In our present information environment, there is news coming from every direction, at every angle, all the time. Due to this overabundance of information, it is often hard to tell reality from fiction. This can be especially difficult when opinions and fake news have also been interjected into the media landscape. Fake news is far from a periphery player too, in fact, it is splashed across some of the most popular websites on the internet like Facebook and Google. It may even have played a role in the outcome of the presidential election. Read on to learn more about the fake news phenomenon, its place in history, how popular websites made it mainstream, and the consequences of its rise.

The origin of “Fake News”

So what is fake news exactly? As its name suggests, fake news is literally made-up news about events that did not happen. In many cases, the creation of fake news is done by people from all over the world seeking to spread misinformation or looking to promote something and get rich doing it. One of the most egregious examples comes from a few writers in Macedonia who claim they made between $5,000 and $10,000 a month publishing fake stories. These people create extremely partisan pieces for the sole purpose of drawing the most eyeballs. The goal is to get readers interested because more traffic means more ad revenue.

But intentionally fabricating false stories isn’t the only way fake news spreads. It can also be the result of a person’s earnest, yet inaccurate beliefs such as this one example chronicled by the New York Times. Eric Tucker, a Trump supporter, posted a picture on November 9 of what he believed were charter buses bringing in paid protesters to dispute the election. While that was just how he interpreted what he saw, and something he later determined was not true, that did not stop his tweet from going viral. Tucker was a private citizen with a small Twitter following, yet his post was seized upon by several Trump supporters and conservative websites to justify their belief in a conspiracy. The way individuals interpret an event, often without full information about what actually happened, has become increasingly important.

Facebook and Google

Two of the companies that end up promoting (and profiting) from fake news the most are Facebook and Google. So how are these two tech titans attacking this problem? Before this question can be answered it is important to look at why these websites allow fake news in the first place. The issue of fake news on Facebook came to the forefront after a major incident earlier this year. In May, a member of a team that curated the “trending news” section for Facebook said that the group regularly avoided featuring conservative stories. This admission created a political firestorm that led to the end of the trending news team within Facebook and news curation on the site altogether.

In its place, Facebook installed an algorithm that would determine which news stories are being shared the most. However, shortly after its debut, the new section began elevating stories that were completely false. While the company still has some human oversight of the new trending section, they are told to exercise less editorial control over the articles that are featured, leading many fake stories to slip through.

While fake news on Facebook may not seem like a major issue on its face, a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 44 percent of Americans get news on Facebook. In another, more recent poll, Pew found that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe fake news created confusion about basic facts. Facebook and other social media sites provide a way for articles to quickly go viral and reach a remarkably large audience. While most agree that the spread of fake news is a problem, finding an appropriate solution is not particularly easy. Facebook has been cautious in its response out of fear of censoring legitimate news outlets or once again projecting an anti-conservative bias.

How Companies Have Responded

The nature of Facebook’s business makes fake news a difficult issue to approach. At its core, Facebook relies on its large user base to sell advertising to. If the site eliminated fake news it could run the risk of seeming biased or alienating people and losing their engagement and possibly lucrative advertising revenue.

Despite this challenge, Facebook has said that it plans to address fake news. The CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has stated that Facebook is already working on blocking or flagging completely false articles and recently announced a partnership with third-party fact checker sites to help accomplish that goal. Ultimately, Facebook and other companies must walk a tight line. The most blatantly false news stories may be somewhat easy to identify, but in an era of polarized politics even some facts are contested, making it hard to create a clear rule.

For Google, the approach is slightly different because its search engine is predicated on reliability–if it is just showing fake news articles it would lose the trust of its users. However, that is not to say Google has avoided fake news altogether. The most significant example of fake news on Google is a result of the way the search engine ranks results. While search results often feature articles from the company’s curated Google News section, the “Top Stories” at the top of many search results include a broader range of articles that in some cases include fake news. It is particularly confusing because when you click to “read more” articles, it takes you to the Google News section, which is editorially vetted. This stems from the fact that Google Search and Google News are viewed as separate entities by Google. This distinction really becomes problematic because Google News does not accept ad revenue whereas Google Search does. A similar issue exists on Google’s mobile platform, which features AMP stories–web pages that are optimized to load almost instantly on mobile devices–at the top of the results page. This is yet another way for fake news to sneak into the top of the results page.

Google uses an algorithm to weed out spam and fake news websites, although it is not 100 percent foolproof. In light of the recent debate, Google has promised to fight fake news by restricting fake news sites’ access to its AdSense platform, which is often their source of revenue–fake news sites make money by generating a lot of traffic and serving viewers ads, often using Google’s advertising tools. Facebook also made a similar move to prevent fake news sites from using its advertising network.

The following video looks at fake news online and what companies are doing to stop it:

The Impact of Fake News

As many realize the extent to which fake news has spread online, some wonder whether it could have impacted the outcome of the recent election, as news reports indicate that fake news tends to have a conservative bias. Although it is impossible to show the exact impact of fake news on the election–and although Mark Zuckerberg dismissed the notion that fake news was consequential in the election–widespread false information is almost certain to have some sort of impact on people. In fact, according to an article from Buzzfeed News, there was actually more engagement with the top fake election news articles on Facebook than with the top content from traditional media sources in the last three months of the campaign. But, like many factors used to explain the election results, it’s impossible to say whether or not fake news actually tipped the election one way or another.

The video below features a PBS NewsHour discussion of fake news and its potential impact.

The effect of fake news has also been felt outside of the United States. An example would be in the Philippines, where a spokesperson for the president posted graphic images to justify the country’s violent campaign against drug dealers, even though fact checkers later realized that the images were actually taken in Brazil. Fake news also spread widely in the lead up to elections in Indonesia and a fake article about the Colombian peace deal with the FARC went viral shortly before the referendum vote. The problem was so disruptive that some African nations shut down social media sites after unconfirmed security threats spread before elections.

Fake news certainly has precedent in the United States. From the late 1890s through to the 1920s something known as Yellow Journalism reigned. During that period, competing newspapers would publish sensational and often false stories, each more so than the last, in an effort to win eyeballs. The scourge of Yellow Journalism became so bad at one point that many believe it contributed to the Spanish-American War of 1898.

Conclusion

So what is to be done about this problem? Some suggest that Google and Facebook could help create a crowd-sourced list of news stories that can be peer-reviewed. Others argue that big companies should not have the power to determine what is true. Recent efforts to reduce fake news sites’ access to the biggest advertising networks may help get rid of their financial incentives, but alternative ad networks may not follow suit.

The example of Yellow Journalism may also be a model to look at. The exaggerated and fabricated news stories at the turn of the 20th century were ultimately undone by waning public interest, court cases that protected the privacy of individuals, and a code of ethics adopted by many newspapers. But in the modern news environment centered around internet, and the abundance of media that comes with it, it may be difficult to weed out these stories altogether.

In the meantime, identifying fake news is a case by case effort that requires everyone’s diligence. It requires a balancing act of separating reality from fiction, but also a tolerance for information that you may not agree with and a skepticism for that which confirms your existing beliefs. Efforts of this nature are already underway on the platforms where most fake news is found. Now it is up to readers to determine if what they see is legitimate or not. If anything, the rise of fake news may drive people to become more critical news consumers.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Reality Behind Fake News appeared first on Law Street.

Washington, D.C. has the highest infant mortality risk of all the world’s high-income capitals–7.9 deaths for every 1,000 births. But the infant mortality rate in Finland is much lower, and one of the reasons for this is the simple but effective Finnish baby box. All new parents in Finland are eligible to receive a box from the government to help them through the early stages of their child’s birth. Inside the box, there are essential items for raising an infant such as clothes and, because it is Finland, a snowsuit. The box itself doubles as a crib, reducing the risk of accidental death during sleep.

Countries all over the world are now emulating Finland’s baby box idea, which has been around for decades. One such imitation, the “Barakat Bundle,” hopes to encourage women to make prenatal visits while providing them with the essentials to raise a healthy infant, thereby reducing both maternal deaths and infant mortality. The Barakat Bundle, although inspired by the Finnish baby box, is geared more to the needs of mothers and infants in Southeast Asia. For example, it includes medical supplies, such as a clean delivery kit for children born at home.

Today this practice is so culturally engrained in Finland that it continues largely without comment. Parents there overwhelmingly opt in favor of the baby-box, even well-off parents, and it has become a shared part of the Finnish identity. But when this idea is discussed in the United States it seems controversial; the ultimate symbol of the dreaded “nanny state.” Is the baby box an adorably autocratic threat to personal liberty?

Unboxing the Box

The first step to answering that question is to look at how the baby box actually works. This tradition dates back to 1938 when Finland was much poorer than it is now and had an infant mortality rate of 65 out of 1,000 births. The rate now is 2.52 out of every 1,000 births, an improvement that is certainly not entirely due to the baby box. But the rate is half that of infant mortality in the United States, so the baby box may be a significant factor. From the start of the program until 1949, the box was only available to low-income families. But starting in 1949 the box became available to everyone. This may help account for the program’s success, much like the way the inclusion of everyone in Social Security–not as a hand-out but as something you pay into and therefore “deserve” to benefit from–helped to sell the idea to the American people.

There have been other changes over the years as well, some of which are designed to encourage certain parenting behaviors. For example, formula and bottles are deliberately not included any longer, which promotes breastfeeding. Boxes also contain cloth diapers, rather than disposable ones, for environmental reasons. There are also condoms in the box, which would probably disconcert a more conservative American audience. The clothes in the box are gender neutral, designs change yearly, and as you would expect, are extremely adorable. And practical. So much so that 95 percent of Finnish mothers choose the box–including mothers who already have children–even though you can opt for a cash payout instead. In fact, those who don’t live in Finland can purchase a version of the box from several companies, such as Finnish Baby Box. You can watch parents opening the box on YouTube if you are curious about the contents.

This brief video does a good job of summarizing some of the key elements to the baby box.

There’s also a requirement that women have to have at least one prenatal visit, before they are four months pregnant, to be eligible to receive one. The Barakat Bundle requires a pre-natal visit as well, which they anticipate will reduce maternal deaths.

The simple genius of the baby box is not just that the contents of the box are useful tools for parents, but the box itself. In fact, this simple cardboard box may be the main reason why the program has reduced infant mortality. The box comes with a mattress and is specifically designed to provide the optimum sleeping environment for an infant to avoid SIDS or cot death. The U.K. has taken heed and is launching a pilot program to give out baby boxes to mothers in hopes of reducing its relatively high infant mortality rate. A similar program is happening in Texas, sponsored by a local Rotary Club, which will give out 100 boxes to new mothers.

This video explains some of the benefits of the baby box to help babies sleep safely.

And this one shows how some of the new mothers and babies react to the baby box.

Who knew that the safest place to put a baby was in a cardboard box?

State Sponsored Shower

In the videos and examples above, hospitals and altruistic private organizations take it upon themselves to invest in these boxes and distribute them to new mothers. Why doesn’t the state government step in to do this too, if baby boxes are so effective?

Finns don’t quite see it this way but many Americans view the baby box, and other similar handouts, as antithetical to the values of freedom. It does seem a bit odd, if you think about it, that all the babies born in the same year receive the same outfits. And that parents are steered toward certain behaviors, such as breastfeeding, by a “benevolent” government entity when they might want to make other choices. Americans have a deep-seated wariness of large government, as well as a love for it, that pushes them away from embracing these kinds of policies. Finland gives away 40,000 of these boxes every year…but that’s just in a country the size of Finland. The level of bureaucracy that it would take to accomplish the same task of giving every mother a baby box in the United States would be staggering, and to many, terrifying. And to be perfectly blunt about it, expensive.

The American Approach

Americans have an alternative approach, which is the tradition of the baby shower. Rather than have the state or federal government welcome your baby into the world with a box of essentials, American parents often received personalized and eclectic gifts from friends and loved ones. This seems more in keeping with our love of diversity and our individual uniqueness. Baby showers are in fact a great way to ensure that you have the tools you need to survive the first months of parenthood.

It is the families who do not get the shower experience, however, that should be the concern. If you don’t need a baby box because you have a network of family support and the financial means to collect those items yourself, the baby box idea is still helpful but it provides more of a convenience and a sense of community rather than a financial benefit. Even the wealthy Finnish mothers typically choose the baby box in part because it isn’t about the box. It is what the box represents, that you and your new child are part of a community that cares about you and investing in your child’s future. Getting the box is part of being Finnish. For a family who needs the baby box, it is also about being part of a community that cares about you, but also also about the very practical reality that unless you get the box your baby will not have access to many of the items inside it.

The baby box, therefore, shows the fault-lines in our political thought. Giving away a baby box to every family, ensuring that all children start out with as equal a chance as we can give them, speaks powerfully to our egalitarian values. After all, one of the things Americans are most proud of about our society is our belief that the United States is the most egalitarian society on earth. Everyone has a chance to succeed. Our greatest political turmoil often results from the perception that we are losing that egalitarian character in our society.

It’s the giving away portion that gives us pause. Americans are wary of government overreach. We like our charity to be a private affair, run by altruistic individuals and faith communities, not the government. And our individualism resists anything that seems like a state uniform–no matter how adorable.

Support for the baby box, therefore, turns on whether you see it as a giveaway from the nanny state to parents who should be taking responsibility themselves or whether you characterize it as an investment by society into these newborns. It all comes down to responsibility and who should have it. In Finland, they have answered that question. Finns feel that society as a whole ultimately shares responsibility for, and therefore investment in, its children. In the United States, our paradoxical character makes the answer more mixed.

Conclusion

The baby shower doesn’t do anything to help the family that needs the baby box. If you had the kind of family support that baby showers represent you wouldn’t need the box. Placing the responsibility to provide these kinds of tools solely on the baby shower emphasizes for new parents who don’t have the same blessings that they are on their own. Sharing that responsibility across society with the baby box does the opposite. It provides tangible benefits but it also sends a clear message that this baby is part of our community. Part of our future. And that we all, together, share in the investment into that future. The parents are the MVPs, but everyone is on the team.

Resources

The Washington Post: Why Babies Should Sleep in Cardboard Boxes

Barakat Bundle: About

BBC: Why Finnish Babies Sleep in Cardboard Boxes

The New York Times: Why Finland’s Babies Sleep in Cardboard Cribs

Daily Mail UK: New Mothers Given Finnish Style Baby Boxes

Today: Thinking Outside The Box: Finnish Baby Kits Could Save Infant Lives

Goodreads: The Nordic Theory of Everything

The Atlantic.com: Finland’s Baby Box: Gift From Santa or Socialist Hell? 

Goodreads: Liberty and Coercion 

Goodreads: The Politicians And The Egalitarians

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Thinking Inside the Box: How Finland Makes Parents and Babies Happy and Healthy appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this year a legal battle that spanned twenty years concluded in a major victory for Native American tribes in Washington. “Kennewick Man“–the remains of a 9,000 year old skeleton discovered in 1996–is considered one of the most important archaeological finds in North American history. The skeleton was found on federal land but multiple Native American tribes argued that the skeleton, which was officially determined to be Native American in 2015, belonged on tribal land. Under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Native American tribes are allowed to determine what to do with Native remains–either burying them in a traditional ceremony or displaying them in museum exhibits. Thanks to NAGPRA, many Native American artifacts have been brought back to tribal lands but after centuries of removal–both by individuals and archaeological missions–the work of repatriation has only just begun. Certain museums, most notably the Smithsonian Institution, have striven to catalog and repatriate collections but museums across the United States, and the world, are still in possession of contested artifacts. Take a look at the current state of repatriation.

What is NAGPRA?

NAGPRA, enacted in 1990 after being introduced by noted conservationist Morris Udall, requires organizations that receive federal funding to return Native American cultural artifacts to lineal descendants and affiliated tribes. Federal grant money is dedicated to repatriating artifacts, which can be human remains, sacred objects, or personal possessions. Some sacred objects are still used in modern-day ceremonies so they can be especially important for preserving the heritage of the tribes. Museums are required to keep an up-to-date inventory of all artifacts so that tribes can track them down and initiate the repatriation process. Furthermore, NAGPRA requires that Native American and Native Hawaiian organizations are notified by archaeologists whenever they find or expect to find indigenous cultural items (or when such items are unexpectedly discovered on federal or tribal lands). NAGPRA is incredibly important in the context of disturbing burial grounds. Native American graves were frequently unmarked and there was no protection under state or federal law regarding their exhumation.

NAGPRA also criminalizes the trafficking of Native American remains (without right of possession/legal ownership). In 2003, the FBI returned a host of stolen Native American artifacts valued at over $400,000 on the black market to eight tribes. A well-known art gallery in Santa Fe, New Mexico had been selling the artifacts out of a back room by the gallery owner and a prominent art dealer. NAGPRA was augmented by the National Museum of the American Indian Act Amendments of 1996, which extends repatriation to include “unassociated” objects that are not tied to a particular tribe. The National Museum of the American Indian operates a six-step process for repatriation which has led to the repatriation of more than 2,000 objects to 100 different Native communities throughout North and South America.

Why Kennewick Man Matters

Multiple tribes, including the Umatilla, Colville, Yakima, Wanapum and Nez Perce tribes, have all claimed the remains of Kennewick Man as their own. The remains were found on Umatilla ancestral land, but that does not guarantee that the skeleton was actually of Umatilla descent as multiple tribes visited that land. The tribes have advocated for the skeleton’s immediate reburial, claiming that holding him in a laboratory and museum environment is disrespectful to his memory. Scientists and archaeologists argue that they can learn a great deal from his remains, as his is one of the oldest and most complete skeletons ever discovered on the continent. The first scientists to study the skeleton argued that it lacked “Native American characteristics” which infuriated tribal advocates. Umatilla trustee and religious leader Armand Minthorn told Archaeology that 

If this individual is truly over 9,000 years old, that only substantiates our belief that he is Native American. From our oral histories, we know that our people have been part of this land since the beginning of time….We already know our history

The tribes’ assertion that the skeleton was Native American was often considered to be suspect until a 2015 DNA study found that Kennewick Man’s genome was more closely related to modern Native Americans than any other modern human demographic. The DNA testing was not specific enough to confirm a specific tribe but the groups that have claimed ownership over the skeleton agreed to band together for his burial.

Over the years, Kennewick Man became not only an important artifact but a symbol of the Native American battle for credibility in repatriation. Advocates hope the repatriation of Kennewick Man will hopefully set a precedent for future cases, both in the United States and abroad.

Repatriation Failures at the British Museum

Native Americans are not the only indigenous groups who seek to reclaim their history through repatriation. The British Museum, which houses some of the most incredible collections of artifacts in the world, has frequently been criticized for its failure to return objects to the governments of  former British colonies.

Artifacts from India, Africa, and Australia have become contested since the end of colonialism, as indigenous groups argue that they deserve to display their heritage in their own museums. India has asked for the return of the Kohinoor Diamond, Greece has requested the Elgin Marbles. and the statue Hoa Hakananai’a  still stands in the British Museum rather than its ancestral home of Rapa Nui (Easter Island). The British Museum has launched some repatriation efforts, but is still in possession of thousands upon thousands of contested artifacts. Earlier this year, the British Museum launched an exhibition entitled Indigenous Australia: Enduring Civilisation which stirred controversy over the museum’s ownership of over 6,000 artifacts that were acquired from Indigenous Australian populations during the colonial era. That community is divided in their reaction to the exhibition: some claim that the British preserved objects that otherwise would have been lost or destroyed while others argue that the artifacts, which were often stolen during violent periods of repression, should be sent back to Australia. There are plans for the exhibition to travel to Canberra in November, but the artifacts will be sent under the 2013 Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan Act, which blocks the repatriation process while the artifacts are on Australian soil. Shane Mortimer, an elder of the Ngambri people, stated that

If the Ngambri people went to England, killed 90 percent of the population and everything else that is indigenous to England and sent the crown jewels back to Ngambri Country as a prize exhibit … what would the remaining 10 percent of English people have to say about that? The exhibition should not proceed without the permission of the owners of all of the items.

Conclusion

The repatriation of artifacts and human remains is a battle that has been fought for decades yet is far from over. Certain archaeologists argue that artifacts need to be preserved in major museums in order to share history with future generations. The idea that a skeleton discovered on an archaeological dig might be buried once again (according to tribal custom) is seen as irresponsible and distasteful. However, advocates for the Native population believe that repatriating artifacts will do much more to preserve culture than holding them in a museum and that the burial of human remains is a sign of respect.

There is no doubt that museums are invaluable to preserving our history but we cannot ignore the fact that a majority of their collections were taken without permission and artifacts are essentially being held hostage under the guise of preservation. There are museums that have engaged in extensive repatriation–the National Museum of the American Indian, for example, has fewer than 300 human remains in its collection, most of which have yet to be claimed by South American tribes–so the process is clearly feasible. Repatriation is a reaction to theft, not preservation, and indigenous tribes deserve support as they try to reclaim their history.

Resources

Primary

National Park Service: NAGPRA

National Museum of the American Indian:  Act Amendments of 1996

National Museum of the American Indian: Repatriation

Additional

NewHistorian: Kennewick Man Will Return Home to Native American Tribes

Annenberg Classroom: Who should own Native American artifacts?

National Geographic: When Is It Okay to Dig Up the Dead?

Smithsonian Magazine: Over 9,000 Years Later, Kennewick Man Will Be Given a Native American Burial

The Guardian: Rreservation or plunder? The battle over the British Museum’s Indigenous Australian show

NDTV: London Point Of View: Give Back Kohinoor? Fat Chance!

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Stolen Identities: The Repatriation of Indigenous Artifacts appeared first on Law Street.

Since the Olympic Games were first opened to women in 1900, female athletes have stunned the world with their athleticism and dedication. Like their male counterparts, they train for years–even decades–to achieve perfection in their sport, pushing their bodies to the breaking point in order to bring home a medal for their country. In 2012, Team USA was comprised of more women than men, prompting USA Today to call London 2012 “The Title IX Olympics.”

Yet although we appreciate and applaud our female athletes every four years during the Games, their road to the Opening Ceremony can be significantly rockier than that of their male team members. In fact, 2012 was the first year in which every country in the Olympic Games had female athletes participating–not because not enough female athletes had failed to qualify for the competition but because Saudi Arabia had historically banned female athletes from competing in the Games. After considerable international pressure, Saudi Arabia agreed to send Wodjan Ali Seraj Abdulrahim Shahrkhani for judo and Sarah Attar for the 800 meter race to the London 2012 Games–the first time in history the nation sent female athletes to the games. Qatar and Brunei’s female athletes at the London Games were also the first female members in the history of their Olympic participation, but in both of those countries, the policies restricting women in sports are significantly less harsh.

However the battle to include female Saudi athletes was hard fought. There was significant criticism when Saudi Arabia originally didn’t include any women–Human Rights Watch called for a ban on the entire Saudi delegation unless it included female athletes. Read on to take a look at the tough fight for gender equality in the Olympics.

The Attention on Gender Equality in the Olympics

History of Exclusion and Inclusion

Today we may take our female athletes for granted, as over 44 percent of the participants in the last summer games were women, but they can face a form of discrimination that their male peers rarely encounter. It has taken decades to open certain sports to women–consider that ski jumping in the Winter Olympics only became open to women during the Sochi 2014 Winter Games. It was not until 1991 that the Olympics officially opened all sports to both genders, but that declaration was undermined by the caveat that sports from the inaugural 1924 Games did not have to be open to female athletes. The rationale behind this ban on women’s participation is tied to the idea that women are at greater risk of physical harm when competing or that they do not have the same physical stamina as male athletes.

Equality?

Even when women are allowed to compete in their sport, there is no guarantee they will have the same privileges that male athletes receive. When the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team filed their EOEC complaint regarding salary earlier this month, they threatened to boycott the Olympic Games unless they received comparable pay to their male counterparts. Under the 1978 Amateur Sports Act, the United States Olympic Committee and its National Governing Bodies are required to operate in a non-discriminatory fashion but not all nations have dedicated the same legal attention to gender parity.

However, no matter what a country’s domestic policy is on women in sports, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has seemingly gone the extra mile to ensure that women can compete at the Olympic level. The “universality clause” states that athletes who do not qualify for an event during the trials can still compete if they are considered critical to the national team “for reasons of equality.” It was under this clause that both female Saudi athletes were able to compete in London 2012.

Case Study: Saudi Arabia as a Last Holdout

Saudi Arabia has effectively placed a blanket ban on women’s sports, even though there is no law preventing women from participating in organized sports (just as there is no official law preventing women from driving). But in order for women to train, they must attend a gym with separate women’s facilities–and only a handful of gyms across the country possess a separate women’s building. Community centers and schools almost never offer women’s training spaces so most women wishing to exercise, let alone train for an organized sport, may have to travel outside of the country to do so. Girls attending government schools are prohibited from taking part in sports. There were discussions in 2014 about allowing physical education programs in public schools but that conversation has stalled and come to naught. Besides being a policy that prevents women from competing in athletics, it can be seen as an incredibly dangerous public health maneuver, considering that 34 percent of Saudi Arabian women are obese and Type 2 diabetes is prevalent throughout the Saudi population.

There is not necessarily a lack of interest in sports among women in Saudi Arabia. In July 2012, a group of citizens requested to organize a women’s sports tournament including volleyball, soccer, and basketball, promising that it would comply with a dress code and would not involve the mixing of genders, yet that request was denied by Saudi officials at the sports ministry. The ministry gave no reason for denying the request. Beyond preventing women from playing sports, the government also generally prevents them from attending sporting events as spectators.

The 2012 Competitors 

Wojdan Shaherkani, the 16-year old judo competitor from Mecca who came to the Games in 2012, lasted less than two minutes on the mat during her first bout at the London Games. Whereas virtually all competitors at the Olympic level have a black belt, Shaherkani had only a blue belt when she entered the Games, having only practiced the sport for two years. Shaherkani was granted no financial or media support from the Saudi delegation. Her match was broadcast on a handful of cable television channels in the Kingdom but was otherwise ignored.

Like Shaherkani, Sarah Attar failed to develop popularity or receive respect from the populace. Attar is from San Diego and holds dual Saudi and American citizenship. Attar is training for the Rio Games at training facility in California, where she is sponsored by Oiselle, a subsidiary of Nike that looks to promote women in sports, and runs without a hijab. She dons the hijab when she races as an Olympian out of respect for Saudi Arabia, a country she hopes to keep representing for the foreseeable future. She may be wearing the colors of Saudi Arabia when she races in the Olympic trials, but some of the population she represents either refuses to watch her run or has labeled her a “prostitute.” She is funded by an American company, not a Saudi one.

Conclusion

As we approach the Rio Games, female athletes around the world are competing in Olympic trials, hoping to represent their nations on the world stage.  Yet not all female athletes compete on the same footing as their male counterparts. Nations such as Qatar and Brunei still have relatively restrictive policies on women’s sports, but at least young girls are given the opportunity to compete and exercise within the borders of their homeland. Qatar is even striving to take more female athletes to the Games in Rio than they ever have before.

However Saudi Arabia still lags behind. Studies have shown that young women who play sports have higher self-esteem, are more likely to do well in school and graduate, and less likely to suffer from depression or have an unplanned pregnancy. Qatar and Brunei have set a positive example by integrating female athletes into their teams, and Saudi Arabia now has the opportunity to follow that example in Rio.

Resources

CNN: Olympic First as Saudi Arabia Names Two Women in London 2012 Team

Feminist Majority Foundation: Equality for Women in the Olympics

The Week: The Olympics’ Longstanding Gender Gap

GOOD: The Women’s National Soccer Team Threatens to Skip the Olympics 

The Huffington Post: As Rio 2016 Draws Closer, When Will Discrimination End For Sportswomen In Saudi Arabia?

Institute for Gulf Affairs: Killing Them Softly 

The World Post: Saudi Arabia’s Olympic Paradox: Insulting Women, Islam and “Prostitutes”

Running.Competitor.com: Q&A with Sarah Attar

The Gender Report: Women Making History in 2012 Olympics

The Guardian: Saudi Arabia’s Judoka Strikes Blow for Women’s Rights at Olympics

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Is Exclusion Still the Norm? Saudi Arabia and Women in the Olympic Games appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, March 13 the 68 teams vying for the Men’s NCAA basketball championship were selected, and actual play started just a few days later. While the tournament will capture the spotlight and attention of millions for nearly a month, there are a number of other related events that often go unnoticed. This includes everything from massive amounts of money changing hands to the number of work hours wasted checking phones, computers, or simply watching the tournament. Keep reading to find out the impact of the NCAA basketball tournament beyond filling out brackets and the action on the court.

History

Although the current men’s tournament is portrayed as some early spring colossus, this was not always the case. The men’s tournament began in 1939–that year Oregon defeated Ohio State in the final game. Even after its start, the original tournament would be almost unrecognizable by today’s standards, with only eight teams competing for the first 12 years. At that time the tournament was so insignificant, in fact, another tournament, the National Invitation Tournament (NIT), decided the national champion.

The tournament slowly expanded to 16 teams in 1951 then to 22 teams in 1953. The number stayed relatively static for the next twenty years. In 1975, the field grew again to 32, incorporating teams beyond the conference champions. The tournament stretched to 40 teams in 1979 and 48 the subsequent year. In 1983, the number of teams increased to 53, eventually reaching the familiar number of 64 in 1985.

The field grew again in 2001, finally reaching 68 teams in 2010. The competition now includes four play-in games before the traditional tournament starts. Along with the tournament’s consistent growth in size came new methods of selecting teams and seeding them after selection.

The women’s tournament began much later in 1982 but started on a larger scale with a 32-team field. The women’s tournament later expanded to its current size of 64 teams. Apart from slight differences, like play-in games, the men’s and women’s tournaments operate in the same fashion with four regions whittled down to a final four then a semifinal and the national championship.

NCAA

The men’s and women’s basketball tournaments are run by an organization known as the NCAA, or National Collegiate Athletic Association, which administers and oversees college-level athletics in the United States. It began in 1906, adopting its current name in 1910, as an organization to codify college football rules and those of other sports. While it is hard to fathom today, the organization lacked any real clout until 1942, and particularly gained prestige in 1952, when it began regulating live football coverage. In 1973, it separated into three divisions: Division I, Division II, and Division III. The larger schools with larger budgets play in Divisions I and II and smaller schools play in Division III.

Today the NCAA oversees collegiate athletics regionally and nationally, including 80 national championships which spread across 20 sports in the three divisions. Along with determining rules and performing administrative tasks, the NCAA’s other function–one that draws a lot of criticism–is determining eligibility.

Moneymaking

As both the bracket and the NCAA have grown over the years, so too has profit from the basketball tournament. While this is often seen as a time of entertainment and friendly bets at its core, there is a massive amount of money changing hands. In 2014 for example, advertisers alone spent $1.13 billion to show ads on networks during the NCAA tournament. Furthermore, over a 10-year period ending in 2014, revenues exceeded $7.5 billion. Much of this money then goes to the NCAA through licensing deals. Of the $1.13 billion in 2014, approximately $800 million went to the NCAA for licensing fees. The video below looks at the business side of the tournament:

The NCAA sends most of this money to the participating schools. How this process works is for every non-championship game played in the tournament a team earns its conference a unit of money. The money is then paid out to the conferences over a six-year period based on the number of games its teams played. The conferences typically split the money among member teams. Since the money is split among every team in a conference, some schools earn less than if they were able to keep their respective winnings. However, this provides a needed source of income for teams not consistently in contention. Even with this bonus–along with streams of income like ticket sales, boosters, and merchandise–nearly one-third of teams lose money or just break even on their basketball programs after expenses.

Gambling

Unsurprisingly, for a tournament that generates so much money and interest, gambling plays a major role. This gambling is generally divided into two parts. The form that is most often associated with the tournament is done through bracket pools, which are filled out across the country in businesses, schools, and among friends. While this good-natured form generally includes only small wagers, it is probably illegal for most. But when it comes to enforcement, the authorities typically don’t intervene.

The other form is the high stakes level of gambling. Betting on the NCAA men’s basketball tournament even surpasses the amount bet on the Super Bowl, though, the tournament spans several games. According to estimates from the American Gaming Association (AGA), $9.2 is expected to be bet on this year’s tournament and Americans will fill out approximately 70 million brackets. But according to the AGA, much of that is done illegally. In a press release the association notes:

Of the $9.2 billion that will be wagered this year, only about $262 million will be bet legally at Nevada sports books. The total illegal sports betting market in the United States grew to $148.8 billion in 2015.

The following video looks at the gambling associated with the tournament:

Amateurism

One of the largest issues surrounding March Madness, beyond gambling and its legality, is the role of the athletes who remain unpaid as the NCAA, basketball conferences, schools, and gamblers profit. Collegiate athletes are considered amateurs by the NCAA, which prevents them from earning money for their work. Instead, they are paid in scholarships. While other students, particularly those with student debt, may see athletes’ free education like a decent deal, its value is often far below market value for what the athletes generate.

Athletes are also unable to augment their wages with endorsements or money from agents or boosters. In fact, athletes are barred from having any contact with agents until they give up their amateur status. But universities are free to accept money from and even depend upon boosters. Athletes in sports like basketball and football are also barred from jumping straight to American professional leagues as well, leaving them few options other than going to college or playing professionally overseas. The demands of playing Division I or II sports may also detract from athletes’ educations.

The scholarships that are available to student athletes are also misunderstood. They are often seen as a “full ride,” but many athletes are not guaranteed the scholarship for the full four years. Until 2012, schools were not even allowed to give out multi-year scholarships. This means that coaches and athletic directors have the power to take away scholarships for players who are not performing while players have less ability to seek recourse. Even for those who maintain their good standing and their scholarships, the value is often not enough to live on, which could tempt some to take money from money from people like agents, violating NCAA rules.

The amateur system in the NCAA is well-known and has sparked several lawsuits and legal actions. Perhaps the most prominent example is Northwestern University football players’ attempt to unionize. The issue remains far from settled, and even if these athletes eventually do get paid, a system for compensation could be particularly complicated given the nature of college sports and the money involved.

The following video provides a good look at the question of amateurism:

Lost Productivity

March Madness may not be unfair just to the athletes, it also impacts businesses across the United States in the form of lost productivity. According to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, employers may lose as much as $1.9 billion in pay because of the tournament.  This loss in productivity comes in the forms of absenteeism, employees wasting internet bandwidth on watching games, and employees becoming distracted while at work.

To offset this issue, many companies have actually tried co-opting the excitement over the tournament in order to funnel it into still-tangible results. For example, one company, Headwaters MB, threw a barbecue and invited local business leaders to improved morale and develop contacts and potential clients. Not all businesses are able to leverage the tournament to help productivity, but many have at least acknowledged its effects on their employees’ work output.

Conclusion

March Madness is a great time for sports fans across the nation. Not only do they get inundated with almost non-stop action, but they can also form bonds over brackets and friendly rivalries. However, behind all the glory and triumph is a seedier, more practical side to the tournament. This side is concerned with the vast amount of money the tournament generates.

This money is generated by many legitimate means but also through gambling and illegal betting. Businesses also have to suffer losses in productivity as employees find their attention drift from their work to the tournament. On top of all of this is the question of the athlete’s role in the moneymaking. The amateur basketball players generate massive sums but aren’t able to make money for themselves unless they end up playing professionally. While the best approach to the issue remains hotly debated, several court cases and legal actions have attempted to change the status quo.

Resources

ESPN: 2016 NCAA Tournament Schedule

History: March Madness is born

Bracketography: The Tournament Over Time

Encyclopedia Britannica: National Collegiate Athletic Association

The Economist: Amateurism in Sports

CBS Sports: Schools Can Give Out 4-year Athletic Scholarships, but Many Don’t

Law Street Media: The Battle in College Sports: Northwestern Football and Unions

Fortune: Guess how Much Money Employers Lose during March Madness

ESPN: 68-team Tournament Approved

ABC News: Into the Pool: NCAA Tourney Betting Booms

Yahoo Finance: March Madness: The $1.5b behind the NCAA tournament

IBT: March Madness 2015: Getting To The NCAA Finals Costs A Lot, But The Rewards For Most Are Slim

Go Banking Rates: Betting on March Madness and NCAA Brackets Could Get You in Legal Trouble

Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc.: It’s March Madness: This Year’s Madness Could Cost 1.9B

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The NCAA Tournament: The Method behind the Madness appeared first on Law Street.

Abeba Aregawi is one of the world’s fastest women. She is the reigning world champion in the indoor 1500m, and competed in the 2012 London Olympics, the 2013 Moscow World Championships and the 2014 World Indoor Championships in Sopot. However, it is not her athletic accomplishments that have put her in the spotlight this month–it is her suspension from running after testing positive for a banned substance. Aregawi has stated that she did not take drugs and has asked for a separate sample to be taken and tested in order to clear her name.

But as we draw closer to the 2016 Rio Olympics, professional athletes are pushing themselves harder and harder in order to compete at the highest level of their sport–even if that means bending the rules on performance-enhancing drugs. Aregawi is only one of dozens of Olympic athletes who have been accused of using banned substances in the lead up to the summer games. Just this month, a senior Ethiopian official admitted that nine of the country’s elite runners have been placed under investigation for doping. Take a look at the current state of Olympic drug regulation and what it means for Rio 2016.

Changes to Doping Regulations

This month, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced a major shift in the oversight of doping for future Olympic games. The IOC has agreed to remove itself from the oversight commission and to instead hand authority over to a group of independent sports arbitrators. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is forming a new committee of one to three doping “specialists” to oversee cases presented by athletes and officials who wish to contest charges of doping brought against them.

This transition is designed to make doping cases more equitable and independent, but the logistics involved in handing this responsibility off to a different organization are proving challenging for the IOC. The CAS is setting forth new guidelines which countries may not be able to adapt to with ease. As of now, the Brazilian anti-doping agency is not in line with CAS regulations.  If the agency can not reform its drug testing facilities by the end of the month, samples will have to be sent to facilities outside of Brazil for testing–a cumbersome task that will delay processing for athletes and could increase the risk of contamination or tampering with samples.

Banning Non-Compliant Countries

The World Anti-Doping Agency recently proposed banning Kenya from the coming Olympic games after Kenyan officials missed a deadline to implement new, stricter regulations. In the last three years alone, approximately forty Kenyan athletes have been banned from their respective sports because of doping. The threat of a ban has been looming over Kenya for months but recent talks have set April 5 as the definitive deadline to reform its doping policy if it wants to partake in the Rio Games. Lord Sebastian Coe, president of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), has made it clear that he is comfortable cutting Kenya from the Olympic roster. Wilson Kipsang, president of the Professional Athletes Association of Kenya and a former marathon world record holder, said in a recent statement that:

If we are banned, Kenya will never be the same again.  This is a country which has made its name as an athletics giant. We have done well in the Olympic and world championships and therefore, we should not miss out complying with the doping directives…Since the formation of Adak [the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya], the agency has never been formalised and most importantly given powers to deal with doping. It also needs legislative will from government.

Although Kipsang claims that a ban would destroy Kenya’s athletic reputation, Russia was banned from world athletics in 2015 but its expulsion has been lifted in time for the country to send its best athletes to Rio this summer. A brief hiatus from Olympic competition would be a blow to Kenyan athletes who have been training to compete this year, but it would not necessarily be as strong a punishment as the IOC and the IAAF might think. If the ban only includes a single Olympics, national teams can make minimal adjustments to their training programs and then return to doping again in the future, once they are not being scrutinized so closely. Only a long-term ban may carry sufficient enough weight to dissuade athletes from doping at the Olympic level.

