South Park’s Use of WWIB Video Deemed Fair Use

July 26th, 2011
A Wisconsin federal court judge dismissed a case against the makers of South Park where the plaintiff had alleged a copyright violation of its use of an Internet viral video, What What in the Butt.  In the April 2008 episode, “Canada on Strike,” character Butters Stotch “replicates parts of the WWITN video with the nine year old Butters singing the central lines of the original video while dressed as a teddy bear, an astronaut, and even a daisy…”
The case is Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners, et al. (E.D. Wisc. July 6, 2011) and the order is here.
Quotes from the opinion:
“For as remarkable and fascinating the parties and issues surrounding this litigation are, this order, which will resolve a pending motion to dismiss, will be, by comparison, frankly quite dry.”
“…the central issue is whether this court can resolve a motion to dismiss in the defendants’ favor because of the existence of the affirmative defense of fair use.”
“…the court needs to decide whether the defendants use of the copyrighted material in the context of the episode “Canada on Strike” is fair use.”
“The fair use doctrine allows for a limited privilege in those other than the owner of a copyright to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without the owner’s consent.”
“Here, applying the statutory factors from Section 107 of the Copyright Act and the principles behind the fair use doctrine, the court readily concludes that the defendants use of the music video in the South Park episode ‘Canada on Strike’ was ‘fair.’ One only needs to take a fleeting glance at the South Park episode to gather the “purpose and character” of the use of the WWITB video in the episode in question. The defendants used parts of the WWITB video to lampoon the recent craze in our society of watching video clips on the internet that are — to be kind — of rather low artistic sophistication and quality.”

Sending Large PDF Documents by Email

April 26th, 2011

Have you run across the situation where you want to email PDFs, video or image files but they get caught in either the sender’s or recipient’s filter because the attachments are too large?

Problem solved.

This article from the May 2011 Palm Beach County Bar Association Bulletin explains how to create smaller PDFs in the first place, shrink existing ones, and use “cloud” services to email large files.

The article is here.

Smart Lawyers, Dumb Passwords

April 18th, 2011

Do you use passwords such as “password,” “loveyou,” or 1234567?  Apparently most of us do.  Even if you have a pretty good password plan for multiple Internet accounts, check out this month’s article, “Smart Lawyers, Dumb Passwords” in the Palm Beach County Bar Association Bulletin (April 2011).

FindLaw Releases Lawsuit in Ceglia v. Zuckerberg and Facebook

April 14th, 2011

Here’s the link to the Amended Complaint filed in the Western New York federal court.  Thanks to Findlaw for the lead.

Ninth Circuit Rules in Facebook Case (but wait, is there more?)

April 11th, 2011

The Ninth Circuit federal court released its decision in Facebook v. ConnectU, the lawsuit made famous by the 2010 movie, The Social Network, regarding the creation of Facebook and the litigation it spawned.  The full decision is here.  The news coverage (already clocking in at over 800 stories in four hours) is here.

Internet Law Resource Center provides coverage in this case summary.

Meanwhile, another Facebook suit, Paul D. Ceglia v. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook et al. has been filed and amended in a New York court.  Ceglia claims 50% interest in the company based upon emails attached to this First Amended Complaint.  ZDNet’s coverage with excerpts of the emails is here.

The Woes of Citing Wikipedia in Court Pleadings

April 8th, 2011

In a federal court case out of Kentucky, defense counsel reportedly cribbed portions of the brief from… Wikipedia.  And then from a Federal Judicial Handbook.  Both times without proper citation.

Before getting to the orders, we note the case has the narrowest connection to Florida.

In a February 2011 order, the court wrote:

The court notes here that defense counsel appears to have cobbled much of his statementof the law governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims by cutting and pasting, withoutcitation, from the Wikipedia web site. Compare Supplemental to Motion for New Trial (DN 199)at 18–19 with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strickland_v._Washington (last visited Feb. 9, 2011).The court reminds counsel that such cutting and pasting, without attribution, is plagiarism. Thecourt also brings to counsel’s attention Rule 8.4 of the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct,which states that it is professional misconduct for an attorney to “engage in conduct involvingdishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” SCR 3.130(c). See also In re Burghoff, 374 B.R.681 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2007) (holding that counsel’s plagiarism violated identical provision ofIowa Rules of Professional Conduct). Finally, the court reminds counsel that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source of legal authority in the United States District Courts. (emp. added)

Thereafter, in an April 2011 order, the same mischief re-appeared:

As the United States points out, defendant’s counsel has apparently continued with thismotion his practice of copying, without sufficient attribution, substantial portions of other works intohis own. The court noted in its February 9 Memorandum Opinion that defendant’s counsel had cutand pasted a portion of his brief from the web site Wikipedia. It has now come to the attention ofthe court that portions of the defendant’s motion for release pending appeal appear to have beencopied from a Federal Judicial Center handbook on the Bail Reform Act of 1984. Compare Motionfor Release Pending Appeal (DN 244) at 5, 10–11 with DAVID N. ADAIR, JR.,FED. JUDICIAL. CTR.,THE BAIL REFORM ACT OF 1984 39–40, 41–42 (3d ed. 2006). The court reminds counsel that it isinappropriate to repeat, verbatim, substantial portions of other works in a manner that makes suchwork appear to be the brief writer’s own. The court also reminds counsel that the proper way to citequotations of source material is by a direct citation to the source, not through use of a “see also”signal at the end of a lengthy string citation. See THE BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATIONR. 1.2(a) at 54 (Columbia L. Rev. Ass’n et al. eds., 19th ed. 2010) (explaining that no signal is used“when directly quoting an authority,” whereas the “see also” citation is used when “[c]ited authorityconstitutes additional source material that supports the proposition.”).

