Convicted German Murderer Wants His Conviction Erased From Wikipedia

from the bit-of-a-conflict... dept

EFF has the bizarre story of a convicted murderer in Germany who is demanding that Wikipedia censor all mentions of the guy's name. Apparently, he (and his lawyers) are using a part of German law that allows for the protection of "names and likenesses of private persons from unwanted publicity." However, as the EFF points out, he's not a private person. He became a very public person when he was tried and convicted (along with his half-brother) for killing Bavarian actor Walter Sedlmayr. Apparently, his lawyers are going after multiple service providers, trying to get the guy's name taken off the internet. The EFF points out that the press has published the two convicted murderers' names for Sedlmayr's death: Wolfgang Werle and his half-brother Manfred Lauber, and that this appears to be nothing more than an attempt to censor history across multiple borders.

41 Comments | Leave a Comment..

YouTube-Using Russian Police Officer Fired For Whistleblowing

from the careful-where-you-whistleblow dept

One of the great things about the internet these days is that it gives a platform for people who had no voice before to speak out. Of course, there are certain risks associated with that. Apparently a police officer in the Russian port of Novorossiisk put up a YouTube video accusing his superiors of corruption. The video got lots of attention (over 200,000 views) leading Russia's Interior Ministor (who is responsible for the police) to start a probe. That probe apparently lasted all of two hours before it ended and the police officer who made the video was fired. Of course, many will assume that this was punishing a whistleblower, which certainly sounds plausible -- though, an argument could also be made that if the guy really was making stuff up, that's pretty bad as well. Either way, it is a reminder that just because you have a platform to speak out (whether legitimately or not), it doesn't mean there aren't consequences for doing so (as unfair as those consequences might be in some cases).

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Tech Company Sues Gartner Because It Doesn't Like How Gartner Placed It In Its Magic Quadrant

from the hello-first-amendment dept

While I'm no fan of Gartner, and tend to think its analysis is pretty weak in many cases, a recent lawsuit filed by ZL Technologies, because ZL doesn't like how Gartner ranked it in Gartner's famous "magic quadrant" analysis, is pretty silly, and hopefully will get thrown out quickly. Gartner has every right to rank companies as it sees fit -- just as courts have noted that Google has every right to rank websites as it sees fit. Even if there are questions about the integrity of Gartner's rankings, I don't see how that's a legal issue at all. All it might do is call into question the value of relying on Gartner's ranking system. But that's a business issue, not a legal one. The court will hopefully toss this lawsuit out quickly on First Amendment grounds, and let Gartner go on pushing out magic quadrants, no matter how flawed they might be.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IAB Takes On FTC Over Silly Blogger Disclosure Rules

from the good-for-them dept

While more disclosure is generally a good thing, the FTC's new guidelines for blogging disclosure have some pretty massive problems, and probably aren't legal. As more and more people are recognizing this -- and interviews with the FTC folks in charge of this suggest they either haven't put very much thought into this issue or they don't quite know how the world works outside of their government cocoon -- the backlash is growing. Now, the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) has stepped in with quite the open letter to the FTC, asking them to scrap the rules, while noting (snarkily) how impossible they are to follow, in practice:

So there I was last Saturday, about to send out on my Twitter feed -- which automatically updates my Facebook page and links to my personal blog -- a photograph of this wonderful baked halibut dish I'd just made as a surprise for my wife. I was in the middle of typing a rave review of the recipe, which I'd pulled from my favorite cookbook, Delicioso! The Regional Cooking of Spain by Penelope Casas. But before I could press the "post" button, I stopped and canceled the whole thing.

I remembered that the book was a freebie, sent to me by an editor at the Alfred A. Knopf publishing house 13 years ago. And I didn't want you guys to haul me into court and fine me for violating the rules you've just promulgated to muzzle social media.

While this may seem silly, it really does highlight the problems with the FTC's rules. They're totally unclear and absolutely could concern things like this. Getting a free book here or there happens all the time -- and the FTC actually claimed that if people don't return them, then they may face sanctions. That's ridiculous. Last month, we ran a fun contest for people to win free copies of a Kevin Smith book. If the winners from our comments mention that book anywhere online, do they need to mention they got the book for free? If they mention it to a friend, do they need to do the same thing? Because most of the time when posting stuff online, people really are just talking to their friends.

