skip to main | skip to sidebar

Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log

False advertising and more

Tuesday, May 01, 2012

Columbia Journalism Review on campaigns' use of news footage

The story focuses on the political implications, with a nod to the copyright issues involved.
Posted by Rebecca Tushnet at 12:55 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: copying, copyright

No comments:

Post a Comment

Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Rebecca Tushnet

Rebecca Tushnet
Rebecca Tushnet

ABA Blawg 100

ABA Blawg 100

Subscribe To

Posts
Atom
Posts
Comments
Atom
Comments

Subscribe via RSS

  • RSS 2.0
  • Atom

Follow by Email

"Bright young [wo]man"/"Yo, who the F is this?"

  • Harvard Law School
  • Twitter (repost of blog)
  • My website
  • Email me

Blog Archive

  • ►  2021 (45)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (12)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (14)
    • ►  January (9)
  • ►  2020 (220)
    • ►  December (27)
    • ►  November (8)
    • ►  October (17)
    • ►  September (32)
    • ►  August (26)
    • ►  July (12)
    • ►  June (17)
    • ►  May (15)
    • ►  April (13)
    • ►  March (19)
    • ►  February (20)
    • ►  January (14)
  • ►  2019 (289)
    • ►  December (21)
    • ►  November (11)
    • ►  October (20)
    • ►  September (27)
    • ►  August (37)
    • ►  July (21)
    • ►  June (20)
    • ►  May (28)
    • ►  April (39)
    • ►  March (25)
    • ►  February (29)
    • ►  January (11)
  • ►  2018 (225)
    • ►  December (14)
    • ►  November (17)
    • ►  October (12)
    • ►  September (16)
    • ►  August (26)
    • ►  July (12)
    • ►  June (18)
    • ►  May (22)
    • ►  April (29)
    • ►  March (19)
    • ►  February (27)
    • ►  January (13)
  • ►  2017 (334)
    • ►  December (18)
    • ►  November (15)
    • ►  October (21)
    • ►  September (20)
    • ►  August (33)
    • ►  July (21)
    • ►  June (26)
    • ►  May (24)
    • ►  April (36)
    • ►  March (48)
    • ►  February (41)
    • ►  January (31)
  • ►  2016 (402)
    • ►  December (30)
    • ►  November (35)
    • ►  October (35)
    • ►  September (32)
    • ►  August (34)
    • ►  July (22)
    • ►  June (39)
    • ►  May (49)
    • ►  April (31)
    • ►  March (33)
    • ►  February (35)
    • ►  January (27)
  • ►  2015 (446)
    • ►  December (26)
    • ►  November (29)
    • ►  October (37)
    • ►  September (37)
    • ►  August (32)
    • ►  July (37)
    • ►  June (38)
    • ►  May (40)
    • ►  April (51)
    • ►  March (44)
    • ►  February (45)
    • ►  January (30)
  • ►  2014 (518)
    • ►  December (38)
    • ►  November (25)
    • ►  October (29)
    • ►  September (48)
    • ►  August (47)
    • ►  July (38)
    • ►  June (45)
    • ►  May (32)
    • ►  April (48)
    • ►  March (60)
    • ►  February (45)
    • ►  January (63)
  • ►  2013 (572)
    • ►  December (46)
    • ►  November (36)
    • ►  October (37)
    • ►  September (48)
    • ►  August (52)
    • ►  July (38)
    • ►  June (36)
    • ►  May (56)
    • ►  April (59)
    • ►  March (73)
    • ►  February (41)
    • ►  January (50)
  • ▼  2012 (598)
    • ►  December (56)
    • ►  November (41)
    • ►  October (48)
    • ►  September (56)
    • ►  August (53)
    • ►  July (62)
    • ►  June (62)
    • ▼  May (69)
      • Minnesota S.Ct. rejects tobacco class action
      • eBay case involving pay-for-featured-status progra...
      • Amicus brief in Hart v. EA
      • High fructose corn syrup is still HFCS
      • Of possible interest to international IP types
      • Lifewater "all natural" claim not deceptive, other...
      • Delayed but long post on LV v. Hyundai
      • If a drug manufacturer pays the publication fee, i...
      • Not really a surprise: Pom disagrees with my readi...
      • "unlawful" conduct causes actionable harm even wit...
      • Clive Thompson on the importance of fan fiction an...
      • direct targeting of ads confers personal jurisdiction
      • What is the limitations/laches period for Lanham A...
      • Pom takes another pounding
      • Review: False Advertising and the Lanham Act
      • FTC ALJ rules many Pom ads misleading, unsubstanti...
      • public access to published federally funded research
      • False advertising case succeeds as TM claim
      • Hamlet in over 60 films
      • Brands, not trademarks?
      • Plain tobacco packaging at Georgetown
      • Georgia State and copyright ownership
