{"id":4440,"date":"2013-07-02T20:03:50","date_gmt":"2013-07-02T20:03:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/medialawletter-june-2013\/"},"modified":"2020-08-20T19:01:48","modified_gmt":"2020-08-20T19:01:48","slug":"medialawletter-june-2013","status":"publish","type":"post_issue","link":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2013\/","title":{"rendered":"MediaLawLetter June 2013"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY<\/h3>\n

N.D. Ind.: Free Speech in Gotham: First Amendment Protects Warner Bros. Against Trademark Claims Based on Fictional Software in The Dark Knight Rises <\/a>
Helpful Guidance on Use of Fictional Products in Entertainment<\/em>
Fortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.<\/p>\n

Second Circuit Reinstates \u201cOwn Your Power\u201d Trademark Claims Against Oprah and Hearst
<\/a>Fair Use Not Established as a Matter of Law on Motion to Dismiss <\/em>
Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey<\/p>\n

S.D.N.Y. Denies Class Certification in Mass Copyright Claim Against YouTube
<\/a>Individualized Facts in Action Make Class Action Unsuitable<\/em>
Football Ass’n Premier League Ltd. v. YouTube, Inc.<\/p>\n

REPORTERS PRIVILEGE<\/h3>\n

N.Y. Sup.: Court Quashes Sheldon Adelson\u2019s Third-Party Subpoena to Wall Street Journal
<\/a>Failed to Overcome Statute\u2019s Three-Part Test<\/em>
In re Wall Street Journal v. Adelson<\/p>\n

S.D.N.Y.: Federal  Court Quashes Subpoena Seeking Reporter\u2019s Eye-Witness Testimony
<\/a>Privilege Attaches to Non-confidential, Firsthand Observations<\/em>
Lebowitz v. City of New York<\/p>\n

LIBEL & PRIVACY<\/h3>\n

Md. Cir.: Court Dismisses Defamation Claims Against Journalism Non-Profit<\/a>
<\/a>Articles Did Not Defame Former Russian Official and His Corporation  <\/em>
Stepanov v. Journalism Development Network, Inc.<\/p>\n

N.Y. Sup.: Former Russian Official and Company Strike Out in New York<\/a>
<\/a>Magazine Article on Russian Fraud Not Defamatory of Plaintiffs<\/em>
Stepanov v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. <\/p>\n

Fla. App.: Pastor Investigated by Anthony Family Cannot Sue National Enquirer for Defamation
<\/a>Article Not Defamatory, Covered by Fair Report Privilege<\/em>
Grund v. American Media, Inc.<\/p>\n

N.Y. Sup. Release Bars Libel and Related Claims Against Mob Wives Reality Show
<\/a><\/a>Reinforces Broad Reach of Appearance Releases<\/em>
Klapper v. Graziano<\/p>\n

Cal. App.: Court Affirms Anti-SLAPP Dismissal of Oakland Mayoral Candidate\u2019s Defamation Claim
<\/a>Column Questioning Whether Candidate Was Running as a Spoiler is Opinion<\/em>
Hodge v. East Bay Express<\/p>\n

Ill. Cir.: Intrusion Claim Against Documentary Filmmaker Dismissed
<\/a>New Cases Test State Intrusion Law<\/em>
Luten v. Kartemquin Films<\/p>\n

N.Y. Sup.: Catholic School Principal\u2019s Libel Claim Against Daily News Dismissed
<\/a>\u201cFirebrand\u201d and \u201cPrincipal of Hate\u201d Deemed Protected Opinion<\/em>
Borzellieri v. Daily News<\/p>\n

U.S. Supreme Court to Review Defamation Immunity for Airlines That Report Potential Threats<\/a>
Declined to Hear Whether Falsity is Subject to Independent Appellate Review<\/em>
Air Wisconsin Corp. v. Hoeper<\/p>\n