Again, it's not clear why people can't just sort this out themselves. People who post bogus reviews of things because someone pays them to, or because of something "free," are going to get called out on it eventually and lose their credibility. When people talk amongst friends, they don't reveal where they got the products they talk about, or if they happened to get a promotional sample -- and that's fine. While you can understand where the FTC is coming from, it really has gone overboard with these rules.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Jim Dolan's Lawsuit Against Cityfile Highlights The Need For Stronger Anti-SLAPP Laws

from the silencing-dissent dept

The Citizen Media Law Project has yet another story of bogus lawsuits being used to silence something someone doesn't want written about them. In this case, it involved Jim Dolan, known (but not particularly liked) to New Yorkers as the owner of Cablevision, the Knicks and Madison Square Garden. More recently, Cablevision bought the newspaper Newsday -- so you might think that Dolan would be a little more aware of why it's bad to sue a news publication claiming defamation over a clearly speculative piece. And, yet, sue he did. Dolan sued the blog Cityfile for posting a piece about rumors that Dolan was considering getting rid of the famous "Christmas Spectacular" involving the Rockettes at Radio City Music Hall in New York. As Arthur Bright points out, the original post doesn't seem all that different than speculative articles published all the time in pretty much every media outlet.

Unfortunately, facing a protracted legal fight, Cityfile agreed to settle and "retract" the story. Bright notes that this is silly, and any decent lawyer should have been able to get the lawsuit tossed on First Amendment grounds. The problem is the time and resources needed to fight such a thing.

Bright then points out how this highlights the need for stronger anti-SLAPP laws in New York. Anti-SLAPP laws let people fight back against such bogus lawsuits, whose purpose is only to silence speech (SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). The problem, however, is that right now anti-SLAPP laws are at the state level, and only a few states have really strong ones. New York is not one of them. While Bright says this is evidence of why NY should strengthen its anti-SLAPP laws, a better solution might be a strong federal anti-SLAPP law, that shows a strong support for freedom of speech, and helps prevent bogus lawsuits whose only purpose is to allow those with more money to silence speech they dislike.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Tiananmen Activist... Turned Entrepreneur... Turned User Of Trademark To Stifle Free Speech

from the free-speech-for-me,-but-not-for-thee dept

Paul Alan Levy alerts us to yet another shameful case of someone abusing trademark law to try to silence critics. In this case, it involves the software company Jenzabar, which makes software for colleges and universities, and apparently likes to play up the fact that its founder and CEO, Ling Chai, was one of the "leaders" of the Tiananmen Square uprising in 1989, before fleeing to America. Apparently Chai likes to play up that connection for PR purposes, and has been able to get the press to cover Jenzabar with headlines like "From Tiananmen Leader to Netrepreneur" and "From Starting a Revolution to Starting a Company."

However, when the makers of a documentary film about the uprising at Tiananmen Square included some comments and links to articles that were critical of Chai, she went legal. It started with a lawsuit claiming defamation against the film makers, which got quickly tossed out. So, instead, Chai and Jenzabar appear to be trying to use trademark law to bankrupt the filmmakers. They've filed a trademark lawsuit, claiming that the filmmakers' web page, that talks about Chia and Jenzabar, violates its trademarks, noting that the page turns up in search results on Jenzabar and the term is in the metatags.

Pretty much everyone involved recognizes that this is a ridiculous abuse of trademark law to stifle free speech. There is no violation of trademark here. Posting links to stories about Chai and Jenzabar that are critical of her is not a trademark violation in any manner. Using the term in metatags is totally meaningless. It's a shame that someone who apparently once stood as a voice for freedom is now trying to stifle free speech in others via trademark law abuse.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Judge Tells Gamer That Sony Doesn't Violate His Free Speech Rights By Banning Him

from the sony-ain't-the-government dept

Back in July, we wrote about an annoyed videogamer who sued Sony for banning him from the Playstation 3 game "Resistance" for things he said to other players in the game. He claimed it was a violation of his First Amendment rights -- though, as we explained at the time (and, as anyone actually familiar with the First Amendment already knows), the First Amendment only covers actions by the government, not private corporations. Sony has every right to bring down the banhammer if it wants to. It should come as no surprise then, that the judge wasted little time explaining this to him in the process of dismissing the case. However, there is one interesting aspect, as highlighted by Eric Goldman in the link above. The judge rejected the idea that Sony might be covered by the First Amendment as a "company town." Goldman points out that some have suggested this argument in the past, and now there's at least one ruling that totally rejects it:

Sony's Network is not similar to a company town. The Network does not serve a substantial portion of a municipality's functions, but rather serves solely as a forum for people to interact subject to specific contractual terms. Every regulation Sony applies in the Network is confined in scope only to those entertainment services that Sony provides. Although the Network does include "virtual spaces" such as virtual "homes" and a virtual "mall" that are used by a substantial number of users (Pl.'s Reply in Supp. of Opp'n. to Dismiss 1), these "spaces" serve solely to enrich the entertainment services on Sony's private network. In providing this electronic space that users can voluntarily choose to entertain themselves with, Sony is merely providing a robust commercial product, and is not "performing the full spectrum of municipal powers and [standing] in the shoes of the State." Hudgens, 424 U.S. at 519 (quoting Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 568-69 (1972)).