Bribery in the IAAF

Despite the IAAF’s efforts to reign in corruption, there are problems within the organization itself that have tarnished its credibility. A January report on the IAAF suggests that Russia was only able to sustain its doping practices thanks to widespread corruption embedded within the organization . Former IAAF president Lamine Diack has been accused of taking bribes from Russian athletes and of planning to blackmail marathon runner Liliya Shobukhova.

There are further accusations that the IAAF accepted bribes during the bidding process for hosting the 2017 World Championships. Papa Massata Diack, the son of former President Lamine Diack, has been accused of soliciting a five million dollar payment from Qatar in exchange for securing its bid. There is no evidence that he received this payment but the fact that he asked for it reveals potential the corruption within the bidding process. Unforunately, Papa Massata Diack is currently in Senegal and cannot be formally held accountable for his actions until he is extradited back to Europe.

These scandals within the IAAF have prompted major companies such as Nestle and Adidas to withdraw from their sponsorship deals, pulling millions of dollars of funding away from world athletic events. As sponsors jump ship, Lord Sebastian Coe is left in charge of an allegedly inefficient and corrupt organization that is gradually losing its control over the athletic industry it exists to regulate.

American Icons

The United States has a grand tradition of athleticism on the world stage. Michael Phelps, history’s most decorated Olympian, is currently trying to qualify for his fifth Olympics. Yet at the same time, we have a consistent tradition of doping among our elite athletes. In 2004, cyclist Tyler Hamilton lost his gold medal after it was discovered he had been blood doping–receiving blood transfusions to improve his abilities. In 2007, gold medalist Marion Jones admitted to doping and was stripped of her medals before serving six months in jail. Just last spring, the U.S. men’s sprint relay team was stripped of their medals after the IOC discovered team member Tyson Gay had been using a product containing a banned substance.

The most famous American doping scandal to date broke in 2013, when Lance Armstrong finally admitted to sustained use of performance enhancing drugs after a 2012 investigation that resulted in a lifetime ban from professional sports and the removal of his Tour de France titles. Yet instead of fading into anonymity, Armstrong’s doping–and more specifically, how he got away with it–has become a topic of fascination for reporters and filmmakers. Athletes who are caught doping don’t always fade from the public sphere, they simply shift from the heroic narrative of the champion to the notoriety of the rule breaker. As American athletes train for Rio, it is important to remember that Kenya and Russia are not the only countries where athletes have sustained a program of performance enhancing drugs during championship events.

Conclusion

Monitoring banned substance abuse within the Olympic games is a daunting task that involves coordination between dozens of governments, sports organizations, and individual athletes. The possibility of a false positive can never be ruled out until comprehensive testing is completed but long-term doping is not a myth. Recent overhaul of the doping regulations and efforts to be stricter on countries that violate them are a step in the right direction but this progress has been undermined by the scandals within the IAAF. The United Kingdom has stepped up to the plate, requiring its athletes to agree to never represent their country if they take drugs and proposing a life-long ban on athletic competition after even a single drug offense. Other countries have yet to institute such stringent anti-doping policies, which raises troubling questions about how much national teams care about sportsmanship and equality in international competition. The Rio Olympics have already been fraught with problems, from a failure to sell tickets to fears regarding the Zika virus. A failure to address and rectify doping scandals within the competition could both disrupt the logistics of Rio 2016 and permanently destroy the reputation of the Olympic Games as an institution.

Resources

BBC: Abeba Aregawi: World 1500m Champion Fails Drugs Test

BBC: Senegal ‘Won’t Extradite’ IAAF Bribery Suspect Papa Massata Diack’

ABC News: IOC to Remove Itself From Handling of Doping Cases in Rio

The Sidney Morning Herald: Rio Olympics 2016: Independent Body to Take over Judging of Doping Cases

The Telegraph: Kenya Edges Closer to Olympics Ban over Doping

The Telegraph: Wada Report on Doping: This Scandal is not Just a Russian Problem, it is an Issue Worldwide

The Guardian: Sebastian Coe: IAAF Could Ban Kenya from 2016 Olympics in Rio

The Guardian: IAAF in Crisis: a Complex Trail of Corruption that Led to the Very Top

The Washington Post: WADA’s New Report Cites ‘Embedded’ Culture of Corruption in IAAF

Sky Sports: Former IAAF President Lamine Diack Investigated in Doping Bribery Probe

Sky News: Qatar Athletics Bids Investigated For Bribery

The Richest: 10 Most Shocking Doping Scandals In Sports History

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post How to Get Away with Steroids: Doping on the Eve of Rio 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Activists have crusaded for decades for better treatment of animals around the world, but there are certain watershed moments in popular culture that have sparked widespread debate over how we treat animals in the twenty-first century. In 2009, the European Union banned cosmetic testing on animals and the sale or import of seal products. In 2013, the film “Blackfish” achieved massive popularity and opened up a conversation about human treatment of killer whales on an unprecedented national scale. Last year, the death of Cecil the Lion divided popular opinion not only on the subject of hunting for sport but how we value animal lives versus human lives.

The next great animal rights discussion may be inspired not by a violent event but by one that activists have been warning the public about for years: the treatment of animals in the world’s zoos, animal parks, and aquariums. In this globalized age, animals are often traded between zoos for mating purposes or because the original zoo simply does not have the resources to care for a given animal. With this shuffle of ownership, activists worry that there are no guarantees that an animal will be treated humanely throughout its life. Read on for a look at some of the criticisms at zoos across the world:

Ocean Parks in China

There are 39 ocean theme parks operating in China right now, the largest of which is Chimelong Ocean Kingdom, famous for its beluga whales and polar bears. Most of the animals displayed in these parks were captured in ways that the China Cetacean Alliance have argued are stressful and frightening for them. Whereas the goal of many zoos and aquariums is to preserve endangered species, a recent report from the China Cetacean Alliance states that:

Due to the lack of a legal definition of ‘animal welfare’ in Chinese laws and regulations, and the absence of specific animal welfare concepts within the laws and regulations relevant to the ocean theme park industry, cetaceans in captivity in China are without proper protection from conditions that can cause suffering.China’s participation in the live capture of free-ranging cetaceans from the waters of both Russia and Japan, and the subsequent import of these individuals, is having a negative impact on the conservation status of some targeted cetacean populations and on the international image of the country for its ability to protect wild animals.

Whereas zoos and wildlife preserves do not require animals to perform tricks or be exhibited multiple times per day, theme parks rely on animals to put on a show throughout the operating hours of the day. Animals displayed in these parks are considered valuable because they can perform a program, not because they are an endangered species.

This view of animals as a commodity has allegedly led to problems–for example, a beluga calf recently died in captivity in a Chinese water park apparently because there was not sufficient space in its tank for it to be nursed by its mother. Although Seaworld’s killer whales featured in “Blackfish” became more aggressive when confined to small pools, there is little risk that the belugas on display will exhibit the same violent tendencies. However, beluga whales are listed as “near threatened,” which means that they do need to be protected both in the wild and in captivity.

There is relatively little oversight of marine mammals in captivity in China, which means that there is no pressure on animal trainers in these theme parks to treat animals humanely. There are challenges with raising any animal in captivity because they are occupying a significantly smaller space than they would in the wild, but the risk for the animal increases dramatically when there are no regulators who can fine or suspend zoos or theme parks who fail to give their animals sufficient enclosure space and exercise.

War-torn Zoos in the Gaza Strip

There are six active zoos in the Gaza Strip. Murphy’s Law (anything that can go wrong, will go wrong) appears to be in full effect in these struggling zoos. The presence of Hamas in Gaza, and the ensuing Israeli and Egyptian blockade, means massive shortages on food and supplies for both humans and animals.

The organization Four Paws launched a crowdfunding campaign to purchase supplies for Gaza’s zoos but as of its trip to Gaza recently, it has only been able to deliver enough feed to keep animals fed for four more weeks. Medical supplies are also in short supply so that if animals don’t die of hunger, they often succumb to disease. The frequent bombing and firefights throughout the Gaza Strip often prevent zookeepers from reaching their animals. In an interview in January, one zookeeper described how neither he nor his team could reach the zoo during a fifty day conflict between Israel and Hamas last year. By the time they finally got back to the zoo, one of the African tigers had starved to death. Furthermore, Gaza’s frequent power cuts make it difficult to run the generators necessary to keep animals warm.

At the Khan Younis Zoo, animals starved to death but were then stuffed and returned to their cages in a desperate attempt to keep the zoo solvent. Unfortunately, the zookeepers have neither the funds nor the transport to move their animals to other zoos in safer environments. Four Paws managed to evacuate three lions from the al-Bisan zoo which had been damaged by major shelling, temporarily resettling the lions in Jordan, but that is the exception to the general trend of animals dying in Gaza.

Elephants in the United States

Although animal rights activism is better organized and vocal in the United States than in other nations, the battle is far from over. This winter, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved the transfer of 18 elephants from big game parks in Swaziland to American zoos. The transfer is the result of historic drought conditions that are threatening the health of these elephants in their native environment. These elephants are at risk of starving or being trapped in brushfires in the extreme drought (an especially dangerous prospect for young elephants). Rangers in the big game parks are struggling to care for their animals under these extremely taxing conditions. A transfer to the United States will give these elephants access to water, more temperate climates, and the attention of prominent veterinarians.

However, conservationists are disturbed by the movement of these animals to unfamiliar environments that are significantly smaller than the terrain they are used to in the expansive game reserves. Additionally, the shock of being  moved to such a different location may disrupt animal relationships or cause them to become more aggressive. There is no guarantee that these elephants will deal well with either the trip to the United States or their resettlement in American zoos.

The elephants will be sent to zoos in Kansas, Nebraska and Texas, which has prompted rounds of questioning regarding whether these states have the appropriate facilities to host multiple elephants during a harsh winter. While zookeepers have stated they are trying to keep elephants together in their usual social groupings, there is little doubt that the journey across the world will have an impact on each elephant. Animal rights activists are worried not only about the physical health of these animals after they arrive in the U.S. but their mental health, as elephants are social creatures that operate best when included in a herd. Even though all the American zoos are well-funded and have solid track records with animal care, the shock of adjusting to such a different space could be physically and psychologically traumatic for the elephants. The group Friends of Wildlife have already filed a lawsuit hoping to block this transfer of elephants but their claim may not gain traction in time as the elephants are already being prepared for transport.

Conclusion

Zoos are an important space for the conservation of animals and the education of the general public but they are not always as safe as we would like them to be. In Chinese theme parks, where whales and polar bears are kept in spaces that are significantly smaller than their natural environments, there is no requirement to report on animal’s living conditions to a formal advisory board. In Gaza’s zoos, animals die on a daily basis, waiting for the food and medicine that they could easily receive if they were in a different zoo–but there is no pressure from the international community to evacuate them or send them the supplies they need to survive. Animals are comparatively fortunate in the United States but the arrival of a large group of elephants from Swaziland this month may prove disastrous if zookeepers cannot care for them adequately while drought ravages Swaziland. Any one of these three stories could be the one that attracts international attention and sparks a wide-scale commitment to protecting animals living in captivity in this next era of promoting animal rights.

Resources

The Washington Post: China’s Booming Ocean Parks Mean Misery for Bears, Belugas and More

China Cetacean Alliance: Ocean Theme Parks: A Look Inside China’s Growing Captive Cetacean Industry

WWF: Beluga

US News and World Report: Gaza Zoo Animals are Suffering

Huffington Post: Gaza’s Khan Younis Zoo Sees More Animals Starve To Death As Four Paws Delivers Urgent Supplies

Four Paws: Save the Animal’s of Gaza’s Zoos

Four Paws: Cry for Help from Gaza: FOUR PAWS Takes Care of Animals at Bombed-out Zoo

CNN: Swaziland to Relocate 18 Elephants to U.S. Zoos

CBS News: Animal Rights Group Blocks Zoos’ Elephant Import

Christian Science Monitor: Why Swaziland is Putting 18 Elephants on a Boeing 747

Al Jazeera: Animals Suffer in Gaza’s Cash-strapped Zoos

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Inside the Cage: Controversial Zoos Might be the Next Animal Rights Crusade appeared first on Law Street.

Pop singer Kesha will appear in court next week to hear the judge’s decision on her contract with her producer Dr. Luke. In October 2014, the singer filed a lawsuit against the producer for sexual, physical and emotional abuse. He responded by filing charges against her for defamation–which were dismissed by a New York judge earlier this month (although the suit Dr. Luke filed in Tennessee is still active). As the legal battle has played out over the past two years, Kesha has suspended her musical career, not by choice, but because her contract with Dr. Luke’s company prevents her from recording with another label. The social media campaign #FreeKesha has picked up considerable momentum in the past several months and has raised questions about how much power managers and producers have over the artists they work with. Controlling a musician’s contract means control not only over their creative process, but often over their finances. Read on for a look at who controls royalties in the music industry.

Contracts in the Music Industry

When an artist signs a contract with a record label, they usually give the company ownership of the copyright on their music for the full life of the copyright. This leaves artists vulnerable because it designates even unreleased music as the property of the label. One notable artist who has secured a reversion of this copyright is Robbie Williams, who managed to secure the return of his “masters” in the contract he signed with EMI–ownership of his albums will eventually return to Williams rather than the label. In exchange for relinquishing their copyright, artists are given royalties–which are based on record sales. Artists receive a full royalty rate for any album they sell through normal retail channels but may receive only a fraction of that royalty for records that are sold at a discount rate or through a record club. Artists are also often expected to pay a producer’s royalty out of their own royalty share. While record companies aim to make royalty rates as attractive as possible, as attorney Anthony N. Luti explains, there are hidden cuts to royalties that all artists may face:

Artists normally get no royalties on records given away free for promotional purposes ‘All-in’ royalty rate deductions: most royalty rates are ‘all-in.’ This means that you must pay the producer out of your royalties. Typically, a producer will take 3 points (3%) which lowers your royalty rate even further. ‘Packaging’ deductions: the theory behind this deduction is that the band pays for the packaging of the CD and tape. Typically, these deductions range from 15 to 30 percent of your royalty rate. As a result, a 12% royalty rate and a 25% packaging deduction lowers your actual royalty rate to 9%.

A recording contract is more than just the exchange of recorded music for royalty payments. Recording contracts almost always require the artist to sign an exclusivity agreement with the label. If an artist wants to collaborate with another artist (particularly one on a different label) they will need to have a “sideman” clause built into their contract. The contract also dictates the territory where an artist can distribute music, tour support, and promotion of the music once it is released. Terminating the contract is a complex process. Hyper successful artists can sometimes afford to break their contracts or renegotiate them to a better financial position, but most artists are locked into an initial contract. A 12 month contract may not seem like a major commitment but when a record label constantly renews the contract, the company can retain the rights to years worth of creative work, even if the album is never released to the public.

Technology Changing The Game

Music royalties and administration are becoming more equitable thanks to technological advances, and now online companies help close the gap between artists and other services. One prime example is Music Reports, a global music administrative rights platform that has created a neutral transaction platform where music producers can handle rights administration and accounting.  In a recent interview with Law Street, Bill Colitre, Music Reports’ VP of Business & Legal Affairs, discussed how recording houses once controlled the relationship between buyers and sellers. Thanks to the advent of the Internet, the music publishing community can now set rights and prices via online platforms.

Colitre also described how the Internet has tapped into worldwide creativity, letting new entrants participate in a market that they traditionally took a backseat in. The global connectivity of the twenty-first century is making a historically rigged game increasingly equitable.  The assemblage of music rights and information online let artists and producers have greater control over their products while online financial services help them get paid faster and more efficiently. However, even with access to better accounting, most artists are still vulnerable to exploitation if they have not negotiated their contracts correctly.

Promoting Music Without a Record Label

Choosing to forgo a record deal does let artists retain control of their copyright but it also cuts them off from the promotional power that only an established label can provide. Self-released albums often rely on a marketing agency to promote them. Without the infrastructure of a traditional record company, artists have no way to meet DJs and promoters who can connect their album with the listening public.

British rock band Enter Shikari cracked the U.K.’s top five charts in 2007 with a self-released album and rapper Dom Kennedy reached the U.S.’s top five in 2013 but have neither have maintained that level of commercial success over time. Macklemore and Ryan Lewis made a name for themselves by promoting their album “The Heist” without signing onto a record label but their claim to indie fame is not entirely factual. The duo hired Alternative Distribution Alliance (ADA), a branch of the Warner Music Group, to promote their album.

Numerous artists who achieved commercial success with a major label chose to build their own record companies after their contracts expired, but they only were able to establish their own brands once they had built a significant popular following. OK Go was fortunate enough to break with their initial record label right as they released their third album–they were able to re-release the album off of their new label, using the publicity they had received from their original label to kickstart their own enterprise. Cyrus’ recent Dead Petz album was created without financial or creative assistance from her RCA team, but she is fortunate enough to be in a position where she did not need that kind of support from the label (and the label did go on to promote her album, despite its lack of involvement in its creation). Both Peter Gabriel and the Who have self-released albums, but the success of those records was built on the fame they had already garnered from the years during which they were tied to a label.

 Conclusion

There are a host of reasons why a record label might delay or block an album’s release but no matter how it happens, gagging a musician is usually legal under the contract they signed. The shifting metrics of the music industry–from physical records to digital albums to streaming–provide new opportunities for artists but don’t necessarily guarantee more relaxed recording contracts. Kesha is not the only artist to speak out about restrictive contracts–Jojo, who only returned to creating music recently, has stated that she was unable to release music for years because of a contract she had signed when she was a minor and Sky Ferreira‘s label pushed her album release date back again and again. For major artists who have already built a successful brand, record labels may be more willing to provide them with flexible contracts that they can renegotiate or terminate without massive legal penalties. However, for artists who are just breaking into the music scene or who are looking to retain a degree of creative and financial control, recording contracts can still be so restrictive that they undermine that artist’s ability to work.

Resources

People: Legal Win for Kesha in Dr. Luke Lawsuit: Judge Dismisses Claims

Sound on Sound: Recording Contracts Explained

The Wall Street Journal: Pop Star Robbie Williams Signs a Massive EMI Deal

Luti Law Firm: Recording Contracts 101: The Basics

NPR: The Real Story Of How Macklemore Got ‘Thrift Shop’ To No. 1

NPR: To Sign Or Not To Sign: Artists Big And Small Face The Label Question

Billboard: U.K.’s Enter Shikari Scores Without Label

Fobres: How Rapper Dom Kennedy Made It Without A Record Deal

Paste Magazine: 14 Artists who Launched Their Own Labels 

Music Times: Miley Cyrus’ Surprise New Album Surprised Her Label RCA Records

Huffington Post: OK Go Talk Creative Music Videos and Life Without a Label

US: JoJo Claims ‘Bad Contract’ Meant She Couldn’t Release Music, ‘Didn’t Legally Own’ Her Own Voice

Buzzfeed: What It’s Like When A Label Won’t Release Your Album

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post When The Show Can’t Go On: Dissecting Music Industry Contracts appeared first on Law Street.

“The Birth of a Nation,” Nate Parker’s biopic of Nat Turner that examines the slave rebellion Turner led in 1831, had a week that was nothing short of epic at Sundance. Not only did the film snap up the grand jury prize and receive the audience vote for best film at Sundance, Parker sold his project to Fox Searchlight for a record-breaking $17.5 million. Parker was offered an even larger sum for the film from Netflix, but ultimately turned it down because he dislikes the passive nature of Netflix viewing and hopes to engage audiences more actively through traditional cinema. Parker’s decision to go with Fox Searchlight is no doubt financially savvy but it requires him to sacrifice control over his film. Take a look at what happens to an independent film after it is purchased from a film festival lineup:

Why Fox Went Shopping at Sundance

When the Sundance Film Festival began in 1978, indie film-making was an open and amorphous genre that welcomed directors and casts from all walks of life. The one thing the films at the festival had in common was that they were built outside of the traditional studio “system.” Sundance was built on an outsider identity, and, as Joe Reid points out, that created a brand for Sundance that is simultaneously gratifying and limiting. Directors who present their films at Sundance may be operating outside of conventional studios, but by bringing their films to the festival, they hope to gain access to the resources that only a large studio can provide.

As the festival became more popular, studios became increasingly interested in plucking films from the theaters of Park City. “Birth of a Nation” is not Fox Searchlight’s first purchase at Sundance, nor will it be the last. Only a handful of Sundance films have reached the commercial and critical success of movies produced and released by large studios, but companies like Fox Searchlight are hoping to recreate the enormous success of that elite group of movies. In addition, several film critics have debated whether Fox Searchlight picked up “Birth of a Nation” in response to this year’s #OscarsSoWhite trend, aiming to correct the lack of diversity in the prestigious film awards for next year.

What This Deal Means for Nate Parker

After selling “Birth of a Nation” to Fox Searchlight, Parker is not removed from his role as director, writer, and lead actor but he will have to relinquish some control to the buyer. According to Lawyers for the Creative Arts, when a film is purchased by a studio, a deal is struck over the control, financing, liability, and tax involved in producing the film on a larger scale. Sundance directors are usually allowed to retain control over the film, protecting their intellectual property, but they may not take such an active role on the business side of the venture. Parker will likely not have to make adaptations to the script or the length of the film but Fox Searchlight will now take control of distribution and marketing of the film. The studio will control when the film is released to general audiences, how the film is advertised in the media, and how the cast and director should promote the film in the run-up to its large-scale release. In short, Fox Searchlight will decide how and when non-Sundance viewers will see Nate Parker’s creation.

The Fox Searchlight deal has already made Parker a household name and the release of the film to the general public should only cement that image. However, Sundance founder Robert Redford has publicly cautioned Sundance directors not to get swept up in the large studio system. In a 2002 interview with the Harvard Business Review, Redford said that

For beginning filmmakers at Sundance, the devil’s bargain is very tempting, and it’s easy for them to strike it the wrong way. If they go straight for the stardom, glamour, and money, they run the risk of sacrificing their artistic integrity. So at the beginning of the festival, I spend a few minutes talking to all the filmmakers. I remind them that Sundance is for them—and ‘them’ means the films. I outline the bargain very clearly for them: ‘What will you do when a studio offers you a tidy sum in return for control over your next project?’ I remind them that they have to decide how to negotiate this question, and I ask them if they are strong enough to stand up for their art.

The fame and connection to a traditional studio that Parker’s Sundance deal brings may be the type of devil’s bargain that Redford cautions against but Sundance organizer Geoffrey Gilmore has argued that the commercial success of Sundance films is not a negative for young directors–on the contrary, it sets them up for profitable, sustainable careers.

Why Does Film Marketing Matter?

Parker’s film has been hailed by the Sundance crowd as a triumph but it could be a commercial flop if Fox Searchlight does not market it appropriately. Parker created the film hoping to create conversation and incite action but if Fox Searchlight emphasizes certain aspects of the film over others, it could lose that message.

“Birth of a Nation” has been labeled a risk for the studio because of its violent content, which will most likely necessitate an R rating. Fox Searchlight is still riding high on the success of “12 Years a Slave,” which also portrayed the brutality of slavery realistically and received an R rating. However, even the most professional marketing teams can do a poor job promoting a film if they don’t target the correct audience, as evidenced by numerous commercial flops in the past several years from Hollywood’s biggest studios. The film’s trailer alone can influence the success of the film, and as there is currently no official trailer for “Birth of Nation,” Fox Searchlight will have to take on that responsibility. The studio will have to decide what scenes it should publicize, where it should place its advertisements, and which actors should go on press tour during the film’s release.

The rise of social media has drastically altered the film promotion landscape and Fox Searchlight will have to adjust its marketing strategy accordingly. All the positive feedback that “Birth of a Nation” has generated this month is going to die down as moviegoers shift their attention from Sundance to the Oscars, and the studio will have to recapture that positive attention if it wants the movie to perform successfully once it is released.

Conclusion

The Sundance Film Festival has gradually transformed from a space for outsider film to a hunting ground for major studio representatives. “Birth of a Nation” is just one of the films picked up by major studios and online content providers at this year’s festival but the Fox Searchlight’s major investment in the film puts an incredible pressure on it to perform well. Nate Parker’s film performed well in the festival environment but it will be subjected to a much broader audience once it is released to mainstream cinema, where its success will hinge largely on the marketing campaign that Fox Searchlight will lead in the coming months. If Fox Searchlight can drum up significant interest in the film, it could be the frontrunner for next year’s awards season but if Fox Searchlight bungles the marketing campaign, “Birth of a Nation” may sink into obscurity. It is a common tale that a critically acclaimed film performs poorly at the box office, not because audiences weren’t interested in its content, but because audiences did not even realize it was there. Independent filmmakers who sell their movies to major studios may be cashing out but they are also taking on a significant risk by allowing an exterior party to take control of the business aspect of the project.

Resources

The New York Times: ‘The Birth of a Nation’ Sweeps Top Awards at the Sundance Film Festival

Deadline: Bart & Fleming: The Big Sundance Deals

BBC Culture: Is Sundance a Victim of its Own Success?

The Atlantic: The Power of the Sundance Brand

Hollywood Foreign Press Association: The Brisk Business of Sundance 2016: Let It Snow, Show Me The Money

New York Daily News: ‘Birth of a Nation’: Why Sundance Fave is a Big Deal Amid the #OscarsSoWhite Controversy 

Forbes: Nate Parker’s ‘Birth Of A Nation’ Cannot Be Allowed To Be An All-Purpose Solution To #OscarsSoWhite

Harvard Business Review: Turning an Industry Inside Out: A Conversation with Robert Redford

The Nation: Long Live Indie Film

Lawyers for Creative Arts: Legal Issues in Film Production

Variety: Sundance: The Math Behind Fox Searchlight’s Record-Shattering ‘Birth of a Nation’ Deal

The Telegraph: 2015’s Biggest Box Office Flops

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse: The Effectiveness of Film Trailers: Evidence from the College Student Market

California Polytechnic State University: Current Trends in the Marketing and Promotion of Movies Using Social Media

WIRED: How The Birth of a Nation Became Sundance’s Biggest Sale Ever

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Beyond Sundance: What’s Next for “The Birth of a Nation?” appeared first on Law Street.

On November 13, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the governing body for international athletics events (track and field, marathons, etc.) announced it was provisionally banning the Russian Federation from international events, effective immediately. The ban will prevent Russian athletes from competing in any competitions, including the 2016 Rio Olympics, stops Russia from hosting any IAAF-sanctioned events, and calls for lifetime bans for five athletes and five coaches.

Russia has been given the opportunity to prove that its athletics programs and drug-testing procedures have been reformed in order to have the ban removed in time for the 2016 Olympics. However, the scandal continues to cast a long shadow over international athletics, calling into question the results of prior competitions (such as the 2012 London Olympics) and raises suspicions of other countries’ athletics programs. Read on to see the allegations against the Russian Federation, the concern of institutionalized doping programs in other countries, and where Russia and athletics as an international endeavor can go from here.

The Secrets of Doping and the WADA Independent Commission Report

In December 2014, the German television channel ARD released a documentary featuring journalist Hajo Seppelt titled “Top-Secret Doping: How Russia Makes its Winners.” The documentary alleged collusion between the Russian Anti-Doping Agency, the Russian Athletics Federation, and the Russian national laboratory. Most troubling is that all of these organizations are funded by the federal government, suggesting their awareness of the cheating, which caused the documentary to declare the cheating “state-sponsored.” The documentary was based around allegations from Russian whistleblowers Vitaly Stepanov, a former Russian Doping Control Officer, and Yuliya Stepanova, a world-class 800-meter runner. The hour-long documentary provided the names of several athletes, coaches, other officials, and a doctor who used or provided banned substances.

The documentary provided the spark for what turned into a media firestorm and a debate about doping in international swimming was inadvertently started. Sports officials the world over began reconsidering their punishments and procedures to deal with doping in their own sports. Athletes accused in the documentary had to worry about potentially forfeiting medals and other prizes. As would be expected, Russian officials decried the film and whistleblowers, calling into question the legality of their recordings.

The documentary rocked the athletics world and triggered an independent investigation from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The agency established an independent commission with the mandate to investigate “serious allegations of doping practices, corrupt practices in doping sample collection and results management, corruption and related ineffective administration of anti-doping processes.”

On November 9, the independent commission (IC) released its final report concluding:

The IC has identified systemic failures within the IAAF and Russia that prevent or diminish the possibility of an effective anti-doping program, to the extent that neither ARAF, RUSADA, nor the Russian Federation can be considered Code-compliant… the IC has recommended that the IAAF suspend ARAF.

The report found that Russian athletics had a “deeply rooted culture of cheating,” exploited athletes for financial gain, confirmed the widespread use of banned substances by actively competing Russian athletes, confirmed the involvement of coaches, doctors, and laboratory personnel, and found evidence of corruption and bribery in the IAAF.

Finally, the report concludes that it would be naive to assume that athletics is the only Russian sport affected by the state-sponsored doping program. The commission offered no conclusive opinion on other sports in Russia but stated that while no written evidence currently implicates the Russian government, such an extensive cheating program would not have been possible without some level of government approval.

On November 13, the IAAF announced it had voted 22-1 in favor of suspending Russian athletics from international events. Russia’s IAAF council member was allowed to participate in the vote.

Additional Allegations

Currently, the allegations against specific athletes are unproven. Two of the five athletes facing lifetime bans have said they will pursue legal action. Specific allegations against Russia’s anti-doping agency (RUSADA) and All-Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF) include the tampering or destruction of at least 1,400 test samples, giving advance notice to athletes before drug tests, and intentionally scheduling tests immediately before athletes began doping regiments. Russian athletes are currently banned from competition and the country is no longer eligible to host the scheduled 2016 World Race Walking Cup or the 2016 World Junior Championships, both of which were to be held in Russia.

The independent commission’s report also criticized the way drug testing was handled leading up to and during the 2012 London Olympics, alleging that testing failures sabotaged those games. Russia came in second in the medal count behind the United States in 2012. This has also started whispers that the United States and other large countries ought to be investigated regarding athletic doping.

Midway through 2015, ARD, the German television channel, released a follow-up documentary titled “The Secrets of Doping: The Shadowy World of Athletics.” Both ARD and The Sunday Times acquired access to the test results of 5,000 athletes between 2001 and 2012. In addition to providing evidence that further implicates Russia, the documentary turned its attention to Kenya. In the last three years, 33 Kenyan athletes have failed drug tests, some escaping penalties and still managing to compete when they should be facing bans. WADA has suggested that Kenya could soon face a four-year ban for the myriad of problems with its drug-testing program.

Russian Response to the Suspension

Key figures on the Russian side have sent mixed messages since the WADA released its report and IAAF handed down its ban. While most Russian officials have pledged to cooperate with IAAF and WADA to ensure the program is reinstated in time for the Olympics, several have criticized the report and its findings. The director of the Russian anti-doping Agency denounced the report. According to current officials, the management of the ARAF was changed in the spring of 2015, meaning the current heads of the federation aren’t responsible for the faults found in the report. However, it should be noted that according to the second ARD documentary, ARAF has a history of keeping removed coaches and doctors around to provide athletes with performance-enhancing drugs while not officially being a part of ARAF.

What’s Next?

While the threat of suspension looms large for countries like Kenya, a full ban on international athletics competition is the reality for Russia. WADA has removed their endorsement of the Moscow lab that was identified as being the primary culprit for sample tampering. From top to bottom, the process of preventing doping in Russian athletics will receive oversight from WADA personnel. Additionally, an IAAF team will begin work next year to see if Russia can be readmitted to the international community of athletics. At least two of the five athletes facing lifetime bans are planning to appeal.

The IAAF has also faced some criticism for its investigation. The question has been raised of how much geopolitical issues may play in major sporting federations like the IAAF and FIFA, which has been going through its own highly-publicized scandal. Former IAAF officials have also been implicated in the WADA report though details have yet to be released due to the nature of the legal proceedings.

Based on the data on athlete drug tests from 2001-2012 acquired by ARD and the Sunday Times, an estimated one-third of medals in endurance events were won by athletes with suspicious test results. One in seven of those athletes named have tests that suggest doping or some other abnormality. Ten medals from the London games were won by athletes with suspicious results. From 2001-2012, 80 percent of Russia’s medals have been won by athletes with suspicious test results and 18 of Kenya’s medals were given to athletes with suspicious test results.

Conclusion

The world of international athletics is facing a full-blown crisis rivaling that of FIFA’s. The disturbing trend of suspicious tests from Russian and Kenyan athletes appears to be just the tip of the iceberg. Most alarming is the evidence of state-sponsorship of doping in the case of Russia. While Russia is working to become compliant with standards set by WADA and the IAAF in time for the 2016 summer Olympics, it is entirely possible that one of the foremost powers in global athletics may not send a team to Rio. Meanwhile, the IAAF has its own problems that it must sort through in order to secure the integrity of a sport that has been much maligned in the past year. There has always been suspicion of drugs and cheating in athletics, but the WADA report and ARD documentaries put hard evidence in the spotlight.

Resources

Primary

WADA: The Independent Commission Report #1 Final Report

IAAF: Provisionally Suspends Russian Member Federation ARAF

Additional

BBC: Athletics Doping: Russia Provisionally Suspended by IAAF

BBC: Athletics Doping Scandal: Russian Runners say they are Innocent

BBC: Athletics doping: Wada Commission Wants Russia Ban

BBC: Leaked IAAF Doping files: Wada ‘Very Alarmed’ by Allegations

BBC: Lord Coe Role in Eugene 2021 Worlds Decision Questioned

al Jazeera: Two Kenyans Suspended for Doping at World Championships

al Jazeera: Russia Reacts After ‘Systematic Doping’ Accusations

CNN: Russia Could be Banned from 2016 Olympics after Doping Report

The Guardian: Russian Athletics Chief ‘Prepared to Resign’ as Olympic Ban Risk Grows

The Guardian: IAAF Confirms Investigation into Allegations of Kenya Doping Cover-up

Hajo Seppelt/ARD: The Secrets of Doping: how Russia Makes its Winners

Hajo Seppelt/ARD: The Secrets of Doping: the Shadowy World of Athletics

RT: Russia’s IAAF Expulsion about Geopolitics and Prelude to War – Not Doping – Tony Gosling on RT

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post State-Sponsored Doping in International Athletics appeared first on Law Street.

This weekend, vigils were held all over the country in honor of the victims of last week’s ISIS attacks. There were hundreds of remembrance events held across the world: flags flew at half-mast, monuments were lit up with the image of the French flag, flowers were laid outside of French embassies, and candles burned through the night. These moments let us stand in solidarity with the populations of Paris, Beirut, and Baghdad but they also represent a global commitment to peace. Yet this commitment is already dissolving as the 24-hour news cycle spins onward and our attention is diverted by new issues. Read on to explore the fleeting nature of solidarity in the wake of tragedy, and what can be done to carry that solidarity forwards after the fact.

 What Solidarity Looks Like

In the aftermath of many tragic events, informal memorials spring up across the globe.  We are all familiar with the images of teddy bears, flowers, and posters stacked at the scenes of mass shootings and natural disasters. A vigil, or any form of remembrance event, takes these memorials a step farther by requiring the prolonged presence of activists and onlookers. Vigils–which commonly involve lighting candles and holding moments of silence–mark a unified act that includes an entire community. There is no membership requirement for participating in a remembrance event, all are welcome to grieve collectively–whether or not they lost a friend or family member during the event.

Remembrance events let us engage in collective empathy outside of our personal social circles. The word empathy evolved from the German einfühlung which describes observers projecting themselves “into” that which they observe–essentially, the experience of putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes. Empathy is considered a deliberate cognitive process, in which we take an active role, striving to share the emotions of another person in order to better understand them. This week, people around the world have sung the French anthem, painted the French flag on their faces and carried signs bearing the peace symbol through the streets of their respective cities. They sought to adopt the mentality of the victims of last week’s attacks, turning the mourning process into a global moment of empathy. But how do we transform this moment into a more lasting commitment?

From Empathy to Commitment

James Hawdon and John Ryan have studied the processes behind generating and sustaining solidarity in the wake of mass tragedy, using web-based surveys to study public sentiment in the wake of the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech. They argue that:

Event-specific parochial and event-specific public activities generate solidarity after heinous crimes. However, general parochial activities, such as attending local organizational meetings and frequenting local businesses, sustain solidarity…displays of communal bereavement are collective acts that increase the ritual intensity of social interaction and therefore promote solidarity. They are collective displays of the community’s resiliency, and the emotional intensity of these solidarity-producing rituals likely helps the collective. Yet, general parochial relations, such as participating in neighborhood clubs, religious organizations, civic organizations and even eating at local restaurants, also appear to promote social solidarity. Participating in these parochial activities shortly after a tragedy also has lasting benefits for the community.

Hawdon and Ryan raise an obstacle to international sustained solidarity. The Virginia case focused on a relatively small community, in which it was easier to sustain solidarity. Anyone from the Virginia area can probably attest to the powerful bond that survivors of the attack feel for one and other, even eight years after the shooting. When we look at a global case–for example, ISIS attacks–it is much more difficult to sustain interest in the crisis and solidarity with the victims. It is admirable to hold a march or a vigil that represents support for the bereaved, but we don’t organize them on a daily basis. There are simply too many of us and it would take up too large a time commitment. How do we sustain solidarity, if it was not our community that was attacked, but multiple cities around the world?

Can Solidarity Be Sustained?: Selma as a Case Study

In the modern era, we are accustomed to remembrance events being beautiful but fleeting. A town square may be filled with candles and banners the night after a tragic event, but within a matter of days, it returns to its original state–a functional space devoid of political activism. But there have been some exceptions in which solidarity has been transformed into mass protest and action.

On February 18, 1965, a young activist named Jimmie Lee Jackson, was shot to death by a state trooper during a peaceful protest march organized in Selma, Alabama by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke at Jackson’s funeral, mourning the man lost but also calling for an end to the systemic racial violence that had led to his death. Jackson’s death sparked the organization of another march on March 7, 1965–which has gone down in American history as “Bloody Sunday.” Images of civil rights protesters in Selma being beaten with excessive force by police officers were broadcast worldwide. Instead of momentarily grieving for the violence in Selma and then moving on, activists across the nation got off of their living room couches and came to Selma. The initial group of 600 marchers on March 7 swelled to 2,000 by March 21. When the marchers reached Montgomery, they found a crowd of 50,000 supporters waiting for them. Those supporters continued to march and advocate for civil rights throughout 1965, achieving success with the passage of the Voting Rights Act in August.

The Selma to Montgomery march could have been a blip in the Civil Rights movement–a story that made the cover of the newspaper for a single day and then disappeared into a historical void. Yet, the images of violence in Selma inspired action–they recruited Americans to become members of a movement, rather than passive observers. The Selma march is a unique case, in that it elicited immediate action and it secured legislation in alignment with its goals within a year. Yet the lesson from Selma can seemingly be applied to any violent scenario that plays across our television screen: our solidarity can have teeth. It is important to remember the victims but those who remember can also strive to change the conditions that led to their deaths.

