{"id":3671,"date":"2012-07-02T17:34:53","date_gmt":"2012-07-02T17:34:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/medialawletter-june-2012\/"},"modified":"2020-08-20T19:01:54","modified_gmt":"2020-08-20T19:01:54","slug":"medialawletter-june-2012","status":"publish","type":"post_issue","link":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2012\/","title":{"rendered":"MediaLawLetter June 2012"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

LIBEL & PRIVACY<\/h3>\n

Texas Supreme Court Vacates Denial of Summary Judgment<\/a>
Trial Judge Took Bribe to Rule Against Newspaper<\/em>
Freedom Communications, Inc., D\/B\/A The Brownsville Herald et al. v. Coronado, et al.<\/p>\n

D.D.C.: Esquire Blog Post About Birther Book Protected By D.C. Anti-SLAPP Law<\/a>
Blog Post Was Satire; Anti-SLAPP Applies in Federal Court<\/em>
Farah v. Esquire Magazine, Inc.<\/p>\n

Ind. App.: No Personal Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State News Source<\/a>
Interview Did Not Target Forum State<\/em>
Davis v. Simon<\/p>\n

California Appellate Court Strikes Down Bank Rumor Statute<\/a>
Craigslist Posts Were Protected Opinion<\/em>
Summit Bank v. Rogers<\/p>\n

New Hampshire Governor Vetoes Right of Publicity Bill<\/a>
Senate Fails to Override<\/em><\/p>\n

N.Y.: Assembly Judiciary Committee Chair Sponsors Significant Expansion And Toughing Of New York\u2019s Anti-Slapp Law<\/a>
Bill Would Increase Scope of Statute<\/em><\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/h3>\n

Unanimous Supreme Court Invalidates FCC\u2019s \u201cFleeting Expletives\u201d Indecency Decisions and Denies Review of Invalidated Super Bowl Fine<\/a>
New Policy Was Too Vague to Put Broadcasters on Notice<\/em>
FCC v. Fox Television Stations<\/p>\n

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY<\/h3>\n

Seventh Circuit Affirms South Park Parody Video Was Fair Use<\/a>
Case Was Properly Dismissed Without Discovery<\/em>
Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners<\/p>\n

11th Cir.: Artist\u2019s Depictions of College Football Team Protected By First Amendment<\/a>
Expressive Right Trumps Trademark Claim <\/em>
Univ. of Ala. Bd. Of Trs. v. New Life Art, Inc.<\/p>\n

M.D. Tenn.: Court Rejects \u201cSoul Man\u201d Singer\u2019s Claims Based on \u201cSoul Men\u201d Movie and Soundtrack<\/a>
Trademark in Titles Protected Where They Do Not \u201cExplicitly Mislead\u201d<\/em>
Moore v. The Weinstein Co., LLC, et al.<\/p>\n

S.D.N.Y.:  Google Books Update: S.D.N.Y. Denies Google\u2019s Motion to Dismiss, Grants Class Certification to Authors Guild<\/a>
Fair Use Decision Likely<\/em>
Authors Guild v. Google, Inc.; American Society of Media Photographers, et al. v. Google, Inc.<\/p>\n

S.D.N.Y.: Trademark Lawsuit Over Hangover II Dismissed<\/a>
Images of Knock-off Bag Not Actionable<\/em>
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc.<\/p>\n

REPORTERS PRIVILEGE<\/h3>\n

N.J. Super.: Self-Described Journalist\u2019s Shield Law Claim Rejected<\/a>
Defendant Lacked Credibility to Assert Protection <\/em>
Too Much Media, LLC v. Hale<\/p>\n

D.C. Cir.: Court Reinstates Privacy Act Claim Against DOJ Over Leak to Newspaper<\/a>
Decision May Renew Confidential Source Clash<\/em>
Convertino v. U.S. Dept. of Justice<\/p>\n

Minnesota Federal District Court Reaffirms Strong Reporter\u2019s Privilege Under the First Amendment <\/a>
Quashes Subpoena to Star Tribune Reporter <\/em>
Keefe v. City of Minneapolis<\/p>\n

ACCESS<\/h3>\n

5th Cir.: Court Rejects Reporter\u2019s Motion to End Terror Trial Gag Order<\/a>
Gag Order Not Over Broad; Not in Violation of the First Amendment<\/em>
U.S. v. Aldawsari<\/p>\n

9th Cir.: Execution Must Be Open to the Press<\/a>
Media Coalition Successfully Challenged Idaho Restriction<\/em>
The Associated Press, et al. v. Otter<\/p>\n

Fla. Cir.: Media Coalition Keeps Court Records Open in Trayvon Martin Shooting Prosecution<\/a>
Prosecution and Defense Sought to Seal Court Files<\/em>
Florida v. Zimmerman<\/p>\n

ETHICS<\/h3>\n

Proposed Changes in the Ethics Rules<\/a>
A Few High-Tech Highlights<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":79,"template":"","issues-publication":[1002],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nMediaLawLetter June 2012 - 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-june-2012\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"MediaLawLetter June 2012 - Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\" Download Publication LIBEL & PRIVACY Texas Supreme Court Vacates Denial of Summary Judgment Trial Judge Took Bribe to Rule Against Newspaper Freedom Communications, Inc., D\/B\/A The Brownsville Herald et al. v. Coronado, et al. D.D.C.: Esquire Blog Post About Birther Book Protected By D.C. Anti-SLAPP Law Blog Post Was Satire; Anti-SLAPP Applies in Federal Court...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2012\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-08-20T19:01:54+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=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2012\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2012\/\",\"name\":\"MediaLawLetter June 2012 - Media Law Resource Center\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2012\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2012\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif\",\"datePublished\":\"2012-07-02T17:34:53+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-08-20T19:01:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2012\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2012\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2012\/#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-june-2012\/#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 June 2012\"}]},{\"@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 June 2012 - 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-june-2012\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"MediaLawLetter June 2012 - Media Law Resource Center","og_description":" Download Publication LIBEL & PRIVACY Texas Supreme Court Vacates Denial of Summary Judgment Trial Judge Took Bribe to Rule Against Newspaper Freedom Communications, Inc., D\/B\/A The Brownsville Herald et al. v. Coronado, et al. D.D.C.: Esquire Blog Post About Birther Book Protected By D.C. Anti-SLAPP Law Blog Post Was Satire; Anti-SLAPP Applies in Federal Court...","og_url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2012\/","og_site_name":"Media Law Resource Center","article_modified_time":"2020-08-20T19:01:54+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":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2012\/","url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2012\/","name":"MediaLawLetter June 2012 - Media Law Resource Center","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2012\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2012\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif","datePublished":"2012-07-02T17:34:53+00:00","dateModified":"2020-08-20T19:01:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2012\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2012\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2012\/#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-june-2012\/#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 June 2012"}]},{"@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\/3671"}],"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=3671"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"issues-publication","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issues-publication?post=3671"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}