Category Archive

US Weekly posted an article in October 2005 about a Britney Spears/Kevin Federline sex tape.  Britney Spears filed a defamation case against US Weekly after US Weekly claimed that Britney Spears and Kevin Federline created a very crazy sex tape that would soon be leaked to the public. Britney Spears found this “false and outrageous” and sought 10 million dollars in damages. What I would like to know is - Is it defamatory to state that a husband and wife taped themselves having consensual sex? Britney is looked at as an extremely sexual woman and has remained open about her sexuality to her fans. She wears little clothing on stage, in her videos, at the grocery store, and even shows her crotch in public. The judge ruled that there was no basis behind Britneys. Britney puts herself out there as a profitable sexual pop star. Therefore, the image of Britney and Kevin having sex did not destroy the sexualized image she previously created.     The article in US Weekly also stated that Spears and Federline acted “goofy” at their lawyers office when they first discussed the possibility of the sex videos release. Why didn’t the judge consider this as defamatory? Calling Britney “goofy” would not destroy her career. But, that doesn’t mean its legally ok to state Britney acted “goofy” when discussing her private sex video soon to be released to the public. Did the judge make a mistake? Because she acted “goofy” the reader now assumes Britney didn’t take the videos public release very seriously. I think this should have been discussed more thoroughly in the case.

Baywatch has been deemed obscene in
India!  The Sony Satellite Channel, AXN, which carries Baywatch, has been banned for showing indecent content.  India, like the
United States, has a provision in their constitution that protects freedom of speech and expression.  However, India’s constitution is different from the
United States because the section in the constitution protecting this fundamental freedom also has a provision which allows Parliament to enact legislation that may infringe on this right.  It is not clear whether Parliament has enacted legislation or whether the Indian government is acting under a form of pre-censorship.  Lawyers representing Sony acknowledged the Indian government has the ability to pull material considered obscene, but in this case the government is claiming an entire channel is obscene. 

Is India turning into
North Korea!  According to the BBC,
North Korea only allows government approved channels and all radios must be registered.  There are reports of North Koreans fleeing the country thanks to Baywatch being offered in
South Korea.  One person who fled told reporters
America is their favorite country and that they would like to live in houses like Pamela Anderson and David Hasselhoff.  I pose a question to the loyal readers of this blog…What if the United States had a provision in the Constitution like the Indian one…Would Baywatch have been banned in the States?

     The amazing Britney Spears was once deemed “too stimulating” for the youth of Japan. I can think of many ways to poke fun at that, but for now lets just stick to legal talk. The October 2006 issue of Harpers Bazaar showed Brit very pregnant, very nude, and covered in jewels. This picture was taken by photographer Alexi Lubomirski and is intended to be a picture of a glowing pregnant woman. The cover was shown as a poster on subways all over Tokyo. However, the poster was only supposed to show Britney from the elbow up and would have the tagline saying “We apologize for hiding part of a beautiful image of a mother-to-be.” The subway authorities decided to drop its plan to censor the photo. This whole issue began when a Tokyo Metro Company obscenity screening team asked the publishing company of Japans Harpers Bazaar to modify the photograph. The Metro company felt it was “too stimulating for young people”.  The publisher for Japans Harpers Bazaar actually wanted to modify the picture and write in the blacked out parts “in this place we are not allowed to exercise the same level of freedom of expression as the original Harpers Bazaar.” The metro company decided to show the picture as is because they now understand Harpers Bazaar wanted to portray the pop sensation as a mother-to-be in a happy non sexual way.

In some respects you’re a nobody until you have your first protest website. The misrepresentation of trademarked people has become a serious concern for many celebrities who worry about any damage done to their image. The bigger the celebrity, the more of a target they are. It would be very difficult for Britney’s legal team to go after every single terrible picture or website. Unfortunately, it looks like these problems may be permanent. However, it would make sense for famous people such as Britney Spears to buy close variations of their domain name and any other similar URLs. This may seem impossible, but Britney’s legal team should consider it. While I would hope Britney Spears and her legal team would have a sense of humor about some cybersquatting, there is a downside. All of this may backfire on celebrities. There’s the possibility that any lengthy legal action against an independent website owner may cause a PR disaster. Some celebrities such as Britney Spears must pick and chose their battles…looks like http://www.britneyspearxxx.com/    is unfortunately here to stay.

Jessica Linsky

Why is it always the celebrity supposedly getting screwed by cybersquatters?!  Thanks to one of my favorite movie’s, Office Space, I began to wonder if this situation could be flipped around.  For those of you who have not had the pleasure of seeing this cinematic masterpiece, one of the characters is named…Michael Bolton.  What if little office geek Michael Bolton wanted to create a blog entitled, www.michaelbolton.com, but the singer Michael Bolton already had the rights to the name?  Can the little nobody have a claim?  The Grammy winning Michael Bolton would most likely be able to overcome a claim of cybersquatting.  His biggest defense would be that he didn’t register the website in bad faith and he was using it for a legitimate purpose.  But let’s say Grammy Michael disappears for years or even dies?  Should he still be allowed to block someone else from using the same domain name?  I thought about this in the context of Elvis.  Elvis has been dead for years but his name and music are still very much on the market.  His estate should still be allowed to use the King’s name in a domain name.  Even if Grammy Michael were to disappear I believe him or his estate would still have a valid claim to the use of the domain name.  This leaves office dwelling Michael left with one choice and that is to buy the rights from Grammy Michael.  The office Michael needs to be the first in line to register the name in order to use it.  Sometimes it just doesn’t pay-off to have a famous name. 

A great scene from Office Space! 