In the case of last week’s ISIS attacks, those who wish to help are presented with a complex challenge. They cannot march to end their bombings, they cannot hold a rally or a vigil that will turn back the tide of violence that they embrace. Instead, supporters have to think on how we can actively improve the lives of those living in cities destroyed by the attacks. These populations will need us over the coming weeks: Parisians will need blood donations in the coming weeks, aid organizations in Beirut and Baghdad need staff and support, and police forces will be relying on civilians to report suspicious activity in their neighborhoods. The greatest demonstration of solidarity will be committing to the victims in the coming months and years, not just for the week after the violence.

Conclusion

Solidarity can sometimes just be a fleeting after-effect of a tragic event. The moment of silence, the vigil, the lit candle–all of these symbols are an important starting point. However, in order for solidarity to be transformed into action–eliminating the forces that attacked, and promoting peace and acceptance in the coming months and years–it will take effort, patience, and hard work.

Resources

James Howdon and John Ryan: Social Relations That Generate and Sustain Solidarity After a Mass Tragedy

Mark. H. Davis: Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach 

History: Selma to Montgomery March

Civil Rights Museum: Who Mourns for Jimmie Lee Jackson?

The New York Times: After Paris Attacks, Vilifying Refugees

Mashable: Here’s How You Can Help Victims of the Paris Terror Attacks

New York Times: At Virginia Tech: Remembering While Moving On 

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Sustaining Global Solidarity: Can Vigils Incite Activism? appeared first on Law Street.

In the 21st century, African-Americans enjoy more equality and freedom in the United States than ever before. However, in just the past few years, issues of civil rights have once again come to the forefront. The ruinous relationship between young black men and law enforcement has rapidly ascended to the height of public discourse and consciousness–at a level not seen since the 1960s and 1970s. Although there has been robust discussion regarding police-minority relations, a more comprehensive discussion of institutional racism in the media and the black identity it contrives has seldom been had.

Many theorize that this black identity may be a significant impediment to economic mobility within the black community, especially when many black boys will grow up either wanting to be like Michael Jordan or Tupac Shakur. Achieving that level of fame in athletics and music is clearly difficult to accomplish, so when these boys don’t make it, criminality can become a third path that is both viable and desirable. Critics of the black identity argue that possibly it is the legacy of the past that is reinforcing these career paths and preventing progress. Read on to learn about this criticism of the modern black identity, its roots in slavery, and its perpetuation in the media.

Athletics

Courtesy of Cliff via Flickr

Succeeding in sports, particularly basketball and football, is a status symbol in American society as a whole, but even more so in the black community. As John Milton Hoberman states, “the celebration of black athleticism as a source of clan pride exists on a scale most people do not comprehend.” Athletic greats like Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, Jim Brown and many other black athletes enjoy a high level of reverence in their cultural community and function as role models for young black males. From a young age black males, many of whom live in areas of poverty, view these athletes and their humble backgrounds as a way out of poverty and the ghetto. They then begin to define themselves in terms of their athletic ability.

As Professors S. Plous and Tyrone Williams of Wesleyan University point out, this emphasis on athletic prowess today is predicated upon the emphasis on physical capabilities which once made slaves valuable. Slaves who were stronger and more physically capable were more proficient in their labor. Similarly, in the 21st century, many argue that too many black teens are infatuated with physical abilities through the medium of sports. The importance of African-Americans being physically more capable began in slavery, but has since evolved into a norm and a source of pride in the black community. There’s a worry that today it amounts to deluding young black male teens into undermining their education in favor of an improbable athletic career. These critics of the modern black identity point out that slaves did not enjoy the luxury of an education. Therefore, quality education is the necessary first step to reform these stereotypes and place black youth on attainable paths to success.

Music

Courtesy of Alex Const via Wikimedia Commons

Musical endeavors in the black community are also very common, however, as with sports, the music industry is a difficult field to break into. Nevertheless it is pursued vehemently by black youths. This emphasis on music, according to some, is also rooted in slavery. Slaves used music as a way to retain their African culture and as a coping mechanism to numb the pain of slavery. Author Megan Sullivan describes their negro spirituals as a type of “musical rebellion” in an essay writing,

Subsequent generations of Africans gradually became African-Americans as a rich culture infused with music developed under the harsh conditions of slavery. White Americans considered African-Americans separate and unequal for centuries, going to extraordinary lengths to keep Negroes oppressed and apart. Yet behind the strict, segregating curtain hung between ‘Black’ and ‘White,’ African-Americans created a distinctive music that sank its roots deeply into their American experience and drew from it an amazing evolution of sound that has penetrated that racist fabric and pervaded the entirety of American culture. Music became a way to remain connected to their African heritage while protesting the bleak conditions African Americans faced throughout history. Musical protest took on assorted forms and functions as Blacks strove to advance their social station while simultaneously retaining their cultural heritage.

These songs of slavery create an interesting parallel with rap and hip hop music, which also was conceived in a furnace of racial inequality and oppression, although in inner cities rather than cotton fields. Yet these critics of music’s preeminent role in black culture argue that we must acknowledge that the inner cities require a more nuanced approach to success, and not an insistence on past principles. They argue that historically music was utilized as a means of rebellion and defiance because it was absolutely necessary as millions were treated as subhuman. The argument follows that today’s music, specifically rap, is often used as a means of defiance, but is less needed as there are more constructive outlets now than in the time of slavery. This is especially true as some rap music continues to glorify and condone the third principle, criminality.

Criminality

Criminality is certainly not praised and revered in the black community as musical or athletic pursuits. However, according to black identity reformers, when the two fail, criminal behavior in many black communities is not only seen as palatable, but glorified, as it represents a form of rebellion against oppression. The emphasis on music, particularly rap music, perpetuates this glorification of criminality and further validates the lawlessness.

Interestingly, this is directly analogous to the conditions of slaves. As Sullivan mentioned, music was a means to organize rebellions and protest for slaves. Indeed the act of responding to oppression through crime as a justification for the lawlessness is also rooted in slavery. In the days of slavery, it was criminal for a black slave to seek liberty and equal rights as delineated in the Declaration of Independence. Since black slaves were strong willed and conscious of their inalienable rights, many valiantly and fearlessly sought liberty even though at that time this constituted criminal behavior. In the same manner that criminality was conceivably deemed desirable by the black slaves seeking liberty, criminality continues to be deemed acceptable by some black Americans today fed up with their disparate equality of liberty, relative to other members of American society. Of course, according to proponents of fundamentally altering the black identity, there is a difference. They argue that in the past civil disobedience and criminality were morally justified, but today are morally ambiguous if not reprehensible.

The Role of Media

According to reformers, media plays a big role in the black community’s continued emphasis on physical and musical capacities, as well as criminality. Possibly some of the most prevalent black individuals on television are athletes and rappers, that latter of whom then-Senator Barack Obama stated, “move our young people powerfully.” Given that poor children–many of whom are black– watch significantly more television than their peers, the types of people they see on television play a more imperative role in their process of socialization.

Media also plays a role in reinforcing the criminality of black males. Stephen Balkaran describes this bluntly saying, “media have divided the working class and stereotyped young African-American males as gangsters or drug dealers.” The portrayal of black males as criminals is already destructive enough in the context of news and film, but it becomes further amplified when artists choose to focus on themes which are criminal in content.

These three identities are not mutually exclusive, making it difficult to eradicate one without eradicating the other. This is observable with rappers who also serve as gangster icons, or black athletes who emulate criminals and rappers themselves. Making distinctions between the three becomes exceedingly difficult, as they are in some ways monolithic and unified; seemingly cornerstones of black culture.

Yet the individuals who embody each precept hardly pay the price, because they are rich, successful, and most of all, lucky. It’s the young teen who attempted to act out the rap lyrics to his favorite song that gets tried as an adult, and it is the 25-year-old former high school basketball star who gets stuck working a low wage job who ultimately suffer. Therein lays the deceptiveness of media portrayal of the three principles. These figures on television are conspicuously wealthy and successful, yet when young impressionable teens attempt to emulate the behavior, they end up disappointed and disadvantaged.

Conclusion

No one is suggesting that a complete rejection of athletics or musical pursuits is necessary or welcomed. Obviously music and athletics are essential components of black culture and of American culture, generally. However, according to this theory of the black identity, the black community may need to recognize that the ubiquitous emulation of athletic ventures, music, and criminality, is not helpful.

In the face of the widespread institutional racism that continues to pervert Americans culture and disadvantage blacks, a more inclusive definition of blackness is needed–one which leaves room for black intellectuals and professionals to serve as apt role models. Once children expand their horizon and realize they are not limited to a binary decision, we will begin to see a widespread economic ascension in the black community that is advantageous to all members of society. America is a multicultural society and there exists social tensions; but no group rises or falls on its own accord.

Resources

Primary

Stanford Ethics of Development in a Global Environment: Portrayal of Minorities in the Film, Media and Entertainment Industries

Cornell: African-American Music as Rebellion: From Slavesong to Hip-Hop

Wesleyan University: Racial Stereotypes From the Days of American Slavery: A Continuing Legacy

Darwin’s Athletes: How Sport Has Damaged Black America and Preserved the Myth of Race

              History is a Weapon: Slavery and Prison – Understanding the Connections

Additional

              History is a Weapon: Slavery and Prison – Understanding the Connections

CBS News: Barack Obama Clarifies Views On Rap

Huffington Post: Watching TV Can Lower Children’s Self Esteem, Study Finds

The Atlantic: The Data Are Damning: How Race Influences School Funding

NCAA: Probability of Competing in Sports Beyond High School

Mother Jones: Obama Encourages Students to Abandon Hopes of Becoming Great Rappers

    City Journal: How Hip-Hop Holds Blacks Back

John Phillips

John Phillips studied political science at the George Washington University. His interest are vast, but pertain mostly to politics, both international and domestic, philosophy, and law. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Legacy of the Past? Slavery’s Impact on Modern Black Identity appeared first on Law Street.

America’s favorite (or least favorite, depending on who you ask) blonde is back in the headlines this week: Taylor Swift is being sued by musician Jessie Braham over the lyrics to her song “Shake it Off.” Even though neither the lyrics nor the melody of Braham’s song are identical to Swift’s song, he has launched a lawsuit worth $42 million, and has also demanded he receive writing credit on Swift’s song. Braham’s case seems less than credible and with the massive legal resources at her disposal, it is almost inevitable that Swift will never pay him a cent–yet Swift’s case is only the latest in a string of high profile intellectual property lawsuits involving pop stars.

Earlier this month, Jay-Z and Timbaland defeated a lawsuit brought against them by Osama Ahmed Fahmy, who claimed the duo’s song “Big Pimpin'” had infringed upon the copyright of his uncle Baligh Hamdi’s song “Khosara Khosara.” Timbaland had already paid $100,000 in 2001 to secure the usage of the flutes from Hamdi’s song as a sample for the track, but Fahmy argued that the rights to the sample were invalid. After testimony from both Jay-Z and Timbaland, the judge threw the case out. Fahmy’s lawyer announced plans to appeal the decision, but with the massive legal power behind the hip-hop duo, Fahmy is fighting an uphill battle.

Copyright lawsuits against singers and songwriters are nothing new–but what are the legal bases for these kinds of suits? Read on to learn about the history of copyrights in music and the current cases in play.

The Complexities of a Copyright Case

A copyright:

Protects a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pictoral or graphic, audiovisual, or architectural work, or a sound recording, from being reproduced without the permision of the copyright owner…the author(s) may transfer the copyright to any other party if she(they) choose(s) to do so. Subject to certain limitations, the owner of a copyright has the sole right to authorize reproduction of the work, creation of a work derived from the work, distribution of copies of the work, or public performance or display of the work. This right lasts for the life of the author plus fifty years; or in the case of a copyright held by an entity, for seventy-five years.

Copyright law is well-defined and there is a substantial legal precedent in the U.S. that protects authors from losing the rights to their content. However, modern music relies heavily on multiple producers and record labels, instead of a single artist recording and copyrighting their work. Increasing the number of “authors” increases the complexity of the copyright and leaves more openings for copyright infringement suits in the future.

Music has also been transformed by the introduction of sampling–taking pieces from a pre-existing song and incorporating them into the melody of a new song. Sampling in modern American music was born in the 1970s, as hip hop DJs experimenting with multiple turntables mixed samples from older songs with newer hip hop records. The 1980s created a new variety of dance and pop music, and sampling spread quickly from the alternative world of hip hop into the mainstream. When so many hit songs are reliant on samples, it is difficult to discern where sampling ends and copyright infringement begins. Most artists pay for the rights to sample a given track, but there are many pieces that are considered part of the public domain or that are old enough that artists assume that the copyright has expired on them, making them fair game for an unlicensed sample. There is also a “50 second/5 second, 8 bar/1 bar” myth in the music industry that informs artists that if they use brief enough clips of another song, it does not technically count as a sample and they do not need to file for the privilege to use that song. In reality, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that:

The use of a two-second sample was an infringement of the sound recording copyright. The court went further stating that when it came to sound recording there was no permissible minimum sanctioned under copyright law.

Major pop artists who have to promote albums and perform in the public eye should be less likely to commit copyright infringement. They are signed to major labels that have impressive legal departments, are surrounded by handlers who vet all of their songs and work with production teams that are familiar with the intricacies of copyright law.  Yet prominent members of the music world still violate copyright law, both on purpose and unintentionally. The “Blurred Lines” case of 2015, which resulted in Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams paying $5.4 million in damages to Marvin Gaye’s family, represents the ambiguous nature of copyright law in pop music. Thicke and Williams did not directly sample Gaye’s hit “Got to Give it Up” but they claimed that they were “inspired” by Gaye’s work. It is not up to the legal system to police what inspires an artist, but that word can cover all manner of sins. Let’s examine the 1950s and 1960s as a case study of what happens when musicians are “inspired” by their contemporaries–and disregard copyright law on their way to the recording booth:

Copyright Conflict and Rock and Roll 

Copyright infringement is by no means a recent trend in the music world. In the 1950s, copyright law was hardly the organized mechanism that it is today and it was not applied to protect all races and genders equally. Well-publicized lawsuits regarding copyright infringement may seem like a recent development, but the theft of intellectual property has been thriving for decades in the music industry. One of the most infamous cases of plagiarism in American musical history involves black jazz and blues musicians of hte 1950s. Examine, for example, Chess Records, the Chicago-based record label that launched Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, Etta James, Little Walter and Howlin’ Wolf. The artists signed to the Chess Records label were pioneers of blues and rock and roll, influencing countless musicians, including the Rolling Stones, who named their band after one of Muddy Waters’ original songs. Although Chess Records’ musicians were legends in their own time, they were often denied paychecks or paid significantly less than their white contemporaries. Furthermore, some musicians blatantly stole content from the Chess Records stable. Both Willie Dixon and Chuck Berry filed suit against multiple artists for stealing their melodies and lyrics–the most famous of these lawsuits was leveled against the Beach Boys for their unlicensed use of the melody from Berry’s “Sweet Little Sixteen” in their song “Surfin’ USA.”

Then there is the problematic nature of Elvis Presley’s success. It is obvious that Elvis was an incredible talent who shaped modern music, yet his success also relied greatly on black rock and roll music. The famous song “Hound Dog” was in fact originally recorded by “Big Mama” Thornton and Elvis’ version was intended to be a cover, yet history has painted his rendition as the original. Presley openly acknowledged that his music was inspired by black pioneers yet he has consistently received a far greater share of the credit for the rock and roll revolution than any of his black contemporaries. Elvis did not invent the style in which he sang and danced, he simply made it popular with white audiences. Elvis did not directly infringe upon the lyrics or melodies of other artists, but imagine if he was singing on stages across the country today. Would Thicke and William’s “inspiration” argument apply to his music or would he be taken to court? If music is a medium that incorporates the most exciting aspects of our predecessors’ lyrical and melodic abilities, their stage presence and public personas, where do we draw the line between a heartfelt tribute and plagiarism? These are still questions we struggle to answer today.

Modern Copyright Laws

Modern copyright legislation has expanded and adapted to protect authors regardless of race or record label.  Beginning in the 1990s, the Supreme Court and host of other appellate and circuit courts ruled on various intellectual property cases in the music industry, largely coming down on the side of the authors. In 2012, the introduction of SOPA and PIPA represented a conscious legislative shift towards protecting intellectual property in the Internet age. In 2015 alone, ten bills have been proposed to expand copyright holders’ privileges and protections. However, despite this extended legislative protection, authors may still struggle to receive damages in a lawsuit. The Blurred Lines case was exceptional because it is one of only a handful of music copyright infringement cases in the past decade in which significant damages were awarded to the defendant. The defendants (Marvin Gaye’s family) had access to a powerhouse of a legal team, but not every author has access to such representation. Without sufficient funds and skilled legal representatives, many authors may not be able to pursue a lengthy and bureaucratic court battle.

Conclusion

Copyright lawsuits are not a novel phenomenon in American music. While the spike in high-profile musical lawsuits in the past two years may suggest that litigation is becoming more popular in the music industry, it is less the lawsuits themselves that are garnering our attention than the artists. When major pop stars are put on trial for copyright infringement, the spotlight is thrown onto the complex and unpredictable nature of intellectual property law. However, that focus only stays on the issue for as long as the pop star takes the stand–the minute they are acquitted, we lose interest in their copyright compliance. Many cases of copyright infringement are flimsy or invalid, but it is important to treat them with respect.  Our favorite musicians may make us dance and cry and air guitar, but they don’t have the right to profit off of other’s hard work.

Resources

Betsy Rosenblatt: Copyright Basics

Thomas Kennedy: The History of Sampling

CNN: Haters gonna sue: Taylor Swift hit with copyright infringement lawsuit

Manatt Phelps and Philllips LLP: Blurred Lines-The Sequel: Post-Trial Rulings Edition

Time: Elvis Rocks. But He’s Not the First

The Atlantic: Getting Elvis’s Legacy Right

Michelle Fabio: 8 Basic Facts Every Musician Should Know About Copyright Law

USA Today: Jay Z Prevails in Major Copyright Case

Mita Carriman: 4 Music Law Myths That Indie Musicians Need To Unlearn

Stanford University Libraries: Copyright Law Changes that May Affect You

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Copyrights, Sampling and Rock ‘n’ Roll: Intellectual Property in the Music Industry appeared first on Law Street.

Artisti Ai Weiwei is back in the headlines this week for his battle with Lego over “censorship and discrimination.” According to the artist’s Instagram, he requested a large-scale shipment of Legos in September, but was denied because Lego does not support the use of the blocks for “political works”. However, Weiwei argues that Lego dismissed him for financial gain: the company announced plans to build a Legoland in Shanghai this month.

Ai Weiwei planned to use the blocks for an upcoming exhibition in Melbourne but without a bulk shipment from the company, completing the installation on time seemed impossible. Overnight, the #legoforaiweiwei crowdfunding movement was born. The news spread like wildfire across social media, with fans around the world volunteering to donate their own Legos to the artist. Ai Weiwei is now establishing collection points, the first of which is a parked car in Beijing, where fans can drop off blocks. Crowdfunding has, until now, been a cash transaction–Kickstarter and GoFundMe let donors add to a recipient’s bank account, not their stash of plastic toys. Does #legoforaiweiwei signify a shift in crowdfunding or is it an isolated phenomenon?

Who is Ai WeiWei?

In order to understand his fans’ enthusiasm, it is first necessary to explore Ai Weiwei’s artistic and political importance. Weiwei, a Beijing native, has been an active artist since the 1970s, beginning his career with film and animation studies but ultimately focusing on sculpture and architecture. Weiwei’s work has explored topics such as human rights and freedom of expression, but his artwork is not the only factor in his transformation into one of China’s most prominent dissidents. In 2006, he launched a controversial blog that openly criticized the Chinese government, signifying his transition from an apolitical artist to a political figure. One of centerpieces of his blog was the “Citizen’s Investigation” he launched to explore the inefficient response of the government to the Sichuan earthquake of 2008. Weiwei attempted to testify in court in support of fellow dissident Tan Zuoren, but was beaten so violently by the police he had to receive emergency brain surgery in Munich to combat internal bleeding. His blog was shut down in 2009 and in November 2010, Weiwei was briefly placed under house arrest.

A year later, Weiwei was arrested for unclear reasons–it was initially reported he tried to leave the country without the proper documents but the Foreign Ministry later claimed he was arrested for economic crimes. Weiwei was held for two months without being formally charged with a specific crime. The arguably false pretenses on which Weiwei were arrested sparked international outrage and led to the creation of FreeAiWeiWei.org and FakeCase.com. After a three-month sentence for “tax evasion,” Weiwei was released from prison but was forbidden from leaving Beijing for at least a year. For several years, Weiwei’s movements were closely monitored and restricted by the government, until July 2015, when his passport was returned and he was permitted to leave the country. Unfortunately, Weiwei’s freedom may only be superficial–this October, Weiwei found multiple listening devices in his Beijing studio.

Crowdfunding and Art

Over the past several years, artists have taken advantage of the crowdfunding movement to finance everything from studio space to paintbrushes. There are even crowdfunding websites tailored to the needs of the art community. When artists want to sell their work, they can use Etsy and Amazon’s new “Handmade” marketplace to set their own prices and connect with individual clients. As the artistic process becomes more reliant on digital interactions, art becomes a more attractive and financially stable source of income.

Yet Ai Wewei’s case is unique in that he was not sent funds via PayPal or Venmo that he then translated into a creative product. He was explicitly banned from purchasing Legos in bulk, which required others to not just send him money but to deliver the physical components of his artwork to him. This is a far greater commitment than anything artists have received thus far from the crowdfunding movement. Granted, dropping off Legos in an abandoned car has a certain adventurous appeal that doesn’t parallel with delivering palettes and canvases to an artist’s door. Yet, if Ai Weiwei’s fans feel comfortable going the extra mile to ensure he can complete his installment, will other popular artists receive the same support? Weiwei did not explicitly ask for donations–that occurred organically through social media. Should other prominent artists who promote their art as a political tool receive the same donations? This time next year, Yayoi Kusama and Shepard Fairey may be getting paint delivered to them in the mail by fans every week instead of buying their own–but I doubt it. The impetus for #legoforaiweiwei emerged not from Ai Weiwei asking for Legos, but from Lego’s response to his request.

Lego’s Complicated Relationship with Art and Politics

Ai Weiwei used Lego blocks in his 2014 project Trace, which presented massive portraits of 176 political prisoners across the globe.  In the wake of this week’s scandal, Lego spokesperson Roar Rude Trangbaek said

We refrain — on a global level — from actively engaging in or endorsing the use of Lego bricks in projects or contexts of a political agenda…. [we do not accept] donations or support for projects — such as the possibility of purchasing Lego bricks in very large quantities, which is not possible through normal sales channels — where we are made aware that there is a political context.

Although Lego did not block Weiwei’s 2014 exhibition, they have asked other artists not to use their products in artwork in the past. Multiple political and advertising campaigns have used Lego characters and blocks, only to be asked by Lego to remove their photos and videos. Legos were also used in the infamous model of a concentration camp created by Zbigniew Libera in 1996. In Libera’s case, Lego donated bricks to the artist but had no idea what the piece would ultimately become. Once the final product was revealed, Lego attempted to prevent the exhibition of the artwork.

While it is clear that Lego’s leadership is uncomfortable being associated with controversy, they are usually responsive to consumer complaints. After a seven-year-old girl wrote a letter complaining about the lack of female Lego action figures, Lego promptly launched a set of female scientist toys that promote gender parity in STEM fields. With the massive outpouring of support for Ai Weiwei, it would be smart for Lego to adapt and roll with public sentiment–yet at the same time, if Weiwei’s fans are purchasing Legos in massive amounts to drop off at donation centers, the company still turns a profit. The initial pressure from Weiwei’s fans may have seemed like a public relations disaster, but now that Weiwei’s project is steaming ahead,  Lego has no reason to acquiesce to Weiwei’s demands.

Weiwei’s fans seemingly reacted strongly to Lego’s statement because it contradicted their past involvement in Weiwei’s work. Fans immediately categorized the company as a hypocritical lackey of the Chinese regime. It was ultimately a perceived violation of morals and free speech that led Weiwei’s fans to crowdfund the Lego project. A quick scroll through Instagram reveals that the artist’s fans consider Lego’s refusal to be a demonstration of solidarity with Chinese oppression. With Lego painted as a capitalistic demon shaking hands with a corrupt government by many,  it is no wonder that fans have had a strong reaction. Ai Weiwei’s popular appeal lies not only in his talent as an artist but in his ability to mobilize political sentiment. Most artists don’t have a complicated past with a major company nor do they have a fan base with strong political and moral beliefs–therefore, Weiwei’s case should be considered an isolated incident, not the start of a new age of crowdfunded art. An artist running short on supplies does not pack the same emotional punch as a man only just freed from prison being denied his right to freedom of speech. Ai Weiwei has done a masterful job of morphing the Lego project from an artistic statement into a grassroots political movement.  Donating Legos lets fans protest the Chinese regime, but not in a way that puts them in any danger or requires a significant time commitment. Ai Weiwei may have found the solution to the collective action problem: let them buy toys.

Conclusion

Ai Weiwei’s artwork and political activism makes him a controversial figure but that does not necessarily give Lego the right to deny his request for a bulk purchase. Weiwei’s fans have reacted with a powerful, well-organized display of support by buying him individual Legos but their donations do not signify a larger shift in the crowdfunding movement. Artwork that is tied to political motivations can elicit a strong reaction and rally supporters around a cause, but in this case, it has not changed the policies of the Lego corporation.

Resources

Primary

Instagram: Ai Weiwei

FreeAiWeiWei

Additional

CNN: Ai Weiwei is not alone: LEGO’s history of hiding from politics.

Barnaby Martin: Hanging Man: The Arrest of Ai Weiwei.

The Guardian: Ai Weiwei

For-Site Foundation: Trace.

BoingBoing: The World’s Most Controversial Lego Model

The Atlantic: Ai Wei Wei vs. Lego

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post GoFundAi: Crowdfunding and Ai Weiwei’s Battle with Lego appeared first on Law Street.

The United States is a patchwork of cultures so diverse that large groups can often go under the radar unnoticed or unidentified. That is, until a tragedy brings that group to the forefront. American Muslims in particular have repeatedly been branded as terrorists throughout history, most recently after a terrible shooting by a Muslim man at an army base in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This viewpoint is unfair and uninformed. Far from being a secret insurgency, Muslims in the United States are one of its oldest groups and most average populations. Read on to learn more about Muslims in the United States, starting with the group’s culture, moving to a profile of the modern American Muslim, and lastly how this group of people is portrayed by the culture.

History of Islam in the U.S.

Muslims have a long history in the United States, perhaps going back to a time before Europeans even settled the area. According to some legends, Muslim Moors who had been expelled from Spain as part of Christian Reconquista may have explored the Caribbean and what is now America. In fact it has even been speculated that Columbus on his travels to the New World cited a book written by Muslims who had made a similar voyage in the 12^th century. There are also reports of physical Muslim guides used by the Spanish in their conquests beginning in the 16^th century.

The first major migration of Muslims unquestionably came through the slave trade. In fact, as many as ten to 15 percent of the imported human cargo was believed to be Muslim. These slaves were often forced to convert to Christianity or at least hide their beliefs, however some populations were able to hold out into the 20^th century.

Following this wave was another from the Middle East from the late 1800s to early 1900s. This group settled in the modern day American Midwest, as jobs were readily available particularly in the automobile industry. A third wave came in the 1950s and 60s from throughout Asia, when the United States relaxed its strict immigration policies. Islam in the United States was also invigorated by Black Americans who sought to restore their original faith, beginning with the Great Migration and continuing to this day. The first mosque in the United States was built in Cedar Rapids, Iowa and as of today there are more than one thousand mosques nationwide. Additionally, some of the most notable Muslims of the time were and are major historical figures such as Malcolm X and Muhammed Ali.

The Modern American Muslim

Like the varied waves in which they immigrated to the United States, the current population of Muslims in the U.S., numbering anywhere from five to 12 million people, is also an ethnic hodgepodge of American Blacks, Africans, Asians, Hispanics, Europeans, and converts. Along with a diversity that mirrors the U.S. population as a whole, Muslims in America are quintessentially American in a number of other ways. The number of Muslims with college and graduate degrees for example is nearly exactly the national average. This correlation holds true for the number of Muslims making $100,000 down to those making less than $30,000 annually.

Muslims also are slightly different in some ways as well. First, unlike America as a whole, Muslims skew young, over 75 percent of the Muslim population in the United States is 49 or younger. It also skews slightly male with approximately 54 percent of the Muslim population in this country being male. As far as geography, most live near urban centers such as New York and other coastal areas. The population of Muslims is also greater near university towns as many are graduate students or faculty. Thus while Muslim populations may go unrecognized, that may in part be because of how similar they are to the general population of which they are a part.  The video below looks in-depth at Muslims in the U.S.

Popular Perception of Muslims in American Culture

Clearly then, American Muslims have a rich historical place in America and blend in quite well with the population, too. However, while by most any metric Muslims are the epitome of America, the perception of Muslims remains disproportionately hostile. According to a recent poll, only 27 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Muslims. Additionally, nearly half of the respondents thought that Muslims’ decisions would be overly impacted by their religion and that profiling people of the Islamic faith was justified.

These are not just views of anonymous individuals. Following in the wake of the recent shootings for example, prominent Reverend Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, called for the end of Muslim immigration to the United States. Graham is not alone in his vitriol. The FBI, it was revealed, also seems ill-disposed to American Muslims and unsurprisingly teaches its counter-terrorism agents that American Muslims are potential terrorist sympathizers, that the prophet Muhammad was a cult leader, and the act of giving is actually a covert effort to fund terrorist activities. The FBI was not the only policing agency in on the act; the NYPD also ran a notorious anti-terrorism program that targeted Muslims. Since 9/11, members of the NYPD infiltrated mosques, spied on attendees, and even enticed informants to trick other Muslims to make seditious statements on recordings.

In fact the American media in general is guilty of mischaracterizing Muslims. In a study done by a North Carolina professor of media from 2001 to 2008, he found overwhelming evidence of a media bias against Muslims, including a disproportionate focus on groups who denounced Islam.  The accompanying video details this bias through a triple murder of Muslims in North Carolina earlier this year.

Misplaced Hate

When one looks at the numbers, this anger and hate is clearly misplaced. For example, from 1980 to 2005, 94 percent of terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil were done by non-Muslims. In 2013 in fact, more people were killed inadvertently by guns fired by toddlers than by Muslims.

Conclusion

There is an old saying that people fear the unknown. When it comes to the Muslim population in the United States, unknown might not be an adequate description. Perhaps the best example is that most Americans equate Arabs and Islam, even when most Arabs in the U.S. are not Muslims. Yet this void of knowledge has not remained unfilled, on the contrary a concerted effort has been made to twist and often distort the popular opinion of Americans into believing all Muslims are terrorists or at the very least, sympathetic to the cause of terror groups.

The numbers show nothing could be further from the truth. Far from being a homogenous group of troublesome people, Muslims, like America itself, are a diverse collection of peoples. Furthermore, these people encapsulate the average American identity in virtually every way.

Muslims like so many groups before them are often not treated equally in American society for a number of factors ranging from media influence to that all important unknown. However, closer examination reveals that in the United States, Muslims are most representative of one thing, the patchwork nature of the country itself.

Resources

Embassy of the United States: Muslims in America

PBS: Islam in America

Reuters: American Opinion of Arabs, Muslims is Getting Worse

Wired: FBI Teaches Agents

Atlantic: Horrifying Effects of NYPD Ethnic Profiling on American Muslims

Think Progress: Study; Anti-Islam Messages Dominate Media Coverage

 Daily Beast: Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close

Viral Buzz: 30 Hollywood Muslims

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Muslims: A Vibrant History, Misplaced Hatred appeared first on Law Street.

Even though only 19 percent of Americans surveyed by the Public Religion Research Institute said they would oppose a lesbian or gay athlete signing onto a professional sports team, there are still many obstacles that exist to LGBTQ players being out in pro sports.

Women have been coming out publicly in professional sports for years, but men in the big leagues have faced a great deal of obstacles keeping their positions on teams.

As more and more professional athletes are coming out, what are the legal rights and difficulties of LGBTQ athletes in professional sports?

Out Athletes in Pro Sports

Not only have queer women been coming out publicly in professional sports for quite some time, several have been actively outspoken against homophobic laws. Speaking out against Minnesota’s 2012 attempt to ban gay marriage in the state, WNBA star and Olympic gold medalist Seimone Augustus told the Associated Press:

I felt like it was the perfect time for me, being on a platform where I can make a change with my voice and my situation… Maybe inspire someone else to come out and be comfortable with themselves. Or maybe someone else’s parents will see my parents saying that it’s OK to be with your child and love your child unconditionally regardless of your sexual preference.

This outspokenness accompanies the activism of fellow out WNBA star Brittney Griner against the constraints placed on her at Baptist school Baylor University.  Griner has commented candidly on the hypocrisy of homophobia in sports:

The more I think about it, the more I feel like the people who run the school want it both ways: they want to keep the policy, so they can keep selling themselves as a Christian university, but they are more than happy to benefit from the success of their gay athletes. That is, as long as those gay athletes don’t talk about being gay.

We’ve got a culture that is OK with casual homophobia and sexist language… What Jason Collins’ presence does–now people have to be held accountable. Because what people said before was, ‘Well, he said that, but he wasn’t talking to anyone, and no one’s gay here, so no one’s offended by it.’ Now that Collins is in existence, people realize there are more Jasons out there, more Michael Sams out there, that when you say something homophobic, you’re actually affecting someone who you truly believe exists now.

Rights and Responsibilities

Advocates of LGBT rights in professional sports have argued that it is the responsibility of professional sports leagues to proactively protect players–and coaches and staff–from discrimination.

In Sam’s case, however, Dr. John Fitzgerald Gates, National Diversity Expert, Principal, and Chief Strategist of Criticality Management Consulting and Former Associate Dean of Harvard College, wrote the following about NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell:

(He) did nothing to assure that Sam would be treated with the respect and fairness accorded other players, or to protect him against being fired because he is gay. According to Goodell, in the NFL: ‘We do things the right way. We will give them that education and training. I hope that will solve the problem.’ But Goodell’s deduction is flawed, for if education and training solved discrimination we surely would have educated and trained our way beyond it by now. As with racial and gender bias, laws must be constructed and enforced to ensure equal protection to LGBT professional athletes. Goodell welcomed Sam onto the field of play without providing him the protection from discrimination that other players have, thereby leaving him uniquely and unfairly vulnerable. Goodell codified the NFL’s right to discriminate when he should have had the courage, like President Obama, to ban it.

It is worth noting that the NFL does, in fact, have provisions in place to protect players from discrimination and harassment based on their sexual orientation. Indeed, when the MLB spoke out against homophobia in the major leagues, it was following the precedent of the NFL, stating that:

Public Religion Research Institute: Ahead of Super Bowl, Nearly Three-in-Ten Americans Support Lifetime Ban for Football Players Who Commit Domestic Violence

OutSports: Trans Athletes

Sports Illustrated: Why NBA Center Jason Collins is Coming Out Now

Huffington Post: The Moment is NOW for Professional Sports to Ban LGBT Discrimination

Huffington Post: Michael Sam: The Practical and Legal Implications of a Gay Professional Athlete

CBS News: NFL Agrees to Do More to Protect Gay Players

Daily Mail: Basketball Star Brittney Griner Opens up About Being a Lesbian at Baylor University and How She was Told to Keep ‘Her Business’ to Herself

Jurist: How Four Major Sports Leagues Influence LGBT Rights

Think Progress: The Benchwarming Journeymen Who Changed American Sports Forever

Think Progress: Dallas Cowboys Cut Michael Sam from Practice Squad

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBTQ Pro Sports: Obstacles and Victories appeared first on Law Street.

The 2015 women’s World Cup final brought in millions more viewers in the U.S. than the 2014 men’s final. As the most watched soccer game in U.S. history, the final has spurred quite a lot of thinking about the lack of relative women’s participation in professional U.S. sports more broadly.

We know that men receive more athletic scholarships for college than women; the percentage of women coaches of men’s sports is tiny, and the percentage of women coaches for women’s sports is dropping as pay for coaches increases; and sports media devote precious little, if any, time to women in sports.

All of these forms of discrimination contribute to fewer women having access to playing sports professionally.

But are there actual, legal barriers to women as players participating in male-dominated professional sports? From the NCAA to the NFL, the answer is technically no.

NCAA and Title IX

Originally signed into law as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX is often the piece of legislation that athletes who are women cite as their legal protection in the arena of college sports. Title IX states that,

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Because most colleges and universities cannot function without continuing to receive Federal financial assistance of one kind or another, this legal provision is the means through which many women athletes have attempted to secure their rights to play in intercollegiate sports. Actually playing on a team is not the only aspect of college life Title IX is supposed to regulate, however. More expansive than this, Title IX:

Forbids sex discrimination in all university student services and academic programs including, but not limited to, admissions, financial aid, academic advising, housing, athletics, recreational services, college residential life programs, health services, counseling and psychological services, Registrar’s office, classroom assignments, grading and discipline. Title IX also forbids discrimination because of sex in employment and recruitment consideration or selection, whether full time or part time, under any education program or activity operated by an institution receiving or benefiting from federal financial assistance.

However, because legal standards in the United States require that the court proves individual and/or institutional intent to discriminate in order to prove discrimination, the NCAA’s standards for complying with Title IX–requiring, according to the NCAA’s interpretation, “that men and women be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports”–is not likely to actually make the systematic changes women need in sports across the country. “Providing equitable opportunities” still allows women’s sports to receive much less than half of college funds for athletics, and it also still leaves athletes who are women vulnerable to more discrete forms of discrimination.

A good case study of these forms of discrimination is the case of Heather Sue Mercer, who in 1997 filed suit against Duke University under Title IX because she was cut from the football team for being a woman and, while she was still on the team, was treated much differently than her male teammates. Even though she was eventually awarded $2 million in damages, the standard for awarding damages (determining malice) is much lower than the standard for determining whether Duke violated Title IX (deliberate indifference, or the intent to discriminate, which Duke was found not to have).

The interpretations of Title IX in intercollegiate athletics that arose from this case have had long-lasting impacts on women trying to break into intercollegiate sports. The court ruled that colleges are not required to allow women to play on “men’s” contact sports teams, leaving decisions about women having access to sports in coaches’ hands. This leaves the door wide open for coaches to make statements like Goldsmith’s, citing arbitrary reasons like size that didn’t seem to impact Mercer’s ability to play just as well as — and better than — others on her team when she was invited to join it in the first place.

And what about the pros?

Though Title IX by default does not directly affect professional sports–by definition, it only impacts institutions that receive federal funding–athletes attempting to make it into the big leagues find themselves strongly disadvantaged by the legacies of Title IX. Women do not only face discrimination on athletic fields that negatively impact their access to playing in the pros, but women’s pro leagues also experience extreme financial hardships that male leagues simply do not face. This acts as a strong barrier to all women, but especially to women who, for example, have a great deal of debt from college because they did not receive the same kind of scholarships that they would have if they were men. Because of the economic impacts of sports-based (and other) discrimination, women–especially women of color–are more likely to lack the resources needed to stick it through playing in underfunded women’s pro leagues.