Sony does not have a sufficient structural or functional nexus to the government. Plaintiff has not suggested that Sony is part of the state or federal government. The Network was not created to further government objectives. The government retains no permanent authority to appoint any directors of Sony or the Network, or any other private body associated with the Network. There is no indication that Sony has assumed functions traditionally reserved to the government, or that the government had any part in encouraging Sony to create the Network. Count one of the complaint does not state a plausible First Amendment claim for relief, and therefore must be dismissed.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More Problems With The FTC's New Disclosure Rules: Free Speech And Liability Problems

from the disclose-everything dept

I've already noted my general problems the FTC's new disclosure rules, but as others look into the details, the worse they seem and the more you realize the unintended consequences may be pretty bad. Jeff Jarvis makes some key points concerning how this could be seen as a restriction on free speech. And that's because the FTC seems to be viewing blog posts as if they are media, rather than straightforward communication. As we've pointed out in the past, for many, blogging is often no different than a conversation. It's not journalism. It's not reporting. It's having a discussion with people:

Second, the FTC assumes -- as media people do -- that the internet is a medium. It's not. It's a place where people talk. Most people who blog, as Pew found in a survey a few years ago, don't think they are doing anything remotely connected to journalism. I imagine that virtually no one on Facebook thinks they're making media. They're connecting. They're talking. So for the FTC to go after bloggers and social media -- as they explicitly do -- is the same as sending a government goon into Denny's to listen to the conversations in the corner booth and demand that you disclose that your Uncle Vinnie owns the pizzeria whose product you just endorsed.

As such, you could make a case that the new rules are an unconstitutional law hindering First Amendment guarantees on freedom of speech. As I noted originally, it seems like these things get sorted out in the marketplace of ideas -- whereby those who do something so stupid as to sell their "views" on things face the potential of a substantial loss in credibility. But suddenly demanding people reveal the sourcing of some product they mention in blogs leads to all sorts of silly results, amusingly mocked by Mark Cuban in a blog post, where he wonders what sorts of disclosures he'll have to make if he mentions a breakfast at IHOP where the managers comps the breakfast. And while he's mocking the overall situation, it's not so silly. You shouldn't have to confer with your lawyers to figure out how you mention any particular product, just because you got a freebie or a sample somewhere.

And, what's really scary? It appears that even the FTC isn't sure what the policy actually means, and hasn't thought through any of the unintended consequences or fuzzy borders.

Separately, Eric Goldman highlights another massive problem with the new guidelines that no one else seems to have picked up on yet: that in some cases it's the company providing the product that will be liable -- ridiculously blaming the company if a blogger makes claims about its products that are not true. As Goldman points out, there's no way the FTC would be successful in going after companies for that, as Section 230 clearly would protect the advertiser from bogus statements by someone else. But, even assuming that the FTC never considered the Section 230 issues, why would the FTC ever think it's reasonable to fine an advertiser for statements made by someone else?

Despite tons of feedback and discussion when the FTC first proposed these new rules a few months ago, it really feels like no one at the FTC put much time into actually thinking through what these sorts of rules would actually mean in the real world.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

WSJ Defies NFL's Restriction On Live Blogging

from the whatcha-gonna-do-about-it? dept

Remember how the NFL told the press that they weren't allowed to live blog or live Tweet games, as it would be a violation of the league's broadcast rights? I noted that I couldn't see how that was enforceable by the league, other than by kicking reporters out of the stadium. Of course, even that would backfire, because a reporter could just watch the game on TV and live blog. And... in fact... that's exactly what the WSJ just did, apparently thumbing its collective nose at the NFL's restrictions. Ben alerts us to the news that a WSJ reporter, safely on his couch at home, live blogged a recent football game between the NY Jets and the Tennessee Titans. Your move, NFL...

