Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Courts, Trademarks, And The Icann Gold Rush: No Free Speech In Top Level Domains, Jerome O'Callaghan, Paula O'Callaghan
Courts, Trademarks, And The Icann Gold Rush: No Free Speech In Top Level Domains, Jerome O'Callaghan, Paula O'Callaghan
Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review
In recent years, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) expanded top-level domains, such as .com, .net, and .org, to include a very wide variety of new terms. One of the new options is .sucks. This Article examines the potential for conflict when trademark holders seek to protect their mark in the context of the .sucks domain. There is a temptation to see this issue in terms of consumers’ free speech rights pitted against corporate interests. However, the recent privatization of ICANN does not bode well for promoting consumers’ First Amendment rights in domain name battles.
Making Room For Big Data: Web Scraping And An Affirmative Right To Access Publicly Available Information Online, Amber Zamora
Making Room For Big Data: Web Scraping And An Affirmative Right To Access Publicly Available Information Online, Amber Zamora
The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law
This paper will explore the legality of web scraping through the lens of recent litigation between web scraper hiQ Labs and the online professional networking platform, LinkedIn. First, the paper will study the background of web scraping litigation, some challenges courts face in issuing consistent verdicts, and the most common claims companies make against web scrapers. Then the paper will address three of the most common claims and identify court motivations and limitations within the doctrines. The first claims are those arising from the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Next, the paper will investigate copyright claims and defenses …
Scotus's Second Take On Trademark Registration As Speech, Christine Farley
Scotus's Second Take On Trademark Registration As Speech, Christine Farley
Editorial Contributions
Professor Farley offers her take on Iancu v. BrunettiURL: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/06/scotuss-trademark-registration.html
The Right Of Publicity's Intellectual Property Turn, Jennifer E. Rothman
The Right Of Publicity's Intellectual Property Turn, Jennifer E. Rothman
All Faculty Scholarship
The Article is adapted from a keynote lecture about my book, THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY: PRIVACY REIMAGINED FOR A PUBLIC WORLD (Harvard Univ. Press 2018), delivered at Columbia Law School for its symposium, “Owning Personality: The Expanding Right of Publicity.” The book challenges the conventional historical and theoretical understanding of the right of publicity. By uncovering the history of the right of publicity’s development, the book reveals solutions to current clashes with free speech, individual liberty, and copyright law, as well as some opportunities for better protecting privacy in the digital age.
The lecture (as adapted for this Article) explores …
Copyright Policy As Catalyst And Barrier To Innovation And Free Expression, Amanda Reid
Copyright Policy As Catalyst And Barrier To Innovation And Free Expression, Amanda Reid
Catholic University Law Review
At its core, copyright is an innovation policy, a competition policy, and a free expression policy. Copyright seeks to balance incentivizing a public good with providing a private interest. Copyright’s purpose to catalyze creative expression and innovation is canonical; creativity and innovation are synergetic. Copyright is a means of promoting progress; copyright is not an end in itself. Much like freedom of expression and new innovations are not ends in themselves, copyright protection is not for its own sake. Freedom of expression is often heralded as a means of fostering democratic self-governance, truth, and happiness. Innovation is seen as a …
The Department Of Justice Versus Apple Inc. -- The Great Encryption Debate Between Privacy And National Security, Julia P. Eckart
The Department Of Justice Versus Apple Inc. -- The Great Encryption Debate Between Privacy And National Security, Julia P. Eckart
Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology
This article is an attempt to objectively examine and assess legal arguments made by Apple Inc. (Apple) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) concerning the DOJ’s use of the All Writs Act[1] (AWA) to require Apple to provide technical assistance to the DOJ so that it could access the encrypted data from the locked iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook, commonly referred to as the San Bernardino shooter. The DOJ’s initial ex parte application focused on meeting the requirements of United States v. New York Telephone Co.[2] concluding the court order was authorized and appropriate. Apple not only argued …
Weeding Out Wolves: Protecting Speakers And Punishing Pirates In Unmasking Analyses, Nathaniel Plemons
Weeding Out Wolves: Protecting Speakers And Punishing Pirates In Unmasking Analyses, Nathaniel Plemons
Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law
This Note examines the prevalence of anonymous internet speakers, the practical and legal issues that courts confront when balancing the rights of anonymous internet speakers with those of plaintiffs seeking to unmask them, and the serious dangers courts expose speakers to if wrongfully unmasked. Part I argues that internet speech merits the same First Amendment protections as traditional speech, notes the unique benefits of anonymous internet speech, examines the practical difficulties faced by courts and plaintiffs in unmasking anonymous speakers, and details the immense dangers these speakers face if wrongfully exposed. Part II analyzes the most common approaches courts use …
Merging Offensive-Speech Cases With Viewpoint-Discrimination Principles: The Immediate Impact Of Matal V. Tam On Two Strands Of First Amendment Jurisprudence, Clay Calvert
UF Law Faculty Publications
This Article examines flaws with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Matal v. Tam that equated giving offense with viewpoint discrimination. Already, the Court’s language in Tam that “giving offense is a viewpoint” is being cited by multiple lower courts. This Article argues, however, that giving offense is not synonymous with viewpoint discrimination. This Article contends that the Court in Tam conflated two distinct strands of First Amendment jurisprudence—namely, its offensive-speech cases with principles against viewpoint discrimination. The Article proposes two possible paths forward to help courts better clarify when a case such as Tam should be analyzed as …