The lack of ability for women to get professional opportunities and exposure is largely dependent on economic and media biases, as described by Shira Springer of The Boston Globe:

Absent deep-pocketed investors who can commit for several years, women’s professional teams and leagues find themselves scrambling to survive almost from the moment they launch. With the notable exception of the National Basketball Association-supported WNBA, women’s pro leagues never get a chance to play the kind of long game that could build momentum and diverse fan bases. ‘Women’s sports are still sort of niche sports,’ says Angela Ruggiero, president of the Women’s Sports Foundation based in New York City and a four-time Olympic medalist in women’s ice hockey. ‘Part of it is visibility. Because most women’s sports don’t get the same coverage compared to men, it’s not the same fan experience, and it’s much harder to get invested. Part of it is that sports fans are still trying to understand and appreciate women’s sports and female athletes.’

Partly because of this, many athletes who are women aspire to play in the “big leagues” that everyone is almost guaranteed to know about: the MLB, the NBA, the NFL.

Football–due to its emphasis on extreme contact–is often the sport that people react most strongly against women participating in. Many people simply do not believe that a woman could excel in the NFL (or football in general), except perhaps as a kicker.

But are there any regulations–legal or league-based–that actually prevent women from playing in professional “male” sports, even the NBA and NFL? The answer, it seems, is no.

In 2012, the NFL finally made it clear that there are no provisions, legal or otherwise, that would prohibit women from participating in the NFL. Soon after, in 2013, New Yorker and superb kicker Lauren Silberman competed at the NFL’s New Jersey regional combine. While she did not make the cut onto a team, Silberman told NFL.com before the combine that,

I was not aware that I was the first female registrant. I was actually hoping that the 2012 historical milestone rule, to allow women to play, would prompt more women to attend tryouts this year. But for me, what’s important is to finally have a chance to fulfill my dreams by trying out to play in the world’s most competitive football league.

Silberman’s dream was stymied, but like Silberman, the dreams of many women to play in professional sports–like Melissa Mayeux, the first woman eligible to be signed in the MLB from the international registration list–are still moving forward despite the obstacles.

So when will women be in the dominant pro leagues?

While athletes who are women are legally entitled to the equitable access to intercollegiate athletics, the reality is that most women, regardless of ability, do not have access to the same types of opportunities or benefits that athletes who are men have. Similarly, women are not barred by any regulation from participating in pro “male” sports, including high-contact leagues like the NFL; however, even as athletes like Silberman and Mayeux push boundaries in the big leagues, there is a very, very long way to go for women who dream of playing in those arenas.

Resources

NFL.com: Female Will Compete at Regional Combine For First Time

Boston Globe: Why Do Fans Ignore Women’s Pro Sports?

LexisNexis Legal Newsroom: Gender Participation Issues Related to Sports

NCAA: Title IX Frequently Asked Questions

AthNet: Title IX and Its Effects on Intercollegiate Athletics

ESPN W: Five Myths about Title IX

Women’s Sports Foundation: Title IX Myths and Facts

Life and Times: The Impact of Title IX on Women’s Sports

U.S. News & World Report: 40 Years After Title IX, Men Still Get Better Sports Opportunities

NFL: Women Will Compete at Regional Combine For First Time

Weekly World News: NFL to Allow Women to Play

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Women in the Big Leagues: Can They Legally Play on “Men’s” Teams? appeared first on Law Street.

“Avengers: Age of Ultron,” the latest hit in the Avengers franchise, debuted in theaters recently and made more than $200 million in a single weekend. The surprising part however, is that it earned that $200 million outside the U.S., before the movie even opened stateside. The increasing globalization of the film industry is abundantly clear. But the changes in the film industry aren’t just reflected in the exports of American movies to foreign audiences. There are also many nations expanding into the industry. Read on to learn about the globalization of the film industry, and its worldwide ramifications.

The American Film Industry: Changes From Sea to Shining Sea

While Hollywood is facing greater competition from abroad in almost every aspect of the film industry, it is still the dominant player globally. In 2014, for example, the top ten most profitable movies were all made in the United States.

Hollywood has had to adjust to a changing customer base. Nearly 60 percent of the box office hauls taken in by these big productions came from abroad. This means that the success of the Hollywood movie industry is driven more by foreign markets than domestic. In fact, the number two market for Hollywood films, China, is predicted to surpass the American market by 2020.

In response to this changing environment, Hollywood is increasingly relying on big-budget blockbusters. These movies have been particularly marketable specifically because of their simple plot lines, which often avoid nuanced or culturally specific stories that might get lost in translation. Additionally, Hollywood often adds extra scenes to movies released in other countries, sometimes featuring actors from those countries, in order to make them more relatable. This has meant making changes to movies, too. For example, in the remake of “Red Dawn,” the nationality of the invading soldiers was changed from Chinese to North Korean in order to avoid alienating the Chinese movie audience.

Foreign Film Industries: The Veterans

Although Hollywood, as a result of globalization, is facing stiffer competition abroad, there has long existed a traditional foreign film industry. The center of this industry is located in Europe

European Film Industry

While every country in Europe makes movies, five countries in particular make up 80 percent of the market: France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain. The industry itself is also massive in scope, including 75,000 companies and 370,000 workers across Europe.

In addition to the number of people involved, Europe is also home to some of the most prestigious events in cinema. Perhaps the most famous is the Cannes Film Festival in France. This event has taken place nearly every year since 1946, with filmmakers from all walks of life competing for the coveted Palme d’Or prize for the best film in the competition.

Despite the success of the film industry in Europe, it has struggled to deal with foreign competition, particularly Hollywood. As of 2013, 70 percent of the European film market was dominated by American films. This is in stark contrast to a much smaller 26 percent coming directly from European sources.

But as Hollywood has made efforts to keep its industry relevant, so has Europe. One of the most prominent attempts has been through the LUX competition. Seeking to address one of the most glaring problems in Europe’s film industry–distributing and dubbing movies in all the languages spoken in Europe–the films involved in this competition are sub-titled in 24 different languages so as to be accessible to a wide audience.

Film Industries Down Under

Australia and New Zealand also have prominent film industries. While Australia is currently dealing with losing out on some projects because its tax credits are not competitive enough, there is a strong tradition already in place. For example, “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith” as well as the “Matrix” trilogy were both filmed there.

The New Zealand film industry is strong and thriving. This has been the result of two forces. First, home-grown production of films such as “The Piano,” which won three Oscars in 1993, has helped promote the industry. There has also been a rise of recognizable talent coming out of the country, including director Peter Jackson. Like Australia, New Zealand has also been the location of major Hollywood productions such as “Avatar,” “King Kong,” and “The Last Samurai” to name just a few.

Rising Stars

Other countries are continuing to create voices of their own through national film industries. Three of the most successful countries in creating major movie industries of their own have been India, Nigeria, and South Korea.

India

Although Hollywood is the most profitable film industry worldwide, India’s is the most productive based on its sheer number of films. India’s film production is so prodigious that it has earned a nickname of its own: Bollywood, in reference to the city of Mumbai. In fact, India’s industry is so expansive that the Bollywood moniker is really only applicable to Mumbai–other regions and cities have film industries of their own that have spawned similar nicknames, such as “Kollywood” and “Sandalwood.”

While the Indian film industry has been a compelling force for more than 100 years, it has seen a huge jump in growth recently. From 2004-2013, gross receipts tripled and revenue is estimated to reach $4.5 billion next year. With those kinds of numbers, India’s film industry promises to continue its upward trajectory in money and influence.

Nigeria

The Nigerian film industry also produces more films per year than Hollywood, and it has the similar nickname “Nollywood.” Nigeria’s films are often lower-budget productions that are released directly to DVD and often not even filmed in a studio. Nonetheless, the Nigerian film industry is influential enough regionally that neighboring countries fear a Nigerianization effect on their own cultures.

The Nigerian film industry is so popular that the World Bank believes that with the proper management it could create a million more jobs in a country with high unemployment levels. The film industry in Nigeria already employs a million people, making it the second-largest employer in the country behind the agricultural sector. Still, for Nigeria to be on the same level as Hollywood or Bollywood, many issues would have to be addressed, in particular the high rate of film pirating. The video below explores Nollywood and its impact on Hollywood.

South Korea

South Korea also has a strong film industry, although it doesn’t have a catchy nickname. While it does not generate the volume of films of Bollywood or Nollywood, it does have the advantage of being the go-to destination for entertainment for much of Asia, particularly China and Japan. South Korea’s movies resonate both domestically and regionally because they often play on historical conflicts that affected the region as a whole. The film industry there also received a boost when a law was passed stating that at least 40 percent of films shown in South Korea had to be produced there, forcing local companies to step up and fill the void.

What does film industry globalization mean?

Money

One of the most obvious implications of globalization is financing. Several major Hollywood studios including Disney have bankrolled films in Bollywood. This is in an attempt to harness the massive potential audience there. Financing is a two-way street however, and when Hollywood struggled for funds following the 2008 recession it received loans and financing from Indian sources.

Culture

Another implication is cultural. In many countries, the government has posted quotas or imposed tariffs on foreign films to limit their dominance domestically. These laws are aimed specifically at American movies. One of the motivations for these rules is the competition American films provide. In basically every domestic market worldwide, Hollywood movies have a larger share than the domestic industry. Secondly, movies are seen as cultural pillars, so leaders are interested in preserving, and even promoting their own culture over that of a foreign entity like the one presented by Hollywood.

Like financing, cultural considerations also have a return effect on Hollywood. In order to attract more foreign viewers, Hollywood movies have simplified story lines and included more actors from different locales. In effect, Hollywood has had to become more diverse and open in order to appeal worldwide. This effect may actually dilute any would-be American cultural overload as well, as these movies are incorporating more global cultures in order to be competitive.

Globalization is a give and take. There has been a long-standing fear of globalization leading to Americanization; however, as the film industry has shown, for American filmmakers or any others to be competitive globally their themes and characters must be global, too. Additionally the invasion of Hollywood movies has also encouraged many domestic industries to build up their own audiences and industries that had been neglected before.

Conclusion

Hollywood has long dealt with issues, ideas, and events that have stretched the world over, and it is now dealing with competition as diverse and far reaching as the topics of the movies it produces. The Hollywood film industry had remained the dominant player in the industry by leveraging foreign markets. Globally this has also meant the incorporation of more films and actors from traditional markets such as Europe. It also means the rise of movies and stars from non-traditional markets as well. Thus the globalization of the film industry has meant many things to many different people, but what it has meant to everyone involved from production to consumption is greater access and opportunity. Hopefully, the global film industry will continue along this path.

Resources

Arts.Mic: Three Countries With Booming Movie Industries That Are Not the U.S.

BBC: How the Global Box Office is Changing Hollywood

Vanity Fair: Avengers Age of Ultron is Already a Huge, Hulking Hit at the Box Office

Business Insider: The Highest Grossing Movies of 2014

Grantland: All the World’s a Stage

Law Without Borders: The Intersection of Hollywood and the Indian Film Industry

Los Angeles Daily News: Why TV, Film Production is Running Away From Hollywood.

European Parliament Think Tank: An Overview of Europe’s Film Industry

BBC: Australia Film Industry Hurt by Strong Currency

International Journal of Cultural Policy: Cultural Globalization and the Dominance of the American Film Industry

UN: Nigeria’s Film Industry a Potential Gold Mine

Festival De Cannes: History of the Festival

100% Pure New Zealand: History of New Zealand Screen Industry

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Globalization of Cinema: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

From a walk through a subway station to prime time television, dance is all around us. However, with so many people throwing their feet into the game, choreography copyrighting has become a bit of a confusing mess. There is a basic part of choreography that many people do not understand: the creator of the dance does not always own the copyright to the moves. In many cases, especially with tour productions and Broadway musicals, the copyright actually belongs to the producers of the show.

It gets complicated when there are more than one or two people who have created the work, as is the case with many dance teams. There have been cases where a choreographer has simply listed other dancers in order to credit them for an idea or two (which can be as simple as a turn or a hand movement), without realizing that listing them actually gives that person the right to reproduce that work elsewhere.

So, how exactly can you copyright choreography? First, one has to define choreography. It is not as simple as a few dance moves strung together. Instead, Martha Traylor, a legal commentator, has suggested that we define dance as the “planned movement, set into a time frame, for the benefit and enjoyment of the passive observer.” She also notes that this broad definition of dance would provide statutory copyright protection for “everything from circus productions and stage movements of actors to figure skating.”

It can get confusing, but there are a few ways to analyze the complicated world of choreography copyrighting.

The Copyright Act of 1976

When we talk about copyright, the first thing we must turn to is the Copyright Act of 1976, which lays out the ground rules for the many different things that we can copyright. The choreography rules fall under different sections, including those for dramas and pantomime.

The act gives exclusive rights to copyright owners, which include:

• The right to make copies, either digitally or physically, of the work.
• The right to sell these copies to the general public.
• The right to use the work in a different capacity (derivative works).
• The right to perform the work in public and collect money for the performance.

These rights belong exclusively to the copyright holder, but can be sold to others to use the choreography. This often happens in new adaptions of older works, like a modernized musical.

But who owns the work in the first place? That depends on how the choreographer was hired.

The “Owner” of the Choreography 

Most choreographers start out in a “work for hire” or freelance situation: they are brought in to choreograph something small for a theme park, a small-time music video, or a commercial. In this case, the employer owns the work that the choreographer creates. As the person hired is technically an employee of the entity, that piece of work now belongs to the company that did the hiring.

Some choreographers, especially those who are more well-known, will try to negotiate the rights to a particular piece of dance with varying levels of success.

One of the most beloved routines from the last hundred years has been the choreography in West Side Story. The moves are iconic to those in the know. However, it is also a work that many try to steal or emulate–and the copyright owners are watching. In a recent season of Dancing with the Stars, one of the pros tried to recreate the choreography. However, they couldn’t use any of the iconic moves. If they did so, it could have caused ABC some major problems. What resulted was a dance that reflected the style of the musical, but didn’t use the same routine.

One of the most well known court cases in choreography was the Martha Graham case, where a copyright controversy came up upon the death of beloved artist Martha Graham. She had established a dance school where she helped create over 50 pieces of work that were shown on the stage. However, she never established a copyright to the works between her and the school that she founded.

The case went to trial in 2002. The court used the work for hire law and established that “that 45 pieces were owned by the center and school, five belonged to those who had commissioned them, one belonged to the heir, 10 were in the public domain, and no one could prove ownership of nine works.” Her family lost out on potential profit because they couldn’t prove they were her design.

While this was a mistake made by a bigger artist, many small time choreographers have had similar problems.

More Than One Owner

Today, many shows, tours, or dance troupes will have more than one choreographer that helps to prepare the dances. Often, this includes a main choreographer and someone that assists them. In this case, there can be two or more owners of the copyright. However, it can only be considered a “joint work” if their work is combined and it is inseparable or interdependent on the other contributor’s work.

The U.S. Copyright Office considers joint copyright owners as equals–meaning that one person does not have more rights to the piece than the other person. In fact, unless the joint owners make a written agreement, each copyright owner has the right to commercially exploit the copyright. However, that does not mean that one person can just up and run with the piece–the other person needs to get an equal share of the profits, or the other half can buy them out if they think that will be more profitable.

Musical Copyright and Dance

While music is its own beast when it comes to copyright, there are also considerations you need to take with music and choreography. Think of the dances that we know best: the Macarena, the Single Ladies routine, the “Chorus Line” moves, and even the dancing from “Pitch Perfect”–they all are dependent on the music they accompany. All copyrighted popular music resides in the catalog of “performing rights organizations,” like the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP). Getting the rights to those songs often takes a long time and costs a lot of money.

Getting the music for a number is explained by Dance USA:

If a work was published in 1923 or later (that is, you are looking at a printed score and the copyright notice is dated 1923), it is protected by U.S. copyright law in this country. In addition, a large group of works, largely of Russian but also other origin, was restored to copyright in 1996 for the U.S. under GATT. The 20 year extension put into law in 1998 also has an impact on the works covered by this treaty.

If a work is a 20th or 21st century arrangement of an existing work, whether the underlying work is still protected by copyright or already in the public domain, you will need to clear performance rights.

Getting those rights will require a lot of knowledge from the choreographer: like what they are using it for, the size of the performance, and the cost of tickets.

Conclusion

Overall, getting the rights to a piece of work or even copyrighting your own work can be confusing. Choreography, like any other form of art, is protected and heavily regulated. The confusing web of laws surrounding the industry have led to problems for some, but at the end of the day, protects those who invest their time into creating the dances and musical numbers we all are able to enjoy on screen or on stage.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: The Copyright Act of 1976

U.S. Congress: Copyright Law Revision

Additional

Dance USA: Guide to Music Rights for Perplexed Choreographers

Digital Commons at LMU and LLS: Duet of Discord: Martha Graham and Her NonProfit Battle Over Work for Hire

AVOO: The Business of Choreography: The Relationship between Copyright and Dance

Campbell Law Review: Dance and the Choreographer’s Dilemma: A Legal and Cultural Perspective on Copyright Protection for Choreographic Works

Dance USA: Music Licensing 101: The Pretty to the Nitty-gritty

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal: Authorship, Ownership , and Control: Balancing the Economic and Artistic Issues Raised by the Martha Graham Copyright Case

Gallagher, Callahan, & Gartrell: Copyright Basics for Musicians

Kent Law: Copyright and Choreography: What Constitutes Fixation?

New England Law Review: Choreography, Pantomime and the Copyright Revision Act of 1976

New Leaf Legal: DWTS and “West Side Story” Copyright Issues: Explanation and Speculation

Copyright Crash Course: Who Owns That?

Quinnipiac: Dancing Around the Issues of Choreography and Copyright: Protecting Choreographers After Martha Graham School and Dance Foundation, INC. V. Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance, INC.

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Owns a Dance? The Complexities of Copyrighting Choreography appeared first on Law Street.

Beginning as a social media hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter developed into a movement and became a leading force in the fight against police brutality and racism across the nation. People from all walks of life are uniting for justice, are inspired to speak up, and most importantly are ready to take action. But how did #BlackLivesMatter reach the masses? How has it developed into such a profound transformational force? Read on to learn more about #BlackLivesMatter, its inception, and the movement to end police brutality and racial inequality in the United States.

What is #BlackLivesMatter?

#BlackLivesMatter (BLM) is a movement that focuses on anti-African-American racism in the United States. It was founded by three Black women: Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi. Although it began as a social media hashtag, they created the infrastructure for the overall campaign, framing it as “not a moment, a movement.”

According to #BlackLivesMatter, racism is still prevalent in American society through the marginalization of Black communities, which are intentionally left powerless and voiceless. In this regard, the movement asserts the right of all Black people to liberation.

BLM has opened up a broader conversation about long-standing racism and violence against Black communities in the United States. It aims to affirm the lives of all Black people who suffer from racial oppression in American society, including Black trans people, Black queer people, Black immigrants, Black incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people, Black millennials, Black women, low-income Black people, and Black people with disabilities. 

The Inception and Evolution of #BlackLivesMatter

#BlackLivesMatter was created after Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African-American boy from Florida, was fatally shot by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, on February 26, 2012. In July 2013, Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges.

The outcome of the trial led to resentment from Black communities, and America as a whole, as Martin was unarmed when Zimmerman shot him. The day after the acquittal, people took to the streets in major cities including Miami, New York, Washington D.C., Chicago, San Francisco, Newark, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, and Charlotte. More than 100 U.S. cities held demonstrations in support for Trayvon Martin.

Garza, one of BLM’s co-founders, used Facebook to express her outrage over the fact that nobody was held accountable for the death of an unarmed Black teenager. She finished her sentence with the phrase “we got us and our lives matter.” Cullors went further and added the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter when re-posting her friend’s message. People started to use this hashtag when talking about racism and extrajudicial killings of Black men in police custody. As a result, #BlackLivesMatter was born as a national organizing project. Watch the video below to learn more about #BlackLivesMatter from Garza.

Nearly a year later on July 17, 2014, Eric Garner died in Staten Island, New York, after a police officer allegedly put him in chokehold for 15 seconds while trying to take him into custody. That’s when #BlackLivesMatter started to solidify as a movement. According to Elephrame, a social media tracking website, two days after Garner’s death, more than 300 people marched in Staten Island, including Garner’s family.

Less than a month after that, on August 9, 2014, 18-year-old African-American Michael Brown, was shot to death by Darren Wilson, a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Demonstrations became pervasive in cities both large and small. Thousands of people travelled to Ferguson to participate in marches, demanding justice for Brown and other victims of police violence. The #BlackLivesMatter hashtag became omnipresent on Twitter in relation to Ferguson protests and racism in general. More than 119 cities participated in a National Moment of Silence honoring the many Black citizens who have died as a result of police violence. Watch Oakland residents speaking on Ferguson and #BlackLivesMatter protests in the video below.

During the ensuing months, divided demonstrations continued to transform into a collective force. At the end of November 2014, 12-year-old Tamir Rice was shot and killed by a police officer in Cleveland, Ohio. As the Staten Island grand jury declined to indict the New York police officer who used the chokehold to take Garner into custody on December 3, 2014, people began to demand justice even more fiercely. More demonstrations were held, reaching as far as Paris, London, and Melbourne. By the end of 2014, #BlackLivesMatter was already a strong platform for many protesters, with a broader mission, and a list of demands. 

The movement carried into 2015. BLM continued to incite discussions in academia, art communities, religious establishments, and high schools and universities. A #BlackLivesMatter exhibit was featured in an art gallery in Seattle, providing viewers with different perspectives on the movement. Cornell University Africana Studies and Research Center held a community talk about #BlackLivesMatter and the current state of activist movements, taking a social history perspective. These are only few examples of the movement’s proliferation and effects.

On March 4, 2015, a St. Louis County grand jury acquitted Wilson of all charges in the death of Michael Brown. The actions of protesters became even more pronounced, disrupting public transportation and shutting down highways and bridges while marching for Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, and many others.

On April 19, 2015 another Black man, Freddie Gray, died in the hospital after he was taken into custody by the Baltimore police. The events that followed shook the whole country as protests turned violent in some areas. Some police officers were injured, a state of emergency was declared, the National Guard was activated, and a 10 p.m. curfew was established in Baltimore. However, all officers involved in Gray’s death were charged with a range of crimes, including murder and manslaughter. During these latest events, many local chapters of #BlackLivesMatter marched in solidarity with Baltimore, including those in Chicago, Ferguson, and New York.

In the last 289 days, there were 431 general demonstrations and 430 for individual victims of police brutality, totaling at least 861 #BlackLivesMatter demonstrations.

An International Voice 

#BlackLivesMatter has a visible connection to other movements across the nation and abroad. Nationally, Palestinian solidarity activists, the low-wage workers movement, and Black Youth Project 100 (BYP 100) among others, all marched in support of BLM. In addition, medical students at 70 colleges, the so-called “White Coats for Black Lives,” held demonstrations in #BlackLivesMatter support. Internationally, Hong Kong’s pro-democracy marches and London’s Campaign Against Police and State Violence, among others, also stood in solidarity with the #BlackLivesMatter movement and its cause.

#BlackLivesMatter Tactics

The main tactic of the #BlackLivesMatter movement is to disrupt business as usual, including work, commuter travel, commerce, and other daily activities of U.S. residents. The rationale behind this tactic is based on the premise that people across the country need to wake up and recognize that anti-Black racism is a pervasive part of American society. BLM protesters disrupted traffic on Interstate 93 in Boston, shut down the BART station in West Oakland, California, partly shut down the Mall of America, and disrupted business as usual in many other places, all in the hope of drawing attention to its cause. 

What does #BlackLivesMatter aim to do?

#BlackLivesMatter put forward national demands and a vision for a new America. It seeks legal redress in the Michael Brown case, and asks the government to release the names of all officers involved in killing Black people for the last five years. It also calls for the creation of an advocate’s network that can institute changes across police departments, and demands that the federal government discontinue its supply of military weapons to police departments across the country. #BlackLivesMatter also demands more re-investment programs, specifically, re-directing law enforcement funds to federal departments charged with providing employment, housing, and educational services.

According to #BlackLivesMatter, its vision for a new America is as follows:

We Want an End to all Forms of Discrimination and the Full Recognition of our Human Rights. The United States Government must acknowledge and address the structural violence and institutional discrimination that continues to imprison our communities either in a life of poverty and/or one behind bars. We want the United States Government to recognize the full spectrum of our human rights and its obligations under international law.

In its vision, the movement includes not only the end of racially charged police violence and structural changes in police departments across the states, but also demands decent housing, quality education, and the end of the prison industrial complex and the school-to-prison pipeline.

#BlackLivesMatter developed rather specific proposals with regard to the de-militarization of local law enforcement departments across the country, including requesting a comprehensive review by the Department of Justice into systematic abuses by police departments, and the repurposing of law enforcement funds to support community-based alternatives to incarceration. While not all demands are specific and policy oriented, BLM is working in conjunction with think tanks and non-profits such as the National Organization for Women and Race Forward: The Center for Racial Justice Innovation, to continue conceptualizing policy aims. 

Criticism of #BlackLivesMatter

Even though many Americans support #BlackLivesMatter, there are those who simply don’t believe that racism in the justice system exists. In this view, African Americans encounter law enforcement frequently because they commit more crimes, thus more of them end up in the prison system. Police officers are viewed as protectors of public order, while African Americans are seen as solely responsible for the current state of their community. Watch the video below to learn more about this point of view.

In addition, an #AllLivesMatter hashtag was created to counteract the #BlackLivesMatter movement. In this view, law enforcement should treat all people with respect and dignity. The rationale is as following: if #AllLivesMatter, then #BlackLivesMatter too. Essentially, #AllLivesMatter protesters are making a point of including all races in the conversation about police brutality; however, supporters of #BlackLivesMatter as well as its founders consider such phrasing an act of colorblindness that completely excludes race from the equation, devaluing the whole point of the movement.

Conclusion

#BlackLivesMatter has already established itself as a movement for social change, transforming isolated incidents of police brutality into a larger agenda of eliminating racial inequality in American society. It’s impossible to predict if the movement will be able to sustain itself until it reaches its goal and the government meets BLM’s demands; however one thing is sure, #BlackLivesMatter is already changing peoples’ perceptions of racial inequality in America, creating dialogue, and clearing out the path for future leaders who will take on the issue of anti-Black racism. 

Resources

Primary

#BlackLivesMatter: National Demands

#BlackLivesMatter: A Herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter Movement

Additional 

Elephrame: Track Black Lives Matter Demonstrations

Occupy: Black Lives Matter: The Evolution of a Movement

Political Research Associates: Five Right-Wing Media Narratives Attacking the ‘Black Lives Matter’ Movement

Front Page Mag: Which Black Lives Matter?

Huffington Post: Stop Slandering Black Lives Matter

National Review Online: Black Lives Matter

Huffington Post: Reactions on the Streets After the George Zimmerman Verdict

Gothamist: Black Lives Matter Protesters Stock Forever 21 With ‘Never 21’ T-Shirts

Thee New York Times: Baltimore Enlists National Guard and a Curfew to Fight Riots and Looting

KARE11: Black Lives Matter March in Support of Baltimore

Michigan Live: EMU Student Wears ‘Black Lives Matter’ T-Shirt Over Gown at Graduation

Huffington Post: What People Are Really Saying When They Complain About ‘Black Lives Matter’ Protests

King 5: Art Gallery Features ‘Black Lives Matter’ Exhibit

Star Tribune: Twin Cities Students Walk Out of Schools to Join Black Lives Matter Protest

The New York Times: Beyond ‘Black Lives Matter’ 

Alternet: Eight Developments of the Black Lives Matter Movement Most People Don’t Know About 

Dick Gregory: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Heard Around the World

NPR: ‘Black Lives Matter’ Slogan Becomes a Bigger Movement 

Cornell University: Scholar Leads Talk on ‘Black Lives Matter’ Movement 

Washington Post: From Trayvon Martin to ‘Black Lives Matter’

International Socialist Review: Black Lives Matter: A New Movement Takes Shape

The New York Times: Six Baltimore Police Officers Charged in Freddie Gray Death

California Sunday Magazine: How Three Friends Turned a Spontaneous Facebook Post Into a Global Phenomenon

Boston Globe: Protesters Snarl Morning Commute on I-93 Near Boston

Sfist: Protesters Chain Themselves to BART Trains at West Oakland, Temporarily Halt Transbay Train Service

Huffington Post: #BlackLivesMatter Protesters Shut Down Part of Mall of America

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #BlackLivesMatter: How a Hashtag Sparked a Powerful Movement appeared first on Law Street.

Thousands of people try to make it big in the comedy world each year. Whether you are making YouTube and Vine videos or you are working the comedy club circuit, what rights do you really have to your own material? Successful comedy builds on the human experience, so many jokes seem to be about similar topics, but what are the chances that the wording two comedians use will be the same?

Accusations are thrown from one comedian to another over who really “created” a bit, causing problems for everyone from the late Robin Williams to Jimmy Fallon. It’s important to keep in mind that jokes are in essence little stories or songs–it takes time to perfect the verbiage, and then it takes even more time to perfect the delivery. These jokes, theoretically, are the creative property of the person who initially tells them, but it’s a little more complicated than that. Read on to learn about different rights and controversies in comedy plagiarism.

Protecting Comedy

Legally, it can be very difficult for comedians to protect their content–much harder than it would be for writers, singers, or even actors. Most comedians don’t record their shows, especially when they are just starting out in the business. They also may change up their routines each night depending on the way they read the crowd. They might tell the same joke, but use different words or a different delivery, which makes it hard to prove that it was “their” joke. Many comedians are now recording their sets (made easier with the proliferation of smartphones) as a way to publicize their acts, but also in anticipation that there will be some way to copyright what they do.

Copyright in the Internet Age

Comedians who post material on YouTube, Vine, or other social media sources face an even higher risk of being infringed upon because often the videos get buried in the plethora of material found online. In the video below, check out the reactions of YouTubers who watch Jimmy Fallon sketches that many claim have been stolen from famous YouTube comedians or video-bloggers. The comments come toward the end of the video.

The Independent recently published a piece highlighting the trouble with plagiarism within the comedic community. In an article titled “Plagiarism is No Laughing Matter for Comedians,” Gary Delaney, a British comic, spoke about his own interactions with the internet and his material:

It used to be the case that a comic’s set would last decades. But now I’ve got jokes I wrote in May, June, and July that aren’t working by October because they’ve been absolutely trashed around the Internet.

There are some products currently available to comedians, including a piece of software called iThenticate, which is often used by students to check papers for plagiarism; however, it could also be used to help comedians determine if their jokes have been duplicated online. The catch is that it can only find jokes that have been plagiarized in someone else’s writing, not in another format such as audio or video.

YouTube is able to find duplicate content through a system called ContentID; however, this system only works for videos that are similar–so it won’t do anyone any good if it is someone different telling the jokes or doing a funny scene. It just catches people who re-upload someone else’s videos.

YouTube itself has plagiarism rules, but they tend to focus more on the “big” companies or figures. For instance, reposted videos from Jimmy Kimmel’s “Celebrities Read Mean Tweets” series are more likely to be found and deleted than someone finding and re-posting a make-up tutorial from Gigi Gorgeous–even though she has well over a million followers. It all has to do with who brings in the most money, and that tends to be powerhouse comedians with television followings.

YouTubers, especially famous YouTubers like Jenna Marbles, Grace Helbig, Tyler Oakley, and Shane Dawson–have taken to doing “challenges” where they credit the original idea, but the question remains as to whether or not those will catch on.

So, can you steal comedy?

What exactly would the stealing of jokes entail? Since we are all living in the same world, it is important to note that the best jokes are often rooted in current events. This means that many jokes will have similar tones or topics, but the punchlines will be different. Take a look at this video of the late night hosts making similar jokes about ObamaCare.

Each one has a similar topic and each one has similar points–but they all tell the jokes a little bit differently with unique styles and takes on the topic.

Famous comedians, including Patton Oswalt, have admitted that sometimes jokes can be similar, even if someone has never heard the joke before. He also says that sometimes the joke slips out without thinking, saying: “Sometimes someone else’s joke sneaks into one’s brain without attribution, leading to an accidental instance of punch-line thievery. But the correct thing to do in that case is apologize and not do it again.” In fact, some of our most famous comedians have “stolen.” Milton Berle is a classic comedian, and even he has admitted to borrowing a joke or two.

But what is it that makes a joke original and someone’s property in the first place? That’s another problem that comedians have to identify and contend with. For example, “SNL” was recently accused of ripping off a “tiny hats” sketch. The two sketches in question here actually aren’t that similar, save for the fact that characters in them wear tiny hats as part of the punchline. Tim and Eric, the comedians doing the accusing, essentially claimed ownership over the comedic idea of tiny hats–but how could someone determine if that’s true? There’s no easy answer to these kind of controversies, or any real body of law to help comedians make these judgments.

Case Study: Carlos Mencia

One of the most reviled comedians of the last few years is Carlos Mencia, who was confronted at one of his shows for stealing jokes. A video of the confrontation is found here. It contains graphic language, and most likely is not appropriate for work, but shows the argument between the comedian and his accuser.

Mencia has been accused of stealing jokes from George Lopez, Ari Shaffir, and Bobby Lee. One of his more famous accused thefts comes from Bill Cosby.

Though there was really nothing that any of the comedians could do about the theft, Mencia still felt the repercussions after the accusations. His fanbase shrank and a comedian who once had a bright career now struggles to pick up the pieces.

But Mencia is just one example of comedians who have been accused of stealing jokes. “South Park”  came under fire over an “Inception” joke that was already written for College Humor. Future “Daily Show” host Trevor Noah was accused of stealing jokes from Russell Peters. In another instance, Howie Mandel was accused of stealing a  joke from an “America’s Got Talent” hopeful.

Conclusion

So is there a reason to create laws around jokes and the rights of comedians? The United Kingdom already has some select laws, including one that says that any joke that is recorded is the sole property of that person. In an age where almost everything is recorded, we might be getting there worldwide. Until then, it is up to comedians to hold him or themselves accountable for the material they deliver–it ought to come straight from them and their own mind. While the laws may not quite be there yet, public reception is still something for comedians to worry about.

 Resources

Independent: Plagiarism is No Laughing Matter For Comedians

Time: Patton Oswalt on the Unsavory Business of Joke Theft

Center for Journalism Ethics: Comedian Daniel Tosh Calls Out ESPN For Plagiarism… With a Bit of His Own

Comedy Clinic: BUSTED! Comedian Caught Stealing Another Comic’s Material During ‘America’s Got Talent’ Taping?

Cracked: Six Ways to Not Suck at Stand-Up Comedy

Mediaite: Comedian Russell Peters Claims Trevor Noah Steals Jokes: ‘You Don’t Borrow in This Business’

Mental Floss: Stop Me if You’ve Heard This Before: A Look at Comedy Plagiarism

Plagiarism Today: YouTube’s Copyright Problem

Plagiarism Today: The Copyright Frustrations of a YouTuber

Slate: For Sale: Milton Berle’s Complete Joke Files

Split Sider: Is There Ever a Justification for Joke Stealing?

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Already Heard That One? Problems in Comedy Plagiarism appeared first on Law Street.

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) and the Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) are staples of American society that have each been around for more than 100 years. Although they are separate organizations, as each has its own congressional charter and upholds its own membership rules, they both promote leadership and civic duty. It is inarguable that the two organizations instill many important values in their young troops; however, they have had radically different approaches to modernization, particularly when it comes to LGBT acceptance. While the Girl Scouts accept girls and women of all different backgrounds, the Boy Scouts still discriminate against gay adult leadership. Read on to learn how and why the BSA and GSUSA have gone down such divergent paths.

 Who are the Boy Scouts of America?

The BSA was established in 1910 and it has four fundamental groups: Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Varsity Scouting, and Venturing. There are more than 2.6 million youth members and over one million volunteers involved in BSA. Boy Scouts aim to earn merit badges, awards given by demonstrating mastery of a skill or field of study, including camping, citizenship in the community, and first aid.

• Mission Statement: “The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law.”
• Scout Oath: “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”
• Scout Law: “A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”

BSA Stance on Homosexuality

The BSA affirmed its position against admitting gay scouts and leadership in 1991. The release included the following statement:

We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts. Because of these beliefs, the Boy Scouts of America does.

In 2007, the BSA confirmed, “we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals,” although the organization claimed to not actively seek out a person’s sexual orientation.

Opposition to Those Policies

In 2012, Merck & Co pulled funding because of the BSA discrimination policy. The prior year, Merck had donated $30,000 to BSA. Other companies that followed suit included Intel, UPS, Ernst & Young, IBM, Levi Strauss & Co., J.P. Morgan, American Airlines, Medtronic, Portland General Gas and Electric, Hewlett Packard, Textron, Fleet Bank, CVS/Pharmacy Stores, and Carrier Corp.

Even President Obama advocated for the BSA to lift the ban.

In house, the BSA sent a survey to one million of its members regarding their position on gay members. The results said “overwhelming majorities of parents, teens and members of the Scouting community felt it would be unacceptable to deny an openly gay Scout an Eagle Scout Award solely because of his sexual orientation.”

Policy Change

At a meeting in Grapevine, Texas in 2013, the BSA voted 61-38 to overturn the standing rule regarding BSA youth. The ruling officially came into effect January 1, 2014 stating “no youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.” However, the ban was not lifted for scout volunteers and leaders over the age of 18. Lifting the ban for leadership was never under consideration.

Backlash From Both Sides

The ban lift resulted in a wave of criticism from both ends of the spectrum. In an interview with ABC, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention executive committee, Frank Page, stated, “I think I can say with pretty strong accuracy that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are very disappointed in the latest change in policy…deeply disappointed.”

The Southeast Christian Church, located in Louisville, Kentucky, publicized a move to sever ties with the Boy Scouts, forcing the BSA to lose approximately 300 families. The Assemblies of God, the world’s largest Pentecostal group, also withdrew support.

On the other hand, according to Rich Ferraro, a spokesman for the gay-rights watchdog group GLAAD, “Until every parent and young person have the same opportunity to serve, the Boy Scouts will continue to see a decline in both membership and donations.”

In accordance, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called the rule “incoherent,” claiming, “The proposal says, in essence, that homosexuality is morally acceptable until a boy turns 18 – then, when he comes of age, he’s removed from the Scouts.” He claims that it sends a message that gay adults are somehow inadequate to lead and mentor troops.

Disney also announced it would pull all funding from the BSA starting in 2015 because of the ban on gay leadership.

How is BSA not breaking anti-discrimination laws?

As a private, religious organization, the BSA is shielded from federal and state discrimination laws based on the freedoms of speech and association. They can legally exclude atheists, agnostics, and people in the LGBT community.

The American Civil Liberties Union is one organization that has ceaselessly attacked the BSA for this policy. For example, it was present in the 2000 Supreme Court case of The Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale. Dale, a former Assistant Scout Master, was kicked out of the BSA for his sexuality. In New Jersey, there is a law preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Dale’s favor, but the opinion was overturned a year later by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated in the majority opinion:

The Boy Scouts’ right to express their views against lesbians and gay men would be hampered if the organization was forced to admit openly gay people as leaders…lesbians and gay people, if they are honest about their sexual orientation, make a statement in their very existence, and groups like the Boy Scouts therefore have a right to exclude them.”