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

'Free Credit Score' Company Tries To Unmask Anonymous Blogger; Sues Wikipedia

from the bait-and-switch? dept

You may recall last month that Ben Stein was fired from the NY Times after it was revealed that he was pitching "free credit reports" under the brand FreeScore.com, from a company, Adaptive Marketing, whose parent company, Vertue, has a reputation for figuring out ways to make those credit reports not so free. Reuters' Felix Salmon helped expose this in a blog post entitled Ben Stein, predatory bait-and-switch merchant. An pseudonymous blogger under the name flaneur de fraude linked to Salmon's post, and quoted the "predatory bait-and-switch" part.

Adaptive Marketing didn't go after Felix Salmon for that phrase... but it did go after this anonymous blogger, starting pre-litigation discovery to try to unmask who it is. Perhaps that's because in the blog post agreeing with Salmon, the blogger detailed a rather long and detailed list of instances where Adaptive Marketing's parent company, Vertue, has gotten in trouble for shady practices involving getting recurring charges onto users' credit cards. Among the links on the blog? One to Vertue's Better Business Bureau rating, where it has a solid "F." Paul Alan Levy, who alerted us to this story and is representing the blogger, notes, "When even the Better Business Bureau disses a company, you know there must be a big problem." Levy continues:

Although the burden on a defamation plaintiff would be to prove falsity, in this case, of course, it is hard to believe that what the blogger said isn't true.   Instead of just getting a credit score, consumers are entitled to obtain their entire credit report free of charge at the government-mandated web site annualcreditreport.com.    And the ads in question solicit telephone calls in which the service of credit monitoring is at best hawked, and at worst, as many consumers have complained, slipped in -- it remains to be seen which is true.  Such services "are often overrated, oversold, and overpriced."   But regardless of whether the services are worthwhile, and whether they are charged to consumers' credit cards after a genuine consent, "bait and switch" seems to be a fair characterization of what Adaptive is doing. 

Adaptive and Vertrue have been similarly criticized in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and New York Times, but it doesn't claim defamation by companies that can afford to defend themselves.  So Adaptive's suit seems to be just the latest in a long line of cases in which companies that don't want to be criticized seek to cleanse their reputations through subpoenas sent as a means of intimidation to those who may not be able to defend themselves.  It remains to be seen whether the Streisand effect gives them second thoughts

The WSJ's takedown of the company is pretty thorough. The Washington Post article is actually from a few years ago.

In the meantime, the blogger in question is is pointing out both that Vertrue is also going after Wikipedia (good luck with that) and is now dealing with a Senate subpoena. Perhaps threatening an anonymous blogger for pointing out some questions about the company's past isn't such a wise move. It only seems likey to draw just a bit more attention to these questions than if the company had just left things alone. Or... even better... cleaned up its act.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against No Longer Anonymous Commenter... After Commenter Was Revealed

from the oops dept

Last week, I had seen the news that a defamation lawsuit from an ex-Congressman in NY against an "anonymous" online critic had been dismissed as an anti-SLAPP violation. This is good news, and we really could use a national anti-SLAPP law that prevents the filing of bogus lawsuits designed to shut people up. However, Sam Bayard, over at the Citizen Media Law Project, digs into the details on this case, noting that an earlier judge had already revealed the anonymous commenter. The whole thing is pretty odd, but basically, it looks like the first judge relied on a lower bar in determining whether or not anonymity should be allowed -- claiming that no actual malice needed to be proved. However, when the revealed commenter filed an anti-SLAPP claim, the new judge had to take "actual malice" into account, and couldn't find any, thus tossing out the case. Still, it does seem like an odd, and vaguely troubling, result to find out that an anonymous commenter was unmasked... only to have the case thrown out on anti-SLAPP grounds at a later date. Just the fact that the guy was revealed may serve as disincentive for future critics to speak their minds.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Anonymity Online Under Attack: China And Australia

from the anonymity-rights? dept

For the most part, the US has recognized that the right to be anonymous is a form of protected free speech -- and yet, anonymity is constantly under attack. Of course, the right to be anonymous is not absolute, but there is value in allowing anonymous speech to occur. With the right to anonymity under attack in the US, it's even worse in other countries, where such rights aren't even seen as vital as it is in the US. China, for example, is now requiring news websites to force all commenters to reveal their real identity. Apparently, the government issued a directive demanding such info from all commenters, though, they don't want to admit it. Even though the newspapers are claiming that they're doing it to increase "civility" and "social responsibility," quietly they admit that it's the government. As for why the gov't won't just come out and say it's for civility and social responsibility (even if it's to quiet critics), apparently the government is afraid of public backlash:

"The influence of public opinion on the Net is still too big."