D.C. Super.: Court Grants District of Columbia\u2019s Anti-SLAPP Motion Against Former Employee
<\/a>Plaintiff Argued Law Did Not Apply  <\/em>
Payne v. District of Columbia<\/p>\n

LEGISLATION<\/h3>\n

Nevada anti-SLAPP Statute Amended to Provide Broad Protection for Public and Press
<\/a>New Statute Effective Oct. 1, 2013<\/em>
SB 286<\/p>\n

EMPLOYMENT<\/h3>\n

S.D.N.Y.: Court Nixes Hollywood Happy Ending for Entertainment Companies Using Unpaid Interns
<\/a>Interns Should Have Been Classified as Employees under Federal Labor Law<\/em>
Glatt v. Fox Searchlight<\/p>\n

ACCESS<\/h3>\n

M.D. Fla.: Court Lifts Injunction Barring Release of Physician-Identifying Medicare Records
<\/a>Ruling Allows HHS to Consider Whether FOIA Requires Access to Trove of Data Offering Unique Insights Into Medicare Program<\/em>
Florida Medical Ass\u2019n v. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare <\/p>\n

INTERNET<\/h3>\n

D. Nev.: Nevada District Court Dismisses Negligence Claims Against Match.com
<\/a>Dating Website Not Liable for Attack on Plaintiff <\/em>
Beckman v. Match.com<\/p>\n

S.D.N.Y. Denies Class Certification in Mass Copyright Claim Against YouTube<\/a>
Individualized Facts in Action Make Class Action Unsuitable<\/em>
Football Ass’n Premier League Ltd. v. YouTube, Inc.,<\/p>\n

2d Cir. Second Circuit Affirms Conviction of Blogger for Threatening Three Judges
<\/a>Blog Post Constituted a \u201cTrue Threat\u201d Against Judges<\/em>
U.S. v. Turner<\/p>\n

ETHICS<\/h3>\n

Keeping Your Discovery Obligations Under Control<\/a>
Ethical Duty to Seek Documents in the Possession of Third-Parties<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":79,"template":"","issues-publication":[1002],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nMediaLawLetter June 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-june-2013\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"MediaLawLetter June 2013 - Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\" Download Publication INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY N.D. Ind.: Free Speech in Gotham: First Amendment Protects Warner Bros. Against Trademark Claims Based on Fictional Software in The Dark Knight Rises Helpful Guidance on Use of Fictional Products in EntertainmentFortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. Second Circuit Reinstates \u201cOwn Your Power\u201d Trademark Claims Against Oprah and HearstFair...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2013\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Media Law Resource Center\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-08-20T19:01:48+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=\"3 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-2013\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2013\/\",\"name\":\"MediaLawLetter June 2013 - Media Law Resource Center\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2013\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2013\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif\",\"datePublished\":\"2013-07-02T20:03:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-08-20T19:01:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2013\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2013\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-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-june-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 June 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 June 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-june-2013\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"MediaLawLetter June 2013 - Media Law Resource Center","og_description":" Download Publication INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY N.D. Ind.: Free Speech in Gotham: First Amendment Protects Warner Bros. Against Trademark Claims Based on Fictional Software in The Dark Knight Rises Helpful Guidance on Use of Fictional Products in EntertainmentFortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. Second Circuit Reinstates \u201cOwn Your Power\u201d Trademark Claims Against Oprah and HearstFair...","og_url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2013\/","og_site_name":"Media Law Resource Center","article_modified_time":"2020-08-20T19:01:48+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":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2013\/","url":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2013\/","name":"MediaLawLetter June 2013 - Media Law Resource Center","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2013\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2013\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/pdf_small.gif","datePublished":"2013-07-02T20:03:50+00:00","dateModified":"2020-08-20T19:01:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2013\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-2013\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/issue\/medialawletter-june-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-june-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 June 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\/4440"}],"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=4440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"issues-publication","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medialaw.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issues-publication?post=4440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}