The ACLU called it a “damaging but limited” defeat as the “ruling is limited to groups that exist for the purpose of expressing views and ideas.” So, any nondiscriminatory progress the BSA has made or will make in the future will be made from within. Legally, its hand cannot be forced.

Leaders Kicked Out

Jennifer Tyrrell was a former den mother of her son’s Cub Scout chapter. In April 2012, she was told she could no longer hold her position due to sexual orientation. She had served in the position for over a year. When she was kicked out, she started her advocacy against the BSA to end its discrimination of the LGBT community and launched a petition, stating, “the Boy Scouts are once again forcing me to look my children in the eyes and tell them that our family isn’t good enough.”

In the following video, Tyrell talks about the BSA’s policy change and her petition.

Geoff McGrath, a former Scout leader from Seattle, Washington, is often considered one of the first leaders removed after the policy change. BSA stated they did not know about his sexual orientation when his chapter was approved, although McGrath reported that he never hid his gay identity or support of gay rights. In an interview with NBC News he stated, “They are complaining that the problem is a distraction to Scouting and they don’t seem to understand that the distraction is self-inflicted.” McGrath’s brother and nephew rode their bikes from the Northwest to Boy Scout headquarters in Texas in order to raise awareness of the policy.

Who are The Girl Scouts of the USA?

Juliette Gordon Low founded the Girl Scouts in Savannah, Georgia in March 1912. Currently, there are approximately 2.8 million Girl Scouts and volunteers affiliated with the organization. GSUSA aims to encourage healthy living opportunities, promote economic opportunities, foster global citizenship and a global voice, and support a strong nonprofit community and girl scout experience for girls. A core value and key component in GSUSA is diversity. It strives to reach girls from all different backgrounds.

GSUSA’s Position on Sexual Orientation

A GSUA document entitled Girl Scouts Beyond Bars, explains its policy.

Regarding sexual orientation, Girl Scouts of the USA holds fast to a commitment to embrace diversity and has in place a policy that prohibits discriminatory treatment of any kind, including on the basis of sexual orientation. This policy which applied to interactions with girls and adults, must be honored by every person working in the Girl Scout movement. Keep in mind that it is not appropriate to ask or assume what a girl’s sexual orientation is.

How has GSUSA supported the LGBT community?

GSUSA’s inclusion policy allows transgender children to be Girl Scouts. Girl Scouts of Colorado stated, “We accept all girls in kindergarten through 12th grade as members. If a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout.”

In 2007, GSUSA honored 18-year-old Girl Scout Madeline as a National Young Woman of Distinction for her project promoting awareness to the intolerance shown to the LGBT community. This is the highest award given by GSUSA.

GSUSA has featured additional resources on its website for Girl Scouts to research, such as the Global Fund for Women and Tolerance.org. Each of these sites provides information and supports LGBT initiatives.

At a 2011 Convention, GSUSA held a seminar called “Moving Beyond Diversity to Inclusion,” which discussed some LGBT issues. At this same convention, GSUSA honored Annise Parker, Houston’s first openly gay mayor, as a guest speaker.

LGBT Activists/Leaders of GSUSA

Unlike the BSA, GSUSA welcomes leaders who are members of the LGBT community. Debra Nakatomi, GSUSA Board Member, is an LGBT activist who provides training in advancing LGBT rights. Lynn Cothren, former GSUSA Director of Administration from 2005-12, is a gay-rights advocate, speaker, and former board member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Timothy Higdon, former GSUSA Chief of External Affairs from 2010-12, is an LGBT activist, employee of Amnesty International, and a leader in the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Conclusion

Whether the BSA’s lifted ban on gay membership will ultimately extend to adults is up in the air. Hopefully, its first step toward tolerance will not be its last as there are more hurdles to overcome. There are ramifications for the BSA only lifting its ban on youth members, as many worry that the message sent is that gay leaders are somehow inadequate. The policy also tells Scout youth that being an openly gay adult is unacceptable. Critics of the policy are concerned that a gay scout who has upheld the Boy Scout code during his entire career is stripped of his titles when he reaches 18, and condemn the policy as unfair. However, many see  the Girl Scouts of the USA as trailblazers who exemplify the civil freedoms America represents. Two similar organizations have ended up on significantly different paths–while modernization is always a slow process, it seems as though GSUSA will end up on the right side of history.

Resources

Primary

Boy Scouts of America: About the BSA

Boy Scouts of America: Current Policy

Girl Scouts: Who We Are

Girl Scouts: America’s Top Girl Scouts Named 2007 National Young Women of Distinction

Additional

100 Question for Girl Scouts: The Girl Scouts and the LGBT Agenda

ABCNews: Some Churches Say They’ll Cut Ties to Boy Scouts Following Its Lifting Ban on Gay Scouts

ACLU: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling That Boy Scouts Can Discriminate is Damaging but Limited

CNN: Disney to Pull Boy Scouts Funding by 2015 Over Policy Banning Gay Leaders

DiversityInc: Merck Condemns Boy Scout Gay Ban, Halts Funding

FoxNews: Transgender Girl Scout Controversy Sheds Light on Organization’s ‘Inclusive’ Policies

GLAAD: Boy Scouts of America: Reinstate Cub Scout Leader Who Was Removed For Being Gay

Huffington Post: Geoff McGrath, Gay Boy Scout Troop Leader, Allegedly Kicked Out of Organization

Scout and Pride: BSA and Homosexuality

WNDMoney: Look Which Companies Dumping Boy Scouts

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts Take Different Paths to LGBT Inclusion appeared first on Law Street.

We live in a world where fan communities–fandoms–are becoming increasingly popular. Fandoms fixate on a particular television show, band, movie, musical, anime, or other pop culture subject. Creation of content based on these fandoms has also become ubiquitous. People of all ages gather together on any number of fanfiction websites, ranging from social media sites that post stories and art, like Tumblr and Live Journal, to websites designed for fanfiction, like Fanfiction.net and Archive of Our Own. Some fandoms have even developed websites devoted entirely to fanfiction for a particular couple or desired couple, known to many as a “ship.”

When using characters and worlds created by other people, however, there are quite a few potential copyright issues. Fan creations have become so popular that some fandoms are even branching out and making money from their fanfiction and fan art roots. Yet getting the “rights” to your own work is a nightmare when you’ve used a couple from your favorite television show. Though some fandoms have successfully made the switch from unoriginal characters to new creations, many struggle with it.

Fanfiction and fan art are always going to be a part of fandom communities because they bring people together in a way so few things really can. These fandoms have created large communities all over the internet. “Harry Potter,” for instance, is still hugely popular in the fanfiction world, even though J. K. Rowling and Warner Brothers have successfully fought against fan creations.

What exactly are your rights when you take to your computer and write or draw that missing scene from “Once Upon a Time?”

The Official Word

According to a University of San Francisco law blog, fanfiction “can be considered a copyright violation under the Copyright Act of 1976, ” because the holder of the copyright has the right to distribute any derivative works based on an original creation. This often includes sequels, prequels, and art work.

One of the most famous cases of a fan-fiction author is that of J. D. California who penned a sequel to J. D. Salinger’s “Catcher in the Rye” and called it “60 Years Later: Coming through the Rye.” During this case, it was found that characters were granted copyright protection–in this case, Holden Caulfield, an iconic character in Salinger’s novel.

Many would argue that fair use may actually protect fan creations like artwork and stories from being copyright infringement, but many authors have still successfully fought that claim. Legal challenges tend to come more from book authors than movie or television show creators for pretty pragmatic reasons–fandoms often boost the number of viewers for television shows.

So why are so many publishers now actively looking for fan-fiction authors? In part because these stories are sometimes better or more successful than the canonical source material. One cannot ignore the success of recent fanfiction-based novels like “50 Shades of Grey.” Rebecca E. Hoffman for Bloomberg describes how “50 Shades” got around the fan-fiction ties:

But before they became ‘real’ books, they were a Twilight fan fiction series called ‘Master of the Universe.’ ‘MotU’ appeared on fanfiction.net and–with Twilight references removed and character names changed–was later published as three e-books by an Australian company that specializes in fan fiction publishing. Vintage Books, a subdivision of Random House, which ultimately published the Fifty Shades trilogy, maintains that the material is original and no longer based on ‘Twilight.’

According to a Washington Post interview with Jennifer Bersgtrom, Vice President and Publisher of Gallery Books, fanfiction is simply becoming a way to recruit talented authors. She stated, “fanfiction has absolutely become part of the fiber of what we publish. This is changing at a time when traditional publishing needs it most.”

Most fanfiction is safe if it doesn’t criticize or parody the works in question. Even so, the Internet and Intellectual Policy Clinic at the University of San Francisco points out that the only way a person would get in trouble is if the person who holds the copyright ever sees the work:

It is clear though that the law surrounding fanfiction is highly dependent on the copyright owner actually enforcing their rights and prosecuting offenders of their copyright. In cases such as J.K. Rowling in which she is choosing particular pieces of work to prosecute while letting other works that violate her copyright be published, the law clearly sides with her.

The Legal Dos and Don’ts of Fanfiction

The Don’ts

The biggest rule you need to know to avoid getting into copyright hot water is to determine who exactly owns what you are writing about. Some authors simply do not like fanfiction and are very open about that fact. Vulture says that “some authors–George R.R. Martin, Anne Rice, and Diana Gabaldon, author of the Outlander series, among them–protest [fanfiction’s] appropriation of their creations and ask fans to refrain from writing it.” They mostly target websites based on the stories, but have targeted large forums as well.

Some fanfiction creators also have some problems in that they don’t know where to draw the line. Typically there are concerns about RPF or Real Person Fanfiction. Celebrities like Chris Colfer of “Glee” and Taylor Swift have said that they find fanfiction and fan art uncomfortable, especially when it is explicit in nature. Swift has even gone so far as to get fan creations taken off of Etsy, though that may be more of a business decision.

Read More: Taylor Swift vs. Etsy Vendors: Singer Trademarks Song Phrases

It isn’t always easy, however, as every writer, designer, and artist has the right to make the choice for themselves where they want the line drawn and whether or not to take legal action. It is then up to the forum and fandom at large to enforce that line as they see fit, an important thing to remember when dealing with fanfiction and fan art.

Nonetheless, as Hugh Howey told Desert News National: “Just as there have been independent filmmakers [who] enrich the film industry, there are and will be independent authors who experiment and write groundbreaking works.”

The Dos

If you truly love a fictional couple, a storyline, or a show, you might still want to write fanfiction or create fan art, and there is truly nothing wrong with that. However, you should take note of a few rules to keep yourself out of the limelight and out of trouble.

1. Follow the rules of the online forum: Most forums that post fanfiction and/or fanart have been around for a long time for a reason: they know how to skirt the line. Look at the rules and FAQs of a website before you upload your latest “Shameless” story.
2. When in doubt, go for public domain: The Daily Beast points out that there is a lot of Jane Austen fanfiction. Why? Her works are all part of the public domain, meaning you can use the characters however you see fit. According to Teaching Copyright, public domain occurs “70 years after the death of author, or, for corporate works, anonymous works, or works for hire, 95 years from the date of publication or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever expires first.” If you are using something a little more modern, use a disclaimer, meaning make sure that you state clearly that you don’t “own” whatever you are writing about.
3. Take it down if you need to: Online musical theater troupe Team StarKid famously took down A Very Potter Musical when they feared that Warner Brothers would sue them. They re-posted the material after some severe edits and a disclaimer on the video–and then went on to make two more and were invited to the screening of the final movie. Most creators or agents will start with a mailing or a polite request, and you should probably grant it.

4. Don’t make money from it: This might seem like a no-brainer, but do not make money from your work if it’s based on someone else’s creations. Don’t sell your art or stories, do not get sponsors, and don’t use advertisements. You are saving yourself a load of potential headaches from the people who own the content.

Conclusion

In the end, the best thing to remember about fanfiction, fan art, and anything derived in any other universe is this: it is typically an infringement of the copyright holder. With that said, it is usually done with the best of intentions by fans and it often continues and strengthens the importance of the story being told.

When creating within a fandom, use your head to make decisions about what is appropriate and what isn’t appropriate and you likely won’t find yourself in trouble. It’s also important to note that if you are creative enough to take pre-existing characters and create new stories, you are probably creative enough to make your own original characters.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Copyright Office: Duration of Copyright

Additional

Bloomberg BNA: It’s Never Black or White: Is Fanfiction Fair Use?

Desert News National: With Fanfiction, is Publishing Following in Hollywood’s Unoriginal Footsteps?

Teaching Copyright:  Public Domain Frequently Asked Questions

Washington Post: From ‘Fifty Shades’ to ‘After’: Why publishers Want Fanfiction to Go Mainstream

University of San Francisco Law Blog: Fanfiction and Copyright Law

Vulture: Fanfiction Guide

CNN: Lawsuit Targets ‘Rip-Off’ of ‘Catcher in the Rye’

Daily Beast: Why Fanfiction is the Future of Publishing

Geeky News: Unauthorized Starkid Production Brings Wrath

The New York Times: Rowling Wins Lawsuit Against Potter Lexicon

Fox News: How Harry Potter Superfans Won a Battle for Fair-trade Chocolate

People: Fifty Shades of Grey and Nine More Examples of When Fanfiction Became Blockbusters

USA Today: Must-Read Fanfiction From ‘Doctor Who,’ ‘Star Trek,’ ‘Farscape’

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Re-Writing the Classics: What Are Your Fanfiction Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

From the time we are in elementary school, we are told that copying from someone else’s paper is wrong. As we get a little older, we are given other names for this copying: plagiarism and intellectual property theft. Often, even those who believe that intellectual property laws are a threat to creativity and equitable access to knowledge recognize that even if something is not illegal, it is better form to give credit where credit is due. But a new question has popped up recently: does this logic apply to culture, as well? Some say yes and call it cultural appropriation. But what exactly is cultural appropriation, and when do we cross the line between appropriation and appreciation?

 What is cultural appropriation?

Cultural appropriation is often defined as being similar to intellectual property theft, but with more overt and culturally offensive aspects.

Cultural appropriation is the adoption or theft of icons, rituals, aesthetic standards, and behavior from one culture or subculture by another. It generally is applied when the subject culture is a minority culture or some how subordinate in social, political, economic, or military status to the appropriating culture. This ‘appropriation’ often occurs without any real understanding of why the original culture took part in these activities or the meanings behind these activities, often converting culturally significant artifacts,practices, and beliefs into ‘meaningless’ pop-culture or giving them a significance that is completely different/less nuanced than they would originally have had.

Viewed as a direct continuation of imperialist violence–which assumes that the land, labor, and bodies of people of color are available for white consumption–cultural appropriation “treats all aspects of marginalized cultures… as free for the taking.”

Conversations about the controversy also often come up when discussing music, such as this interview with Azealia Banks over white artists’ cultural appropriation.

But can you really steal a culture?

On the flip side of things, some people believe that accusations of cultural appropriation need to be wielded much more carefully. Arguing that “you can’t ‘steal’ a culture,” American political commentator and linguist John McWhorter asserts that, “with gay white men and black women, for example, it’s not as if the black women are being left without their culture after the ‘theft’ or as if gay white men are somehow out there ‘out-blacking’ the women they ‘stole’ from.” (This refers to white gay men who affect speaking patterns and mannerisms that are often more readily culturally associated with black women.) McWhorter warns that people accusing others of “stealing” culture through appropriation are using the very specific term too loosely. He argues that the loosening of our language allows flippant accusations to be made when more serious issues can be dealt with.

Additionally, accusations of cultural appropriation often generate assumptions about the race, ethnicity, religion, or sexuality of the people involved. This is alluded to by Howell in the video above, which he starts by cautioning viewers not to pre-judge what he says by the color of his skin. He goes on to argue that it is a compliment to people of color (specifically, he is talking about black people) when white people want to engage in aspects of black culture that they find attractive and fun. Reminding his viewers that it is not “wrong” or “low-class” to be black or to perform blackness through dress or actions, Howell argues that cultural appropriation is not actually appropriation at all, but rather a form of a compliment that has the potential to dismantle racist and/or classist assumptions about black people.

In a similar vein, it is often argued that accusing someone of appropriating another culture can force unwanted assumptions onto people. These incorrect assumptions happened to a bride named Krista, who was accused online of cultural appropriation for pictures of her wedding that were posted online. The wedding integrated aspects of Lenape culture, a Mid-Atlantic Native American tribe. Krista, however, reminded online discussants that she has a Lenape background, even though people assumed she was white based on her features and the color of her skin.

Appreciation or Appropriation?

Here are some examples of widely-talked about accusations of cultural appropriation in recent pop culture.

Case Study: Miley Cyrus

Accused by many as putting on a tremendously racist “minstrel show” in her “We Can’t Stop” video and its performance at the 2013 VMAs, Miley Cyrus has been resoundingly condemned by Anne Theriault for having “used black women as props — like, literal props... Miley was, at one point, slapping a faceless black woman on the ass as if she was nothing more than a thing for Miley to dominate and humiliate.” Critics also noted the historical significance of Cyrus’ performance; like so many other white performers before her, Cyrus used black culture and black bodies to re-brand her own image. Her unapologetic use of black women’s bodies to make herself look “cooler” was described by Jody Rosen of Vulture: “Cyrus is annexing working-class black “ratchet” culture, the potent sexual symbolism of black female bodies, to the cause of her reinvention: her transformation from squeaky-clean Disney-pop poster girl to grown-up hipster-provocateur.”

Following Cyrus’ performance there were powerful calls for black female performers to “just say no” to requests to be in her videos or shows in the future. Musician Big Freedia made sure Cyrus knew she wasn’t even succeeding at her attempts to twerk, sardonically offering, “just get me and Miley together so I could give her ass some lessons.”

In the midst of these accusations of Cyrus’ cultural appropriation, however, there were calls to “go easy” on the performer. In the rush to defend Cyrus, Washington Post columnist Clinton Yates asserted that, “it is inherently racist to imply that there is anything wrong with anyone other than black women twerking.” Arguing that the term “hood” connotes affection when said by white people today, McWhorter had a series of questions for those calling Cyrus out on racism. He wanted to know, “How do we know Cyrus isn’t sincere when she says she loves “hood” culture? Because she’s white? I’m afraid that’s a little 1955.”

Entering the realm of accusations of “reverse racism,” these writers argued that cultures are inherently going to borrow from each other whenever they coexist in society. Restraining white people from borrowing from people of color is unfair if the expectation is that it is not culturally appropriate for people of color to adapt aspects of white culture.

Case Study: #BlackLivesMatter

In the wake of the highly publicized and protested murders of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner, the slogans “I am Trayvon Martin” and “I Can’t Breathe” rose to the fore of social justice forums. White people were frequently seen in hoodies claiming to “be” Trayvon Martin, and–as seen above–white people were frequently seen claiming to not be able to breathe. Here, the violent potential of cultural appropriation became explicitly clear to some. White users of the hashtag #AllLivesMatter, or asserting that “I am Trayvon Martin” or “We Can’t Breathe” were accused of cultural appropriation because they were attempting to take the experiences of black people as their own. In doing so, they erased the racist dimensions of police violence by “deracializing” the issue, making it about “All Lives” instead of “Black [and Brown] Lives.”

According to critics, by claiming false solidarity–and thus appropriating the cultural experiences of black people–with the deaths of these and other black people at the hands of police, white people were shifting the focus from #BlackLivesMatter to #AllLivesMatter. These hashtags have been used to refer to two related social movements. #BlackLivesMatter refers to activism attempting to call attention to police violence against black people. #AllLivesMatter refers to activism that states that while police violence against people of color is a problem, it is damaging to focus on race in discussions of police violence. In doing so, people using the hashtag #AllLivesMatter claimed that we live in a colorblind society, which threatens to erase the fundamental violence of racism.

However, the #AllLivesMatter hashtag and protests were largely framed as a response to the shooting of two police officers in New York City. These activists pointed out that in addition to black lives mattering, as Raleigh Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown stated, “I must say that blue lives do matter. But as I close, I must say that we as a community must begin to recognize that all lives matter.” Basing their rhetoric off of an impulse to ensure that people didn’t feel threatened by, but rather welcomed to join in solidarity with protests surrounding the violent deaths of young people, #AllLivesMatter advocates have decided that it is more important to embrace a less specifically racial call in favor of avoiding any accusations of divisiveness.

ALL LIVES MATTER! United We Stand! Divided We Fall.. Let's Get it together! #AllLivesMatter… http://t.co/uJmI7h8bG0

— Destined (@theatreprince) December 14, 2014

So, is cultural appropriation ever appropriate?

In a scathing critique of Cyrus’ performances as cultural appropriation, Dodai Stewart cautioned readers, “Let’s not get it twisted: The exchange and flow of ideas between cultures can be a beautiful thing. I believe in cross-pollination and being inspired by those whose experience is not like your own.” There’s obviously no clear line here. Perhaps the key is constantly checking in on the impacts of actions, all the while drawing and abiding by distinctions between admiration and exotification, inspiration, and appropriation.

Resources

Zine Library: Cultural Appropriation or Cultural Appreciation?

Hot97: Azaelia Banks on Iggy Azalea

Daily Beast: You Can’t ‘Steal’ a Culture: In Defense of Cultural Appropriation

OffBeatEmpire: Think Twice Before Appointing Yourself Cultural Appropriation Police

Colorlines: On Saying No to Miley Cyrus, the Habitual Cross-Twerker

Huffington Post: What Miley Cyrus did was Disgusting — But Not for the Reasons You Think

Washington Post: Miley Cyrus and the Issues of Slut-Shaming and Racial Condescension

New Republic: Miley’s Twerking wasn’t Racist

Jezebel: Yes, All Lives Matter. Now Shut Up About It

Georgia Political Review: ‘I Am Not Trayvon Martin’: Dismantling White Privilege in Activism

CBS Los Angeles: Things Heat Up as Pro-Police Demonstrators Hold ‘All Lives Matter’ Rally

WRAL: Raleigh Police Chief: Black, Blue, All Lives Matter

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cultural Appropriation: What’s Appropriate? appeared first on Law Street.

We have all seen them, whether we are sitting in a doctor’s office in the middle of the day, home sick during the week, or just because they’re kind of fun. Either way, court shows like “Judge Judy” and “Judge Joe Brown” seem to have captured the world’s attention. Recently, Judith Sheindlin–Judge Judy–signed on for her eighteenth season of the show, earning herself $47 million a season for what is famously known as just “52 days of work a year.”

Judge Judy, and all of the others–Brown, Lane, Mathis, Hatchett, Alex, Rinder, etc.–are all practicing lawyers. Most were retired or on the way to retirement when they were discovered by a television producer. But that still begs the question: how exactly do TV courts work, what are their legal implications, and are they at all real?

 What are Court TV shows?

Court television shows are usually on in the middle of the day, often right when people are getting home from work and starting to cook dinner. The topics usually aren’t heavy things like murder, drugs, or assault cases. Instead they consider lighter issues like rent problems, car damages, or theft. Judges tend to be funny and lash out with zingers toward the people involved in the case. It is all about entertainment, not a real legal process.

However, the shows are among the highest watched for their time slot, which means that if one judge isn’t connecting with the audience, another one is right in line to take that spot.

Infographic courtesy of Online Paralegal Programs.

 How do you end up on TV court?

Getting onto a court show is actually one of the smartest things a person can do, even if he ends up being portrayed as the “villain” in the narrative. Why? Participants all stand to make money.

In general, most of the cases that end up going on to TV shows are cases that would otherwise be heard in small-claims court. According to FindLaw, there’s only a certain amount of money litigants can receive. For example, individuals who appear on “Judge Judy” would be able to receive a maximum of $5,000. It’s safe to assume that the rest of the shows have relatively similar limits.

According to FindLaw, regardless of the outcomes on any of the shows that play nationally, there are benefits to both parties in the case. The shows actually pay for the arbitration awards, which may be why people don’t always seem to be too worked up at the end in the cool down interviews. They also pay for the litigants’ airfare and hotel expenses.

In other cases, there have been situations where producers have found people who were popular or characters already and they have actually been courted into doing the show. For example, local Cleveland celebrity Colin Dussault was asked to be part of a newer judge show called “Hot Bench.”

A Hollywood producer contacted Dussault after “field researchers” came across his small-claims lawsuit against his sister, which he filed in Lakewood Municipal Court in January. In a nutshell, they’ve got issues with who should pay the ongoing bills for a double they inherited and both live in. (Double Trouble?)

In addition to prompt payment of any settlement, the producer promised, Dussault would get an additional “guaranteed minimum payment” just for being on the show!

 What happens on a TV court show?

Court shows like Judge Judy aren’t actually court cases, but instead they are an arbitration process, which is a way to resolve disputes without actually going to court. An arbitrator, always some sort of neutral party, hears a case and makes a binding decision. It’s less formal than a court case, but it does require training

The shows are all filmed at studios in Los Angeles near many different studios that also happen to film television shows. In fact, “Judge Judy” is filmed right next to “Judge Joe Brown.” In order to ensure a full audience, the producers of all of the shows will hire extras who comprise the entire gallery and who sign waivers to stop the disclosure of any details. However, they also take visitors who are willing to sign similar forms.

What happens after the show?

As a general rule, arbitration awards cannot be appealed. But there have been a few cases in which, according to The New York Times,  TV judge rulings have been overturned through other court systems. This can be because the artbitration didn’t cover everything necessary or if the case was found to be beyond the scope of arbitration.

According to FindLaw:

For example, a New York family court in 1999 overruled part of a “Judge Judy” decision because it went beyond the scope of the arbitration, the New York Law Journal reports. The parties in that case had agreed to arbitrate a dispute over personal property — but Judge Judy’s ruling also granted child custody and visitation rights.

In 2000, Judge Judy had one of her decisions overturned…In the case B.M. v. D.L., the parties appeared in front of Sheindlin to solve a personal property dispute. Sheindlin ruled on that dispute, but also made a decision on the parties’ child custody and visitation rights. One of the parties appealed in court, and the family court overturned the custody and visitation part of the decision because they weren’t covered by the agreement to arbitrate.

Ethical Concerns

For people who have never really been in a court room, it can seem like there aren’t really any ethics that exist when it comes to television court. For one, there are no lawyers even present on the television shows. There are problems, of course, with the editing and the way people are portrayed by the producers of the show.

Recently a committee was formed to discuss the problems with court television shows and the impact they have on the lives of those who appear–often people who are young and trying to avoid paying costs that they can’t afford. The committee, comprised of retired judges, said:

In this modern media culture once the taping is done and it is released into the public domain it is there forever and can come up from time to time during this defendant’s entire life. It could be used against this person in a personal, political, economic or social situation to his or her extreme detriment. Your recitations that the videos in your court are a number one rated show broadcasted to 200,000 households in three counties speak volumes in this regard. How might it appear to a defendant that he or she must be asked by the judge to waive any objection to appear on television? Would they be intimidated by the question knowing that the judge encourages this production?

These cases are often straight forward, but played up for laughs, drama, and a clear-cut decision. There have been many questions about the fates of people who end up on reality shows, and that is a question that exists with the “reality” of court shows as well.

Conclusion

So yes, the decisions on TV court shows are a reality–someone has to pay (usually the show) and someone is in trouble (usually younger-skewing teens or adults who can’t afford much else). You’re getting, in essence, a half-truth of what the court process is actually like.

One final word of caution to anyone who found this on a search: Appearing on a TV court show like “Judge Judy” involves signing off on a lot of legal fine print. You may want to consult an attorney to make sure your rights are protected before you pursue your 15 minutes of fame.

 Resources

Futon Critic: Ethics Panel Rips TV Drug Court

Mental Floss: What Legal Authority Does Judge Judy Have?

Cleveland.com: Playing Hard to Get When Courted by Reality TV Court Show

Fact: Judge Judy Overruled by Judge Jeffrey

Futon Critic: Judge Judy Sheindlin, Host of Syndication’s #1 Rated Show “Judge Judy,” Signs Multiyear Deal Through 2020

Frugal Confessions: It Pays to Have Your Small Claims Case on a Court Television Show

Washington Post: The Lasting Appeal of TV’s Top Woman: Judge Judy

Vice: These Guys Made Up a Fake Case to Get on ‘Judge Judy’

Editor’s Note: This post has been revised to credit select information to FindLaw. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Verdict? The Truth Behind TV Court Shows appeared first on Law Street.

Today music streaming sites like Spotify seem ubiquitous, but the truth is that they’re fairly recent innovations. As much as consumers appreciate streaming sites, they’re not always as beloved by artists and their collaborators. Read on to learn about music streaming sites, their history, and the legal foundation behind the popular products.

Where did streaming sites come from?

Since the mid-1990s and the era of Napster, the relationship between music and the internet has been rocky. Before most homes in America had a Wi-Fi connection, the only way to get a copy of a song or album was to go to a store and purchase a CD or cassette tape, or go through the painstaking process of recording the song off of the radio. As soon as more and more homes started getting access to the internet fans realized that sharing music with others could be an easy and cheap way to listen. File sharing networks were a dime a dozen, and anytime you wanted a song or an album, you could download the songs and burn them onto a recordable CD.

This obviously meant that many musicians, songwriters, and rightsholders lost money at an alarming rate, and record companies saw a decline in sales, profits, and even advertising. The response was abrupt: lawsuits against file sharers, program developers, and those who downloaded the songs. Lawsuits ranged anywhere from a few dollars and cents to millions of dollars. Of course, that led to bad PR from the general public and made people share music even more while being even sneakier about it. Eventually, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) stopped filing lawsuits and instead turned to internet service providers to monitor illegal usage.

All seemed to be going better, for at least a short time; however, streaming music came to the forefront of the industry and everyone started to get their music for free from websites like Pandora, then Gooveshark, Rdio, YouTube, and Spotify.

Streaming music sites are paid services–or sometimes free, as long as you’re okay with waiting through ads–that enable you to stream music. With Spotify, for example, you start the program, suggest your favorite artist or song, and then you listen to artists and songs that are similar. On some services, you can mix genres, so you can listen to the Broadcast Cast, Nicki Minaj, and Mozart combination radio station, if you really want. Every time someone listens to a song or an album, the artist gets paid by Spotify.

Musicians used to make money in a fairly simple model based off of album sales through record stores and online. It was convoluted at times, due to percentages and contracts, but at its core it was like any other retail endeavor–producers were paid for their product. Today, however, artists make money on everything from iTunes downloads to on-demand streaming to YouTube videos. Unfortunately, many of these methods generate little-to-no money for the actual artists.

Now these services have a responsibility to the artists and those working on the songs. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) has just granted Spotify a license to stream more than 8.5 million musical works. Cloud-based music services, which Amazon, Google, and Apple have recently introduced, allow users to store music online and play back the music on any device.

In addition, there are fights among the bigger names in music. Entertainment giants like Disney have fought to extend copyright protection on some of their most popular and lucrative pieces of intellectual property, and musicians and songwriters would certainly love to have a longer period to milk royalties out of their creations before the tunes hit the public domain. With Disney leading the way, we might just see some big reforms on the horizon.

So, how do artists make money off streaming?

There are a few different ways musicians make money. If listeners don’t pay for their subscriptions, they get money from the ads that play every few songs. That revenue goes to the streaming site, which then pays the artists their share. Some users get annoyed with the ads, so then they purchase a premium subscription. According to Spotify, this means that the average user now spends $9.99 a month instead of the $5 a month they would spend without it. This chart from Spotify shows the relationship between money earned and music sales in the digital and physical formats. Spotify says that it “pay(s) out nearly 70 percent of (its) total revenue to rights holders.“

Artists no longer make money from the sale of albums or singles, but rather the play of songs. Many people think that this is making artists “up their game” and make albums with better songs, while many artists view it as not being paid for their art. Here is the official description of how they figure out what “per stream” means, right from Spotify’s website:

An artist’s royalty payments depend on the following variables, among others:

• In which country people are streaming an artist’s music

• Spotify’s # of paid users as a % of total users; higher % paid, higher “per stream” rate

• Relative premium pricing and currency value in different countries

• An artist’s royalty rate

Recently, these variables have led to an average “per stream” payout to rights holders of between $0.006 and $0.0084. This combines activity across our tiers of service. The effective average “per stream” payout generated by our Premium subscribers is considerably higher.

So while artists do get compensated when a streaming site uses their work, it’s not as dependable or as lucrative as brick-and-mortar album sales used to be.

Current Debates

When Spotify streams music, it of course takes a cut so that it can stay in business and pay employees. Everyone is happy, right?

Not so fast. It still doesn’t stop illegal download of music, nor does it stop people from piling on the same account, much like people do with Netflix. There has also been some backlash from the musicians themselves. The most notable is Taylor Swift, who refuses to let her album 1989 be played on the service, but also includes Garth Brooks, The Black Keys, AC/DC, The Beatles, and Led Zeppelin. Bette Midler, in particular, is against the services, with Billboard claiming she gets “microscopic micropayment of .00002733076 cents per track.”

Courtesy of Bette Midler/Twitter.

Pandora responded to the Billboard story, saying:

We love Bette’s music and certainly respect her advocacy for fair compensation for artists. But we must clarify an important fact: Pandora paid more than $6,400 for those 4+ million plays, based on our 2014 rates which are published publicly. In terms of compensation to the creative community Pandora remains by far the highest paying form of radio. Pandora pays songwriters a greater percentage of revenue than terrestrial radio. And Pandora paid 48% of our revenue in performance royalties to rights-holders in 2013 – more than $300 million – while terrestrial radio was required to pay nothing.

Of course, Bette Midler probably has enough money to last her, as do many of the other artists mentioned above, but what about artists who do not have as much commercial success? They may not be able to get by on such low payments.

Taylor Swift wrote an Op-Ed on the matter and defended her opinion to Time, saying to those who criticized her choice:

Well, they can still listen to my music if they get it on iTunes. I’m always up for trying something. And I tried it and I didn’t like the way it felt. I think there should be an inherent value placed on art. I didn’t see that happening, perception-wise, when I put my music on Spotify. Everybody’s complaining about how music sales are shrinking, but nobody’s changing the way they’re doing things. They keep running towards streaming, which is, for the most part, what has been shrinking the numbers of paid album sales.

Some musicians are defending the services, however. Bono recently said:

I see streaming services as quite exciting ways to get to people. In the end, that’s what we want for U2 songs. The real enemy is not between digital downloads or streaming. The real enemy, the real fight is between opacity and transparency. The music business has historically involved itself in quite considerable deceit.

Essentially, artists want a fair price for their music. But in a world where almost no one pays full “iTunes” prices for their music, is it worth it for those celebrities to take a stand? As long as there are only a few artists standing against streaming services, it will probably be a losing battle.

Trickle Down Effect?

Swift also defends her choice because she sees her music as an “art.” This begs the question, if the stars are complaining about what they get, what does that mean for everyone else? Alex Anders, a music producer and engineer who has worked with many artists, including the cast of Glee (which charts multiple songs on iTunes and Spotify when the show is in season), had this to say:

@NoelDiem It is the songwriters, engineers, producers, and studios, etc that are paying the price with their livelihood. They can’t tour!

— Alex Anders (@alxanders) January 14, 2015

So who is missing out on money when it comes to streaming? Those who fall into the “other” category, and they have to share a small piece of the puzzle. The Songwriter writes the actual melody and lyrics of the song; the Publisher pays for the music to be recorded; and the Engineer sets up and mixes the music.

The move away from a traditional model of selling music means that these people are sometimes cut out of the equation, or don’t receive as much money as they used to. Can this problem be solved with a restructuring of the music business? Maybe. But it will take artists working together with record labels, streaming services, and internet providers to make a real change.

Conclusion

Streaming music is still in its relative infancy, so it has the potential to improve for everyone in the equation. There have already been many changes in just the last few years. Apple is still in its first year of streaming, and more and more artists are paying attention to cash flow. Is it perfect yet? Hardly. Not by a long shot. But it is a much better alternative than the era of pirated music and zero artist compensation.

Sources

 Primary

Spotify: Spotify for Artists 

Pandora: Artist Support

Additional

Billboard: Bette Midler Disparages Pandora, Spotify Over Artist Compensation

Independent: Music Streaming: The End for iPods?

Time: Taylor Swift on 1989, Spotify, Her Next Tour and Female Role Models

Reuters: U2’s Bono Defends Under-Fire Music Streaming Services

Independent: Why Musicians Hate Spotify

Wall Street Journal: For Taylor Swift, the Future of Music is a Love Story

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Streaming Music: Good Business or an Attack on Artists? appeared first on Law Street.

With the end of the Colbert Report, so ended an era. Facebook and Twitter were full of people lamenting the end of Stephen Colbert and his late night character, saying things like, “Where am I going to get the news now?” and “Who can I trust to tell the truth once he’s gone?” Surely, it’s a good mix of people who understood the characters Colbert played and those who honestly felt like his show was reality. Where exactly are Americans getting their news, and what impact does it have?

When it comes to politics, Americans watch CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News more often than they watch traditional or local news. But what does it mean for the future of comedy news, news in general, and the way we react to it?

Where do we get our news?

Even at a time when television viewing numbers are falling due to an increase in streaming sites and a general lack of traditional watchers, most Americans get their news from television or television-backed news sites.  Pew Research Center analyzed Nielson data and its findings showed a lot about the television landscape, but even more about the people who watched it. These are the findings:

Almost three out of four U.S. adults (71 percent) watch local television news and 65 percent view network newscasts over the course of a month, according to Nielsen data from February 2013. While 38 percent of adults watch some cable news during the month, cable viewers—particularly the most engaged viewers—spend far more time with that platform than broadcast viewers do with local or network news.

While it is interesting to note how many people watch the news, it is more poignant to look at what news people watch, as simply watching news doesn’t mean too much in the age of bias and deep-pocketed politicians. Take a look at that study for a more in-depth view of what exactly people are watching.

Cable

Fox News

Fox News has been getting a great deal of negative publicity in the last few years, even more so than before with the growing popularity of internet memes and altered videos. As such, Fox News attracted an average of 264,000 primetime viewers in that key 25-54-year-old demographic, a number so low that the network hasn’t seen it since 2001. One of the biggest draws to the station is Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor as well as an author, syndicated columnist, and political commentator. His audience remains at over 2.1 million viewers per episode, but once again, the number skews toward the older crowd.  Still, the Daily Kos points out that, “every Fox program in primetime dropped by double-digits, with Bill O’Reilly taking the deepest dive. Sean Hannity posted some of his lowest numbers ever in his new 10:00 pm time slot.” Things are not looking good for the company unless it can swing in some newer, fresher hosts and programming.

According to the Daily Mail, the average viewers at MSNBC and CNN are 60, and the average is 62-64 for the broadcast networks; however, the average viewer of Fox News is not quite the rich, white, Rush-Limbaugh loving man that the liberal bias would have many believe. In Frank Rich’s New York Magazine article, he paints a clearer picture of the typical Fox News viewer:

The million or so viewers who remain fiercely loyal to the network are not, for the most part, and as some liberals still imagine, naïve swing voters who stumble onto Fox News under the delusion it’s a bona fide news channel and then are brainwashed by Ailes’s talking points into becoming climate-change deniers. They arrive at the channel as proud, self-selected citizens of Fox Nation and are unlikely to defect from the channel or its politics until death do them part.

