{"id":2313,"date":"2004-01-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-01-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/medialawletter-july-2004\/"},"modified":"2020-10-12T21:37:37","modified_gmt":"2020-10-12T21:37:37","slug":"medialawletter-july-2004","status":"publish","type":"post_issue","link":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/","title":{"rendered":"MediaLawLetter July 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\"pdf\" Download Publication<\/a><\/p>\n

MLRC<\/h3>\n

DCS President\u2019s Note<\/p>\n

MLRC\u2019s 50-State Survey Media Privacy & Related Law<\/p>\n

Libel Conference Boutique Sessions<\/p>\n

Legislative: Sensitive Security Information; Parents Empowerment Act<\/p>\n

Prepub. Comm.: Reporting Mean and Ugly Quotes: Key Points to Remember<\/p>\n

Ethics Corner: The Corporate Attorney Client Privilege: The Corporation and the Journalist<\/p>\n

PRIOR RESTRAINT<\/h3>\n

Colo.: Court Upholds Prior Restraint in Kobe Bryant Case
Media may not publish lawfully obtained transcripts<\/em>
Colorado v. Bryant<\/p>\n

LIBEL & PRIVACY<\/h3>\n

Pa. C.P.: Pennsylvania Newspaper Wins Libel Trial
Judge\u2019s wife sued for libel; judge, for loss of consortium<\/em>
Popovich v. Daily News<\/p>\n

Mo. Cir. Ct.: Twists and Turns: $15 Million Verdict on Retrial of Misappropriation Claim
Second trial \u201cmirrors\u201d original; jury award based on flimsy evidence<\/em>
Tony Twist v. TCI Cablevision of Missouri, Inc.<\/p>\n

Fla. Cir. Ct.: Mistrial in Punitives Phase of Pensacola News Journal Trial
Judge dismissed two of the six jurors, leaving no alternates. Set new trial date for October.<\/em>
Anderson Columbia Co., Inc. v. Pensacola News Journal, Inc.<\/p>\n

Nev. Dist. Ct.: Steve Wynn, Publisher Settle Libel Case Before Trial
Casino executive and Barricade Books agree to an undisclosed settlement<\/em>
Wynn v. Smith<\/p>\n

N.J. App.: Court Dismisses Misappropriation Claims Against Reality Show
No cause of action exists when person\u2019s image or likeness is used for noncommercial purposes<\/em>
Castro v. NYT Television<\/p>\n

9th Cir.: Suzuki v. Consumers Union Disparagement Case Settled
According to CU, no monetary compensation was paid in long running case<\/em>
Suzuki v. Consumers Union<\/p>\n

D.N.J. Court Dismisses Misappropriation Claim over 9\/11 Memorial Photo
Court held the photo to be newsworthy and plaintiff was in a public place<\/em>
Dell Chiaie v. Corbis Corporation and Sygma Photo News, Inc.<\/p>\n

4th Cir.: Court Gives Broad Application to Opinion Defense
Statements about prior litigations were opinion as matter of law<\/em>
Schnare v. Harris Publications<\/p>\n

Okla.: Court Gives Expansive Reading to Fair Comment Privilege in Private-Figure Libel Case
Unanimous court affirms summary judgment in favor of defendant TV station<\/em>
Magnusson v. The New York Times Company, et. al.<\/p>\n

N.Y. Sup. Ct.: Libel Suit over Spelling Bee Article Dismissed
Court found magazine article, although unflattering, was not defamatory<\/em>
Goldstein, et. al. v. The New York Times Company<\/p>\n

D.Or.: Oregon Court Holds Fair Report Privilege Is Not Absolute
Newspaper lost conditional privilege by acting with actual malice and gross negligence<\/em>
Gunter v. The Guardian Press Foundation, dba Oregon Observer, et al.<\/p>\n

N.Y.A.D.: Court Affirms Dismissal of Libel Action Against Sing Tao Daily
Unanimous panel finds NY Law confers absolute privilege for fair report of judicial proceeding<\/em>
Ng v. Chee Kong Tong Supreme Lodge Chinese Freemason of the World<\/p>\n

Pa C.P.: Dead Men Make Lousy Witnesses
Judge dismisses defamation and false light claims brought by plaintiff after 6 years of inaction<\/em>
Zotter v. North Hills News Record, et. al.<\/p>\n

N.D. Ga.: Ramseys\u2019 Libel Suit against Fox News Is Transferred to Colorado
Court transfers case in interest of justice and for convenience of parties and witnesses<\/em>
Ramsey, et al. v. Fox News Network<\/p>\n

9th Cir.: Tort Reform, Arnold-style: Publicity Suit Dismissed
Court rules California lacks jurisdiction over Ohio-based car dealership<\/em>
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Company<\/p>\n

CYBERSPACE<\/h3>\n

1st Cir.: Circuit Ruling on Intercepted E-mails Reduces Electronic Privacy
Decision allows third parties, law enforcement to read e-mails in \u201celectronic storage\u201d at ISPs<\/em>
United States v. Councilman<\/p>\n

4th Cir.: Court Affirms Dismissal of Direct Infringement Claim Against Website
Finds no volitional conduct despite screening procedure<\/em>
CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet<\/p>\n

S.Ct.: COPA Revisited: Court Rules Again on Child Online Protection Act
Five-justice majority affirms preliminary injunction, finds filtering software is less restrictive<\/em>
Ashcroft v. ACLU II<\/p>\n

