• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Entertainment Law

Church and the Super Bowl

24 Monday Jan 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Copyright, Peyton Manning, Trademark

The last time Peyton Manning was leading the Indianapolis Colts on a championship run (it’s been awhile), the NFL clamped down on the ability to watch the big game in churches. The NFL sent letters to churches informing them that airing the game would be a violation of the NFL’s copyright and trademark rights. However, two years ago the NFL appeared to call a reverse and allowed viewing in churches under certain conditions.

So what’s the NFL’s policy this year? Since there’s been no indication to the contrary, it seems the NFL is sticking to the policy that churches can air the Super Bowl without violating copyright laws. So start planning those parties!

For those who don’t know, here’s How to Host a Church Super Bowl Party.

Indiana lawmakers to consider upskirt ban

09 Sunday Jan 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Entertainment Law, Indiana, Legislation, Right of Publicity, Tech Developments

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Invasion of Privacy by Photography

In dealing with the apparent scourge of upskirt photography, a key Indiana Senate committee will consider a proposed bill Tuesday by State Sen. Tom Wyss (R-Fort Wayne) that would make it illegal to take or distribute pictures or video of a person’s private areas.

The bill would establish the new crime of “Invasion of Privacy by Photography,” a Class A misdemeanor. A crime is committed if a person, with the intent to: (1) gratify the person’s sexual desires; (2) humiliate or embarrass the victim; or (3) publish, transmit, or disseminate the photograph; surreptitiously photographs the private area of an individual under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that the individual’s private area would not be visible to the public.

The penalty is increased to a Class D felony if the person knowingly or intentionally publishes, transmits, or otherwise disseminates the photograph.

Full text of the proposed bill:

IC 35-45-4-6 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE

Sec. 6. (a) As used in this section, “private area” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, or buttocks of an individual.
(b) A person who, without the consent of the individual:
(1) knowingly or intentionally:
(A) surreptitiously photographs, video records, or captures a digital image of the private area of an individual by means of camera, a video camera, or any other type of video recording device, whether or not the photograph, video, or image is permanently saved; or
(B) performs an act described in clause (A) under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that the individual’s private area would not be visible to the public; and
(2) performs the act described in subdivision (1) with the intent to:
(A) gratify the sexual desires of the person;
(B) humiliate or embarrass the individual; or
(C) publish, transmit, or otherwise disseminate the photograph, video, or digital image; commits invasion of privacy by photography, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person knowingly or intentionally publishes the photograph, video, or digital image or otherwise knowingly or intentionally transmits or disseminates the photograph, video, or digital image to another person.

Members of the Senate Committee on Corrections, Criminal and Civil Matters will review the bill on Tuesday, January 11 at 9 a.m. in Room 130 of the Statehouse. The law would become effective on July 1, 2011.

My initial thoughts: I didn’t realize that upskirt photography was such a big deal but it shouldn’t come as a surprise given that everyone has a small camera or cameraphone in their hands nowadays and fashion often involves half-fallen-off clothing. I expect this bill, like many others, is actually just one piece of a much larger puzzle. An immediate concern with the bill is its potential for arbitrary enforcement. First, in what places would a individual’s private area be considered reasonably visible to the public? Las Vegas? The beach? A half-marathon? If a person has their private area willingly exposed (I’m looking at you, Indy 500 crowd), is it now illegal to take photos or do they give implied consent to the entire crowd? If you take a photo of a person and accidentally catch a crotch shot, are you now a criminal?

A person who, without consent, knowingly surreptitiously photographs the private area of an individual by means of a camera with the intent to publish the photograph. By my reading, this could include almost any photo you might take of someone running the Mini to post on Facebook or a blog if the photo shows their “private area.” If that’s the case, the language of this bill definitely needs to be tightened up to avoid potentially draconian enforcement.

Presumably, the state government and businesses would also have to abide by this law, in which case it could serve as a strong shield against the ever-encroaching security/surveillance industry. Just to be certain, it would be nice if this bill specifically included not only “persons” but also organizations and surveillance cameras.