      • Homeopathic products don't dilute plaintiffs' liti...
      • Brand dilution as a design patent theory of harm
      • My keen fashion sense: L'Oreal class action certified
      • This fruit snack is neither fruity nor snacky
      • Sarah Tran on Worth a Thousand Words
      • No publicity is bad publicity for Facebook plaintiff
      • Out of joint: supplement case survives motion to d...
      • Another reason to bring state-law claims: where th...
      • One good reason to plead coordinate state-law clai...
      • Vague allegations can't plead around first sale
      • Australian Dastar-type cases
      • What a difference a defense makes: court rejects C...
      • Touting unnecessary cancer treatment could be dece...
      • DMCA tech demonstration day
      • law v. norms, or why anticircumvention law doesn't...
      • "Paris shabby chic" not protectable trade dress
      • Sugar in the Raw not deceptively advertised as unp...
      • IP Small Claims Roundtable part 2
      • GW Roundtable on IP Small Claims
      • "from the designer of" not clearly nominative fair...
      • Undisclosed fees ok if total price disclosed and v...
      • INTA politics panel
      • INTA equates free with illegal, copyright with tra...
      • Recent reading: Chinese fan translations
      • The difference between seeking damages and injunct...
      • INTA: copyright law for trademark lawyers
      • Spy in the House of Trademark Maximalism: ambush m...
      • INTA: pharma panel and keyword panel
      • Class action spreads
      • Weak TM case won't justify fee award to defendants
      • Anticircumvention is weird and lacks attachment to...
      • INTA: outer limits and dilution
      • Another false marking defeat post AIA
      • Descriptiveness wasn't my first thought
      • Global family feud over allegedly stolen mark
      • Roflcon Keynote: Supercuts
      • Meme-literate law professor (insert punchline here)
      • 5-Hour Energy and neverending litigation
      • Minimal call logs can't be used to infer widesprea...
      • False advertising and fandom collide
      • The secret non-sharer
      • Identical materials sent to over 1200 recipients n...
      • A word means what I say it means?
      • foot fault: overlapping TM and copyright claims in...
      • alleged privacy failures don't violate consumer pr...
      • Columbia Journalism Review on campaigns' use of ne...
      • Competitor's positive ads aren't disparaging for i...
    • ►  April (45)
    • ►  March (42)
    • ►  February (33)
    • ►  January (31)
  • ►  2011 (430)
    • ►  December (35)
    • ►  November (40)
    • ►  October (39)
    • ►  September (41)
    • ►  August (59)
    • ►  July (36)
    • ►  June (25)
    • ►  May (36)
    • ►  April (40)
    • ►  March (31)
    • ►  February (17)
    • ►  January (31)
  • ►  2010 (312)
    • ►  December (25)
    • ►  November (37)
    • ►  October (16)
    • ►  September (34)
    • ►  August (28)
    • ►  July (19)
    • ►  June (30)
    • ►  May (26)
    • ►  April (35)
    • ►  March (27)
    • ►  February (10)
    • ►  January (25)
  • ►  2009 (392)
    • ►  December (25)
    • ►  November (45)
    • ►  October (42)
    • ►  September (23)
    • ►  August (43)
    • ►  July (39)
    • ►  June (22)
    • ►  May (28)
    • ►  April (37)
    • ►  March (39)
    • ►  February (22)
    • ►  January (27)
  • ►  2008 (359)
    • ►  December (25)
    • ►  November (20)
    • ►  October (34)
    • ►  September (18)
    • ►  August (33)
    • ►  July (29)
    • ►  June (22)
    • ►  May (42)
    • ►  April (41)
    • ►  March (49)
    • ►  February (30)
    • ►  January (16)
  • ►  2007 (380)
    • ►  December (22)
    • ►  November (38)
    • ►  October (50)
    • ►  September (34)
    • ►  August (39)
    • ►  July (32)
    • ►  June (29)
    • ►  May (20)
    • ►  April (23)
    • ►  March (30)
    • ►  February (40)
    • ►  January (23)
  • ►  2006 (336)
    • ►  December (32)
    • ►  November (16)
    • ►  October (34)
    • ►  September (22)
    • ►  August (45)
    • ►  July (34)
    • ►  June (21)
    • ►  May (20)
    • ►  April (11)
    • ►  March (42)
    • ►  February (13)
    • ►  January (46)
  • ►  2005 (50)
    • ►  December (13)
    • ►  November (14)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (6)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2004 (14)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (9)
    • ►  October (2)
  • ►  2003 (9)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (5)