So what does watching Fox News say about you? You lean conservative, you are probably older, and you are typically from a middle-to-upper class household. Still, the station has an audience–maybe not entirely from that coveted advertising swath, but it has one, which is more than some other stations can boast.

CNN

If Fox News is drowning, CNN is already dead in the water when it comes to that key demographic, with only 99,000 viewers in the 25-54 sector in May 2014, according to Politico. Anderson Cooper 360 is still the top program on CNN with an average of 452,000 total viewers, and 145,000 in the key range.

The average CNN viewer, however, isn’t the type of person who will tune in for nightly news broadcasts or scheduled programming. Instead, it is becoming the go-to for hot topics and current events that interest people, such as the recent social justice protests, Ferguson special reports, Ebola, weather emergencies, and presidential addresses.

Still, the station has been doing some reshaping lately to help its numbers and push forward into the next era of broadcast. Brian Stetler explained:

Now, there is some overall shrinking going on. But the better word for what’s happening in media today is “reshaping.” Through layoffs, through cuts, through new investments, “reshaping” for the digital future that really feels more like the digital present. It’s already here. None of this context makes it any easier to say goodbye to our colleagues. In fact, it may make it even harder, because the fact of media, THE fact of media in 2014, is that reshaping of all kinds is going to continue.

So the viewership of CNN is changing, but it’s typical audience remains the same. Mostly liberal, younger but not too young, and transient people who don’t often sit and watch the news on a nightly basis. Still, take a walk around your local mall, sit at the dentist, or walk through an airport, and it is the station you are most likely to see.

MSNBC

MSNBC is one of the newer news channels, founded in 1996, and dedicated to broadcasting news programs 24 hours a day. It is owned by NBC Universal (82 percent) and Microsoft (18 percent), and its sister channels range from CNBC to The Weather Channel. What you see on MSNBC, however, is very different from what you see on the other stations.

One of the more famous programs, The Rachel Maddow Show, is seeing some pretty low ratings this season. The push now is to bring in younger viewers to round out the audience that is growing older fairly quickly. Still, it is considered the go-to network for those who consider themselves politically progressive.

MSNBC is constantly changing, more so than many of the other news stations. It works with viewers, though stays pretty close to its ideals, which many critics say lean too left. Some say that the network is setting itself up as the antithesis of Fox. Most recently, the network has taken a bit of a tumble in the ratings. According to the Huffington Post, MSNBC was down across the board, including declines in the key viewing demographic of nearly 20 percent, and president Phil Griffin vowed to make changes in 2015.

Still, shows like Morning Joe and Hardball with Chris Matthews finished ahead of their time slot competitors on CNN.

News Competitions

Another interesting revelation from Pew:

In one finding that may seem counterintuitive in an era of profound political polarization, significant portions of the Fox News and MSNBC audiences spend time watching both channels. More than a third (34%) of those who watch the liberal MSNBC in their homes also tune in to the conservative Fox News Channel. The reverse is true for roughly a quarter (28%) of Fox News viewers. Even larger proportions of Fox News and MSNBC viewers, roughly half, also spend time watching CNN, which tends to be more ideologically balanced in prime time.

So what does this viewing mean? Here are just a few more statistics from that study to keep in mind as we delve deeper into the individual stations:

• “More than one-quarter (28 percent) of the people who watch Fox News also tune in to MSNBC. An even higher number (34 percent) of MSNBC viewers turn on Fox News.”
• “There is even more crossover viewing when it comes to CNN. Slightly more than half (54 percent) of MSNBC viewers watch CNN, while 44 percent of Fox News viewers tune in to CNN. Healthy segments of the CNN audience also watch Fox News (39 percent) and MSNBC (38 percent).”
• “Overall, five percent of the adult American population watches both MSNBC and Fox News. That is slightly lower than the percentage that watches both CNN and Fox (8 percent) or CNN and MSNBC (also 8 percent).”
• “Despite some crossover, there are also viewers who watch only one of the three cable channels: Fox News Channel narrowly has the largest singularly dedicated audience. About one-quarter of American adults (24 percent) watch only Fox News, 23 percent watch only CNN and 15 percent watch only MSNBC.”

What about local news?

Local news, whether it is for a region or a smaller community, has also taken the backseat when it comes to key viewers. Airtime is a big factor in these problems–local news is often shown when people are coming home from work or sitting down to eat dinner. Fewer people are tuning into these broadcasts–even entertainment ones–choosing instead to watch reruns of other popular shows that air at the same time. Local news, as a rule, reports more on local activities and not just big political events, so those who are tuning in to see that information will go to bigger channels.

News Through Comedy: The Daily Show and Beyond

It may seem obvious that a “replacement” news source for Stephen Colbert would come from his “rival” and the person who preceded his time slot. In fact, he needs no introduction, as Jon Stewart is one of the most trusted faces in media, and his program, The Daily Show, is where Stephen Colbert got his start in the genre. His style takes a bit of getting used to, but give him a second chance before leaving Comedy Central. His ratings are higher than most of the other news outlets, and he does it all with a little bit of humor that “real” news stations cannot get away with. According to the Daily Mail, his show averages 2.3 million viewers per episode, putting him far ahead of others news outlets in not only viewers, but also in that 25-54 range. In fact, The Daily Show is consistently ranked the top late-night news show among the key demographic.

In 2012, a study even found that people who watch The Daily Show are more informed than people who watch Fox News. This could be because the face of The Daily Show isn’t the only person who reports on the show–there are a bevy of people who do humorous investigations. The Daily Show viewers tend also to be more educated, younger, and far more liberal than the audiences of other news sources.

There are other similar shows that have been picking up momentum lately. Most notably, Last Week with John Oliver on HBO has been breaking boundaries and bringing in more and more viewers. Of course, Oliver was a correspondent on The Daily Show, so his segments sometimes emulate Stewart’s, somewhat like Stephen Colbert’s did. In fact, Matthew Jacobs of the Huffington Post named Oliver’s program as 2014’s best television show, stating: “The year’s most surprising contribution to television is a show that bucked conventional formats, left us buzzing and paved the way for a burgeoning dynasty.” Gawker’s Jordan Sargent claimed Last Week Tonight is “the new Daily Show,“ while simultaneously criticizing The Daily Show for abandoning those “who have moved on from caring about Fox [News] and Republicans.”

So what can take the place of Stephen Colbert? Not much. When Stephen signed off, he wasn’t just leaving Comedy Central and satirical news behind, he was leaving behind a character that informed us while making us laugh. Time will only tell; so few thought that Jay Leno could be replaced, but his successor, Jimmy Fallon, has hit his stride to great success.

Conclusion

To get a well-rounded view of any political or social topic, it pays to do the research, find the facts from a variety of sources, and make your own decisions. Don’t shy away from Fox News, but also tune in to The Daily Show. The most important thing is that we consume news and current events through some medium. Sure, we have to understand the biases and we have to contemplate the “spin” on each story; however, it’s important to tune into news on television, as it is often the best way for us to visually learn about any given topic. How we receive our news has changed drastically, but now you can get it at the drop of a hat from many different sources.

Resources

Primary

Pew: How Americans Get TV at Home

Additional

New York Magazine: Stop Beating a Dead Fox

Daily Kos: Fox News Suffers Worst Ratings In Thirteen Years – And That’s Not Their Big Problem

CNN: Reshaping at Major Companies

The Wire: Fox Viewership is Getting Even Older

Politico: May Cable Ratings Spare No One

Media Bistro: October 2014 Ratings

Daily Mail: The average age of Fox News Viewers is 68 and a Majority of Them are Politically Conservative and White

Editor’s Note: This post has been revised to credit select information to Pew. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Comedy or Cable: Where Do Americans Get Their News? appeared first on Law Street.

The NFL regular season is coming to a close, and with it, a plethora of fantasy-football dreams. Typically, friends draft a team of their favorite stars before the start of the season and depending on their team’s performance, a fantasy dueler can win bragging rights or bets made within the group. Except today, what started as a competition among friends has evolved into a multi-million dollar enterprise. Websites like DraftKings and FanDuel have capitalized on this competition by changing the fantasy landscape. These sites hold weekly competitions allowing users to choose players weekly for a fee. Although this option bypasses the heartache of seeing a number one draft pick go down with a season-ending injury, this type of competition raises some interesting concerns. Instead of bragging rights, friends can compete for millions of dollars against thousands of players across the globe by depositing cash for a particular contest. This sounds wonderful on paper, except it also sounds like gambling, too. Read on and find out whether you should cosign your fantasy involvement.

 What’s the latest news in the fantasy world?

Like the fantasy pro, I’ve endured the pleasure and heartbreak that fantasy football conjures. For instance, two weeks ago week I won $500. Nevertheless, the excitement that a touchdown catch enlivens is comparable to blackjack. The rush in seeing the craps table explode with shouts of hope and trembles of fear is similar to the anxiety of watching the player that you almost drafted “go-off” for three touchdowns. Although there are plenty of gambling outlets for duelers like myself to feast on, discouragement kicked in after reading this article about the Denver Broncos signing a partnership with Draftkings. Let’s face it, it wouldn’t be fair if the number one offense was in cahoots with the fantasy source. Although it’s doubtful that Peyton Manning gets a call during the game to throw an interception, these competitions craft an accessible outlet for fantasy football, which inadvertently targets kids and young adults to compete/bet/win. That worry grew after researching the inner-workings of these one-day fantasy events.

As my fellow New York Law School alum Andrew Blancato correctly noted in his article about fantasy sports gambling, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) outlaws online sports gambling. The fine distinction is based on skill and chance. But when did this all begin? Years ago, fantasy sports was limited to drafting teams before the season and hoping your team excelled in their respective positions. Today a user can bet online anywhere from 25 cents to upward of a thousand dollars on his team’s weekly performance. When did Football Sunday transform into caring more about the points a player scored, rather than the outcome of the game itself?

Image courtesy of Evangelos Siozos

When did fantasy become financial?

In July 2009, Nigel Eccles and Tom Griffiths altered the fantasy sports arena by launching their newly minted one-day fantasy competitions. Eccles, the CEO of FanDuel, based his idea on a simple premise: Letting people pick professional athletes daily and bypassing the debilitating effects of injury risks associated with season-long tournaments. Instead of one bite at the apple, these businesses capitalize on multiple game-day bites.

In 2010, Allen Tippy explained the phenomena that recently started interrupting your favorite TV or radio show with a 30 second advertisement.  “Fantasy is the steak,” Mr. Lowitz says. “We just want to be the mashed potatoes on the side.” After gorging on the traditional fantasy platter, Tippy made the change to one-day fantasy competitions.

I search out the weak players…I played in the same traditional fantasy baseball league with a group of lawyers from Mobile, Alabama for about 15 years.

That’s right. The success of one-day fantasy sports is semi-driven by the fantasy fanatics, those who play and switch their line-ups with 30 seconds to spare before the game begins. In fact, by employing these modern tactics, a one-a-day dueler can exploit an opponent’s weakness by staying alert of all injuries and penalties that keep a player sidelined. Interestingly, this awareness sounds just like skill, except in one-a-days there are a few caveats.

For example, unlike traditional gambling site, there is a higher commission taken out by the one-day fantasy servicer. Further, what separates a winner from the host of losers requires beating 60 percent of them to make a profit. Eccles calls it “fantasy for the ADD generation.” Mr. Eccles hits it on the nose, considering FanDuel paid out roughly $500 million this year alone.

After FanDuel captured 70 percent of the daily fantasy sports market, DraftKings snatched the remaining 25-30 percent. Fast forward four years: these simple startups have catapulted to infamy and success. In fact, the Fantasy Sports Trade Association acknowledged that about $1.7 billion is spent each year on fantasy sports in the U.S. and Canada. Couple this with an infinite pool of investors and big-name endorsers and one is left to wonder if any regulatory measures have been taken to ensure fair play.

So…is this even legal?

In 2006, Congress passed the UIGEA, which basically outlawed any online sports gambling that relied strictly on chance instead of skill. Whether or not fantasy sports are chance- or skill-related is a question for Socrates; however, what has been done since 2006 is quite startling, especially considering the mammoth explosion of this business. Vice Sports explained it best:

The debate over the legality of DFS revolves around the definition of skill versus chance. DFS games fall somewhere in between pure games of skill (chess, checkers) and pure games of chance (lottery, bingo). Picking a winning lineup involves a level of skill, intelligence, and talent that can be improved but also, Peyton Manning could tear his ACL in warm-ups and sorry, bro, your lineup is done.

Great, so playing fantasy sports involves both a touch of skill and a dash of luck. Easy, done. But some questions still linger. For example, since 2006, the marketing landscape changed, technology evolved, and fifth graders were given cell phones. So, what exactly is going on?

On December 2, 2014, lawyers lodged formal complaints against FanDuel in Florida Federal Court. The allegations included claims of deceptive practices by misleading customers, which tiptoes the line into fraudulent territory. Basically, FanDuel targeted customers through its promise to double any money deposited into its website. Yet, its “double your deposit” promotion didn’t double its customers’ deposits upon joining. Instead, if a user deposited $200, her money was entered into a formula, which requires a contestant to spend $5,000 in order to receive the initial $200 promised payback. This wasn’t the only lawsuit targeting the fantasy giants.

That’s when I was introduced to Christopher Langone, who filed pleadings in Illinois Federal Court to challenge the winnings of Patrick Kaiser, a FanDuel enthusiast. Months later, Langone filed another action against DraftDay.com and bypassed any jurisdiction issues by filing in San Antonio, Texas, DraftDay’s state of incorporation. What initially seemed like a theoretical query based on whether fantasy sports involved more skill than chance, created a battle of mythical proportions, perfect for the great professors who teach me.

What is being done?

In short, nothing yet. Some Federal Courts have reacted, using the judiciary power bestowed upon them to influence states to strike down fantasy football in Montana, Louisiana, Washington, Iowa, Arizona, and Puerto Rico. Or take Florida for example, where state law technically bans the “fantasy phenomenon,” and makes playing it a misdemeanor. But other than political riffraff and textualist toils over what chance and skill really are, the main concern for fantasy-player welfare has dissipated. As Mike Florio puts it,

In what would be a bizarre twist on point shaving, coaches and players could in theory be bribed to ensure that certain players will generate significant production, or that certain players will be shut down. Getting to coaches and assistant coaches who control the offensive game plan would be the most efficient approach. It also would help to grease defenders who would be inclined to slip on an invisible banana peel, springing a specific player for a touchdown or two. Or four.

Florio’s concerns express the same disbelief I have. Further, his article was written in July, way before Peyton endorsed Draftkings and Tom Brady joined DailyMVP.

Fanduel pays out 1 million dollars in prizes per day. Join my 1-day league http://t.co/oTvV4dzNZE

— Vince Wilfork (@wilfork75) August 23, 2014

With more and more players signing onto these fantasy startups, maybe it’s time to start paying attention to the inconspicuous tweets of NFL players. It’s not that Wilfork would miss a tackle to spring a runner 50 yards, it’s that he might be tempted to do so in order to capitalize on the same organization paying him to tweet.

Conclusion

Greed takes many forms. After witnessing the fall of the real estate market, we all saw the destructive nature of our fellow man. Like much of the law, Congress has slowly reacted to recent changes in technology. Today, kids and adults have online access at their fingertips. Although this doesn’t fit the bill as a pressing concern, it could become so. Anyone can click to verify that they are 18 years old in order to play on these sites. Further, not an iota of regulatory action has been taken since 2006. Although it is too early for the unforeseen consequences to materialize, it might already be too late to ensure that they don’t. Alas, chance and skill can only get a fantasy dueler so far. My hope is that there’s no one whispering in the players’ ears to strike that balance.

Resources

Primary

 Denver Broncos: Draft Kings, Broncos, Sign Partnership

Additional 

Law Street Media: Fantasy Sports: Good Fun or Illegal Gambling?

Wall Street Journal: Everyday fantasies

Boston: Single-Day Fantasy Sports

Vice Sports: The Daily Fantasy Sports Takeover

Forbes: Fanduel sued in court

Fox News; Gaming laws could pose risk for fantasy football craze

NBC: NFL Paying attention to Influence of high-stakes fantasy football leagues 

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fantasy Sports: Ready…Set…Bet! appeared first on Law Street.

Last Monday night St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch delivered a combative 25-minute address in which he seemed to blame social media for some of the fallout between the death of Michael Brown on August 9, 2014 and the announcement that police officer Darren Wilson would not be indicted for shooting him.

McCulloch focused his attention on the role of social media covering the story, blaming it for misleading the public and creating a martyr out of Brown from the start. He was particularly cutting to the people of Ferguson who witnessed or didn’t witness the event saying that, “within minutes various accounts of the incident began appearing on social media.” He continued on to say that the posts, mostly on Twitter, were “filled with speculation, and little, if any solid, accurate information.” His statement did little to quell the fire on social media platforms like Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. In fact, it might have ignited a deeper fury in the hearts and minds of those who were blogging about the incident.

Social media has been a key part of the nation’s involvement in the Ferguson case since the day it happened. Protest footage was shown online as it developed through YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook posts. If that spark of anger ever dissipated, a well-timed hashtag could bring it back, and when the evidence was released, people joined together to comb through the details for more information.

What would have happened if social media hadn’t been around for Ferguson? It’s unclear, but the impact of social media cannot be denied–it changed the face of a county, the life of a man, and the start of a movement.

Twitter

From the moment the shooting happened and continuing through today, Twitter has had a lasting impact on the general public’s memory of Ferguson and the events that followed. Tweets from Alderman Antonio French kept everyone abreast of what was happening, and were the source for information on the scene. The story spread far and wide, and may have been what some witnesses used when they discussed the event before a jury. Comments were made on everything from the extensive media coverage to the altercation between local police and a Washington Post reporter.

The near-constant trend of #Ferguson has not stopped since August, with nearly 3.5 million tweets around the planet in the three hours after the decision was delivered to the public.

That opening statement sounds like, "None of this would be a problem except the Internet."

— James Poniewozik (@poniewozik) November 25, 2014

People didn’t just use Twitter to talk– it was used to promote action as well. According to the Social Media Listening Center at Clemson University, the incident in Ferguson and the hashtags #MichaelBrown, #Ferguson, #DarrenWilson, and #BlackLivesMatter had the highest response to any event since they started monitoring the service. Listening Center Director Joe Mazer said that 90 percent of the Twitter mentions were negative toward Officer Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department. He said key influencers of the conversation were members of the media and the forces on the ground, or the people in and around Ferguson.

Much of that response was to organize protests, educate others, and spread the word about both sides of the case. Movements started on Twitter and many more grew because of it. In a country where people often say we don’t participate in government, simple sentences in 140 character increments have done what political leaders haven’t been able to do in quite some time: bring groups of people together through their feelings of injustice and anger.

#StoptheParade

Twitter took things to another level when activists in NYC took to social media and encouraged people in and around the city to gather together to interrupt the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. They used the hash tag #StoptheParade to plan the protest that was to bring the injustice from the grand jury result to the eyes of those enjoying the parade. While it unclear how many people were involved in its inception, or even who started the movement, it quickly moved from hundreds of tweets on Twitter to posts on Facebook and Tumblr. As the movement grew, a map was released to show protesters just where to gather.

We moved #stoptheparade to 12am due to weather here’s the facebook group + info http://t.co/AzuTGdyHTw pic.twitter.com/TI2M5tHEWJ

— VHS dad (@versacenudes) November 27, 2014

Though mainstream media didn’t cover the protests instead of the parade, videos and images flowed onto Twitter and Instagram showing peaceful protesters we well as those who got a little more physical. It seemed like the NYPD got word of the event, as there were many officers lining the streets specifically where protesters planned to meet.

Tumblr

Much of what is happening on Tumblr is similar to what is happening on Twitter, though there are of course longer posts with some more detailed analysis of court documents and personal responses. However, there is one thing that is very different: the Ferguson National Response Network. The network stems from an idea that protesters had before the indictment announcement, which is a system that allowed interested parties to sign up to receive SMS messages about the announcement. This was especially helpful to those who worked during the announcements. As that movement grew, there was a demand to continue this collection of activities, so they created the Network Response Team. The Tumblr page allows submissions for peaceful demonstrations, allowing other people to join in so that the event is a success. There have been more than 70 events and counting planned through the page.

Online Fundraising

Social media and internet resources weren’t just a refuge for those fighting against Wilson. There were two fundraising campaigns set up to raise money for the police officer when it became apparent that he probably wouldn’t return to the line of duty, either through indictment or from resigning. The sites were set up through GoFundMe, but they were eventually halted. There was also a Facebook page called “Support Darren Wilson,” which raised more than $430,000. That too was halted with only a parting message stating that interested parties should “Please redirect Badges for Darren to the Ferguson PD. Thank you for your continued support. We understand that there will be many unanswered questions and concerns and we will update supporters as soon as we have the answers.” Another site, Support Officer Wilson, has raised more than $235,000, but it also stopped accepting donations without an explanation. There were reports that the administrators of the pages were receiving threats over their participation.

So, was social media’s role in Ferguson good or bad?

The Good

Social media is great at getting information out quickly about ongoing events. One could just set his or her browser to “Ferguson” and it was almost a real-time display of the events. Networks are only able to cover one aspect at a time, but social media has access to the collective information. It also allows for the continued planning of events that need larger groups of people as a sort of grassroots campaign.

Social media also allows people to search for information that is relevant to them. While the major news networks were all turned to the events in Ferguson, communities in New York City and Philadelphia also had their own protests. By using Twitter, one would just have to search to see where the protests were–either to join in or avoid them during travel.

Finally, it is obvious that social media encourages everyone to be more active and aware of the world around us. Without social media, we would only be privy to the information released by the news media, much of which has been slanted toward one direction or the other. It allows us to have educated debates, understand the details, and make our own decisions.

The Bad

Social media may have hurt the legal proceedings in Ferguson more than it helped. Those involved claim that witnesses who were around the scene on the street claimed to have seen Brown with his hands up, however many of their accounts seem to have come from Twitter rather than their own experience. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani even went on record to say that those witnesses should have been sued for perjury. While some argue that this is just looking for a reason not to persecute Wilson, the truth remains that many eyewitness accounts didn’t match up.

Social media may have also played a part in the violence, stoking anger and fear in the hearts of those involved. We can all agree that the violence and looting that has erupted, though understandable to some, has left many with a bad taste in their mouths and is almost undermining the cause. Social media has a time and place, and if we can use it responsibly, it will help shape the way we receive, discuss, and process news.

Resources

Primary

Twitter: #Ferguson Tag on Twitter

Mail Chimp: Darren Wilson Verdict Text Message Service

Twitter Reverb: Real Time Display of Tweets

Additional

Bustle: Ferguson’s Prosecutor Blamed Social Media for Misinformation, Entirely Ignoring the Mission and Necessity of Social Media

LA Times: Fundraising Web pages for Ferguson cop still closed; it’s unclear why

Washington Post: Grand Jury Reaches Decision in Case of Ferguson Police Officer

Washington Post: How Social Media Freed Reporter

Mediaite: Indictment Announcement from Ferguson

WYFF4: Social Media Listening lab sees record posts on Ferguson

Ferguson Response: Ferguson National Response Network

Talking Points Memo: Here Is How The Prosecutor Described The Michael Brown Shooting

Talking Points Memo: Rudy Giuliani On Ferguson Decision: I’d Prosecute Witnesses For Lying (VIDEO)

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ferguson and the Effect of Social Media Activism appeared first on Law Street.

Signing onto your Facebook or Twitter account has become a social media oversharing gram of Russian Roulette with engagements, weddings, pregnancies, stomach viruses, break ups, make ups, Taylor Swift lyrics, celebrations, political opinions, moves, and that weird ingrown hair in that girl who lived down the hall from you freshman year that she’s pretty sure is infected but she’s going to ask her “Nurse Friends” just in case.

No matter where we post — Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, SnapChat — it’s all the same: we are sharing some of our private thoughts and feelings that at best will embarrass us later in life, and at worst can cost us jobs and relationships.

Everything we post on social media from pictures to snippets of lyrics gives us a glimpse into our inner person and our outer person, including where we are physically at any time. In fact, many people have actually been arrested because they posted where they were on Facebook or Twitter right after committing a crime or because they filmed themselves doing something illegal and then posted it. What makes these people think they can post something so stupid on social media? It’s quite simple.

Social media promotes oversharing and under-thinking.

No, I didn’t just knock the Scentsy wax all over the bathroom wall because I was dancing to “Shake it Off.” #thatwouldbestupid #TS1989

— Noel Diem (@NoelDiem) November 2, 2014

Who is Oversharing?

Pamela Paul at The New York Times seems to sum up most feelings about social media:

“UNLESS you are my best friend or my husband, I don’t need to know the macabre symptoms of your gastrointestinal virus. I don’t need to know about how much candy anyone, other than me, has eaten. As for my ex-boyfriend, I don’t need to hear about his wife’s ability to Zumba.”

Walking through the park, grocery shopping, or grabbing your coffee at Starbucks can undoubtedly include social interactions; however, there is rarely a time when waiting for your laundry to finish up in the dryer in the laundry room you start spouting unsolicited updates to someone else in the room, no matter how close you may be. Certainly there are people who are oversharers in real life, but they don’t comprise a large portion of the population.

On social media, however, oversharing seems to be the norm. It’s difficult to figure out why we share everything on social media — is there something about those white boxes that we think won’t judge us? Is there a cleansing feeling when you share something somewhat embarrassing? Do we think someone will find us alluring when we share something completely private about our lives? Just recently we discussed the legal implications of social media when criminals reveal themselves to law enforcement — but is there a rhyme or reason to why we share completely strange information about our daily lives on social media but wouldn’t dare utter it at the dinner table?

Psychology Behind Oversharing

Sharing our private thoughts, feelings, and opinions with others in a non-threatening way actually activates the neurochemical reward system in our brains, according to a Harvard University study. In essence, sharing something simple on social media makes us feel good, much like buying a new pair or shoes, taking a long run, or going on a really great first date.

But more interesting is the report of Elizabeth Bernstein in the Wall Street Journal when she declared that our desire for more people to know about our private lives is actually because of reality TV and our own social anxieties.

“This effort is known as ‘self-regulation’ and here is how it works … When having a conversation, we can use up a lot of mental energy trying to manage the other person’s impression of us. We try to look smart, witty, and interesting, but the effort required to do this leaves less brain power to filter what we say and to whom.”

While our brains reward us for oversharing on Facebook, that still doesn’t necessarily explain why we expose sometimes embarrassing or harmful information about ourselves on social media.

Why Do We Overshare?

Professor Russell W. Belk from York University in Toronto took on this topic in his paper “Extended Self in a Digital World.” He suggests that we are not truly ourselves on social media, but rather trying to portray ourselves as more “perfect” forms of ourselves by filtering what we allow people to see. We do this to impress one person, a group of people, or even confuse ourselves about who we truly are.

“When we’re looking at the screen we’re not face-to-face with someone who can immediately respond to us, so it’s easier to let it all out—it’s almost like we’re invisible,” says Belk of the “disinhibition effect” that online sharing helps promote. “The irony is that rather than just one person, there’s potentially thousands or hundreds of thousands of people receiving what we put out there.”

Belk’s observations are confirmed in another study by Gwendolyn Seidman of Albright College and published in Computers in Human Behavior. She examines how people use Facebook to express their “true selves” in a way they normally wouldn’t be able to in real life.

But re-pinning something about a workout we will never do, altering our selfies with four or five different filters, or rating a book on Goodreads that we didn’t actually read isn’t harming anyone, right? Not so fast, Belk asserts that there are potential harms:

“The resulting disinhibition leads many to conclude that they are able to express their “true self” better online than they ever could in face-to-face contexts. This does not mean that there is a fixed ‘true self’ or that the self is anything other than a work in progress, but apparently self-revelation can be therapeutic, at least with the aid of self-reflexive applications.”

Oversharing Can Be Good

Many argue that social media can take the place of a Confessional in our lives — we can truly figure out who we are by revealing our innermost secrets to the general public.  Belk believes that through this we may be expressing our true selves because we are creating ourselves as we post, like, and share:

“It appears that we now do a large amount of our identity work online. For the Internet constantly asks us “Who are You?” “What do you have to share?” Coupled with new self-revealing proclivities, this incites more open self-extension than in a pre-digital world.”

Many view social media as a way to collaborate and receive confirmation of our feelings. Getting likes on a photo on Instagram affirms our skills as a photographer but also of the thing photographed — typically ourselves. A like on Facebook has taken the place of a “ditto” in real life. We are no longer working alone to create our reality, but are forming it from our relationships with people on social media — those we know, and those we don’t know, as is the case with some social media websites like Tumblr.

We also have to take into consideration that perhaps people aren’t oversharing at all — maybe we have just grown sensitive to knowing all of that information all of the time. We share an awful lot as a society, and maybe it is just how accessible that information is.

In fact, as Jen Doll notes at the Wire, “[N]o one gets criticized specifically for undersharing. No one says that word. People just say ‘boring.’”

Conclusion

You can’t just say that people are oversharing without setting a limit for what is the right amount of sharing. We have more capabilities at our fingertips to understand the people in our lives. That same website that allows you to “meet” your roommate’s girlfriend without ever seeing in her person and make a snap judgment on whether or not she’s worthy is the same website where you will have to read details of someone’s food poisoning.

Belk summed it up — we are creating our identities through our oversharing. Maybe not just our identity as singular people, but our identities as a generation.

Resources

Primary

Computers in Human Behavior: Expressing the “True Self” on Facebook

Bankrate: Oversharing on Social Media Can Cost You

Additional

Huffington Post: Oversharing: Why We Do It and How Do We Stop?

Bankrate: Oversharing on Social Media Can Cost You

The New York Times: Don’t Tell Me, I Don’t Want to Know

Atlantic: The Selfish Meme

CNN: When Oversharing Online Can Get You Arrested

Law Street Media: Social Media in the Courtroom: What is Admissible?

The New York Times: Social Media, a Trove of Clues and Confessions

Wire: In Defense of Oversharing a Little Too Much Information

Huffington Post: Are You Oversharing on Social Media?

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Social Media Oversharing: Why Do We Do It? appeared first on Law Street.

Sign into your Facebook or Twitter at any time and you will see YouTube video after YouTube Video that promotes some sort of political message — from feminist videos about reclaiming our bodies to videos from those in support of the Second Amendment. These videos are increasingly effective and everyone is capitalizing on the immense word-of-mouth profitability that can come from a simple “like” or “share” on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or Tumblr.

What used to be a playground for grassroots campaigns is now a major part of marketing for non-profits, politicians, and everyone in between. Still, the question remains – are they working? Are we going too far? Is this the future of marketing for everything?

Why YouTube?

YouTube is the major platform for these videos, and they then go through other social media blogs and eventually end up on your phone, tablet, or laptop, where you no doubt see it from your aunts, friends, or professors.

According to the Kissmetrics Marketing Blog, more than 700 hundred videos are shared every minute on Twitter alone. Sure, a great deal of those are cat videos, cover performances, or someone dancing – but many of them are also videos that have the intent to promote social change.

Hunter Walk, YouTube’s Director of Product Management, spoke with Forbes magazine to explain the YouTube for Good team, an initiative formed nearly three years ago to make the video-sharing site more useful to activists, educators, and nonprofits, along with the ways in which the site, popular vloggers, and others can change popular public perception about YouTube from an entertainment source to an important resource in social change.

“We want YouTube to be a platform where advocacy, education and free expression live,” Walk told reporter Rahim Kanani. “Rather than have a small group of employees dedicated to philanthropy or social innovation, we want employees to think about building ‘good’ into everything we do, like making sure a new product designed for an individual user also works well for a nonprofit.”

YouTube reaches a massive number of people from ages in all areas of the country through the website itself and the subsequent social media shares. The videos seem to have a larger impact on creating actionable feelings — or instilling the thought that someone must donate, sign a petition, share the content, change their behaviors, and/or talk to politicians among other actions — than other forms of online marketing, articles, banners, ads, or hashtags.

FCKH8

Some of the most infamous social change videos come from the FCKH8 company. Its brand of social change is vulgar, in your face, and somewhat controversial. While the apparel company started with tackling homophobia, it has since gone toe-to-toe with racism and sexism. Its most recent video takes aim at the pay gap, sexual abuse, and gender roles – all things that need to be discussed. However, the way it tackled the subject — using young girls dressed as princesses engaged in f-bomb filled rants — has caused some to question whether these subjects are as damaging to their minds as the topic at hand. For sure, this isn’t a video for everyone:

“What’s more offensive?” FCKH8 asks. “A little girl saying f***, or the sexist way society treats girls and women?” But many people are asking: What’s more offensive: The way society treats women, or children dropping f-bombs according to a script, written by adults to sell T-shirts?

Karin Agnes at Time blasts the video, saying: “The problem is that this FCKH8 effort isn’t an outlier in feminism in America today. Comedian Sarah Silverman starred in a video as a woman who decided to get a sex change operation because she would supposedly get paid more as a man. What? This was an effort to raise money for the National Women’s Law Center, which ‘has worked for 40 years to expand, protect, and promote opportunity and advancement for women and girls at every stage of their lives—from education to employment to retirement security, and everything in between.’ Maybe this silly ad helped them raise money, but wouldn’t a serious attempt have been better for women?”

Online news source Sp!ked takes aim at the adults behind the video, asserting that “this just isn’t the way adults are supposed to act.” According to Jezebel, this isn’t the company’s first time in hot water — it recently went through a similar fight when it took on the topic of Ferguson in a “Hey White People!” video.

Laci Green

Sometimes it isn’t a company or a political group that is trying to incite social change, but rather a single person trying to change minds one at a time. Laci Green is a popular vlogger who talks about it all: equality, feminism, sex, consent, relationships, to name only a few topics. While the production value isn’t high and the set designs aren’t immense (in fact, the videos are usually filmed in her apartment), her words cut deeper, ring truer, and stay longer because of it – she truly seems like “one of us.”

Green has a frank style – she is going to tell you what she thinks, she’s going to back it up with facts, and she’s going to take you on headfirst if she feels like she needs to. Green was one of the major YouTubers who stood up for the victims of fellow YouTuber Sam Pepper who was accused of various cases of sexual harassment. But instead of just using it as a way to get viewers, she used it as a learning moment for her viewers and another way to discuss consent, feminism, and personal rights.

Green is a fan favorite of more than 1,000,000 subscribers. Her Sex+ channel started small, but has made an impact that runs deep through the community and with her fans. She may not scream as loud or offend as many along the way, but her steps toward social change are precisely calculated, never flinching, and growing stronger.

It Gets Better

One of the most widespread campaigns on YouTube has been the It Gets Better Project, the mission of which is to communicate to LGBTQ youth around the world that the future will get better, and that they need to band together to inspire those changes needed so that the world will get increasingly better.

From the It Gets Better Website:

“The It Gets Better Project has become a worldwide movement, inspiring more than 50,000 user-created videos viewed more than 50 million times. To date, the project has received submissions from celebrities, organizations, activists, politicians and media personalities, including President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Adam Lambert, Anne Hathaway, Colin Farrell, Matthew Morrison of “Glee”, Joe Jonas, Joel Madden, Ke$ha, Sarah Silverman, Tim Gunn, Ellen DeGeneres, Suze Orman, the staffs of The Gap, Google, Facebook, Pixar, the Broadway community, and many more. For us, every video changes a life. It doesn’t matter who makes it.”

The channel also has many fan-made entries of “real” people who have overcome issues and gone on to live happy, full lives. One extremely touching video comes from Google, where Woody from “Toy Story” tells us, “You’ll be fine, Partner.” For many, it was a Kleenex-inducing moment, but for others, it seemed too much.

One man told the Christian Post that “he was surprised and disappointed that they would use a children’s character for the project,” citing that “endorsing something that at this point children have no need to know about, it’s disappointing.”

Speaking Out Against YouTube Videos

Shortly after the FCKH8 video featuring young girls swearing debuted, it was taken down by YouTube because it violated the company’s terms and conditions. Though it was quickly reinstated, the question remains: how far is too far? With many videos never receiving more than a handful of reviews, it takes more than luck to get attention. There is even a Tumblr dedicated to stopping the company: StopFCKH8.tumblr.com, which makes multiple assertions as to why the company is “bad” for the people it is supposed to represent.

There is also a portion of the population that lives to “troll” or attack the comments, subscribers, and actual performers of these videos. Laci Green recently had an altercation with a man on Twitter in which she was called “sensitive.” The same happens in some of the comments of her videos, people coming in to personally attack both Laci and the people who comment on her videos. The comments section of anything on the internet can attract negativity, but these videos seem to draw even more people in — so what can we do? For certain, young girls, for example, having their beliefs used against them can have negative results. Still, it doesn’t make sense for uploaders to have to continually monitor comments on hundreds of videos; nor does it make sense to not have a comments section at all.

Do the negatives outweigh the positives?

Speak Out for YouTube Videos

YouTube has the undeniable power to unite forces, especially younger audiences, and the shift toward using that power for good is promising. According to Media for Social Change, “Now that YouTube Channels are slowly taking the place of the television channel, it’s become more easy than ever before for changemakers like us to put our message in front of more people. No need to woo the gatekeepers, or pay thousands of dollars in advertising dollars. No need to compete with the big boys with big resources for airtime that’s limited.” By using the platform as a source of both entertainment and inspiration, and sometimes blurring the lines between the two, YouTubers are on the cusp of a social revolution.

The responses from the various projects have been nothing short of remarkable. The It Gets Better Project has grown from a buzzworthy series of videos into an inspirational mantra for youth. They are taking famous faces and connecting them to the change, sharing the positives and the negatives, no longer hiding behind fake smiles and gimmicky stories. Laci Green has become a strong backbone for many — including young people who reach out to her for advice, support, and a shoulder to cry on.

Conclusion

In addition to the videos mentioned, there are thousands of others produced to promote social change. Many of them are not as popular as the ones that have gone viral. Many of the ones that have gone viral have done so not for the best of reasons; instead of the message being celebrated, they are reviled for the content or mocked mercilessly in parody videos.

So is there a limit to what we can do on YouTube, or should we continue pushing through the censorship and keep creating content that is available at the click of a button?

Resources

Shareable: 10 Viral Videos for Social Change – Sharable

The Point with Ana Kasparian: Can Social Media Drive Social Change?

Media for Social Change: Changemakers

Kissmetrics: The 2013 YouTube Marketing Guide

Spiked Online: The Fairytale Feminism of FCKH8

Jezebel: Little Girls Cussing For Feminism Would Be Great if it Weren’t an Ad 

It Gets Better: About the Project

Guardian: Sarah Silverman Sparks Row With ‘Sex Change’ Equal Pay Video

Stop FCKH8: FCKH8 Needs to Stop

Media for Social Change: 5 Top YouTube Channels Doing Good

Forbes: Why YouTube is the Ultimate Platform for Global Social Change

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post YouTube for Social Change: Can Improving the World go Viral? appeared first on Law Street.

Midway into a new football season, there are certainly plenty of controversies surrounding the National Football League. Between the ongoing debate on concussions and player safety and the number of NFL players who are under public and legal scrutiny for their actions on and off the field, the NFL is no stranger to scandal. But one of the hottest topics for a while now has been the status of the Washington Redskins’ name. Read on to learn about the controversy, and where it now stands.