Better yet, here’s a possible “real world” solution…Get over the outdated concept of “private areas.” There are now over 6 billion people on the planet. About half have a penis and about half have a vagina. Acknowledge this biological fact and move on…really, kids age 4 understand this.

I’ll keep you updated as the bill proceeds.

Superhero Law Debated on New Blog

21 Tuesday Dec 2010

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Bloggers, Copyright, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property, Just for Fun, Trademark, What I'm Reading

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Superhero

There’s a fun new blog, Law and the Multiverse, that applies real world law to comic book scenarios. In their words:

If there’s one thing comic book nerds like doing it’s over-thinking the smallest details.  Here we turn our attention to the hypothetical legal ramifications of comic book tropes, characters, and powers.  Just a few examples: Are mutants a protected class?  Who foots the bill when a hero damages property while fighting a villain?  What happens legally when a character comes back from the dead?

The blog touches on many different areas of law, including intellectual property. Here is an excerpt:

In the real world comic book characters and their likenesses have been made into toys, video games, movies, television shows, lunchboxes, bed sheets, and innumerable other things. All of these secondary uses are mediated through intellectual property rights, particularly copyright and trademark rights. But if Superman were a real person, how might the situation be different? Could just anyone slap his image or iconic S shield on a lunchbox? What about uses that suggest that Superman endorses a product or service? (“Try Metropolis Brewery Beer, the choice of the Man of Steel!”) Or worse, what about revealing a superhero’s secret identity?

Their latest post explores a favorite topic of the Indiana Intellectual Property Blog, privacy rights:

From a superhero’s point of view, the main issues here are intrusion into his or her secret identity and secret headquarters, if applicable.  The latter case is squarely within the scope of the tort (physical intrusion into a home or office is a classic example of the tort), so let’s focus on the issue of secret identity.  In particular, does a superhero’s secret identity fall under the scope of the second element?  And when we say “reasonable person” do we mean a reasonable regular person or a reasonable superhero, or does it matter?

The answer to the first question is probably yes.  Courts have held that the right to privacy includes psychological & emotional solitude and the intrusion can occur in a public place.  See, e.g., Phillips v. Smalley Maintenance Svcs, Inc., 435 So.2d 705, 711 (Ala. 1983) (holding “one’s emotional sanctum is certainly due the same expectations of privacy as one’s physical environment.” and “the ‘wrongful intrusion’ privacy violation can occur in a public place, when the matter intruded upon is of a sufficiently personal nature”).  As the definition states, the intrusion need not be directly physical and can include demands and threats.  Phillips, 435 So.2d at 711.

For the full post and to explore other areas of law, visit Law and the Multiverse.  One of the blog authors is a recent grad of Notre Dame Law School.  I’m looking forward to reading the future posts on copyright and trademark.

October 2010 IP&T News Summary

01 Monday Nov 2010

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property, Social Media, Tech Developments

≈ Leave a comment

For those who don’t follow KLF Legal on Facebook or Twitter, here are some of the stories I shared in October:

EFF files counterclaim against Righthaven

Facebook sues X-rated site Faceporn

Apple Patents Anti-Sexting Device

Debunking The Claim That Giving Away Music ‘Devalues’ It

The Rise Of A New Intellectual Property Category, Ripe For Trolling: Publicity Rights

Righthaven defendant wins first lawsuit dismissal motion

The real cost of free

US anti-P2P law firms sue more in 2010 than RIAA ever did

Study: 82 percent of kids under 2 have online presence

Newer posts →

Categories

  • Advertising Law (1)
  • Artists (23)
  • Authors (20)
  • Bloggers (37)
  • Branding (29)
  • Business Law (9)
  • Copyright (327)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (603)
  • Indianapolis (51)
  • Intellectual Property (662)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (595)
  • Musicians (13)
  • Nonprofit (6)
  • Northern District of Indiana (215)
  • Patent (44)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (56)
  • Southern District of Indiana (369)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (26)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (363)
  • What I'm Reading (8)

Bloggers Copyright Federal Initiatives Indiana Indianapolis Intellectual Property Legislation Litigation Northern District of Indiana Patent Social Media Southern District of Indiana Stories from the Week that Was Tech Developments Trademark

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Join 82 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...