There also has unsuccessful case in issue of fair use exception, the Harper & Row v Nation Enterprises case, Gerald Ford, a former president wrote memoir contain decision which related to Richard Nixon and provide a license of publication to Harper & Row which agree to condition that the excerpts of the memoir have to be published in Time magazine. The Nation magazine printed several verbatim phrase directly from the book without permission of the author, Harper & Row or even the Time magazine. Hence Harper & Row sued The Nation for copyright infringement. The Nation claim that Ford’s opinion and reasons related to Nixon not only were a major interest of the public and Ford was also a public figure. Therefore, the publication of The Nation should be consider as fair use. The District Courts held that publication of The Nation cause damages to Harper & Row and did not considered as faire …show more content…
The Courts applied the traditional four criteria to evaluate fair use defence and found that although the nature of copyrighted work was informative, however, the purpose of use was for commercial not for review or reporting news as usual. The portion of copyrighted work which has been using was a small amount. Nevertheless, the work of The Nation contain the heart of the copyrighted works which constitute substantial part of the original work and leads to the negative effect of the market for the value of the copyrighted material. As mention before, these four factors of the US copyright law are harmonized with several factors in an issue of fair dealing which have been identified by the courts in the UK. In my point of view, comparing fair use criteria between the UK and US, in an aspect of musical works, US’s factors are suitable and more specific than the UK factors. US copyright
Since the 1970’s people have been going to court to ask the government to legalize gay marriage. From the cases in 1970’s like Loving v. Virginia and the more recent cases like United States v. Edith Windsor. In this case, Windsor and Thea were a same sex couple who were married in Canada, but they lived in New York which recognized their marriage. After Thea passed away, the estate was left with Windsor. Under federal law their marriage was not recognized, so Windsor was asked to pay taxes on the estate.
The Trinity Western v. Law Society of Upper Canada case occurred between Trinity Western University and the Law Society of Upper Canada. To begin the appellant Trinity Western University (“TWU”) is a long established and well respected private university located in British Columbia. The school's mandate is anchored in an evangelical Christian philosophy. Which means that TWU’s education is to be taught with “a fundamental philosophy and viewpoint that is in accordance with the Christian tradition.” Accompanying the school's core Christian beliefs is their community covenant, The Community Covenant is a code of conduct which encompasses TWU’s Christian religious values.
The Missouri Supreme Court was ready to hear the case on April 3rd 1848, judge William Scott issued a unanimous decision on June 30th 1848 that “no final judgment upon which a writ of error can only lie”. The case was still just a suit for freedom. On March 17th 1848 Mrs. Emerson had the sheriff of St. Louis County take charge of the Scotts. He hired them out and maintained the wages until the trial was over; they were under his custody until March 1857.
A Washington police officer stopped a student at the Washington State University after observing the student was carrying a bottle of gin. After asking the student for identification the student informed him that is was in his dorm room. The student, followed by the officer, then went into his room get his identification. While the student was searching for his identification, the officer noticed that the student 's roommate, had marijuana seeds and a pipe on his desk. The officer asked the students if they had additional drugs in the room and the students provided him with a box with marijuana and money.
On the defendant's side, Harte-Hanks Communication, believed that Connaughton’s statements were incorrect. They argued that the article was protected under the neutral reporting privilege, which “is designed to protect the interests of the press in reporting on matters of public interest, which can often only be done by reporting accusations made by one public figure about another” (Digital Media Law). The District Court would eventually deny their motion on the grounds that it could not be proven that the article was written with
This paper examines and summarizes the court Federal case 33921 Entertainment Software Association V. Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada. By definition of court, a court does not create the laws, however, it interprets cases and rules, these elucidations are further referred to in order to reach a final decision. The commencement of this case is between ESA and SOCAN. The fundamental matter of the case is the interpretation of whether communicating through the internet to the public gives copyright owners the same right that they would have when their products are sold in stores.
In the case of Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Lange), the High Court ruled that as the development of the common law in Australia cannot run counter to constitutional imperatives, the common law rules of qualified privilege should properly reflect the requirements of ss 7, 24, 64, 128 and related sections of the Australian Constitution. Freedom of speech is not absolute. This can be seen in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution whereby it has been held not to protect all speech like obscene publications or speech inciting imminent lawless action. Australian common law has long recognised limitations to free speech, for instance, those in relation to the criminal law of incitement and conspiracy, and in obscenity
The Paramount decision happened in 1948. This was a supreme court case. The ruling of this case decided if movies studios would also own movie theaters and hold exclusive rights to their theaters. The movie studios were monopolizing the industry. This court decision changed the way Hollywood was run.
Stuart, is a landmark case in laws pertaining to the press and media at large. It established not only a powerful precedent on what can be subject to prior restraint but also what should be subject to prior restraint. To muzzle the press and not let the public be privy to information regarding the case was deemed to be a far more grievous affront to the First Amendment Rights of the masses than doing otherwise would be for the Sixth Amendment rights of Simants. In deciding as they did, Burger’s court strengthened the mandate of the fourth-estate and helped to ensure its ability as a check on
In Cathy Davidson’s, “Project Classroom Makeover”, Davidson analyzes and elucidates upon faults she observes in the American education system. Davidson introduces her own experiment, the iPod experiment, in which she distributes free iPods to all first-year Duke University students and all other Duke University students who have the iPod incorporated in at least one of their classes. Through the iPod experiment, Davidson learns that the iPod was capable of more than listening to music. Therefore, through the experiment, the iPod allowed for new, innovative creations. Similarly, in Jonathan Lethem’s, “The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism”, Lethem argues that individuals who have successful ideas should allow up-and-coming artists to use their
Falwell sues for libel and emotional distress. Flynt countersues for copyright infringement because Falwell copied his advertisement. The case went to trial in December 1984, but the decision is mixed, as Flynt is found guilty of inflicting emotional distress but not libel. This verdict is odd because how can one cause emotional distress if there was no
Justice Douglas who dissents, points out the good intention by the Court to make new definitions and formulations. However, it is worth to understand that nor the Constitution nor Bill of Rights mentions obscenity. Also, at the time when Bill of Rights was written there was no distinction between obscene materials and press, and that the 1st Amendment protected all types of press. Thus making obscene material to be equal with other types of press. Only constitutional amendment should the power to enact such guidelines that deal with censorship (O`Brien, 508).
One of these cases is Patterson V. Colorado. Patterson published comics and articles about the Colorado Supreme Court. These comics criticized the judges of that court, and questioned many of their motives. Afterwards, Patterson was charged with contempt. He quickly moved to void the information by citing local law, the Colorado Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution.
This trial is on Walt Disney Studios vs. Faden on the work Professor faden made to inform people on copyright, fair use and infringement. They are battling over copyright and fair use on this video. Walt Disney Studios claims that Faden’s work is copyrighted and is suing for infringement. But Professor Faden claims that he followed all the rules on copyright and he thinks it is fair use. “ Defendence you make take your stands,”The judge says in an assertive voice.
Steven Truscott, at the age of 14 years old, was sentenced to the death penalty for supposedly murdering his classmate, Lynn Harper. A short and unfair trial ensued that violated many rights given to this young man in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The rights that were violated include the right to not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into