Washington Redskins’ History

Up until the 1970s, high school, collegiate, and professional sports teams across the country used mascots depicting Native American historical figures and culture to evoke values of courage, strength, and tenacity, in order to signify these values in the realm of sports. Fans became emotionally attached to these mascots and these symbols; showing their appreciation by performing rituals such as “tomahawk chops” and dressing up in makeshift Native American regalia to support their team. However, these mascots and rituals received backlash during the late 1960s and 1970s, as Native American advocacy groups brought attention to the stereotypical nature of these mascots and their negative portrayal of American Indian culture.

At the request of local tribes, many of these teams abandoned their mascots for less controversial ones, leaving a relatively small number left carrying names such as “Braves,” “Indians,” and the most controversial “Redskins.” In addition to a handful of high school and collegiate teams, five professional sports teams retain their use of American Indian nomenclature: the Washington Redskins, the Atlanta Braves, the Chicago Blackhawks, the Cleveland Indians, and the Kansas City Chiefs. Debate has raged over the past couple decades as to whether these teams and their mascots represent racial slurs and harmful, derogatory stereotypes; or whether they are merely evoking Native American culture out of respect and honor for their courageous spirit.

A lawsuit, which has bounced back and forth between various overturned decisions, was brought against the Washington Redskins in 1992 arguing that its name used a racial slur and should be changed. More resolute than ever in the face of this opposition, the team’s owner Daniel Snyder went on record in 2013 that the Redskins would “NEVER” change its name. In response, a bill was introduced to the House of Representatives in March 2013 by Representative Eni Faleomawaega of Samoa called the “Non-Disparagement of American Indians Trademark Registrations Act of 2013,” a bill that would essentially cancel all trademarks on the name “Redskins” and prevent future parties from trademarking the name. While the bill does not look likely to be passed, it raises interesting questions on the nature of Native American mascots and the legality of their use.

Cancellation of the Trademark

During summer 2014, the Washington Redskins trademark was cancelled by the US patent office. It was cancelled in response to a ruling by the independent Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). As the Patent Office put it in its media fact sheet:

The TTAB — an independent administrative tribunal within the USPTO — has determined, based on the evidence presented by the parties and on applicable law, that the Blackhorse petitioners carried their burden of  proof. By a preponderance of the evidence, the petitioners established that the term “Redskins” was disparaging of Native Americans, when used in relation to professional football services, at the times the various registrations involved in the cancellation proceeding were issued. Thus, in accordance with applicable law, the federal registrations for the “Redskins” trademarks involved in this proceeding must be cancelled.

The lawyers and administration of the Washington Redskins have said that regardless of the Patent Office’s decision, they will continue to use the name, logo, and produce paraphernalia.

Media Response 

Within the last year or so, more and more TV newscasters, journalists, and media outlets have refused to use the word “Redskins.” Instead, they refer to it as the Washington Football team. As of this summer, the Washington Post announced that in its editorials it will not use the name of the team. As the editorial board put it:

While we wait for the National Football League to catch up with thoughtful opinion and common decency, we have decided that, except when it is essential for clarity or effect, we will no longer use the slur ourselves. That’s the standard we apply to all offensive vocabulary, and the team name unquestionably offends not only many Native Americans but many other Americans, too.

Who wants to keep the name as is?

Advocates of Native American mascots argue that they represent a respectful portrayal of the culture that highlights positive attributes and offers opportunities for cultural education and understanding. Throughout the debate, teams have maintained that their use of American Indian imagery is done with the best intentions of portraying values such as strength, courage, and pride. These portrayals, advocates argue, honor Native Americans and their ancestors, and serve as a respectful tribute to these proud nations.

While many Native American groups have been vocal in their opposition, a recent poll suggested that as much as 90 percent of Native Americans do not find these mascots offensive or harmful. If a majority of American Indians themselves do not have a problem with these mascots, advocates argue, then the mascots are not entirely the offensive, stereotypical caricatures that opponents have portrayed them to be. Additionally, many advocates argue that these mascots provide opportunities for cultural education that benefit Native and non-Native Americans alike.

Many teams, especially at colleges, work closely with local tribes to provide some form of educational tools for fans and visitors to gain an accurate representation of the Native Americans that their mascots portray. Many tribes are opposed to bans on the use of culturally sensitive mascots because these bans would scuttle potential opportunities such as these to create educational bridges to Native American culture and to promote a harmonious inter-cultural working relationship. To this end, some sports teams using American Indian mascots have received the support of local tribes in the interest of maintaining a respectful portrayal of Native American culture. Florida State University receives the support of the Florida Seminole tribe, which has provided input into decisions regarding the University’s mascot and sports ceremonies. In return for their support, the tribe receives numerous scholarships and reduced tuition for its youth seeking higher education. Advocates argue that this relationship is a vision of the positive effects that could result from the continued use of Native American mascots.

Who wants to change the name?

Opponents argue that cultural references such as the term “Redskins” are inherently derogatory and harmful to the way Native and non-Native Americans view American Indian culture. Merriam Webster states the term “Redskin” is “an offensive term and should be avoided;” Native Americans often equate it to racial slurs used against African Americans and Jewish individuals. Additionally, mascots such as the Cleveland Indians’ “Chief Wahoo” are considered racist caricatures that are equally offensive and should be changed in favor of less controversial mascots.

The recent uproar over comments by the NBA’s Donald Sterling has empowered arguments by opponents seeking to root out racial negativity in professional sports. Opponents argue that these mascots promote racial stereotypes that produce harmful psychological and societal effects on Native Americans. The American Psychological Association recently announced its support for the removal of Native American mascots after the publication of numerous reports revealed links between these mascots and a decrease in self-esteem of Native American youth. A 2004 paper published by Dr. Stephanie Fryberg, a cultural and psychological scholar and a registered member of the Tulalip Tribes in Washington State, uses empirical evidence to argue that these Native American mascots have a negative psychological effect on American Indians and a positive psychological effect on European Americans. Dr. Fryberg indicates that these mascots harm the self-confidence and sense of cultural identity of these youth, which could potentially contribute to lower achievement later in life.

Cancelling the trademark on the term “Redskins,” opponents argue, could provide a legal push for the Redskins team to finally change its name and bring professional sports into the standards of equality and anti-discrimination that the federal government expects. Opponents of Native American mascots argue that their concern is not only the way these mascots influence outsiders’ views, but also how Native Americans view themselves.

Conclusion

The Redskins’ battle to keep its name is really starting to look like a losing one. Although the argument has waged on for years, as the the trademark is now null and void, and members of the media rebel against the name, we may be at a turning point. Public pressure is on — it’s up to Dan Snyder to respond.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: HR 1278 Non-Disparagement of Native American Persons or Peoples in Trademark Registration Act of 2013

Additional

CNN: Native American Mascots: Pride or Prejudice?

USA Today: 50 Senators Sign Letter Urging Redskins to Change Team Name

ESPN: Time to Rethink Native American Imagery

University of Colorado Denver: Do American Indian Mascots = American Indian People?

Think Progress: Native American Group: Fight Against ‘Redskins’ About More Than Just the Name

ESPN: Tribe Supports Native American Mascots

The New York Times: Amid Rising Discord Over Indian Images, FSU Has Harmony

CBS DC: How Many Native Americans Think “Redskins” is a Slur?

Oregon Live: Two Tribes Call State’s Native American Mascot Ban Disappointing

Washington Post: Lawmakers Offer Bill to Ban ‘Redskins’ Trademark

USA Today: Bill in Congress Challenges Redskins Trademark

HeraldNet: The Debate: Indian Names, Mascots For Sports Teams

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Washington Redskins: What’s Next in the Name Debate? appeared first on Law Street.

With the success of recent television shows like ABC’s “How to Get Away with Murder” and “Black-ish,” many in the industry are starting to reevaluate their positions on race in television. The “old guard” of television often said that the American people wouldn’t watch a television show that heavily featured characters who weren’t white — often relegating anyone who doesn’t fit into that box to a life of being the sidekick, or worse yet, losing all sense of identity and being whitewashed.

Characters on television shows need to be interesting, developed, and sympathetic. The diversity of a character does not only fall in ethnic background, but it is certainly a way to give that character a deeper history. Still — as someone who regularly watches television it is clear that on-screen diversity on screen is growing, especially when you consider shows like “Scandal”, “Glee”, “Grey’s Anatomy,” and “Orange is the New Black”. It is pretty much expected now for a show to have one character who doesn’t fall into the cis-gendered straight white category.

And we are noticing — think back to all of the press and negative coverage that “Girls” received (and still receives) because of its lack of ethnic diversity. But “Girls” is just one in a long line of history.

Still, one must consider some of the most popular television shows in the last two decades. These shows, the ones that get the push from the individual stations and the media, are still white. “Seinfeld,” “Friends,” “Will & Grace,” “How I Met Your Mother,” and “Sex and the City” were all the most popular shows when they were airing, and they all featured white friends in New York City.

But why is this still happening when, according to Nielsen, white people don’t even make up the majority of the viewing audience?

“It’s not only that the African-American audience watches more TV, but it’s substantially more — two hours over other groups,” Ron Simon, head curator at the Paley Center for Media, told theGrio in an interview. “It’s known in the industry, but it certainly hasn’t gotten the attention I think that it deserves.”

Race and Watching Habits

Race is a social construct — that is the first thing we need to realize if we are going to discuss race at all. It is a way to categorize people into neat groups.

Except those groups aren’t so neat anymore.

Here are some pretty startling statistics about race and television in the United States:

This is a problem. When you look at the statistics, stations like Mundo, which focuses on the Latino community, or BET, which focuses on the black community, sometimes overtake shows on mainstream networks that are fledgling. According to the report, African Americans watch 37 percent more television than other demographics, which means that they are watching shows that don’t always represent them in the best light. Or worse — they are watching shows that don’t represent them at all.

Whitewashing

Whitewashing happens when an actor or actress is completely stripped of his or her ethnic qualities and either declared or assumed white by the writers and viewers of the show. Whitewashing is a dangerous happenstance because it not only eliminates the ethnic identity of the actors, but it also impacts the fans of the show. As we become more and more connected to our television shows through social media, and we know more and more about the actors, it seems harmful to completely remove their cultures. However, what about the people who don’t follow the actors and know their backstories — they simply never realize that they are watching someone who isn’t just white.

“Vaguely Eurasian”

One of the better shows on television when it comes to portraying diversity is Fox’s “Glee.” The show has been groundbreaking (though sometimes problematic) in giving light to all different types of characters. There’s no doubt that Kurt Hummel will go down as one of the revolutionary LGBT characters on television. But what about his boyfriend? Darren Criss, the actor who plays Blaine Anderson, is half Irish from his father and Filipino from his mother. Early in his tenure on the show, he is referred to as “Vaguely-Eurasian” by another character. Vaguely-Eurasian. It seems like a slap in the face because Darren Criss is clearly part Filipino. He has almond eyes with extravagant lashes, medium gold toned skin, and thick black curls. Many just assumed his character had the same history that he did.

Until the next season, when they cast Matt Bomer as his brother. Matt Bomer is a fantastic actor, but he is English mixed with Welsh, Scottish, and German. Now this wouldn’t be a problem if the show had given context for his family, but they haven’t. One cannot assume that there was a remarriage or they are step brothers. They are called brothers in canon, so that is what the viewer must take them to be. Could it possibly be that Fox didn’t want to push the boundaries by showing a couple that was gay AND two different races? Not so fast — another couple on the show, Brittany and Santana, fit that bill. So why whitewash Blaine Anderson? Is it because Darren Criss could pass as white? Is it because Darren Criss is the heartthrob of the show, and the heartthrob couldn’t possibly be anything other than white? Is it a push from Fox? Or are they not whitewashing him, just not talking about it? Glee isn’t the only show that does it, and it isn’t always a problem. But there is the question: why did they choose to whitewash him on a show where diversity is celebrated?

Awards and the Changing Times

The Emmy Awards are always a point of contention for viewers of television shows. The same complaints always arise during nominations — “why wasn’t [insert name here] nominated?” or, “Wow! [insert name here] was snubbed!”

One of the biggest snubs of the 2014 Emmys was of sitcom actress Mindy Kaling.

Kaling was a surefire nomination for her show “The Mindy Project” because she had been tapped to announce the nominees. When it came time to announce the category she was supposed to be nominated in, her name was nowhere to be found.

Is this a case of racism on television, or were there just more worthy nominees?

While we can’t get into the mind of the voters it is important to note that there has been only one non-white woman who has won an Emmy for acting in a leading comedic role: America Ferrera as Ugly Betty.

In fact, 2013 was the first time ever an African American woman won an Emmy for Best Actress in a Drama: Kerry Washington for “Scandal.”

Why don’t we have more diversity on TV?

Could the lack of diversity on television be caused by a lack of diversity among its writers? That is certainly a possibility. Shonda Rhimes is one of the only black female writers to get a television show of her own, and she now has three: “Grey’s Anatomy”, “Scandal,” and “How to Get Away With Murder” – all of which have strong, diverse characters.

So what are we to do to encourage more representation on television? Part of it is up to the viewer: demand it. Don’t watch shows that feature people of color in supporting roles that are degrading. Tweet about it to the companies, the actors, and the writers. Support shows that do provide a realistic depiction of diversity.

We need to also encourage more children of color to go into the arts, whether it be acting, writing, or directing.

The steps aren’t going to happen overnight, sadly, and the momentum is shifting — we just need to continue pushing.

Resources

Primary 

Critical Media Project

Center for Media Literacy: Does TV Shape Ethnic Images?

Additional

Salon: Whitewashed TV Isn’t Just Racist. It’s Boring! 

The New York Times: Minorities in Movies and Television

Grio: Nielsen Report Confirms Blacks Watch More TV Than Any Other Group

Hollywood Reporter: The Emmy’s Rocky Race Relations

Lee & Low Books: Where’s the Diversity? A Look at the Emmy Awards and TV 

San Jose Mercury News: Fall TV 2014: Diversity, is all the Rage–Finally

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Diversity on TV: The New Normal? appeared first on Law Street.

In such a celebrity-obsessed society, famous peoples’ identities are sometimes co-opted for other reasons. However, American law does protect identities, to some extent, through something called “the right of publicity.” Read on to find out about whether the laws we have in place to protect rights of publicity are adequate or lacking.

What is the right of publicity?

The right of publicity protects a person’s right to control the commercial use of elements of his or her identity e.g. their name, voice, or likeness. It allows individuals whose identities have been misappropriated to bring civil claims against the offending entities. In several estates, it extends beyond the death of the relevant individuals, enabling their estate or heirs to bring infringement claims on their behalf.

However, the nature and extent of publicity rights protections varies from state to state. For example, Indiana allows publicity rights claims to be brought for misappropriation of an individual’s “name, voice, signature, photograph, image, likeness, distinctive appearance, gestures or mannerisms.” Rights in these identity elements are protected up to 100 years after the individual’s death. Indiana grants uncommonly expansive publicity rights protection. Because there is no federal right of publicity and there are many differences in protection among the states, many publicity rights claimants often resort to forum shopping. That means that they figure out what court or jurisdiction they think will be friendliest to their case, and bring the case there.

The possibility of forum shopping creates a  “race to the bottom” of the First Amendment ladder. Given the vast reach of entertainment content due to electronic broadcasting and the internet, content providers have to tailor their broadcasts to the rules of the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in order to protect themselves from publicity rights claims. Because social media allows so many permutations of appropriating elements of a person’s identity, the range of actions that can infringe on publicity rights is not entirely clear.  Moreover, in many jurisdictions, the publicity rights laws have not developed enough to keep pace with the increasing possibilities of infringement created by the ability to use the internet.

Who thinks the current laws are adequate?

Proponents of the adequacy of current publicity rights laws argue that claims about the need for a federal publicity right are ill-informed because the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1125) already creates federal standards for publicity rights claims. This act allows plaintiffs to file a federally based claim for infringement. Also, the differences in state publicity laws reflect the needs of different jurisdictions. The fact that certain states do not have such laws may reflect a reasoned and considered policy determination of their legislatures and federalizing the right may undercut those legislative policy needs. Moreover, such a law would infringe on states’ rights to determine which claims may be brought in their courts. If the federal publicity right preempts the state laws, then it could easily overprotect some publicity rights and under-protect others. A uniform federal law couldn’t possibly account for the nuances of different states’ needs with respect to publicity rights. Furthermore, claimants often have difficultly forum shopping because many states have choice of law rules that determine where claims need to be litigated.

What’s the argument to change the laws?

Opponents of the adequacy of the current realm of publicity rights assert that a federal publicity right would be Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Publicity rights affect a number of issues relating to interstate commerce including what can be broadcast over several channels such as radio, television, and the internet. The rights affect multi-state advertising campaigns and the distribution of products between states as well. Furthermore, forum shopping makes it difficult for promoters to know when their actions will open them up to liability because it is not realistically possible for businessmen to cover themselves against 50 different jurisdictions’ rules and still effectively run business. This is especially true when a dead person’s rights are involved and the infringement claim involves media that is broadcast nationwide.

Even the claims under the Lanham Act are limited because federal law is interpreted differently in different geographic federal circuit jurisdictions and federal court decisions are not binding on the state courts within their jurisdiction. Moreover, the concept of what constitutes a person’s “likeness” varies between states so protected identity elements in one state may not be protected in another.  A federal publicity right statute may solve this problem but the current law does not. Furthermore, publicity rights laws are not always evolving at a pace commensurate with the increasing capabilities of potential infringers.

Conclusion

Publicity laws have run into some problems as the years go on. One big issue is the inconsistency between different states and jurisdictions, and the publicity laws they implement. Another issue is the proliferation of the internet specifically and technology in general. With the resources we now have, it’s entirely possible to create a facsimile of someone’s identity, particularly through tools like social media and photoshop. It’s important that we make sure that people remain in control of their own identities, without infringing on creativity. The current laws are apt in some ways, but could use some updating.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: Lanham Act

Additional

JD Supra: The Federalism Case Against a Federal Right to Publicity

Georgetown Law Journal: The Inalienable Right of Publicity

NY State Bar Association: Why a Reasonable Right of Publicity Should Survive Death: A Rebuttal

University of Georgia Law: Race to the Stars: A Federalism Argument for Leaving the Right of Publicity in the Hands of the States

Amy E. Mitchell, PLLC: Personality Rights

Chapman Law Review: Intellectual Property Expansion: The Good, The Bad, and the Right of Publicity

American Bar Association: Why a Federal Right of Publicity Statute is Necessary

International Trademark Association: Board Resolutions U.S. Federal Right of Publicity

IP Watchdog: The Right of Publicity: A Doctrine Gone Wild?

LegalZoom: What to Know About Rights of Publicity

Right of Publicity: State Statutes

Cornell University Law School: Right of Publicity Overview

Right of Publicity: Brief History of the Right or Publicity

Library of Congress: Privacy and Publicity Rights

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Publicity Law: The Line Between Creativity and Identity Theft appeared first on Law Street.

Electronic Dance Music (“EDM”) is here and it has taken the United States by storm. The popularity of EDM shows, combined with their mind-numbing music and effervescent visual superiority has transformed ordinary concert goers into multi-day event attendees. Lately however, much of EDM’s glitz and glamour has been tarnished by young adults held firmly in its clutches. The music is one thing: everyone loves a good beat, some vocals, and beautiful people to enjoy it with. It’s when the beat doesn’t stop and the shows become more about the drugs inherent to them that one wonders whether EDM shows are promoting drug use. Read on and decide for yourself.

What is EDM?

Electronic Dance Music or “EDM” is a music genre that evolved around the sound-system scene. The underground movement transformed from hip-hop crazed fans to other genres such as house, trance, and dub step. Originally, the scene started in warehouses, but quickly spread to massive productions and stadiums filled to the brim for the entertainment needs of 300,000 plus fans. However, the scene itself seems so much more. It’s a lifestyle, similar to the sex, drugs, and rock and roll of the 80s.

As the internet expanded so did the potential of this newly popularized genre. Part of EDM’s growth is attributed to the inner workings of social media, allowing DJs to post music and have others listen to and comment on it. Moreover, with word-of-mouth marketing outdated (at least in the music popularity sense), fans keep to apps such as Pandora and SoundCloud. SoundCloud, for example, allows users to listen to multi-day festival sets (multi-hour mixes) from their favorite DJs. Although fans listen to these mixes, this makes no sense to old-school rockers like Tom Petty. In a recent interview by USA Today, this is what he had to say about EDM festivals:

“Watch people play records? That’s stupid. You couldn’t pay me to go. I’m not oversimplifying it,” he seethed. “That’s what’s going on. I don’t think it would be any fun without the drugs. It’s a drug party.” 

Maybe Petty is right, but his subjective views would be harshly rebutted by some of house music’s longtime fans. Fans — especially old-timers in the dance music industry — may characterize his opinion as hypocritical, considering that he criticized the genre by equating the style to drug use. Instead, Forbes Magazine described EDM as the following:

“As for live performances, electronic dance music artists perform live by deejaying, playing their own songs and, again, the songs of other artists, at a range of events held at stadiums or clubs around the world. They are not playing an instrument or singing a song, but instead controlling the crowd’s emotions through expert song selection and sound mixing.” Forbes

To most EDM observers, Petty’s opinion is probably antithetical and Forbes’ is accurate. Although the lifestyle may be a stretch into the imaginative, perhaps getting dressed up to go to a club or festival has a cultural feel to it. Is it really any different than the way attendees dressed and partied at Woodstock? Doesn’t our culture encourage lavish outfits with a dash of creativity? Denouncing creative passion seems unfair, which is why evaluating EDM’s transformation is critical.

When did EDM become popular?

EDM shows sprung to popularity over the last five years. But society has witnessed changes in music tastes over the decades. In the 1980s and 90s, dance clubs like Twilo and Limelight lit up NYC streets. The underground scene was alive, creating its own sub-culture of “Club-Kids,” forever eternalized in the movie Party Monster. Throughout the 90s the scene dissolved, but starting in early 2009, there was a sudden re-emergence of the flashing lights, thumping bass, and of course, flamboyant outfits. But where did this come from? Did the music ever really die out? Maybe it was a long overdue awakening.

In 2009, David Guetta catapulted to fame by releasing tracks like “When Love Takes Over” and “Sexy Bitch.” Although he was relatively unknown to the majority of EDM enthusiasts, his presence took underground music and launched it onto the national stage. Electronic music, a favorite of fans all over Europe, suddenly swept through the States. Asked about the roots and influence his music has had on the States, Guetta said,

“I’ve created a bridge between European electronic culture and urban American culture, and I’ve worked with established brands. So media has given us a chance, an opportunity that I never had before.”

For once, artists no longer needed to compete against each other because Hip-Hop and Techno finally started to both co-exist and merge. In addition to the music, which was uncharacteristically played on HOT 97 Hip-Hop radio stations, television shows vied for the opportunity to capitalize on the music’s popularity. The end-result: shows like “Jersey Shore” captivated young audiences, teaching them the proper way to fist pump, tan, and do their laundry.

European music culture is largely accredited with the emergence of Techno and EDM in the United States. However, many fans don’t appreciate the roots of the music they listen to, considering that ingrained in the soul music of Chicago in the 1980s lay the humble beginnings of EDM’s underground culture. Except thirty years ago, a Deejay wasn’t someone with a laptop, but rather someone who sifted through dusty boxes of oldies and mixed songs using turntables in the back of restaurants.

After announcing his retirement in 2012, superstar underground/resident DJ Danny Tenaglia explained the modern phenomena as compared to the 70s gospel and deep house from which his inspirations flowed. When asked about the grand venues and music that have revolutionized today’s dance scene, he was honest.

“[Some DJs] make so much money selling out nightclubs,” Tenaglia says, referring to the scene’s current stars. “But I’m sure [they realize] the immaturity factor and the silliness of some of these melodies. It’s so preschool; it’s like listening to Sesame Street!”

In Tenaglia’s heyday, successful DJs needed rhythm, soul, and timing. Unlike today, they couldn’t syncopate sounds with the push of a button. It wasn’t uncommon for DJs to dance in the crowd and make small talk with their fans. Moreover, the crowds weren’t little kids on drugs. Drugs existed, but they were secondary to an underground culture of misfits and alternative folk. Today, it seems the music has taken a backseat to the drugs involved in EDM concerts. How did this happen? Is this just a modern spin-off? Or is this a culture, a newly-minted version of a dying fad?

Is EDM for real?

The younger generation may be changing the meaning of Dance Music in EDM. Directors Dan Cutforth and Jane Lipsitz are on the forefront of understanding the why and how factors of EDM in their new documentary “Under the Electric Sky,” which showcases the “community” feeling of EDM culture. One of the six subjects the documentary, Jose, a wheelchair-bound young man, accredits the success of EDM to this community. He treats these festivals as therapy for his terminal condition.

“If people could just treat each other the way they treat each other at EDC … the world would be a much better place.”

The majority of people would agree with his assertion. Most people want to feel part of a community because isolation has its own social stigmas. Regardless, drug use at music concerts is nothing new. However, these days it seems like the old dog has learned a few new tricks, and playing with “Molly” is one of them. Sebastian Ingrosso, long-time DJ/producer and original member of Swedish House Mafia, addressed the surge in EDM drug-related injuries.

“It’s a terrible thing that kids need to take drugs to enjoy something. I enjoy music without any kind of substance and I wish that all other people could do the same, because when you’re sober and you get high on the music you can really feel it and get what’s going on.”

From a professional standpoint, Ingrosso may have hit the issue on its head, and he’s not the only one. In fact, more vocal proponents like DJ/Producer Kaskade, use internet outlets like blogs to advocate social responsibility among EDM festival attendees.

“It’s important to take a step back and realize the importance of life. Like, hey we’re all here to have a good time. Let’s do it in a way that’s smart so we don’t have to have these conversations.”

---

Who or what is Molly?

According to the Week, Molly is methylenedioxymethamphetamine, but it is commonly known as MDMA — the active ingredient in the party drug Ecstasy. Specifically:

“Whereas Ecstasy is frequently combined with other, potentially more dangerous drugs — including speed, ketamine, or even LSD — Molly is a fairly recent rebranding effort that is said to contain pure MDMA. Molly is often ingested in a powder of crystal form, and is available illegally for $30 to $50 a dose.” The Week

Molly boosts serotonin in a user’s brain, neuroepinephrine, and dopamine, allowing a user to feel elevated moods and feelings of empathy. In fact, the drug produces heightened emotions and perceptions. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the drug boosts:

Serotonin and triggers the release of the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin, which play important roles in love, trust, sexual arousal, and other social experiences. This may account for the characteristic feelings of emotional closeness and empathy produced by the drug; studies in both rats and humans have shown that MDMA raises the levels of these hormones.

Although a single dose is relatively non-fatal, many users “stack” more than a single dose in an evening in order to reignite Molly’s earlier effects. As one user told The New York Times, “It makes you really happy. It’s very loose. You just get very turned on — not even sexually, but you just feel really upbeat and want to dance or whatever.” Michael C. Gerald, explored Molly’s effects in The Drug Book. He described Molly as a stimulant that, “produces euphoria and physical energy, increasing feelings of empathy and intimacy with partners” that makes users feel as if “all is right in the world.”

After nonstop frenetic dancing for hours in hot, crowded surroundings, some participants experience hyperthermia, a dangerous rise in body temperature that can cause kidney and liver failure. Drinking excessive volumes of water, coupled with dehydration due to sweating, can cause a steep drop in blood sodium levels, potentially resulting in confusion, delirium, and convulsions. The Drug Book.

That’s right. Even Molly, inherently known for its good effects, can have serious consequences. MDMA boosts one’s internal temperature, interfering with the body’s self-regulation of temperature. In turn, this can lead to hypothermia, cardiac arrhythmia, muscle breakdown, and renal failure. The more serious consequences include brain damage, and in some cases death. But why has the Millennial sub-culture become so involved with the drug? Only exploring its use at festivals can give a genuine answer to this question.

Why do people take Molly at festivals?

EDM shows are the perfect playground for experiencing both Molly’s visual and emotional perceptive enhancements. Festivals are fashioned for Molly users. Big-Screen animations, thundering sound systems, and thousands of people, provide both the visual and emotional stimulations for enjoying the drug.

In fact, using Molly has transcended across all age groups, even inciting interest in adults in their thirties and forties. “Typically in the past we’d see rave kids, but now we’re seeing more people into their 30s and 40s experimenting with it,” said Dr. Glatter. “MDMA use has increased dramatically. It’s really a global phenomenon now.”

The problem is these festivals are heating up the debate as to whether they promote drug use. In 2011, “hospitals across the country reported more than 22,000 MDMA-related emergency-room visits, which according to the Drug Abuse Warning Network, is a 120 percent increase from 2004.” This spike has led to public scrutiny regarding the efforts festival management implemented to combat the rampant use of drugs at their shows.

What has EDM management done to combat drug use at their shows?

If the DJs producing and playing the music are opposed to “kids” using drugs for their musical enjoyment, then what have festivals done to account for these concerns? Last year two fans died after overdosing on Molly at New York’s Electric Zoo Festival despite having 70 emergency medical technicians, 15 paramedics, five ER nurses, two physicians, and numerous other medical personnel on hand at Randall’s Island. According to Rolling Stone, “during a press conference after the tragedy, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg praised promoter Made Event for putting in ‘as good procedures as we could think of.'” In response to and after heavy public opposition, the third day of the festival was cancelled. This year, festival-goers were required to watch this two minute video before gaining admission into the Zoo.

It seems American health concerns have taken cues from their U.K. counterparts, where BBC reported only 27 out of an estimated 500,000 Molly users died last year. This isn’t to suggest that the number isn’t high, but only to display the concerted effort by festival management and attendees alike. This proactive approach is demonstrated by Electric Daisy Carnival’s website, which provides guidelines on health and wellness detailing everything from medical stations, to water intake suggestions, to buddy system traveling. The formula seems simple: take care of each other and we will continue hosting EDM events. Providing this ultimatum and instituting these changes supports that festival management has finally recognized the dangerous concoction of drugs and the kids taking them that attend their shows.

Conclusion

Whether or not canceling the final day of a multi-day festival or creating the aforementioned PSA video helped combat the drug-related deaths at this summer’s events is debateable. After beefing up security and teaming with local officials to search bags for contraband, there were no deaths to report at Electric Zoo this past summer. Maybe festival goers finally got the message. Either that, or a few too many Mollies threatened a $6.2 billion dollar market, forcing the hand of festival management to play safe or bite the bullet.

Resources

Rolling Stone: Drugs, Death, and Dance Music

Billboard: EDM Biz Worth $6.2bn (report)

ElectricDaisyCarnival: Tickets

National Institute on Drug Abuse: Drug Facts: MDMA

Forbes: Is Electric Dance Music the Ticket to Reach Millennials?

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EDM Stands for Electric Dance Music, Not Eating Dem Mollies appeared first on Law Street.

The advent of social media networks introduced endless applications, opportunities, and hundred of thousands of attention-seeking men and women searching for that new fix, that something different. Nowadays, with television shows broadcasting adulterous affairs and advertisements screaming sex, one questions whether the provocateur’s nature is encouraged in the United States. Read on to learn about the ways in which our society addresses, promotes, and deals with adulterous behavior.

Is it just me, or is sex everywhere?

From Showtime’s hit show “Masters of Sex”, to the “Game of Thrones” saga on HBO, nudity and passion play on our society’s imagination. Scandal reigns supreme in the monotonous lifestyle of working, paying taxes, and drinking endless Iced Venti Americanos. No one will openly condone cheating, but infidelity is pervasive; it’s something that’s constantly talked about in modern society.

In 2010, the National Opinion Research Center inquired into the percentage of men and women cheating on their spouses. The percentage of men involved in extramarital affairs remained steady, around 21.6 percent. However, the infidelity rate amongst married women rose to about 14.7 percent. This jump was attributed to more women joining the workforce and obtaining jobs requiring them to travel.

But why shift any blame? Perhaps allocating responsibility isn’t a working testament to the truth about infidelity. Maybe people just get tired of each other and hope for a change. Gary Neuman quantified his studies of adulterous men in his book “The Truth About Cheating” in 2008. He provided that about 1 in 2.7 men cheat on their wives. He blamed male insecurity.

The majority said it was an emotional disconnection, specifically a sense of feeling under-appreciated. A lack of thoughtful gestures. Men are very emotional beings. They just don’t look like that. Or they don’t seem like that. Or they don’t tell you that.

But is the driving force behind adulterous men purely insecurity driven? And can a woman’s indiscretions be explained by working more, or in different places? That may have once been the case; however, in modern years, our marriage discussions have shifted from treating bedrooms sacredly, to coffee-shop chit-chat and salon banter. Perhaps you’ve never witnessed it, or don’t frequent barbershops and Starbucks, but, what if George Clooney in “Out of Sight” was right? What if that moment passing someone on the street transforms wayward thoughts into scandalous realities?

Is infidelity easier today?

It’s 2014, and apps such as OkCupid and Tinder exist. Today, “swiping,” has erased the formal face to face contact typical to traditional relationship notions. With a flick of a finger one can generate an obscene amount of potential lovers, both hopefuls and hopeless prospects. It takes no longer to find someone than the time it takes to inconspicuously avert your eyes from the married neighbor’s wife, after the husband notices you “creeping.”

A simple Google search for “apps for cheating” generates countless articles, magazine excerpts, and ratings of new phone applications easily designed and ranked to help one cloak mischievous manners. Apps like Ashley Madison, SnapChat, and Black SMS, not only encourage infidelity, but make discovering it much more difficult. On the other hand, applications for exposing a cheating spouse, like ThaiSpy and CoupleTracker, make catching one affordable and accessible. Incidentally, the internet provides a tech black market, allowing one to fulfill scandalous desire and retain anonymity. Is it really a surprise, that Millennials, thrust into technology’s embrace, are showing symptoms of a swelling infidelity rate? Technology has injected itself into the relationship process, and it shows no signs of stalling. For example, a new survey published by IBISWorld, a Santa Monica market research firm, discussed the implications of mobile dating, yielding that approximately one third of new marriages start online.

Societally, we are going to increasingly meet more of our romantic partners online as we establish more of an online presence in terms of social media,” says Caitlin Moldvay, a dating industry senior analyst for IBISWorld in Santa Monica, Calif. “I do think mobile dating is going to be the main driver of this growth.

But, what does this have to do with infidelity? Perhaps, not much at all, but could the way people meet and explore their sexual inclinations dictate modern cultural trends? If meeting Casanova becomes easier, is it easier to cheat? That could make sense.

Contrarily, research conducted by Michael Rosenfeld, a sociologist at Stanford University, rebuts this presumption. In his independent study published in the American Sociological Review, he found that 22 percent of new couples met online; however, these couples were twice as likely to marry as those who met offline.

 Couples who meet online are more likely to progress to marriage than couples who meet in other ways.

He explained this phenomenon by pointing out that dating sites typically arouse interest in people genuinely seeking marriage as their goal. Although his results seem noble, they remain dubious because internet-formed relationships are still in their infancy stages. Delving deeper into research shows that infidelity mostly occurs after 5-7 years of the marriage or when a child was born. Therefore, although online couples are initially happier, studying their long term speculations may be premature, considering the relative new-ness of social media and online dating. Nevertheless, both ideas suggest that taking a look into our nation’s divorce rate may shed some light on the issue.

Is infidelity the reason behind our surging divorce rate?

Statisticians rank the United States as having the sixth most divorces in the world. Although the specific divorce rate is relatively unknown, it is speculated that around 40-50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. However, this statistic does not account for the complexities surrounding marital difficulties. For example, the largest rate of divorcing men and women are between the ages of 20-24–37 percent for women, and 39 percent for men:

“f you just ask whether infidelity is going up, you don’t see really impressive changes. But if you magnify the picture and you start looking at specific gender and age cohorts, we do start to see some pretty significant changes.

David C. Atkins, an associate research  professor at the University of Washington Center for the Study of Health and Risk Behaviors, studied the infidelity rate among married couples and discovered that although the divorce rate has not risen significantly, particular age groups, including newly married couples and couples over 60, are cheating more often. He cites the availability of pornography on the Internet as a motivator for younger couples, and the prevalence of remedies treating erectile dysfunction for older couples. Moreover, the modern trend deemphasizes sex as the primary driving force of infidelity. Instead, intimacy and openness with one’s new flame boosts the infidelity rate. This idea was qualified this year in a new study published in a journal, Evolutionary Psychology, which recruited 477 adults: 238 men and 239 women. The study asked all participants two questions:

Which would distress you more: Imagining your partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with another person or imagining your partner forming a deep emotional attachment with another person?

Interestingly the results varied, depending on who you asked. Men were most distraught about physical infidelity and women by emotional cheating. Thus, examining all the reports above presents us with a trend that shows a possible gender-specific irony: 1) Men do not always appreciate a spouse’s physical infidelity; however, men usually cheat due to emotional insecurity, and 2) Women do not  always appreciate a spouse’s emotional attachment, but can be attracted to a man’s sexual prowess. Although, our nation’s mushrooming divorce rate isn’t directly attributable to infidelity alone, a question remains as to why infidelity is so ubiquitous today.

What effects do social networks have on infidelity?

Today, we are constantly connected. Many people maintain activity on one or more social networks or maintain “friends,” many of whom they haven’t spoken to in years: friends, exes, people they don’t know, or people they would like to know. Face to face relationships are no longer as mainstream as they used to be. But what role does our ability to connect with people from all over the world play in expansive relationship betrayal?

Researchers at Indiana University studied the connection between social networks and relationship availability. The study coined the term “digital cheating” and investigates suspicions about relationship demise by social networks. It found that people keep Facebook and other outlets to monitor the availability of their romantic/sexual prospects and whether or not they are in a committed relationships. Their breakthrough suggests that modern networking trends illustrate adults breaking from meeting new people, and instead, holding on to old flames, or as they called them, “Back-Burners.” As the study explains:

We use the term back burner to describe a desired potential or continuing romantic/sexual partner with whom one communicates, but to whom one is not exclusively committed. Although communication with back burners is not new, modern technology affords novel channels (e.g., social networking applications and text messaging) that individuals are using to connect with back burners.

Additionally, the study found that some partners in adult relationships maintain romantic or sexual conversations, on average, with two people other than their significant other. Interestingly, this trend is gender neutral, resulting in a similar average rate for both men and women. Although the larger pool of prospects and digital back-and-forth are not necessarily dispositive of physical wrongdoing, these findings lend credence to the English idiom that there really are plenty of fish in the sea.

Conclusion

Perhaps the loyal spouse today shouldn’t blame his or her philandering partner. Modern philosophies describing today’s adultery clash with old-school promiscuity notions, which ascribe different reasons for extramarital affairs. Maybe infidelity by one spouse is just a byproduct of emotional yearning. Although cheating compromises the values of one spouse at the expense of another’s selfishness, our society mimics this trend by condoning infidelity for some, while celebrating it for others.  For example, our infamous double-standard provides that philandering men will mostly receive “props” from their “boys,” while unfaithful women are labeled with the love chords of revulsion. Even though both sexes may be equally guilty in entertaining back-burners for that just-in-case moment, it seems unfair to brand one sex with the Scarlet Letter celebrated by the other. Nevertheless, the problem might not lie between or among the sexes, considering this issue permeates every facet of modern life, such as our phones, homes, and television shows. Maybe it has now just become a part of today’s life.

