Law Commons^™

Privacy For Social Networking, Connie Davis Powell

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

This article begins by considering the emergence of social networks as a major medium of communication and posits that the success of social networks is attributable to their users' willingness to share their information. Next, the article considers the expectation of privacy for users of social networks and whether such expectation is reasonable. In particular, the article discusses the privacy policies and legal terms governing the use of social networks, and tracks the evolution of such terms and policies as they slowly whittle away user control over time. The article then discusses public outcry regarding the disclosure of information contrary …

Post-Mortem Right Of Publicity In Arkansas: Protecting Against The Unauthorized Use Of A Person’S Identity For Commercial Purposes, Rashauna A. Norment

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

The right of publicity protects a person against the use of his or her name, identity, likeness, or other personal characteristics for commercial purposes without consent. Many states have implemented a statutory right of publicity or have recognized the right under common law. Currently, only three states have a post-mortem right of publicity. This article discusses jurisdictions that have adopted a postmortem right of publicity, and advocates that Arkansas adopt a postmortem right of publicity for everyone.

Specifically, the article argues that traditional protection stemming from actions for invasion of a right of privacy, trademark infringement, and copyright infringement cannot …

Tort Law—Tortious Interference With Business Expectancy – A Trap For The Wary And Unwary Alike, Larry Watkins

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

Despite remaining stable and unchanged over the last decade, tortious interference has also remained problematic in Arkansas. Although tortious interference with contract in Arkansas suffers from many ailments, this note focuses on interference with business expectancy, discussing interference with contract only as necessary. Specifically, the note argues that tortious interference in Arkansas should be formally separated into two distinct rules—interference with contract and interference with business expectancy—in order to keep courts from mixing terms and standards from both rules when addressing only one cause of action. This note further proposes that the improper element of tortious interference in Arkansas should …