Keith Lee, at An Associate’s Mind, beat everyone to the Citations-to-Wikipedia debate with this post, where he found instances where Wikipedia was cited as an appropriate source.

While we are crediting our sources, check out this ABA Journal article, which caught our attention.  Make sure you read some of the helpful and creative comments by other readers.  We too have to credit the Legal Writing Prof blog, and its commentators, who provided the cites as well as some insights.

Finally, one person who commented on the ABA Journal article raised this 2008 article from Trial, Courting Wikipedia.

Is there a law against posting photos and tagging people on Facebook?

March 31st, 2011

A Kentucky court, in an unpublished divorce case opinion, held that under the circumstances of that case, there was “nothing within the law that requires [a party's] permission for the photographs to be published in that manner.”  See Lalonde v. Lalonde.  Case did not address other potential concerns over distributing photos.

Internet Marketing for Young Lawyers

March 20th, 2011

Special thanks to the ABA Young Lawyer which ran a short article, Internet Marketing for Young Lawyers, in their April 2010 edition, available here.  Unfortunately, it is only available to ABA members and subscribers so I cannot link it here.   I can hint that suggestions included making your bio standout on the law firm website; maintain a complete online profile with your state bar; participating in lawyer rating websites (within reason, bar-permitting, and firm protocols); create a personal blog or website; and use social media.  This summary sounds obvious but likely you have not tackled each category (and there are more gems within those broad categories).  Hope it helps.

iPhone, Android & Blackberry Apps for Lawyers

March 11th, 2011

Thanks to the Palm Beach County Bar Association for hosting the “Dueling Smartphones: iPhone, Android and Blackberry Apps for Lawyers” presentation on March 11, 2011.  Also thanks to my panel members Marc S. Dobin of Marc S. Dobin P.A. and Joel Rothman from Arnstein & Lehr.

For those of you who missed the presentation, here’s our top ten lists and the rest of the handout.

Court Decisions on Googling Jury Members

February 23rd, 2011

An interesting article, Voir Dire in the Age of Google, highlights two recent decisions regarding lawyers’ use of internet research during jury selection.  Florida currently has no rules/guidelines for or against counsel’s use of courthouse wireless systems.

In a Missouri case, Johnson v. McCullough, the state operates an online docketing system where lawyers can research the litigation history of jurors.  The opinion held that the lawyers should use reasonable, timely efforts to check that system — even though, in a footnote, the system has recognized limitations.  According to the Voir Dire author, this case suggests that Internet searches by lawyers during voir dire might be “imperative.”

In a New Jersey case, the trial judge held that counsel’s use of a laptop and the courthouse wifi to research jurors during voir dire was “unfair” to the other side, who did not bring his laptop.

The appellate court in Carino v. Muenzen disagreed, noting, “There was no suggestion that counsel’s use of the computer was in any way disruptive. That he had the foresight to bring his laptop computer to court, and defense counsel did not, simply cannot serve as a basis for judicial intervention in the name of “fairness” or maintaining “a level playing field.” The “playing field” was, in fact, already “level” because internet access was open to both counsel, even if only one of them chose to utilize it.”

For more discussion, see other posts on this site and the free, how-to guide, Internet Social Networking Sites for Lawyers.

Six (Free) Steps to Virus-Protect and Clean Your PC

January 31st, 2011

The article, “Clean Your PC in 30 Minutes,” recently ran in the February 2011 Palm Beach Bar Bulletin.  It provides simple advice for lawyers, office managers, and paralegals on how to “clean” your PC, using free software, and to keep it running without viruses and malware at no cost.  

Whether you bought a new PC for the holidays, need to clean out the old one or perhaps switched jobs and have a “new” computer, this will fine tune any machine without cost… and it takes about a half hour.

Can You Post a Deposition to YouTube?

December 29th, 2010

Is the practice of uploading portions of depositions to YouTube as “widespread”?  Do you have the technology in your office to edit and post depos?  Will your ethics rules or judge allow it?  

Take a look at this December 2010 Palm Beach Bar Association “Bulletin” article for some answers.

Hit this link or click on “2010 Depositions on Youtube” under Articles along the right column of this site.

Florida Paralegal Ethics

November 10th, 2010

Thanks to the Paralegal Association of Florida for inviting me to speak at their 2010 Fall Seminar in West Palm Beach.

The powerpoint can be found here or using the link under “Materials” on the right column of this website.

The free legal ethics iPhone app is here.

No Email Friday?

October 28th, 2010

Thanks to the Palm Beach Bar Bulletin for running the article, No Email Friday?

Find yourself checking emails endlessly?  Being pinged by your cellphone, laptop, and PC?  Checking your iPhone at night or Blackberry in the a.m.?  Yes, that’s you.

Take this advice from a busy lawyer (who loves tech).  Set it aside and use good email management.  It’ll work.

What is Your Child Doing on The Internet?

September 28th, 2010

Don’t allow the hype — or the technology — scare you from understanding what your child is doing on the internet.  Be a great parent in the real world and online!  Learn the techniques to avoid the risks, draw (and enforce) boundaries, and serve as a role model for your child.  In fact, some of these guidelines might apply to you!

Special thanks to Rosarian Academy in West Palm Beach, Florida for the invitation to speak to parents.

The powerpoint can be viewed/downloaded here or follow the link under Materials (on right column on this site).