{"id":2325,"date":"2004-01-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-01-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/medialawletter-january-2004\/"},"modified":"2020-10-12T21:37:35","modified_gmt":"2020-10-12T21:37:35","slug":"medialawletter-january-2004","status":"publish","type":"post_issue","link":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2004\/","title":{"rendered":"MediaLawLetter January 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

MLRC<\/h3>\n

Ethics Corner: Pre-Litigation Issues for Media Lawyers in the Post-Zabulake World<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/h3>\n

S.Ct.: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal by Ramsey Housekeeper
Hoffmann-Pugh v. Keenan<\/p>\n

S.Ct.: Supreme Court Rejects Tony Twist Publicity Case
Doe v. TCI Cablevision of Missouri<\/p>\n

S.Ct.: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Appeal Seeking Names of 9\/11 Detainees
Center for Nat. Sec. Studies v. D.O.J.<\/p>\n

S.Ct.: Supreme Court Denies Cert. in Internet Libel Case
Wagner v. Miskin<\/p>\n

S.Ct.: Supreme Court Upholds Campaign Finance Law
A look at the impact on broadcast media<\/em><\/p>\n

LIBEL & PRIVACY<\/h3>\n

Tex.: Texas Supreme Court Reinstates Summary Judgment for Forbes
Unanimous opinion finds no evidence of actual malice in 11-year old suit<\/em>
Forbes Inc. v. Granada Biosciences, Inc.<\/p>\n

N.C. Super.: North Carolina Television Station & Reporter Win Trespass Trial
Jury verdict in favor of defendants in claim based on videotaping inside nursing home<\/em>
Havon, Inc. v. Chesapeake Televsion, Inc.<\/p>\n

Cal.: California Supreme Court Strongly Reaffirms Single Publication Rule
Court announces bright line test for statute of limitations in O.J. Simpson-related case<\/em>
Shively v. Bozanich<\/p>\n

Ga. App.: The Single Publication Rule Applies to Internet Publications in Georgia
Court upholds dismissal of defamation claim despite news article\u2019s presence on Internet archive<\/em>
McCandliss v. Atlanta Journal-Constitution<\/p>\n

N.D. Miss.: Mississippi Statute of Limitations Starts with Publication on Internet
Statute of limitations accrued from date article was posted even when hard copy editions followed<\/em>
Lane v. Strang Communications Co.<\/p>\n

Min. App.: Lawyer\u2019s Statements to Media About Lawsuit Not Privileged Under Minnesota Law
Plaintiff found to be private figure in suit against source, but public figure in case against ABC<\/em>
Chafoulias v. Peterson and American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.<\/p>\n

S.D.N.Y.: Stock Broker Avoids Dismissal of Libel Suit
Court holds book\u2019s description susceptible to defamatory meaning of insider trading<\/em>
Lucking v. Maier & HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.<\/p>\n

Cal. App.: California Appeals Court Reverses Default Libel Judgment Against Non-Resident
Court finds it lacks personal jurisdiction over operator of passive website<\/em>
Rambam v. Prytulak<\/p>\n

D. Colo.: Colorado Federal Court Enjoins Criminal Libel Investigation
College student to pursue constitutional challenge to state law<\/em>
Mink v. Gonzalez, et al.<\/p>\n

U.S.: Other U.S. Criminal Libel Developments
Minnesota legislator pleads guilty to false campaign advertising<\/em><\/p>\n

REPORTER\u2019S PRIVILEGE<\/h3>\n

Pa.: Pennsylvania Shield Law Does Not Apply to Non-Confidential Sources in Criminal Case
State Supreme Court conducts first review of state shield law scope since 1987<\/em>
Commonwealth v. Bowden<\/p>\n

D.R.I.: Rhode Island District Court Denies Motion to Stay in Reporter\u2019s Privilege Case
Court grants 30 day stay to appeal to the First Circuit for a stay<\/em>
In re Special Proceedings<\/p>\n

ACCESS\/NEWSGATHERING<\/h3>\n

Cal.: No Access to Ancillary Grand Jury Proceedings
L.A. Times v. Superior Court<\/p>\n

11th Cir.: Police Officer Cannot be Sued for Arresting News Photographer During Riot Coverage
Court rules officer is entitled to qualified immunity in aftermath of Elian Gonzalez raid<\/em>
Durruthy v. Pastor<\/p>\n

Pa.: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Finds No Right of Access to Legislator\u2019s Phone Records
Paper\u2019s \u00a7 1983 claims alleging discriminatory access survive motion to dismiss<\/em>
Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Lawrence Roberts<\/p>\n

Del.: Delaware Supreme Court Agrees to Allow Cameras into Some Civil Courts
State Supreme Court authorizes expanded media coverage on a 6-month trial basis<\/em><\/p>\n

S.D.N.Y.: Voire Dire Closed in Martha Stewart Case
Second Circuit grants expedited appeal<\/em>
U.S. v. Stewart<\/p>\n