I guess that's why the idea is to silence them.

Meanwhile, as reports came in last week suggesting that Australia's latest plan to censor the internet is just about dead, Slashdot notes that Scientologists down under are asking the Australian gov't to implement severe restrictions on what they refer to as "Religious Vilification" (which, one assumes, means any anti-Scientology comments, among other things). The proposal also suggests that any such site should not be allowed to be operated anonymously. Apparently, Scientologists took the name of the group "Anonymous" that organized protests against the group quite literally.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Judge Says Ratings Agencies Are Not Necessarily Protected By Free Speech

from the that-seems-bad dept

The big ratings agencies, Moody's and S&P have taken something of a beating for their role in the financial crisis -- often rating pure junk as if it were pure gold. But, of course, in the rush to find someone to blame legally, it made little sense to go after the ratings agencies. The real problem wasn't that the ratings sucked (they did), but that federal regulations gave those ratings power in the law. This made those ratings not only more important, but gave them an official "stamp of approval" such that people assumed (incorrectly, obviously) that they must be accurate. The idea that a small group of guys sitting in an office could more accurately rate the risk of debt over the actual market seems rather absurd -- and yet, we gave it the federal stamp of approval. Still, as bad as the ratings were, there shouldn't be any legal consequence for getting the ratings wrong. After all, unless there was evidence of outright fraud, the ratings are simply opinions, which are protected by the First Amendment... or so we thought.

In a ruling last week, a judge has noted that ratings agencies' ratings are not protected free speech if they're only disseminated to a small group of people, rather than the wider public. While the ruling cites a few earlier cases, I have to admit that I have trouble understanding this reasoning. I don't recall anything in the First Amendment that says the government can restrict freedom of expression if it's to a small group of people, but not if it's to a large group of people. This probably isn't a huge deal for the ratings agencies -- though, it will keep them busy with some lawsuits that may cost them some money. The bigger "problem" in the market came from relying on their public ratings -- and those should (still) be protected.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Lawyers For Guy Charged In Death Of 4 Year Old, Demanding IDs Of 300 Newspaper Commenters

from the anonymity? dept

There have been a lot of stories lately about those who feel wronged demanding the identify of anonymous commenters. The latest such story, sent in by Kent Newsome involves a guy, Lucas Coe, who was charged in the death of his girlfriend's 4-year-old daughter. The local news organizations in Houston wrote about the case, and the stories generated plenty of comments. So, Coe's attorneys are demanding the identifying information on approximately 300 commenters. They're defending the request by saying that "the specificity of some comments that made it appear they came from people with personal knowledge of the case." Really? All 300 said stuff so specific that it appeared they had personal knowledge of the case? Or... is it just that his lawyers don't like what people are saying? Trying to find out the identities of anonymous speakers seems like a clear attempt to stifle free speech through intimidation. Luckily, the news organizations are defending their commenters' right to be anonymous. Hopefully, the courts agree.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Wisconsin Sports League Sends Newspapers Invoices For Live Blogging

from the just-try-to-charge dept

The NY Times checked in with its own version of the story about sports leagues restricting what fans can do in the stands to share their experience -- a story that we've already covered. However, Romenesko points us to a little tidbit down at the bottom of the NYT article, talking about other leagues that have tried to do something similar, mentioning that a sports league in Wisconsin went so far as to send invoices to newspapers it felt were "live blogging" its events. We had written about this dispute a few months ago, but I hadn't heard about the invoices before.

Every newspaper who received an invoice smartly ignored it, but the whole concept is ridiculous. The league is claiming that such a live blogging of what's happening at the sports event counts as a "broadcast" and thus should be required to pay the same fees that, say, local radio stations pay to broadcast the events. But the idea that you can stop people from, or charge people for, telling the world what's happening in a sporting venue is preposterous, not just from a legal or technological standpoint, but because these events depend on news coverage for advertising. Attempting to charge newspapers (or fans) for trying to keep others informed seems incredibly self-defeating.

