Weekly IP Buzz for the Week Ending January 31, 2020
In this week's post, we see social media playing a big part in how, and how far, an artist may go with protecting rights after copyright infringement occurs online. However, artists should be aware of how to legally protect their rights and the options available to make their best informed decision on copyright protection.
Also, a discussion of defamation cases involving public figures.
How the Artist Community Can Go Beyond Social Media for Copyright Policing & Enforcement
Artist Jonas Jödicke recently found himself in a social media firestorm after confronting musical artist Aaron Carter on Twitter over Carter’s alleged unauthorized use of his artwork.
In this blog we have written at length about the struggles between artists and copyright infringement, such as an artist’s struggle against copyright infringers that recreated her work in other mediums. [View “Cease-and-Desist Letters are Important Tools in an Artist’s Arsenal”.] This post will discuss the part social media plays, why inaction can be detrimental, and the legal options artists have against copyright infringement of their works.
What we see between Jödicke and Carter is a common scenario: lesser known artist takes on more well-known celebrity over alleged copyright infringement. But because the more famous artist has (arguably) more clout, the alleged infringement is dismissed by the more famous artist. In this case, Aaron Carter has 626,000+ followers and the enviable “verified” checkmark by his name while Jödicke has 34,000+ followers without the checkmark.
In these cases, the Internet and social media play an important part, affecting the artists both positively and negatively.
Read the full article here.
Tulsi Gabbard Sues Hillary Clinton Over "Russian Asset" Remark. Defamation or Politics as Usual?
On January 22, 2020, Tulsi Gabbard and Tulsi Now, Inc. filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York. The opening paragraph of the complaint sets the tone of the dispute:
Plaintiffs Tulsi Gabbard and Tulsi Now, Inc. (collectively, “Tulsi”) bring this lawsuit against Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton (“Clinton”) for defamation. Tulsi Gabbard is running for President of the United States, a position Clinton has long coveted, but has not been able to attain. In October 2019—whether out of personal animus, political enmity, or fear of real change within a political party Clinton and her allies have long dominated—Clinton lied about her perceived rival Tulsi Gabbard. She did so publicly, unambiguously, and with obvious malicious intent. Tulsi has been harmed by Clinton’s lies—and American democracy has suffered as well. With this action, Tulsi seeks to hold Clinton, and the political elites who enable her, accountable for distorting the truth in the middle of a critical Presidential election.
Gabbard seeks an award of compensatory, special, and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief prohibiting the publication and republication of certain alleged defamatory statements and an award of Gabbard’s costs associated with the lawsuit.
In the famous case New York Times v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court set the standard for defamation claims involving public figures and adopted the term “actual malice” giving it constitutional significance to balance the interests of the First Amendment and the law of defamation. The Court held that a public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement in question was made with actual malice.
Read the full article here.
Click to read the previous Weekly IP Buzz on Thriving Attorney.
For more posts, see our Intellectual Property Law Blog.
--------
In addition to Thriving Attorney, Darin M. Klemchuk is founder of Klemchuk LLP, a litigation, intellectual property, and transactional law firm located in Dallas, Texas. Click to read more about Darin Klemchuk's practice as an intellectual property lawyer.