Browsing by Subject "first amendment"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    DIOS MIO—The KISS Principle of the Ethical Approach to Copyright and Right of Publicity Law
    (2013-02-12) Murray, Michael D.
    To copy or not to copy, to exploit the famous celebrity image or not to exploit it; these are the questions. The message of the modern legal world communicated through multiple voices in the academy is that copying often is perfectly acceptable and even laudable. An artist or designer might conclude that it is both legal and ethical to use whatever you can, use whatever you can get away with, and use it until you get sued for using it. Yet plagiarism in the arts and sciences is nearly universally condemned. This Article proposes an ethical approach to the use of copyrighted works and names, images, and likenesses protected by the right of publicity. This approach is based on the ethical requirements of the law as synthesized from the cases presenting concrete narratives concerning fair and appropriate uses of protected works, names, and images. My thesis may be summed up in a revised form of the KISS principle (Keep it simple, stupid!) known as "DIOS MIO: Don’t Include Other’s Stuff or Modify It Obviously". Although simplified to this acronym, the ethical considerations concerning copyright-protected works and right of publicity-protected names and images are far from simple. The advice of this Article reflects the convergence of predominant purpose analysis and transformative/transformation analysis in copyright and right of publicity law that has led to a single set of recommendations for the legal and ethical treatment of protected works and celebrity names, images, and likenesses: seek first to create and not to copy or exploit, and create new expression by obvious modification of the old expression and content.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    From the Victorian Internet to Section 230: Journalistic Discourse, Government Regulation, and New Communications Technology
    (2023) Aldridge , Kendal
    This study explores the role of mainstream media commentary in reflecting and shaping public opinion on the regulation of interactive communication online. It uses textual analysis to examine newspaper commentary on Section 230 leading up to the only two Supreme Court cases to challenge this controversial statute. The cases are ACLU v. Reno, argued in 1997, and Gonzalez v. Google, argued in 2023. This study analyzes six months of commentary, leading up to oral arguments in each case, from three major publications: The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Widely considered the first draft of history, journalistic discourse offers insight into how public perception of online communication has shifted over time. A qualitative textual analysis of newspaper commentary focused on the Section 230 statute of the reformed 1934 Communications Act found three dominant themes: a collective recognition of content harms, polarization on content moderation policy, and an overall politicization of First Amendment jurisprudence. Debate over the decision to keep or revoke Section 230 touches each of these three themes. This study also situates the current debate over online communication into the long history of government regulation of new media technologies. From its regulation of the telegraph to the internet, U.S. telecommunications law remains the pre-eminent legal framework governing each iteration of communications technology. Revisiting this history is important to understanding modern debates around the sufficiency of this old law to govern new technology.