Samir: No one in this country can ever pronounce my name right. It’s not that hard: Samir Na-gheen-an-a-jar. Nagheenanajar.
Michael Bolton: Yeah, well at least your name isn’t Michael Bolton.
Samir: You know there’s nothing wrong with that name.
Michael Bolton: There was nothing wrong with it… until I was about 12 years old and that no-talent ass clown became famous and started winning Grammys.
Samir: Hmm… well why don’t you just go by Mike instead of Michael?
Michael Bolton: No way. Why should I change? He’s the one who sucks.

Now this is interesting. If I’m not mistaken, Britney posed for photographers a while ago and was very open about her sexuality.

Or was it all for magazine sales? If someone discovered that Britney really is a lesbian, would this disrupt her comeback? This tabloid could interfere with the marketplace filled with Britney Spears fans who believe she lives a particular type of lifestyle.  Does Britney have a claim against “In Touch” magazine? Even though Britney isn’t a perfect role model, she’s a public figure that many people identify with. Many people buy her albums because she’s someone who represents their beliefs. I see this as a potential problem for “In Touch”. 

      Although we haven’t discussed Defamation in Entertainment Law, it’s a huge problem in the entertainment industry. According to New York Times v. Sullivan, Britney is considered a Public Figure. Therefore, Britney’s legal team must prove that “In Touch” published the statements with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. The burden is by clear and convincing evidence. Britney’s legal team must show that “In Touch” wanted to sell magazines and nothing in their story is truthful.

      On top of proving how false their story is, lets exhaust Britney’s market potential to “In Touch”, shall we? Britney is working on an album with a large amount of anticipated album sales…somewhere over 3 million. She’s gone on tour after each album release, therefore a tour will most likely be in the works once her album hits stores.  With each album there are T-shirts, videos, posters, commercials, interviews, and other huge press related activities.  All of this could be seriously reduced because of the claims made by “In Touch”. Why would “In Touch” believe this was true? “In Touch” better stay in touch with their legal team!

Britney Spears won a decisive court victory when a federal judge in Philadelphia tossed out a copyright infringement suit brought by two Pennsylvania men who claimed that the melody of Spears’ song “What U See Is What U Get” infringed their song entitled “What You See Is What You Get.”
 Judge found that the plaintiffs could not prove one of the essential elements of their case - that the defendants had access to their song.  The undisputed evidence showed that Spears recorded her version before the Plaintiffs ever gave their song to an agent to be pitched to Spears. But even if the copyright infringement were not chronologically impossible, the Judge found that the case would still fail because the two songs are not substantially similar.  Spears and her co-defendants, Zomba Recording Corp., Jive Records, Wright Entertainment Group and BMG Music Publishing Inc. were all entitled to summary judgment. The Plaintiffs claimed that they were contacted in 1995 by William Kahn, a talent scout who represented Spears, who invited them to submit songs for her upcoming album. The plaintiffs claim they began writing “What You See Is What You Get” in 1998 and gave Kahn an instrumental copy by October 1999. By November 1999, the suit said, the final version of the song was submitted to the U.S. Copyright Office. But the four men credited as writers of Spears’ song “What U See Is What U Get” were Jorgen Elofsson, David Kreuger, Per Magnusson, and Rami Yacoub. They testified that their work on the song’s melody was completed by October 1999.
All four also testified that they had not heard the plaintiffs’ song before March 2003 and did not copy it to create their song. Defense lawyers argued that the case failed because the plaintiffs couldn’t even prove the possibility that the defendants had access to their song. The judge stated that even if the Plaintiffs could show access, summary judgment would still be warranted since the plaintiffs couldn’t show that the two works are “substantially similar.” 

       An incredibly tasteful man named Daniel Edwards created this statue of Britney titled “Monument of Pro-Life: the birth of Sean Preston”. Sean Preston was the first of two baby boys Spears delivered in two years. The statue can be seen at a gallery in Brooklyn.  This statue supposedly depicts Britney giving birth. But why on top of a bear skin rug?  Also, just in case you were wondering, Spears delivered both sons via C-section.  Edwards described Spears as a great role model for Pro-Life and someone who would stand by her beliefs on abortion.  Anyway, Britney never filed suit against Mr. Edwards and I always wondered why.  This statute was originally seen in Brooklyn and then pictures of the statue were shown all over the internet within 48 hours. I don’t see how Spears could have found this tasteful or helpful towards her career. I think Spears should have asked for the statue to be removed form the gallery.  Did Mr. Edwards violate the law somehow?

      Spears is a public figure who puts herself out to the public on a daily basis and not just in the form of a statue by Mr. Edwards. This statue was not a derivative work because Spears didn’t deliver her babies naturally and she didn’t deliver her babies on a bear skin rug. However, Mr. Edwards could possibly defend himself by claiming fair use. Although he would like to claim this statue was a form of flattering, this statue was offensive to some. On the other hand, many people perceived this statue as comical and a type of parody. Without reading the name of the statue, I originally thought someone was making fun of Spears. Overall, I think the statue is funny and Mr. Edwards should just stick to a fair use defense through parody and not to his appreciation for Britney Spear’s baby popping lifestyle.

It’s the fourth quarter and the team is down by 1 with no time left on the clock, but there’s a shooting foul and now Dirk Nowitzki has two free throws to win game!  Can you say pressure!?  How does an athlete like Dirk stay calm and cool?  Does he think about his grandmother?  Does he dream of beer and bratwursts to celebrate the victory?  No no Dirk has his own special way to channel his fear and block out all nerves.  What is this magic relaxing technique?  The Hoff my dear friends…THE HOFF!  According to Dirk he hums the Hoff’s “Looking for Freedom”!  God Bless that crazy German Baller!

advertising