Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Act And Protection Of Cordless Telephone Communications: The Use Of Technology As A Guide To Privacy, Basil W. Mangano
The Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Act And Protection Of Cordless Telephone Communications: The Use Of Technology As A Guide To Privacy, Basil W. Mangano
Cleveland State Law Review
While it is now illegal to intentionally intercept cordless telephone conversations, cordless telephone users have not always been protected. Prior to October 1994 the Federal Wiretap Act did not protect cordless telephone users from private persons or law enforcement agencies who intentionally intercepted their conversations. In fact, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) amended Title III of the of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to expressly exclude cordless telephone transmissions from the definition of "wire" and "electronic" communications. With the advent of new cordless technology and the ubiquitousness of the cordless telephone, Congress …
Commercial Exploitation Or Protected Use? Stern V. Delphi Internet Services Corporation And The Erosion Of The Right Of Publicity, Karin M. Mika, Aaron J. Reber
Commercial Exploitation Or Protected Use? Stern V. Delphi Internet Services Corporation And The Erosion Of The Right Of Publicity, Karin M. Mika, Aaron J. Reber
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
This article addresses the repercussions of Stern v. Delphi Internet Services Corporation and argues that the decision in Stern opens the door to a broader interpretation of “newsworthiness” and “public interest” that will enable advertisers broader First Amendment protections when using “unauthorized” likenesses. This article posits that artful advertisers could very well use the theory of Stern as a basis for virtually ensuring that every “unauthorized likeness” will enjoy First Amendment protection and not be considered as violative of the right of publicity.