Church and the Super Bowl

Tags

, ,

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 Trademark Litigation Update – Trustees of Purdue University v. Reinke Sports Group LLC et al

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The Trustees of Purdue University v. Reinke Sports Group LLC et al

Purdue University, a world-renowned institution of higher learning, is located in West Lafayette, Tippecanoe County, Indiana. In late 2009, the Defendants announced their intention to hold a foot racing event called “Home of Purdue Half Marathon” in the Lafayette-West-Lafayette area. Purdue’s attorneys sent the standard cease-and-desist letters objecting to the use of the University’s trademarks. Nevertheless, Defendant continued to advertise the event as being connected to and affiliated with the University.  The event was run on Oct. 24, 2010 without permission from Purdue University.

This case was removed from Tippecanoe Circuit Court.

Court Case Number: 4:11-cv-00005-PPS -APR
File Date: Thursday, January 13, 2011
Plaintiff: Trustees of Purdue University
Plaintiff Counsel: William P. Kealey of Stuart & Branigin LLP
Defendant: Reinke Sports Group LLC, Dean Reinke, Allsportcentral.com Inc.
Defendant Counsel: Matthew S Tarkington and Peter S French of Lewis & Kappes PC
Cause: Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Dilution, Cyberpiracy under the Lanham Act, Unfair Competition by Passing Off
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Chief Judge Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Andrew P. Rodovich

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Truth Publishing Company Inc. v. Kristopher C. Campbell

Tags

, ,

Truth Publishing Company Inc. v. Kristopher C. Campbell

Plaintiff operates a daily newspaper called THE ELKHART TRUTH in Elkhart, Indiana. Defendant publishes a periodical called I.C.U. (Indiana Criminals Uncovered) MUG SHOTS. I.C.U. MUG SHOTS apparently copies news stories relating to crime and arrests directly from Plaintiff’s paper and sells the reprints for $1.50 a copy in Elkhart.

I can see why The Elkhart Truth would get tired of sending out its reporters to dig up info only to have another local paper photocopy their stories and republish. But, on some levels, isn’t Defendant doing a public service by helping spread information about criminals? Defendant certainly considered the copyright issues, as he included the following disclaimer:

“The information provided by Indiana Criminal Uncovered (ICU) Mugshots is of public record in accordance with Indiana Code 5-14-3-5. The information relates only to arrest, bookings, and preliminary charges. It does not address guilty pleas, convictions, or criminal sentences. All persons in this publication are innocent until provent guilty”

Whether the disclaimer can protect him will be determined by this lawsuit.

Defendant is running the old-school equivalent of a criminal law blog, which of course requires a little money for printing and distribution. Defendant is correct that mug shots and arrest records are public information. However, it appeared that Defendant copied the articles directly and distributed the reprints in the same geographic market, Elkhart.

While it’s likely that some people may not buy the Truth if they can get crime news from Defendant, there is apparently a wholly separate market of people who want crime stories but not the rest of the news content contained in a regular issue of the Truth. If so, Defendant may be able to continue to serve this audience, but will probably want to do more of his own fact-finding and reporting.

Court Case Number: 3:11-cv-00017-JD-CAN
File Date: Thursday, January 13, 2011
Plaintiff: Truth Publishing Company Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Steven M. Badger of Bose McKinney & Evans LLP
Defendant: Kristopher C. Campbell
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jon E. DeGuilio
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Osmundson Mfg. v. CFC Distributors

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Osmundson Mfg. Co. v. CFC Distributors Inc.

Plaintiff, an Iowa corporation, has used the trademark “TURBO” in connection with agricultural products like Coulter blades, disk blades, sweeps, plow shares and other tillage tools since 2005. The trademark was registered in 2007 for “Agricultural machine parts, namely, blades.” Defendant, an Indiana corporation, is allegedly selling similar goods under the same mark. In an effort to resolve the matter, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement in 2009, which Defendant has allegedly now breached.

Court Case Number: 1:11-cv-00021-RL -RBC
File Date: Friday, January 14, 2011
Plaintiff: Osmundson Mfg. Co.
Plaintiff Counsel: Larry L. Barnard and Adrienne C. Romary of Carson Boxberger LLP
Defendant: CFC Distributors Inc.
Defendant Counsel: Paul B. Overhauser of Overhauser & Lindman LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Description, Breach of Settlement Agreement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Rudy Lozano
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey

Indiana lawmakers to consider upskirt ban

Tags

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.