Mont.: Businesses May Not Assert \u201cIndividual Privacy Rights\u201d Under State Constitution
Businesses may not raise claim when attempting to withhold publicly filed documents<\/em>
Great Falls Tribune et al. v. Montana Public Service Commission<\/p>\n

COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK<\/h3>\n

9th Cir.: Keyword-Based Banner Ads on the Web May Infringe Trademark Rights
Trademark holder complains about search engines\u2019 sale of advertisements based on use of mark<\/em>
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp.<\/p>\n

E.D. Va.: Pop Up Ads Violate Trademark Law Under \u201cInitial Interest Confusion\u201d Test
Ruling conflicts with two other decisions with same defendant<\/em>
1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com and Vision Direct, Inc.<\/p>\n

W.D. Wis.: Lawsuit Against Consumer Complaint Websites Dismissed
Marketer sues websites after 30-plus complaints about its product were posted by defendants<\/em>
Hy Cite Corporation v. BadBusinessBureau, L.L.C.<\/p>\n

S.D.N.Y.: Internet Subscriber Not Entitled to Consequential Damages for Service Break
Description of user as \u201cspammer\u201d at the time declared not defamatory<\/em>
Hall and Big Bad Productions v. Earthlink Network, Inc.<\/p>\n

6th Cir.: Use of Copyrighted Art Work in Television Commercial Held de minimus
Illustrator claimed copyright infringement for use of works in background of commercial<\/em>
Gordon v. Nextel Communications and Mullen Advertising<\/p>\n

9th Cir.: Ninth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for \u201cFood Chain Barbie\u201d Artist
Court finds works to be parodies protected by First Amendment<\/em>
Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions<\/p>\n

INTERNATIONAL<\/h3>\n

U.K.: Jury Verdict in England Against Wall Street Journal Europe
Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe<\/p>\n

Foreign: International Libel Roundup: Recent Cases of Note<\/p>\n

France: Journalist Convicted for Receiving Documents in Violation of Judicial Confidentiality
Paris Criminal Court rejects claim that prosecution violated Art. 10 of ECHR<\/em>
TGI v. Millet<\/p>\n

NEWS & UPDATES<\/h3>\n

Colorado: Aspen Times Settles Lawsuit with Source
Newspaper settles for undisclosed amount after indirectly revealing source\u2019s identity<\/em>
Poissant v. Eagle Summit Publishing Co.<\/p>\n

Cal. Cir.: Gary Condit Seeks $209 Million in Defamation Suit Against Tabloids
Former Congressman filed suit in mid-December against American Media Inc.<\/em><\/p>\n

Cal. App.: California Appeals Court Reins in Punitive Damage Awards
Court sets new precedent in cutting punitive award from $290 million to $23 in non-media case<\/em>
Romo v. Ford Motor Company<\/p>\n

Iraq: Iraq War Media Update
New Year\u2019s injuries end deadly year for journalists<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":79,"template":"","issues-publication":[1002],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nMediaLawLetter January 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-january-2004\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"MediaLawLetter January 2004 - Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\" Download Publication MLRC Ethics Corner: Pre-Litigation Issues for Media Lawyers in the Post-Zabulake World SUPREME COURT S.Ct.: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal by Ramsey HousekeeperHoffmann-Pugh v. Keenan S.Ct.: Supreme Court Rejects Tony Twist Publicity CaseDoe v. TCI Cablevision of Missouri S.Ct.: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Appeal Seeking Names of 9\/11 DetaineesCenter for Nat. Sec. Studies...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2004\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-10-12T21:37:35+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=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2004\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2004\/\",\"name\":\"MediaLawLetter January 2004 - Media Law Resource Center\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2004\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2004\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-01-01T00:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-10-12T21:37:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2004\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2004\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-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-january-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 January 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 January 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-january-2004\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"MediaLawLetter January 2004 - Media Law Resource Center","og_description":" Download Publication MLRC Ethics Corner: Pre-Litigation Issues for Media Lawyers in the Post-Zabulake World SUPREME COURT S.Ct.: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal by Ramsey HousekeeperHoffmann-Pugh v. Keenan S.Ct.: Supreme Court Rejects Tony Twist Publicity CaseDoe v. TCI Cablevision of Missouri S.Ct.: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Appeal Seeking Names of 9\/11 DetaineesCenter for Nat. Sec. Studies...","og_url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2004\/","og_site_name":"Media Law Resource Center","article_modified_time":"2020-10-12T21:37:35+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":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2004\/","url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2004\/","name":"MediaLawLetter January 2004 - Media Law Resource Center","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2004\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2004\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif","datePublished":"2004-01-01T00:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2020-10-12T21:37:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2004\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-2004\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-january-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-january-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 January 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\/2325"}],"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=2325"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"issues-publication","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issues-publication?post=2325"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}