these ultimately influenced USSC case law on obscenity standards.
Burstyn v. Wilson (1952)
Landmark Decision
Began the decline of motion picture censorship, determining that the NY Education Law allowed censorship and violated the 1st and 14th Amendments. Overturned Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio.
Roth v. U.S. (1957)
The 1st Amendment was not intended to protect every form of expression, such as “utterly without redeeming social importance”. Created the first test to determine what material is considered obscene, later becoming the Miller test.
Ginsberg v. New York (1968)
Affirming Ginsberg’s conviction, Court decided that there are concepts of obscenity where material that is not obscene for adults may be considered obscene and harmful for children.
Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
Established the 1st Amendment protections to include the right to possess obscene materials in privacy. The decision made in Roth v. U.S. does not apply to private possession of obscene materials without intention to distribute for commercial trade.
Miller v. California (1973)
Landmark Decision
Created the Miller test which clarified the definition of obscenity with three prongs, being the first comprehensive ruling on obscene material that does not qualify for 1st Amendment protection.
Jenkins v. Georgia (1974)
Determined that implied sexual acts in film is not enough to be considered obscene in the eyes of the court.
Hamling v. U.S. (1974)
The decision revealed that the principles set by Miller v. California are to be used as the statute in the definition of obscenity as well as the constitutional limitations in defining the statutory term. Set the standard of having petitioners aware of the obscene material being cause for conviction.
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978)
Reinforced the “indecency” standard for broadcast media, allowing the FCC to regulate content it deems indecent, especially during times when children are likely to be present. Did not extend to all forms of media, like TV or the internet, where different standards can apply.
New York v. Ferber (1982)
Stated the 1st Amendment does not protect any form of child pornography, deciding both the production and distribution should be prohibited. Laid the groundwork to protect children from sexual exploitation that could be created by the circulation of pornographic material.
Pope v. Illinois (1987)
Clarified the requirements for jury instructions in obscenity cases and reaffirmed the importance of protecting constitutional rights, including the presumption of innocence. Identifies the challenges in defining and regulating obscenity while respecting individual rights to freedom of expression.
Skywalker Records, Inc. v. Navarro (1990)
Balance between freedom of expression and obscenity regulations is called into issue by the album’s sexual content. Sheds light on the legal and music relationships, especially with regard to intellectual property rights and the consequences of distributing music records without permission.
ACLU v. Gonzales (2007)
Raised questions about the government’s authority to regulate online content, especially materials deemed “harmful to minors,” and whether regulations violated the 1st Amendment. Influenced subsequent legislation and court rulings regarding online speech and content regulation, highlighting complexities of applying traditional standards of obscenity to the evolving digital space.
FCC v. Fox Television Stations (2009)
Upheld the legality of the FCC’s regulations regarding indecent content on broadcast TV during certain hours. Clarified the standards for evaluating the vagueness of regulations and affirmed the government’s authority when it came to broadcast regulations that were in place to protect children from obscene material.
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)
Commercial speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment, later playing large roles in later commercial speech cases.
FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive (1965)
FTC’s order was lawful as the FCA had prohibited misrepresentation of a product meant to convince people to purchase. Colgate-Palmolive used undisclosed simulations, and the Court found that the FTC was in a better position to identify deceptive advertising principles.
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1975)
Landmark Decision
Established guidelines for commercial speech and how the 1st Amendment protected it. Recognized the importance of consumers’ right to information about products and services even in advertising.
Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission of NY (1980)
Central Hudson test was created based on the analysis of the government’s interest and regulations impact on speech, balancing the government’s regulatory authority and individuals’ free speech rights.
Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (1969)
Affirmed that the application of the Fairness Doctrine and stated that it was constitutional, which reversed the judgment that stated the Fairness Doctrine and its competent rules were unconstitutional.
Roth and Miller Test
Miller revised the test set by Roth, which is still used to determine obscenity with 3 prongs:
1: Whether the average person, applying community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, obscene
2: Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law
3: Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Central Hudson Test
Outlines 4 key factors for assessing the constitutionality of government regulations on commercial speech
1: whether the speech concerns unlawful activity and is not misleading
2: whether the government has an interest in regulating the speech
3: whether the regulation is in the government’s interest
4: whether the regulation is too extensive for that interest
How was the Miller test changed and by what case?
- It argued that the jury instructions were erroneous because it didn’t require the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the magazines lacked serious value. The Court also criticized the formulation of the Miller test, arguing it failed to provide clear guidance to the jury and could lead to inconsistent results.
- Pope v. Illinois
How long can a single author profit from his or her work in copyright law?
For life plus an additional 70 years after death.
Four components of fair use?
1: Purpose and Character of the Use
2: The Nature of the Copyrighted Work
3: Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used
4: Effect on the Potential Market for or Value of the Work
1: Purpose and Character of the Use
Nonprofit, educational, and personal uses are deemed to be fair use, although educational use will not assure that it is a fair use.
2: The Nature of the Copyrighted Work
Factual works, published works, and scientific articles that are factual in nature are more likely to be considered available for fair use than other works.
3: Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used
Use of the entire work may be appropriate and allowable as fair use if using that much is required to accomplish your purpose.
4: Effect on the Potential Market for or Value of the Work
Whether or not there is some economic harm to the owner of the copyright as a result of your use. Carries less weight than the other 3 factors.
Net Neutrality
The concept of an open, equal internet for everyone, regardless of device, application, or platform used and content consumed. The belief is that all corporations, including internet service providers, should treat internet data and users equally.
Does commercial speech have the same protection as political speech?
No - it receives less protection than most other forms of protected speech
- Decided by Hudson Gas & Electric
Copyright Criminals
examines the creative and commercial value of musical sampling, including debates over artistic expression, copyright law, and money. Internet and technology are changing our relationships with media, blurring the lines between producer and consumer and what defines each.
The Internet’s Own Boy
Aaron Swartz was a computer programmer, writer, and political activist who was caught in a case that would sentence him to 35 years in prison for hacking and storing legal documents. He fought for free speech rights and public access and was targeted by the FBI amidst other white collar crimes that were being ignored.
Obscenity
Material that deals with sex in a manner appealing to salacious content.
Copyright
Exclusive rights are granted by law to copyright owners for the protection of their work.
Advertising
Any form of representation that is made in connection with business in order to promote the supply or transfer of a product.
Telecommunication and Internet
The transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.
