Access Denied
This term means that all forms of communication on the internet have to be treated fairly.
Net Neutrality
This case showcased the concept of false advertising surrounding a shaving cream company and their ability to combat sandpaper.
FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive (1965)
Alongside the Roth v. US case, this case defined U.S. obscenity law in the 20th century.
Miller v. California
The decision in this case clarified whether certain photocopying of books and other reading material for college courses was protected under the "fair use" clause of the 1976 Copyright Act.
Basic Books v. Kinko’s
This speech is more protected because it showcases political ideals.
Political Speech
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in this decision that the Fairness Doctrine was constitutional and consistent with the First Amendment.
Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that commercial speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
Valentine v. Chrestensen
The Pope v. Illinois case made this change to the Miller test.
Changed "average person" to "reasonable person."
Creative and intellectual works produced today are protected for individual authors for this many years.
The author's life plus 70 years.
The U.S. Supreme Court relied on the definition of obscenity laid out in this British case for decades before beginning to develop its own definition of obscenity.
Regina v Hicklin
In this case, it was argued that the Fairness Doctrine was no longer necessary because of the "many media voices in the marketplace."
Syracuse Peace Council v. FCC
In this case surrounding an abortion advertisement, the Supreme Court established that at least some commercial advertising should receive First Amendment protection, thereby laying the groundwork for its ruling the next year.
Bigelow. v. Virginia (1975)
In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court first stated that "contemporary community standards" should be considered when judging obscenity.
Roth v US
This audio process of taking a portion of an existing recording and incorporating it into a new work stands as a major question within music copyright.
Music Sampling
When TIME magazine refused to pay Gerald Ford $12,500 for a part of his book stolen and published (unauthorized) by another magazine, Ford’s publisher filed this lawsuit.
Harper & Row v. Nation
When recluse Howard Hughes tried to prevent the writing of his biography, he learned with this decision that U.S. courts value the public’s right to know about prominent people.
Rosemont Enterprises v Random House
In this case, a company wanted to use characters from a TV show to promote its fast food, then withdrew at the last minute only to create characters the Court ruled were copied from that TV show.
Sid and Marty Krofft TV productions v. McDonald's
In this case, a corporation was initially fined for Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction,” but the decision was later reversed.
CBS v FCC
Outside of the purpose of the copyright use, the nature of the copywritten work, and the amount of the copywritten material used, this is the final clause of the 1976 Copyright Act.
The effect that the use of the material has on the copyright holder
In this case, the Supreme Ct. ruled an author could be allowed to publish sketches of Zapruder’s film of the Kennedy assassination in his book relating to the same subject.
Time v Geis
Four categories of materials that are exempted from FOIA.
1) classified defense strategies
2) information that cannot be shared due to federal law
3) trade secrets both of commercial and financial from privileged peoples
4) internal agency rules (such as CIA or FBI)
5) Personal information such as medical, financial, and anything under that vein
6) geological maps that showcase oil wells
7) information gathered by police or other law enforcement agencies
8) documents that are protected by legal privilege (like lawyer documents)
9) financial records that are under examination
The Central Hudson Test has 4 steps which include: whether the speech is about lawful activity and is not misleading, whether the government has a substantial interest in regulating, whether the regulation directly advances that interest, and this final step.
Whether the regulation is more extensive than necessary to serve the government's interest.
In this case, the Court ruled that a person has the right to view whatever photos or films he or she may like in the privacy of his or her own home, as long as the person is not selling and/or distributing the materials.
Stanley v Georgia
This man was prosecuted for downloading academic journal articles from JSTOR using the MIT computer network.
Aaron Swartz
In this case, it was determined that two songwriters had illegally infringed on the work of another musical artist and were ordered to pay millions of dollars to that deceased musician's family.
Pharrell Williams, et al v. Bridgeport Music