scholarly journals Freedom of Speech and Injunctions in Intellectual Property Cases

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Irreparable Harm ◽  
Commercial Advertising ◽  
The One ◽  
Prior Restraint

Preliminary injunctions against libel, obscenity, and other kinds of speechare generally considered unconstitutional prior restraints. Never mind thata libel may inflict truly irreparable harm on you: The most you can hopefor is damages, or perhaps a permanent injunction after final adjudication-- not preliminary relief.And yet in copyright and other intellectual property cases, preliminaryinjunctions are routine. We argue that the prior restraint doctrine hassomething to say about that, too. Though copyright law (like libel andobscenity law), is a constitutionally permissible speech restriction, the"First Amendment Due Process" rule against prior restraints applies even tosuch permissible restrictions.We argue that preliminary injunctions in copyright cases are generallyunconstitutional; the one exception is cases where there's no controversyover substantial similarity of expression or fair use (for instance, wherethe question turns only on whether defendant had the requisite license). Wealso argue the same about right of publicity cases, trademark cases, andtrade secret cases, except possibly cases (such as many trademark cases)that involve commercial advertising. We believe this conclusion is dictatedby the Court's prior restraint doctrine, and also makes good FirstAmendment policy sense.

The $12,000 Tweet: A Collision at the Intersection of Social Media and Copyright Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 155545892096485
Author(s):  
Barbara Hickman
Keyword(s):  
Professional Development ◽  
Social Media ◽  
School Districts ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Federal Regulations ◽  
Copyright Violation ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Use Of Social Media

The use of social media may be contributing to violations of copyright law and can create legal challenges for school districts trying to balance ease of communication and First Amendment freedom of speech rights against compliance with federal regulations. In this case, a district is threatened with a lawsuit for copyright violation when one of the employees retweets a trademarked phrase. The case explores how school districts monitor copyright law, issues surrounding social media accounts for teachers and other employees such as coaches, the district’s liability for what is shared on those accounts, professional development, and possible board and district responses.

scholarly journals Information Technology and the Law

HortScience ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 697e-697
Author(s):  
Roy Collins
Keyword(s):  
Information Technology ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Direct Relationship ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
National Information Infrastructure ◽  
Governmental Regulation ◽  
National Information ◽  
The U.S

This paper explores fundamental doctrines of law which increasingly constitute the rules of commerce in deploying the National Information Infrastructure (NII). Particular attention is given to efforts made within the U.S. government to ensure that an appropriate regime of intellectual property law is in place in promoting U.S. leadership in the information-based marketplace. The direct relationship between U.S. copyright law and the networked dissemination of software, audio, graphical and textual works is consequently explored. Also described is the effect of developments in information technology upon the frequently opposing interests of freedom of speech, right to privacy, and governmental regulation.

V. Civil Liberties

1948 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-52
Author(s):  
Robert E. Cushman
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Civil Liberty ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Military Power ◽  
Procedural Due Process ◽  
The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's decisions dealing with civil liberties in the ten years under review fall into four groups: (1) cases involving the rights protected by the First Amendment—freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly; (2) those concerned with racial discrimination; (3) cases enlarging the power of the federal government to protect civil rights against invasion by private persons; (4) war-time cases arising out of conflicts between civil liberty and military power. Decisions dealing with procedural due process and other rights of those accused of crime are discussed in another part of this symposium.I. FIRST AMENDMENT—FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, PRESS, AND ASSEMBLYDuring the decade we are examining, the Supreme Court not only has decided a substantial number of cases involving freedom of speech, press, and religion, but it has developed a new and important judicial philosophy or doctrine with respect to them. In this judicial doctrine, three principles are fused. The first is that the four liberties protected by the First Amendment are so indispensable to the democratic process and to the preservation of the freedom of our people that they occupy a preferred place in our scheme of constitutional values.

Fair Use

2011 ◽  
pp. 285-290
Author(s):  
Pasi Tyrväskylä
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Technical Development ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
User Expectations

Intellectual property legislation has continuously redefined the balance between the interests of stakeholders, especially the authors of creative works, and the users of the works. The contemporary balance of legal, technical, social, political, and economical interests has typically been formulated into the copyright law stating the limits of the exclusive rights of the authors of creative works and the exceptions to the exclusive rights, defining the fair use of the works by other stakeholders. National legislation reflects the changes in the surrounding society, its technical development, and so forth, but global technical development and international treaties have harmonized the laws and user expectations to some extent.

Kilka uwag o teorii interpretacji konstytucyjnej Ronalda Dworkina na przykładzie klauzuli wolności słowa

2021 ◽  
Vol 5(166) ◽  
pp. 77-98
Author(s):  
Łukasz Machaj
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Basic Assumption ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Abstract Concepts ◽  
Ronald Dworkin ◽  
Basic Law

The article analyses the concept of constitutional interpretation of Ronald Dworkin, one of the most eminent representatives of contemporary liberal legal thought. Its basic assumption is the conviction that fundamental laws contain abstract concepts which are the domain of political philosophy (e.g. ‘freedom’, ‘property’, ‘due process’), and that those who interpret them – judges in particular – must refer to axiological, ontological or epistemological findings in an attempt to find the best possible interpretation of such terms. Dworkin rejects the originalist paradigm of interpretation, which assumes a static content of the provisions of the Basic Law. The interpreter is obliged to search for the proper meaning of the constitution, regardless of both the intentions of its drafters and its original public meaning. The article also shows Dworkin’s application of this theory to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in the area of freedom of speech.

scholarly journals An Interview with Peter Jaszi, Professor of Law, Faculty Director of the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Clinic

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tucker Taylor ◽  
Carla S. Myers ◽  
Andrew Wesolek
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Law Faculty ◽  
The Future

Peter Jaszi, copyright expert, lawyer, professor and author, was interviewed by the editors of the Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarainship on his carreer, influences, and copyright law, including what the future may hold for libraries and copyright. He also discusses the Codes of Best Practices for Fair Use, and gives advice for librarians who work with copyright.

scholarly journals Case of Misplaced Technology

2010 ◽  
Vol 132 (06) ◽  
pp. 47-47
Author(s):  
Kirk Teska
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Court Hearing

This article demonstrates through several examples of misplaced technology and clash between intellectual property laws and freedom of speech. The first example stated in the article is that of an Apple engineer leaving his prototype next-generation iPhone in a bar and it ended up at gizmodo.com—a website devoted to technology. The folks at Gizmodo tore into the iPhone, confirmed its authenticity, and then put photographs of the phone along with a list of its new features on the gizmodo.com site. Apple, rather than suing, at least so far, simply asked for the prototype phone back and Gizmodo complied. Could Apple sue Gizmodo or would First Amendment protect Gizmodo, only depending upon certain different factors and to an extent on the particular court hearing the case. The ultimate authority on the First Amendment, the United States Supreme Court, generally loathes limiting free speech for any reason.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document