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is A Blogger Strike The Best Way To Fight Back Against Laws Designed To Quiet Bloggers?

from the doesn't-seem-like-it dept

Last month, we wrote about a proposed law in Italy that would likely have serious chilling effects on bloggers and other independent online producers, by setting up fines for not pulling down content if someone accuses the site of defamation (not upon a court verdict, just upon accusation). In response, bloggers throughout Italy went on a "blog strike" to protest the proposed law. However, CitMediaLaw points us to a blog post raising the question of how a blog strike accomplishes that goal? If anything it would seem to do the opposite. By silencing themselves, and not talking about the issues, it keeps those issues out of the discussion for whatever period of time. Instead of silencing, why not do what the bloggers do best and talk about the problems of the law so that many more people are aware of them?

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Arrested For Blogging About The Police?

from the where-do-you-draw-the-line dept

A bunch of folks have been submitting this story about a blogger who was effectively arrested for blogging about the police, raising a series of free speech issues. As the article notes, the woman hardly makes for a sympathetic symbol of free speech rights. She appears to be a racist supporter of segregation and also seems to have an obsession with the local drug enforcement task force, posting all sorts of information about what they were doing and who was on the task force. But the question is whether any of it actually broke the law. What led to her arrest was posting home address info -- and a photo of the home -- of an officer on the task force. However, as the article linked above notes, that information was gleaned from public sources that anyone could have looked up had they chosen to do so. Making that a crime doesn't seem to make much sense. The police didn't even charge her with obstruction of justice, but with "identifying a police officer with intent to harass." The problem is such a law is so broad, it raises serious First Amendment issues. The woman isn't exactly a model citizen, but it still seems like a stretch to arrest her for revealing information that is already public.

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Facing Five Years In Prison For Posting A Photo On MySpace Wearing Gang Colors

from the seems-a-bit-harsh dept

Dealing with gang activity is certainly a priority in areas beset by gang violence, but does that mean we throw out certain First Amendment rights? Last year, Florida passed a new anti-gang law that banned using electronic communications "for the purpose of benefiting, promoting, or furthering the interests of a criminal gang" and that included "advertis[ing] his or her presence in the community" via an online image or video. Apparently, authorities in Florida have now arrested 15 people under this law based on their MySpace profiles, including one 14-year-old who "posted pictures of himself dressed in gang colors and displaying gang hand signals." For this, all of those arrested now face up to 5 years in prison. Some are already protesting the constitutionality of this law. It certainly seems like a limit on free expression.

Even recognizing the problems with gang violence, it seems a bit extreme to arrest people and threaten them with jailtime just for posting such photos on their profiles. Why not use that information to track and monitor certain gang members to try to stop actual illegal gang activity? Here are kids advertising to anyone (including the police) that they're in a gang, which should make it easier for the police to follow them and use that info to deal with real gang activity.

55 Comments | Leave a Comment..

This Is America... Why Are We Banning Books?

from the good-questions dept

Last month we wrote about how a district court banned the publication of a so-called "sequel" (written by another author) to JD Salinger's Catcher in the Rye. I had a lot of trouble with this ruling, which seemed to be a complete assault on the basics of free speech and a total misreading of copyright law. The book itself is not a copy, but something entirely new. Whether or not it's any good (and some of the reviews say it's not), it is a new creative work -- the exact type of thing that copyright was supposed to encourage. It's good to see a lot of other folks are quite concerned about this ruling as well, and the Fair Use Project at Stanford has teamed up with some other universities to file an amicus brief on behalf of the American Library Association and some other library associations, who are reasonably concerned about the free speech implications of banning the publication of a book such as this one.

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Alaska Officials Using Copyright To Try To Stifle Images Of Killed Wolves

from the free-speech? dept

So, we just had the story of police in the UK trying to abuse copyright to prevent the showing of speed camera photos. Now we've got a somewhat similar story in the US, pointed to us by Michael Scott, involving officials in Alaska using copyright to try to force offline photos of "aerial wolf kills." Apparently, the Alaskan gov't goes around and shoots wolves from helicopters to control the wolf population. Not surprisingly, some find this rather distasteful. One wildlife protection group obtained the government's photos of killed wolves from March of this year using a public records request, and put them online... at which point the gov't claimed that it was a copyright violation.

This seems questionable on a variety of fronts. In the US, we tend to have problems with the idea that gov't should copyright things. The federal gov't can't, though state gov'ts often have more leeway and often do claim copyright over documents (though, it can be controversial). More importantly, though, once again, this is clearly not the intention of copyright. It's quite obviously copyright law being used (yet again) to stifle free expression from protesters -- a form of free speech which should trump copyright law absolutely. Of course, in the end, like so many attempts to stifle speech, this is backfiring. The effort to suppress the photos is only serving to draw much more attention to them.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..