{"id":4225,"date":"2013-04-03T21:45:57","date_gmt":"2013-04-03T21:45:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/medialawletter-march-2013\/"},"modified":"2020-08-20T19:01:51","modified_gmt":"2020-08-20T19:01:51","slug":"medialawletter-march-2013","status":"publish","type":"post_issue","link":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2013\/","title":{"rendered":"MediaLawLetter March 2013"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

MLRC<\/h3>\n

MLRC’s First Conference on Hispanic and Latin American Media Law Issues<\/a><\/p>\n

PRIOR RESTRAINT<\/h3>\n

N.Y. App.: The Show Must Go On: New York Appellate Court Stays Unconstitutional Prior Restraint
<\/a>Prisoner Sued to Stop Docudrama<\/em>
Porco v. Lifetime Entertainment Services, Inc.<\/p>\n

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY<\/h3>\n

S.D.N.Y.: Commercial Distribution of News Content on the Internet by Media Monitoring Service Not a Fair Use
<\/a>Free Online Access to News Content Does Not Support Commercial Distribution of News Content<\/em>
The Associated Press v. Meltwater<\/p>\n

9th Cir.: Video Content Sharer Sails into Safe Harbor as Ninth Circuit Rejects Music Copyright Holder Claims<\/a>
Court Rejects Strained Interpretations of the DMCA <\/em>
UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC.(Veoh)<\/p>\n

Southern District Of Texas Dismisses Copyright Case Involving Romance Novel
<\/a>Substantial Similarity Did Not Exist as a Matter of Law<\/em>
Rucker v. Harlequin Enters. Ltd.<\/p>\n

REPORTERS PRIVILEGE<\/h3>\n

S.D.N.Y.: Judge Quashes Subpoena Seeking Unused Footage from Ken Burns Documentary
<\/a>Decision Reaffirms Qualified Privilege for Non-Confidential Source Material<\/em>
In re McCray, Richardson, Santana, Wise and Salaam Litigation<\/p>\n

LEGISLATION<\/h3>\n

Surge in Proposed \u201cAg-Gag\u201d Legislation Continues
<\/a>Bills Seek to Prevent Photography or Recording That Exposes Operations at Farms and Agricultural Facilities<\/em><\/p>\n

LIBEL AND PRIVACY<\/h3>\n

3d Cir.: Decision Outlines State Of Mind Requirement in Public Official Defamation-By-Implication Cases
<\/a>Affirms Judgment in Favor of Virgin Islands Daily News<\/em>
Kendall v. Daily News Publ\u2019g Co.<\/p>\n

Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Misappropriation Suit over Google Suggested Search Result
<\/a>Suit Barred by Public Interest Exception; Use Was Incidental<\/em>
Stayart v. Google<\/p>\n

Tex. Dist.: Texas Libel Defendants Awarded Nearly $200,000 In Attorney\u2019s Fees in Anti-Slapp Motion Win
<\/a>Pro Bono Representation Not a Bar to Fee Award<\/em>
Cruz v. Burnt Orange Report, et al.<\/p>\n

7th Cir.: Court Affirms Dismissal of Claims against Paid Legal Research Website and Internet Search Engines That Link To Case Filings and Rulings
<\/a>Defendants Entitled to Republishing Facts from Lawfully Obtained Judicial Records<\/em>
Nieman v. VersusLaw, Inc.<\/p>\n

ACCESS<\/h3>\n

D.D.C.: Dozens of Civil Rights-Era Files Will Be Released In Settlement of D.C. Freedom of Information Act Case
<\/a>FBI Agrees to Release Ernest Withers Records <\/em>
Memphis Publishing Company v. Federal Bureau of Investigation<\/p>\n

N.D. Cal.: California Federal Judge Strikes Down Controversial NSL Gag Orders
<\/a>Nondisclosure Requirements Violate the First Amendment <\/em>
In re National Security Letter<\/p>\n

INTERNATIONAL<\/h3>\n

Canadian Supreme Court Upholds Hate Speech Law
<\/a>Court Unanimously Upholds Provincial Human Rights Code Prohibiting \u201cHate Speech\u201d against a Protected Group<\/em>
Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott<\/p>\n

UK: Across the Pond: The Vanishing Freedom Of The Press In The United Kingdom
<\/a>John Wilkes Make Way for Hugh Grant And Max Mosley<\/em><\/p>\n

French Court Orders Twitter to Disclose Identity of Users Who Posted Offensive Messages
<\/a>UEJF and others vs. Twitter Inc. and Twitter France<\/em><\/p>\n

ETHICS<\/h3>\n

Respectfully Submitted \u2013 The Duty to Cite Adverse Legal Authority
<\/a>ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(2)<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":79,"template":"","issues-publication":[1002],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nMediaLawLetter March 2013 - 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-march-2013\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"MediaLawLetter March 2013 - Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\" Download Publication MLRC MLRC’s First Conference on Hispanic and Latin American Media Law Issues PRIOR RESTRAINT N.Y. App.: The Show Must Go On: New York Appellate Court Stays Unconstitutional Prior Restraint Prisoner Sued to Stop DocudramaPorco v. Lifetime Entertainment Services, Inc. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY S.D.N.Y.: Commercial Distribution of News Content on the Internet by Media Monitoring...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2013\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-08-20T19:01:51+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-march-2013\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2013\/\",\"name\":\"MediaLawLetter March 2013 - Media Law Resource Center\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2013\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2013\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif\",\"datePublished\":\"2013-04-03T21:45:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-08-20T19:01:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2013\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2013\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2013\/#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-march-2013\/#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 March 2013\"}]},{\"@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 March 2013 - 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-march-2013\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"MediaLawLetter March 2013 - Media Law Resource Center","og_description":" Download Publication MLRC MLRC’s First Conference on Hispanic and Latin American Media Law Issues PRIOR RESTRAINT N.Y. App.: The Show Must Go On: New York Appellate Court Stays Unconstitutional Prior Restraint Prisoner Sued to Stop DocudramaPorco v. Lifetime Entertainment Services, Inc. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY S.D.N.Y.: Commercial Distribution of News Content on the Internet by Media Monitoring...","og_url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2013\/","og_site_name":"Media Law Resource Center","article_modified_time":"2020-08-20T19:01:51+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-march-2013\/","url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2013\/","name":"MediaLawLetter March 2013 - Media Law Resource Center","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2013\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2013\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif","datePublished":"2013-04-03T21:45:57+00:00","dateModified":"2020-08-20T19:01:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2013\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2013\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-march-2013\/#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-march-2013\/#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 March 2013"}]},{"@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\/4225"}],"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=4225"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"issues-publication","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issues-publication?post=4225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}