Gordon Firemark and Tamara Bennett Trademark, Copyright, Entertainment Attorneys discuss a variety of issues on August 25, 2010. The following are two issues I found interesting:
Invasion of Privacy issue: Justin Beiber tweeted 15-year old Kevin Krisopik’s phone number on a Saturday night, telling his 4.5 million followers that it was his own phone number. Kevin received 26,000 calls and text messages from fans of Justin Beiber. Justin admitted to going this and said that he did it because Kevin got ahold of Justin’s cell phone number, and had been bothering him with unwanted, annoying text messages. Kevin’s father is worried about the phone bill. Gordon and Tamara discussed what the possible damages would be. There were not any monetary damages because Kevin had an unlimited text messaging phone plan. It may have cost money to change the phone number, but that is small claims issue, probably not worth pursuing. It was the responsibility of Justin. Was there a right of privacy violation? Since the phone number was private, a reasonable person would think it is a violation of privacy. Was it an intentional and willful act of Beiber? Probably not. The discussion of this case was interesting because the attorneys did bring up any possible legal liability, that could apply to this case, but none of them applied.
The next discussion that I found interesting is the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) indecency policy ruling that, the FCC must allow for isolated instances. This case involved, Fox Broadcasting, which had been cited by the FCC for comments made by Cher and Nicole Ritchie during the Billboard Music Awards show in 2002 and 2003. (Teinowitz, 2010). A Fox spokesman, Scot Grogin, stated, “we must allow for the unfortunate isolated instances where inappropriate language slips through.” (Teinowitz, 2010) The Federal Court had tossed the FCC’s indecency policy, ruling that it violates the First Amendment and admonished it for vague enforcement. The court referred to incidences such as Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” and Bono’s f-bomb at the Golden Globes. The three-judge panel at the U.S. court or appeals called the FCC policy “unconstitutionally vague” and it “creates a chilling effect”.
The podcast discussed the fact that the networks indecency policy is impermissibly vague, and that it results in a standard that even the FCC cannot articulate or apply consistently. I agree with Firemark and Bennett, there has to be flexibility in the law to protect kids and those with sensitive ears for when these things happen. This issue has to do with an expression of excitement, that sometimes happens on live television. The FCC has a list of 7 bad words you can’t say on live television. Should there be a list of the 7 bad words? Is the list the right criteria? Maybe the list should be updated. And, the policy has to be clear and concise so that it can be followed. I also agree that the policy is unconstitutional and the FCC must update it.
The second issue is something that could possibly apply to my business plan. You never know if the artist I manage could win an award and I would be there with them to accept it. Some of the other issues discussed on the podcast were on-going and more research would have to be done to go back to the original cases.
Detroit Free Press, The Detroit News, WSJ. (August 17, 2010). Justin's Evil Prank. Retrieved on January 29, 2012, from http://theweek.com/article/index/206135/justin-biebers-evil-prank
Teinowitz, Ira (July 13, 2010). Fox 'Pleased' by Indecency Ruling: 'Must Allow for Isolated Instances'. Retrieve on January 29, 2012, from http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/court-tosses-fccs-indecency-policy-first-amendment- violation-19182