Labels

  • 1201 (15)
  • 230 (87)
  • acpa (15)
  • advertising (274)
  • antitrust (37)
  • arbitration (2)
  • art law (33)
  • attribution (28)
  • b (1)
  • blogging (23)
  • california (479)
  • can-spam (1)
  • cfaa (12)
  • cfps (34)
  • class actions (251)
  • cmi (14)
  • comics (37)
  • commercial speech (235)
  • conferences (836)
  • consumer protection (689)
  • contracts (91)
  • copying (192)
  • copyright (1535)
  • counterfeiting (1)
  • creative commons (12)
  • cultural property (10)
  • cybersquatting (1)
  • damages (137)
  • dastar (167)
  • defamation (181)
  • derivative works (2)
  • design patent (48)
  • dilution (250)
  • disclosures (77)
  • disparagement (21)
  • dmca (192)
  • drm (71)
  • evidence (1)
  • false advertising (2529)
  • fan fiction (87)
  • fanworks (190)
  • fda (250)
  • fees (31)
  • first amendment (391)
  • ftc (168)
  • g (1)
  • geographic indications (35)
  • go (1)
  • google (88)
  • insurance (63)
  • interviews (5)
  • jobs (2)
  • jurisdiction (5)
  • libraries (18)
  • misappropriation (10)
  • moral rights (16)
  • music (130)
  • my lawsuits (16)
  • my writings (99)
  • net neutrality (5)
  • parody (27)
  • patent (203)
  • patents (131)
  • peer production (27)
  • preemption (243)
  • presentations (109)
  • privacy (106)
  • procedure (143)
  • property (17)
  • reading list (293)
  • remedies (212)
  • right of publicity (233)
  • secondary liability (160)
  • securities (7)
  • standing (305)
  • surveys (73)
  • teaching (28)
  • tortious interference (96)
  • trade secrets (74)
  • trademark (1818)
  • traditional knowledge (9)
  • unconscionability (5)
  • unfairness (54)
  • warranties (12)

Things I've read

Ad Links

  • FTC Business Center Blog
  • ABA's Private Advertising Litigation Committee
  • All About Ad Law (Venable)
  • Consumer Advertising Law Blog (Arnold & Porter)
  • Consumer Law & Policy Blog (Public Citizen)
  • E-Commerce & Tech Law Blog
  • The Commercial Closet
  • The Language of Advertising

Copyright Links

  • Books Online: No US Access
  • Columbia Law Library Music Plagiarism Archive
  • Copyright Litigation Blog
  • Copyright Termination Calculator
  • Current Copyright Legal Literature
  • Fairly Used: Stanford Fair Use Project
  • Illegal Art exhibit
  • Jessica Litman's Copyright Links
  • Keep Your Copyrights (Columbia U.)
  • Larry Lessig on Free Culture
  • Madisonian.net
  • Owners, Borrowers and Thieves
  • Political Remix Video
  • Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900)
  • Respect Copyrights (movie industry site)
  • The HP Lovecraft Library
  • Useful Arts.us

Trademark Links

  • Beauty Marks (Jessica Stone Levy)
  • Counterfeit Chic
  • Current Trademark Legal Literature
  • ICANN: Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
  • Jessica Litman's Trademark Links
  • Las Vegas Trademark Attorney
  • Pattishall IP blog
  • Search UDRP Decisions
  • Seattle Trademark Lawyer
  • Technology & Marketing Law Blog
  • The Trademark Blog
  • The TTABlog
  • UDRPLaw Net

Other Links

  • xkcd
  • Rothman's Roadmap to the Right of Publicity
  • Balkinization
  • CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) Law Blog
  • Confessions of an Aca/Fan: Henry Jenkins
  • Feminist Law Professors
  • History of Animation in Court
  • Jotwell: Journal of Things We Like Lots
  • Michigan Telecom & Tech Law Review blog
  • Online Fandom
  • Post or Perish (Online media legal issues)
  • PropertyProf Blog
  • Rocket Docket (EDVa IP Litigation)
  • The Gray Blog (parallel imports)
 

Creative Commons/disclaimer

Text on this blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Pictures and works quoted may be subject to other parties' copyrights. I speak for myself. On this blog, I do not and cannot speak for Harvard Law School, the Organization for Transformative Works and/or AO3.