REPORTERS\u2019 PRIVILEGE<\/h3>\n

Minnesota Football Coach and School District Libel Settlement Ends Non-Party Reporter\u2019s Ordeal
Despite state high court order, sports reporter will not have to disclose his confidential sources<\/em>
Weinberger v. Maplewood Review<\/p>\n

N.J. App.: Lawyer\u2019s Inadvertent Disclosure Doesn\u2019t Waive Reporter\u2019s Privilege
Inadvertent error did not constitute \u201cknowing and voluntary\u201d waiver required by state Shield Law<\/em>
Kinsella v. Welch and NYT Television<\/p>\n

ACCESS & NEWSGATHERING<\/h3>\n

Fla. Cir. Ct.: Florida Court Rules CNN Has Right to Copy Suspected Felons List
Court declares Florida public records exemption relied on by Elections Division unconstitutional<\/em>
CNN v. Florida Dep\u2019t of State<\/p>\n

Wash.: Washington High Court Hands Press a Victory on Access to Sealed Court Records
Unanimous court adopts guidelines for sealing records that favor openness<\/em>
Dreiling v. Jain<\/p>\n

E.D.N.Y.: No Media Access to Sentencing Letter
Judge finds letters subject to presumptive common law right of access, but privacy interest trumps<\/em>
U.S. v. Gotti<\/p>\n

INTERNATIONAL<\/h3>\n

ECHR: The Princess, the Paparazzi and the Press
Privacy law marches forward through Europe, shift towards French paradigm<\/em>
von Hannover v. Germany<\/p>\n

Germany: Court of Appeal Enjoins Publication of Novel Depicting Assassination of Chancellor
Court found novel violated Chancellor\u2019s personality rights<\/em>
Coe v. Mail on Sunday, Sunday Mirror<\/p>\n

Canada: ISPs Acting Passively Are Not Liable for Copyright Infringement, High Court Says
Canadian Copyright Act may apply extraterritorially<\/em>
Canadian Assoc. of Internet Providers v. SOCAN<\/p>\n

U.K.: London\u2019s \u201cIndecent Proposal\u201d Slander Case Ends in Loss for the Claimant
Jury finds accusations that orthodox man tried to purchase friend\u2019s wife were substantially true<\/em>
Maccaba v. Lichtenstein<\/p>\n

NEWS<\/h3>\n

Cal. App.: No \u201cFree Ink\u201d for Political Advertiser
Court affirms dismissal of fraud and breach of contract claims against newspaper, radio stations<\/em>
Barker v. Gulf-California Broadcasting Company, et. al.<\/p>\n

3rd Cir.: Court Stays Media Ownership Rules
Divided panel rules on myriad FCC regulations included in 2003 Omnibus Report and Order<\/em>
Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC<\/p>\n

F.A.C.: Survey Shows Greater Support for First Amendment Values
As time distances 9\/11, fewer Americans believe \u201cthe press\u201d is afforded too much leeway<\/em><\/p>\n

GAO: Medicare Videos Were \u201cPropaganda\u201d
Video news releases failed to sufficiently identify their government origin<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":79,"template":"","issues-publication":[1002],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nMediaLawLetter July 2004 - Media Law Resource Center<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"MediaLawLetter July 2004 - Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\" Download Publication MLRC DCS President\u2019s Note MLRC\u2019s 50-State Survey Media Privacy & Related Law Libel Conference Boutique Sessions Legislative: Sensitive Security Information; Parents Empowerment Act Prepub. Comm.: Reporting Mean and Ugly Quotes: Key Points to Remember Ethics Corner: The Corporate Attorney Client Privilege: The Corporation and the Journalist PRIOR RESTRAINT Colo.: Court Upholds Prior Restraint...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-10-12T21:37:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"16\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"16\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/gif\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/\",\"name\":\"MediaLawLetter July 2004 - Media Law Resource Center\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-01-01T00:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-10-12T21:37:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif\",\"width\":16,\"height\":16,\"caption\":\"pdf\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"MediaLawLetter\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issues\/publication\/medialawletter\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"MediaLawLetter July 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/\",\"name\":\"Media Law Resource Center\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"MediaLawLetter July 2004 - Media Law Resource Center","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"MediaLawLetter July 2004 - Media Law Resource Center","og_description":" Download Publication MLRC DCS President\u2019s Note MLRC\u2019s 50-State Survey Media Privacy & Related Law Libel Conference Boutique Sessions Legislative: Sensitive Security Information; Parents Empowerment Act Prepub. Comm.: Reporting Mean and Ugly Quotes: Key Points to Remember Ethics Corner: The Corporate Attorney Client Privilege: The Corporation and the Journalist PRIOR RESTRAINT Colo.: Court Upholds Prior Restraint...","og_url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/","og_site_name":"Media Law Resource Center","article_modified_time":"2020-10-12T21:37:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":16,"height":16,"url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif","type":"image\/gif"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/","url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/","name":"MediaLawLetter July 2004 - Media Law Resource Center","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif","datePublished":"2004-01-01T00:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2020-10-12T21:37:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif","contentUrl":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif","width":16,"height":16,"caption":"pdf"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-july-2004\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"MediaLawLetter","item":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issues\/publication\/medialawletter\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"MediaLawLetter July 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/","name":"Media Law Resource Center","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_issue\/2313"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_issue"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post_issue"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/79"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2313"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"issues-publication","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issues-publication?post=2313"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}