Resources

USA Today: Study: More Than a Third of New Marriages Start Online

Computers in Human Behavior: Using Modern Technology to Keep in Touch With Back Burners

Evolutionary Psychology: Explaining Sex Differences in Reactions to Relationship Infidelities

Bloomberg: More U.S. Women Report Cheating on Their Spouses

Infidelity Facts: When Does Infidelity Occur?

Huffington Post: Why People Cheat: 12 Differences Between men and Women

CNN: Besides Sex–Other Reasons Men Cheat

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Infidelity in the United States: Why is the Trend Growing? appeared first on Law Street.

Russia’s treatment of its gay citizens has long been very unforgiving. The country often systematically discriminates against LGBT citizens, has rashes of hate crimes, and has been decried by much of the international community for the human rights abuses against the LGBT community. Read on to learn about the recent history of LGBT abuse in Russia, current issues, and what the future may hold.

Recent History of LGBT Rights in Russia

Russia is extremely socially conservative when it comes to LGBT rights. The influence of the Eastern Orthodox Church plays a large part in this, as it consistently stands very strongly against homosexuality.

On June 30, 2013, the upper house of Russia’s parliament passed a bill banning propaganda involving non-traditional sexual activity from being given to minors. The law defines propaganda as:

distribution of information that is aimed at the formation among minors of nontraditional sexual attitudes, attractiveness of nontraditional sexual relations, misperceptions of the social equivalence of traditional and nontraditional sexual relations, or enforcing information about nontraditional sexual relations that evokes interest to such relations . . . .

The law sets the penalty for individuals distributing propaganda at 4,000-5,000 rubles ($120-$150). The penalty for groups, such as NGOs or corporations, is up to 1 million rubles ($30,000). There are also harsh penalties for non-Russian citizens who break the laws. Foreigners can be sentenced to 15 days in prison, and possibly even deported from the country.

Around the same time, a much broader blasphemy law came into effect in Russia, which allows for prison sentences of up to three years for those who attend protests that infringe on Russian citizens’ religious feelings.

Courtesy of AmnestyUK.

HBO just released a documentary entitled “Hunted: The War Against Gays in Russia.” The striking documentary chronicles attacks against LGBT individuals by vigilante groups in Russia, and the consistent indifference of the authorities to the issue. The film depicts the nightmare that LGBT people in Russia face on a daily basis.

Case Study: 2014 Olympic Games

Russia’s approach toward gay rights became a strong topic of contention during last year’s Olympic Games. Yelena Kostychenko, an independent newspaper journalist, said that “this law has brought fascism to my country.” International human rights groups have indicted this law as “the worst human rights climate in the post-Soviet era.” The International Olympic Committee (IOC) heard from various sponsors expressing their concern over the new law. On SumOfUs.org there is a petition signed by 35,000 people asking for Coco-Cola to speak publicly against this law. Forbes even reported that “the safety and dignity of Russians, athletes and fans is in doubt as long as Russia’s anti-gay laws are intact.” In addition to the many activist groups, athletes, and general public against Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law, the “Open Games” has been created. Viktor Romanov’s gay-friendly Olympics in Moscow happened three days after the Sochi Winter Olympics for athletes of any orientation. Romanov has said he isn’t afraid and has taken this law and turned it into an outlet for acceptance.

Others believe that while this law may affect people’s perception of Russia, it should not affect the way athletes viewed the Olympics as an objective, unbiased event that draws on nothing except the skills of the various competitors. Alex Ovechkin stated, “I’m a hockey player and I’m not [into] politics.” Johnny Weir, who is an openly gay retired athlete was an analyst with NBC in Russia. He stated that he will not risk jail time by making a political statement. He, like Ovechkin, mentioned that he was not a politician and would respect Russia’s law. Russian athlete Ilya Kovalchuk agrees with the anti-gay propaganda law and said, “I’m Russian and we all have to respect that. It’s personal and, like I said, it’s a free world, but that’s our line. That’s our country, so everybody has to respect that.”

These athletes may or may not agree with the law, however they understood the importance of respecting Russian ideals. More than 70 human rights organizations showed support over Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law after the first week of publication, and hailed the country as guarding “genuine and universally recognized human rights” issues. Jack Hanick of Fox News supported Russia’s traditional values and banning of anything that diverts from this. The new propaganda law might have left a bad taste in certain people’s mouths, however it did not affect the competition or the actual games.

---

Conclusion

Despite the fact that Russia’s anti-gay laws didn’t end up having much effect on the 2014 Olympic Games, the conversation is far from over. Russia continues to sit by while the international community observes its many human rights violations happening on its soil. The way in which Russia moves forward on this issue could have a huge impact on its reputation within the international community.

---

Resources

The New York Times: ‘Open Games’ in Moscow to Test an Antigay Law

Forbes: Gay Rights Protesters Target Sochi Olympic Sponsors Coke, McDonald’s and Samsung

CNN: Russia’s Anti-Gay Law Could Hit Olympic Sponsors

Rawstory: Russia Passes Anti-’Gay Propaganda’ Bill

RYOT: Putin Says He Wants Gay Athletes to ‘Feel Comfortable’ at Sochi Olympics

CNN: Yelena Isinbayeva Defends Russia’s Anti-Gay Propaganda Law

Washington Post: Alex Ovechkin on Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws: ‘I Just Support Everybody’

Life Site: Human Rights Groups Support Russia’s Law to Protect Children From Homosexual Propaganda

Equality Matters: Longtime Fox News Producer Testified in Support of Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws

SB Nation: Ilya Kovalchuk Supports Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws; U.S., Canadian Players Disagree

Advocate: Six U.S. Organizations Voice Support of Russia’s Antigay Law

Russia Beyond the Headlines: New Law Protecting Religious Feelings Divides Russians

Moscow Times: Putin Signs ‘Blasphemy’ and ‘Gay Propaganda’ Bills

Equality Matters: REPORT: Fox News Ignores Russia’s Anti-Gay Crackdown, Winter Olympics Controversy

Guardian: Russia Passes Law Banning Gay ‘Propaganda’

Policy Mic: Russia’s Anti-Gay Law, Spelled Out in Plain English

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws: The Discrimination Continues appeared first on Law Street.

In the age of the internet, phones with cameras, and digital picture-taking, it’s become much easier to “steal” artistic property. Both the United States and the international community try their best to prevent the theft of artistic and intellectual material through copyright laws. In addition to regular copyright laws, there also exists something called “moral copyright.” Moral rights are artists’ rights to protect the integrity and ownership of their copyrighted works. They include the right of attribution, the right to have the work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work.  Preserving the integrity of the work creates limitations upon the rights of others to distort the work, alter it, or do anything that attenuates the artist’s relationship with the work.

Read on to find out how both artists’ copyright and moral copyrights are protected by law, the effectiveness of the laws, and the arguments for and against the different laws in place to protect artists’ rights.

U.S. Copyright Law

The stated purpose of U.S. Copyright law is “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Copyright law protects many forms of artistic works including literary, musical, dramatic, pantomimes and choreographic works, pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, audiovisual works, sound recordings, derivative works, compilations and architectural works. Even though the realm of works protected is wide, there are differing levels of protection that apply for some of these works.  For example, sound recordings are protected in a different manner than written documents are.

Copyright law protects the author’s manner of expressing the idea but it does not protect the idea itself.  This means that copyright-protected works of authorship can still be plagiarized under the law. For example, a paper that describes a scientific theory may be protected from reproduction or distribution, but someone else can restate the theory with a different manner of expression and circumvent the original creator’s copyright protection.

Copyright protection ensures that the protection of the work lasts longer than the person who created it. Current law mandates that an individual person’s copyrighted works are protected for the duration of his or her life, plus 70 years afterward. For works created by multiple authors, the length of the protection is based on the life of the last surviving author. If a work is made for hire, an anonymous and pseudonymous works (where the author’s identity is not in Copyright Office records), the duration of protection will be ninety-five years from publication or one hundred and twenty years from creation, whichever is shorter. This makes it less likely that an author’s work will fade into the public domain before he or she has a chance to reap its full commercial value. This also serves as somewhat of a safeguard to an author’s legacy after he or she has passed on.

Copyright protection does not exist for articles that have a “useful function.”  For example, an artist’s drawing of a train would be protected by copyright, also the creation of a 3D model of the train would be actionable. However, creating an actual, working version of the depicted train would not be actionable under copyright law. Some creators’ work have both useful and non-useful, aesthetic attributes. Copyright law protects the aesthetic attributes but not the useful ones. If the aesthetic attributes cannot be separated from the useful ones, then the owner does not receive federal copyright protection. This means that owners can potentially lose copyright protection because their creation has applications that are useful to society.

Why do proponents argue in favor of current American copyright laws?

Proponents of the adequacy of U.S. copyright law argue that the duration of the rights gives authors time to effectively profit from their work without fear of having their labors stolen. The law properly makes exceptions for certain socially valuable non-commercial uses of copyrighted material by providing such users with Fair Use as a defense to an infringement claim. This allows copyrighted works to be used for socially beneficial purposes before the expiration of protection without infringing on the author’s commercial or economic interests. The substantiality requirement prevents frivolous uses of copyright protection e.g. for single words.

Why do opponents argue against current American copyright laws?

Opponents of the adequacy of U.S. Copyright protection argue that the exceptions are too broad and too easy to invoke. In certain situations, alleged infringers can cause significant economic damage to a creator’s interests and still be protected by a defense granted by copyright law. Copyright protection only protects the author’s manner of expression, not his ideas.  Ideas can often still be plagiarized without giving rise to a copyright infringement claim. Also, useful articles that don’t qualify for patent protection still don’t get copyright protection. Since patent protection is more difficult to obtain and has a shorter duration than copyright protection, some authors are disadvantaged by the usefulness of their work, which is contrary to the purpose of the Copyright Clause of the Constitution. Finally, if content is too minimal then copyright law does not protect it.

Moral Copyright Laws in the United States

U.S. Copyright law does not recognize moral rights beyond the extent to which they are recognized by the Berne Convention, of which the U.S. is a member.

The rationale for the lack of additional moral rights protections in federal law is that Congress believed that they were unnecessary because other areas of law are sufficient to protect artists’ interests. U.S. copyright law, governed by the Copyright Act of 1976, already grants artists the exclusive right to create derivative works. Defamation laws, unfair competition laws and trademark laws governed by the Lanham Act grant artists sufficient civil claims against entities who intentionally or recklessly mislead the public about an author’s work and those who attempt to profit from such conduct. Moreover, certain states have created their own moral rights laws, mitigating the need for a federal statute.

Furthermore, the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) provides increased moral rights to certain types of art i.e. paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures and still photographic images that are produced for exhibition only, and existing in single copies or in limited editions of 200 or fewer copies, signed and numbered by the artist. These rights include the right to claim authorship, the right to prevent the use of one’s name on any work the author did not create, and the right to prevent use of one’s name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation. Authors of works of “recognized stature” may prevent the grossly negligent or intentional destruction of their work. The phrase “recognized stature” has not been statutorily defined, but there is a lot of case law interpreting the same. VARA rights only apply to a limited set of works but the protections for those works are substantial. Buyers of the works must get written waivers from the copyright owners if they wish to employ any VARA rights. If the rights are not waived then the author or last surviving author of a joint work generally retains them for life.

What are the arguments for keeping the moral copyright laws as they are? 

Proponents of the sufficiency of U.S. moral rights law argue that VARA grants vast protection to artists. VARA rights generally last for life and they can only be extinguished by signed, written waivers. They are secure enough to ensure that artists have recourse to act when owners of individual instantiations of their work infringe their creative rights. Furthermore, even when VARA rights don’t vest in an artist’s work, he or she can still utilize copyright, defamation, unfair Competition laws, or any relevant state statute, to defend moral rights of their work.

What are the arguments against keeping the moral copyright laws as they are? 

Opponents argue that there are many works that VARA does not protect. For example, VARA doesn’t apply to written works or to works made for hire. Also, since copyright law does not protect ideas, an author who is known for innovating an idea cannot utilize copyright law to protect the moral rights to that idea. Finally, state moral rights laws vary and it is difficult for an artist to know if the state he or she is located in will have jurisdiction over the alleged infringer of their Moral Rights.

Conclusion

Given that art is so subjective and so rarely indexed, it can certainly be difficult for artists to protect their work. There are many different kind of laws in place to protect artists’ copyrights, including some laws that loosely protect moral copyrights. While there are disagreements about the effects and implementations of the laws, its clear that artists’ works do need to be protected.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: 17 USC 501 Infringement of Copyright

Cornell  University Law School: Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990

U.S. Congress Committee on the Judiciary: Copyright Law Revision

Additional

McClanahan Powers: Innocent Copyright Infringers: The Importance of an Adequate Copyright Notice to Defeat Them

Electronic Frontier Foundation: New Study Affirms Fewer Copyright Restrictions Benefit the Economy, Amid Renewed Calls for SOPA 2.0 

Copyhype: Who Benefits from Copyright?

Law and Economics Consulting Associates: Agreed Use and Fair Use: The Economic Effects of Fair Use and Other Copyright Exceptions

Harvard Law School: Moral Rights Basics

Library of Congress: Waiver of Moral Rights in Visual Artworks

Washington University in St. Louis: Economists Say Copyright and Patent Laws Are Killing Innovation; Hurting Economy

TechDirt: Yet Another Study Shows That Weaker Copyright Benefits Everyone

Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal: A Case of Bad Credit? The United States and the Protection of Moral Rights in Intellectual Property Law

Washington and Lee Law Review: Toward an American Moral Rights in Copyright

Boston University International Law Journal: Protecting Moral Rights in the United States and the United Kingdom

Information Today: Moral Rights for Authors and Artists

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Intellectual Property

Brian Leiter’s Law School Reports: Protecting Philosophical Ideas With Copyright?

U.S. Copyright Office: Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians

College Art Association: Intellectual Property and the Arts

Leech Tishman: Litigation; a Counterfeit Pays

Golden Gate University Law Review: The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990: Further Defining the Rights and Duties of Artists and Real Property Owners

vLex: VARA Rights Get a Second Life

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Copyright Law: Enough Protection for Artists? appeared first on Law Street.

Movies are supposed to be an escape–a medium of entertainment where the viewer can suspend their own reality and delve into another. However, recently complaints have arisen that movie executives have stretched audiences’ imaginations too far. Instead of problems with the content however, these critics take issue with the actors who are delivering the performances. The silver screen continues to be inundated with white, heterosexual, male actors despite the diverse population of the United States and the world. Read on for an analysis of the racist, sexist, and discriminatory tendencies of the modern entertainment industry.

Race

When 44 percent of movie tickets are purchased by non-white customers, it would be plausible to think the ethnicity of actors on screen would reflect the diversity of the viewers. That is simply not the case.

American movies have a history of being dominated by caucasian actors and actresses. As a study by University of Southern California discovered:

• Out of the 565 directors of the 500 top-grossing movies from 2007 to 2012, 33 of them were black–and only two were black women.
• In 2012, the speaking characters of the top 100 grossing films were 76.3 percent white, 10.8 percent black, 4.2 percent Hispanic, 5 percent Asian, and 2.6 percent other ethnicities or mixed race.
• Hispanic actors and actresses are the most underrepresented group on screen.
• From 2007-2012 the ratio of non-black directors to black directors was 16:1.

Halle Berry became the first African-American to win an Academy Award for Best Actress in 2002. During her acceptance speech she reflected on her achievement and what it will mean for other minority women. She opined, “this moment is so much bigger than men…it’s for ever nameless, faceless woman of color that now has a chance because this door tonight has been opened.”

However since this momentous achievement, every other recipient of the award has been white.

Unfortunately, that is not the only acting category lacking diversity. In 2001, Marcia Gay Harden and Benicio del Toro won Best Supporting Actress and Best Supporting Actor respectively, and there has not been a Latino, Asian, or Native American winner in any acting category since.

Juliet Lapidos of The New York Times pointedly stated,

“Hollywood’s great at congratulating itself for diversity; it’s just not great at actual diversity.”

Whitewashing

Although blackface is no longer deemed as acceptable, the entertainment industry continues to inaccurately depict minorities in films. In part this is done by whitewashing–casting white actors as characters in roles that were written for minorities.

There’s a very long history of white-washing in Hollywood–West Side Story, winner of 10 Academy Awards and one of the most beloved musicals of all time, is a famous example. Natalie Wood (who is of Russian decent) played the leading female character Maria, who is supposed to be Puerto Rican. Disney has also received some criticism for similar portrayals–Aladdin is a good example. The voice of the film’s protagonist is provided by Scott Weinger who, unlike the title character, is not of Arab decent.

More recently, Jake Gyllenhaal as Dastan in Prince of Persia, Ben Affleck as Tony Menendez in Argo, Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily in a new Peter Pan project, and rumors of Angelina Jolie being cast Cleopatra are all examples of roles being white-washed.

In addition to being offensive, white-washing diminishes roles–leading to non-Caucasian performers being cast as minor characters that serve to supplement a white lead.

Gender

Women make up slightly more than 50 percent of the population in the United States, yet they continue to be sidelined by the entertainment industry.

Some findings surrounding the inequalities are:

• Women in the top 100 films of 2012 only made up 28.4 percent of roles with speaking parts.
• In 2013, 30.2 percent of women were dressed in sexualized clothing compared to 9.7 percent of men.
• A recent study of films from the past six years showed that 29.5 percent women and 11.7 percent men were shown partially or fully nude.
• In 2013, 16 percent of films had a balanced cast; an increase from 2010 when it was just 4 percent.

The amount of women represented behind the camera faired even worse in 2013:

• Only 1.9 percent of directors were female
• Just 7.4 percent were women
• Women made up 19.6 percent of producers

While accepting her award for Best Actress during the 2014 Oscars, Cate Blanchett remarked:

For those of us in the industry who are still foolishly clinging to the idea that female films with women at the center are niche, they are not! Audiences want to see them and in fact they earn money. The world is round, people!

Actress Olivia Wilde is known for being a feminist and has spoken out multiple times about the quality of roles available to actresses in Hollywood. In the video below, she further explains the differences between roles normally crafted for male and female roles.

Bechdel Test

In 1985, Alison Bechdel created the cartoon Dykes to Watch Out For. From the comic strip the Bechdel test was created, which is a list of standards that determines gender bias in entertainment. Many feminists use it to analyze various forms of media.

The basic principal of the Bechdel Test it that the women depicted in Hollywood should not be clichés, but character who express genuine feelings about diverse areas of their lives.

The rules for the Bechdel Test are that the film:

1. Has at least two women
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something besides a man

Magazine editor Nikki Baughan offered insight as to the importance of the test:

The Bechdel test acts as a magnifying glass; by breaking down a film in these simple terms, it draws attention to the shocking gender disparity that exists in the majority of cinematic narratives.

LGBT

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community is incredibly underrepresented–and oftentimes misrepresented–in Hollywood. When an LGBT actor or character is written into a movie, they often serve as a token member of the ensemble. Their purpose is to represent the stereotypical trait habitually accompanied with their identity in the media.  

Depiction of race in LGBT characters does not differentiate greatly from heterosexual characters. In a study conducted by GLAAD, it was found that the races of LGBT characters were 76 percent white, 12 percent black, 8 percent Asian, and 4 percent Latino.

Derived from the Bechdel Test, GLAAD created the Vito Russo Test to examine the presence of LGBT characters in movies.

In order for the film to pass the Vito Russo Test, these qualifications must be met:

• The film contains a character that is identifiably lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender.
• That character must not be solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity.
• The LGBT character must be tied into the plot in such a way that their removal would have a significant effect.

Out of the films GLAAD assessed using the Vito Russo Test, less than half passed.

Rayon

Although hailed by mainstream critics, the recent movie Dallas Buyers Club received a combination of praise and condemnation from the LGBT community. The focus of criticism fell upon Jared Leto for his Oscar-winning portrayal of Rayon, a transgender woman.

Steve Friess of Time accused Leto of pandering to the transgender stereotype, stating, “she’s a sad-sack, clothes-obsessed, constantly flirting transgender drug addict prostitute…There are no stereotypes about transgender women that Leto’s concoction does not tap.”

Advocates were also dismayed that an actual transgender actor was not cast in the role. Since Rayon is a fictional character, the casting directors had a wide breath of opportunity and freedom in choosing an actor for the role, yet they chose not to include a transgender actor.

However, Mara Keisling, executive director at the National Center for Transgender Equality, had a contrasting view, saying, “to the film’s credit, I think it accurately showed what the life of this brave person [Rayon] must have been and how she was treated.”

In his Oscar acceptance speech, Leto took a moment to recognize the LGBT community, stating, “to those of you out there who have ever felt injustice because of who you are, or who you love, tonight I stand here in front of the world with you and for you.” Despite his accepting comments, reception to the portrayal remains mixed.

Oscars 2014

The 2014 Academy Awards appeared to be a step in the right direction. The year before, Cheryl Boone Isaacs became the first African American and third woman to ever be elected president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Not only did the Academy itself get a shake up, but the recipients of the awards did as well.

The movie “12 Years a Slave” won Best Picture, one of the most coveted awards. This was a significant victory, because before this film, a movie featuring a black leading man had not won Best Picture since 1967. Steve McQueen–the director, and co-producer–is the first director of African descent to have a movie win in the Best Picture category. The 2014 Best Director award went to Alfonso Cuaron, the first Mexican director to win the category.

Conclusion

In an industry that has such a drastic impact on our culture, it is disheartening to see Hollywood fail in diversity both in front of and behind the camera. Hopefully, future films will be created that cast individuals who accurately represent the audience viewing the films.

Resources

Primary

University of Southern California: Race/Ethnicity in 500 Popular Films: Is the Key to Diversifying Cinematic Content Held in the Hand of the Black Director? 

University of Southern California: Gender Inequality in Popular Films: Examining On Screen Portrayals and Behind-the-Scenes Employment Patterns in Motion Pictures Released between 2007-2013

Additional 

New Yorker: Lessons From Late Night

Mic: 6 Disney Films That Are Undeniably Racist and Sexist

The World Bank: Population, Female (% of Total)

Metro: The Bechdel Test and Why Hollywood is a Man’s, Man’s, Man’s World

GLAAD: 2014 Studio Responsibility Index

GLAAD: The Vito Russo Test

KPCC: Oscars 2014: 8 Ways They Made Diversity History

TIME: Don’t Applaud Jared Leto’s Transgender ‘Mammy’

IndieWire: 10 Trans Actors Who Could Have Played Jared Leto’s Role in ‘Dallas Buyers Club’

Huffington Post: Jared Leto’s Oscar Win For ‘Dallas Buyers Club’ Criticized by Transgender Community

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Diversity in Hollywood: A History of Failure appeared first on Law Street.

A men’s rights movement has gained momentum within the last several years with the goals of reclaiming rights for men in society. One offshoot of the movement, the Red Pill, is accused of being inspired by a largely misogynistic attitude. This accusation is based on the attacks on women for using and abusing men, and essentially being the “evil” of the sexes. In addition to its major presence on social media, Men’s Rights activists have attempted to gain awareness through conferences and rallies. The Men’s Rights Movement, still controversial in nature, has legitimate goals in that it is working to gain equal rights by advocating for the equal treatment of boys and men in professional, educational, and legal situations. Some feel that this is a hidden effort to disguise prejudice against women, yet men continue to protest their desire to be “equal” citizens in a society where they believe that women currently have all the power. Read on for more information about the Men’s Rights movement and its Social Media counterpart, the Red Pill Movement.

What is the Red Pill Movement?

The Red Pill Movement is comprised of a group of men who hold a certain animosity toward women, believing them to be manipulative, unfaithful, and narcissistic. They band together primarily through social media and rant about their hatred of the opposite sex. Men who “take” the red pill are choosing to live a life free of emotional attachment to any a woman for fear that she will use him for his status, money, or emotional stability. The term red pill has its roots in the 1999 movie “The Matrix.” The red pill symbolizes the consumption of the truth, whereas taking the blue pill results in pure ignorance. Advocates for the Red Pill Movement believe that by taking the red pill, or consuming this eye-opening knowledge, they are becoming aware of women and their antics.

Social Media

Reddit, a social media site where individuals can share information such as texts, photographs, and personal opinions, is the main platform of the Red Pill Movement. Here men rant about their misunderstanding of and hatred for the opposite sex. The theme of most threads is how women are cheating, lying, manipulative, and narcissistic. Members often communicate in a verbally violent and insulting manner toward females and share their negative experiences of being taken advantage of, used, and insulted by women.

The Men’s Rights Movement

While the Red Pill Movement is based on the belief that women are wicked in nature, the Men’s Rights Movement actually does have some concrete goals that members would like to accomplish. According to the Huffington Post, goals of  the pro-men’s rights group Canadian Association for Equality, are mainly to bring awareness about “shared custody of children, unhealthy perceptions of masculinity, declining rates of university enrollment, spousal abuse, and suicide.” Since the Men’s Rights Movement is fairly new, there hasn’t been any policy or legislation enacted yet. The main goal of the group is to draw attention to the issues that men face in a society that tend to focus more on gaining women’s rights and recognition.

Rape

The Men’s Rights Movement emphasizes how often they believe men to be wrongfully accused of rape. Members argue that society has created a stigma that victimizes women and paints a picture of men as violently sexual predators. Many posters and arguments of the movement highlight the idea that women are partially responsible for any sexual acts that occur, in that they consume alcohol and choose to have sex with a man who they then turn around and accuse of rape.

Child Custody

The movement argues that women often receive custody in divorce, and men are unfairly assigned the monetary responsibilities.

#Feminist single motherhood in a nutshell #feminismisawful #NoMRA #MRA @Typhonblue @JudgyBitch1 @AlyssMajere @icmi14 pic.twitter.com/uFyOcaWrIL — Chloé J.F. Berg (@ChloeShell18) July 17, 2014

Domestic Violence

The Men’s Rights Movement accuses society of labeling domestic violence as one sided, in that men commit of all of the abuse. Advocates for men’s rights argue that women are just as responsible for violence in the home, yet it goes unrecognized because of the negative stigma attached to men.

Suicide 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Suicide among males is four times higher than among females and represents 79 percent of all U.S. suicides.” The Men’s Rights Movement aims to prevent this alarming epidemic in men. By providing support and encouragement to young men, members believe that this could eliminate some of the suicides that occur in response to emotional and mental disturbances and abuse.

A Voice for Men

A Voice for Men is a website that compiles information on the Men’s Rights Movement. The organization’s argument revolves around the theory of gynocentrism, the belief that males have bent to the demands of women for centuries. In addition to the organization’s website, the group has a social media presence on Facebook and Twitter dedicated to the Men’s Rights Movement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxcXldIFsbQ

The International Men’s Rights Conference 

The Men’s rights movement is increasingly gaining popularity on the grounds that women are the more powerful sex. According to activists, men face the adverse effects of a certain stigma that society has ingrained into them throughout history. At the first International Men’s Rights Conference held in St. Clair Shores, Michigan, both men and women gathered to discuss the issue. Men’s rights activists believe that men face difficulty in society, which has forced them to live out life as “second-class-citizens,” and that men are continuously blamed for rape. According to conference attendee Barbara Kay,

“The vast majority of women crying rape on campus are actually expressing buyer’s remorse from alcohol-fueled promiscuous behavior involving murky consent on both sides…It’s their get-out-of-guilt-free card.”

Men also blamed their feelings toward women on their early childhood experiences. According to Stefan Molyneux, “If we could just get [women] to be nice to their babies for five years straight, that would be it for war, drug abuse, addiction, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases.” Molyneux continued to say that women are responsible for choosing the abuser-types, or in his word “a-holes.” “Women worship at the feet of the devil and wonder why the world is evil,” he adds later. “And then know what they say? ‘We’re victims!”

Watch a spoof video below satirizing how women react to men at bars. All jokes aside, this comedic video is indicative of many of the views expressed by members of the Red Pill Movement.

This movement is not just in the United States but many other countries, as well, particularly in the East. Where feminism empowers women, the Red Pill or Men’s Rights  movement cripples them. In a disturbing piece written by Kim Tong-hyung, a professor of medicine at Seoul National University in Korea, Lee Yoon-seong blames women for the rape epidemic. Yoon-seong says:

“If there is money on the street, somebody will pick it up. If there is a woman walking around with sexy clothing, there will be somebody who rapes her …”

The Men’s Human Rights Rally

A men’s rights rally was organized in Toronto, Canada on September 28, 2013. Participants claimed that men are just as likely to face domestic abuse, have a higher rate of suicide, die earlier, and drop out of school as women. They argued that men make up “90 percent” of the prison population and are less likely to get a job after graduation. Thirty people fought for the movement to gain acceptance and recognition. This was a controversial rally, in that some people felt that it was simply a blow to women and masking an underlying current of misogyny.

Case Study: Elliot Rodger and the Santa Barbara shootings

In May 2014 a 22-year-old Elliot Rodger went on a killing spree in Isla Vist, California that was fueled by his resentment of the women who rejected him and the men who received their affections instead. Rodger left behind a video in which he stated, “You girls have never been attracted to me. I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it.”

Watch the chilling video of Elliot Rodger before his killing spree.

Rodger was reportedly driven to murder because of the rejection he felt from most women. He complains of being a “22-year-old virgin,” and blames his lack of sexual success on the opposite sex. Clearly, there are other mental health issues that contribute to his feelings of rage, yet his outlet is to target what he believed was the source of his depression and anger for a good portion of his life. Rodger was not the only one who had these hostile feelings toward women; Men’s Rights advocates band together to speak of their negative experiences with women and rant about how they have caused them to live a life of misery and deceit. Some of the arguments are extreme, unreasonably blaming an entire sex for the source of a man’s unhappiness in life.

Rape as a Tool

Case Study: Rape Internationally

According to CNN, “rape has too often become the weapon of choice for frustrated young men who blame women, increasingly visible in the workplace, for their unemployment, and who hope to regain jobs by frightening women back home through sexual violence.” Men are being fueled by their anger toward women; they may feel threatened or humiliated by them and are using the most powerful tool that they have to attack in the most sexually aggressive and destructive way possible. Between 2006 and 2011, rape cases in India rose by twenty-five percent. Even more disturbing, only one quarter of the rapists were convicted. Rape is an increasing normality in India and indicative of the lack of support that women receive in the predominantly patriarchal society. Similarly, according to the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network, in the United States, 97 percent of violent rapists will not be convicted and 54 percent of cases are not even reported.

The International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence

The International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence works to alleviate some of the gender violence conducted against women internationally, specifically in times of war and conflict. Its main goals are to increase services offered to individuals who have been victims of violence and rape, gain justice for victims, and ultimately stop the aggression toward women.

Battling the Red Pill

Social Media to Combat the Red Pill Movement

In response to a society that seems to breed rape culture, the Twitter movement #YesAllWomen has emerged on Twitter. According to Time, the #YesAllWomen hashtag was created “to criticize the way society teaches men to feel entitled to women at the expense of their health, safety and, in [the Santa Barbara shooter] Rodger’s case, lives.” The online campaign was created to empower women, and expand on the belief that women are worth more than their physical appearance. It also brings awareness to how women are constantly placed in sexually offensive and uncomfortable situations. A recent post links to a list of (in)appropriate responses to cat-callers on the street. Tweets such as this one:

Because tweets like this should not exist #YesAllWomen pic.twitter.com/Ng84ItSXjD — Izabella (@izabellaanna_) July 14, 2014

Organizations Against Rape Culture

Organizations such as People Against Rape Culture, are fighting back by attempting to educate, collaborate, and advocate so that people will become more aware of rape culture. There are also organizations that include man’s involvement. Men Can Stop Rape has compiled a list of Men’s Anti-Violence Organizations. The group has also used collaborative methods, such as the Strength Campaign, to educate boys in middle schools, high schools, and universities and assist them in working on relationships with peers, teachers, family members, and members of their community.

Conclusion

Everyone is entitled to a personal opinion, therefore whether or not the Men’s Rights Movement results in any legislation is irrelevant to its existence as a legitimate movement. This holds true for the Red Pill Movement, as well; however, that it is breeding an extreme sense of animosity toward an entire gender. Governments must continue to educate and prosecute those people who violently and sexually violate women, no matter where the source of that anger comes from.

Resources

Business Insider: Inside Red Pill, the Weird New Cult For Men Who Don’t Understand Women

WorldNews Network: Deadly California rampage: Chilling video, but no match for reality

Washington Post: Men’s Rights Activists, Gathering to Discuss All the Ways Society Has Done Them Wrong

Times of India: Low Conviction Rate Spurring Sexual Assault Cases in India

TIME: The Most Powerful #YesAllWomen Tweets

RAINN: 97 of Every 100 Rapists Receive no Punishment, RAINN Analysis Shows

TIME: What I Learned as a Woman at a Men’s-Rights Conference

Southern Poverty Law Center: Men’s Rights Movement Spreads False Claims about Women

Ms. Foundation: Stopping the Violence Against Women 

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Red Pill and the Men’s Rights Movement appeared first on Law Street.

Stories of vicious dog attacks capture the imagination of concerned citizens and instill fear in communities. While dog-bite attacks are relatively rare, the viciousness of some attacks is enough to cause anyone concern. Localities turn to Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) as a way to regulate aggressive dogs and prevent attacks. Here’s what you need to know about BSL, why groups increasingly oppose it, and what other alternatives exist to be proactive about dog attacks.

What Are Breed-Specific Laws?

Breed-Specific Legislation is a blanket term that refers to any type of law designed to regulate certain breeds with the goal of reducing dog attacks. These laws are typically instituted by city and municipal governments. In its most drastic form, BSL includes a complete ban on a specific type of dog. The laws typically target “pitbull” types and other dog breed that are considered aggressive. Pit bulls aren’t a specific breed, but are a set of dogs that can include American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and other breed mixes. Bans in cities may also include bulldogs, rottweilers, and wolf-hybrids.

Other BSL has lesser requirements, such as mandatory spaying or neutering, muzzling, confinement, a minimum insurance, or preventing the chaining of dogs. Most BSL requires owners of dangerous breeds to carry liability insurance with coverage up to $500,000. If an attack does occur, victims can then receive medical payment. This also acts as a type of ban, since owners unable to afford such exorbitant insurance would not be allowed to own targeted breeds.

What is the reason for BSL?

The basis for these laws can be traced to numerous studies concluding pit bulls were implicated in a disproportionate number of attacks. A 20-year study (1978-1998) by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) showed that pit bulls and rottweilers were involved in 67 percent of dog-bite related fatalities during that time period. Numerous studies reveal similar conclusions. Some of the grizzly statistics can be seen below:

BSL advocates point to features specific to certain dogs that make them prone to harmful attacks. Pit bulls derive their genes from “the Butcher’s Dog,” which was originally bred for bull-baiting before being used for dogfighting. The dogs were bred to be muscular, aggressive, and agile. Reports claim these dogs are unique since they give no warning signs before attacking and will not retreat from an attack even when considerable pain is inflicted. These dogs will attack deep muscles and then hold on with their teeth and shake, causing tissues to rip.

Attacks by aggressive dogs can pose a large threat to communities and are too expensive of an issue to ignore. The AVMA estimates hospital expenses for dog-bite related emergency visits to be $102.4 million. A 2010 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality study showed that the number of Americans hospitalized for dog bites almost doubled over a 15-year period. The study also concluded the average cost of a dog-bite related hospital stay was $18,200, approximately 50 percent higher than the average injury-related hospital stay. In 2012, more than 27,000 people underwent reconstructive surgery as a result of being bitten by dogs.

What arguments are made against BSL?

Numerous organizations, including the American Bar Association, American Humane Association, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publicly oppose BSL. Many opponents refer to the laws as “Breed Discriminatory Laws.”  In 2013 President Obama even issued an official response to the controversial laws:

“We don’t support breed-specific legislation — research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.”

Listen to a discussion from the American Kennel Club below:

State bans

Seventeen states ban legislation against specific types of dogs, and other states are considering similar legislation. An interesting case was made in Denver after Colorado approved legislation banning BSL. Denver passed its pit bull ban in 1989, repealed the ban in 2004 to comply with state law, but then reinstated the ban in 2005. The city’s challenge to the state’s BSL prohibition was ultimately ruled in Denver’s favor as a home-rule exception. The court ruled a state ban on BSL could not infringe on Denver’s right to enforce ordinances on matters of local concern. Most court cases have upheld the laws because localities enjoy widespread police powers. As long as cities can prove a BSL is related to improving public safety, it will be upheld. Even following Denver’s BSL, the county has dog bite rates many times higher than other Colorado counties without similar laws.

Profiling

Many take issue with BSL because it is difficult to predict a dog’s breed or behavior based on outward appearance. According to the American Pet Products Association, 31 million of 73 million pet dogs are classified by their owners as “mutts,” which makes them hard to classify as a specific breed. Laws banning “pit bulls” target a loosely-defined class of dogs or dogs with a similar appearance. In many localities, the decision of whether a dog is one of the prohibited breeds is left to a city manager or police who lack sufficient expertise in the matter. Other times animal control or a veterinarian will make the decision. The only certain way to tell a dog’s breed is by way of DNA tests, which can be very expensive. This means BSL is often difficult to effectively enforce.

Expense

The laws are typically enforced by animal control agencies on tight budgets. Counties rack up costs from enforcement, kenneling, euthanasia, and litigation. In 2008, Omaha proposed a BSL that would cost half a million dollars to enforce. A Baltimore auditor estimated it would cost $750,000 to enforce a breed-specific ban.

Nature v. Nurture

Owners of these “dangerous” breeds contend any dog can become vicious if it is not treated properly. Dog owners who do not appropriately care for their dog, abuse it, or treat it as a guard dog rather than a pet make the dog more prone to attacks. In contrast, a loving family training a pit bull would raise a well-behaved dog with no aggression problems.

Unintended effects

Others believe BSL has more dangerous effects. Owners intent on keeping the outlawed breeds may keep their dogs in hiding, meaning the dogs do not get proper socialization or visits to the veterinarian. Opponents also claim these laws encourage ownership by the most irresponsible people, who own pit bulls as a status symbol to show disregard for the law. If there is a ban on pit bulls or rottweilers, owners can still have other unregulated aggressive breeds. One dog owner created a video against BSL below:

Have these laws been effective?

One highly cited case study comes from Prince George’s County in Maryland, as it was one of the few places to examine BSL effectiveness. The county of more than 900,000 people banned pit bulls in 1996. Any pit bulls found in the county after the ban were either put down or sent to live with families in other areas. A 2003 task force found the 15-year pit bull ban cost the county more than $250,000 each year, with no measurable effect on safety. The cost to the county to confiscate and euthanize a single pit-bull is roughly $68,000. In fiscal year 2001-2002, the county spent more than half a million dollars enforcing the ban. Due to ineffectiveness, the task force recommended repealing the ban and found that other, non-breed-specific laws already were in place to cover vicious animals, leash laws, and other public health and safety concerns.

In 2000, the CDC looked at 20 years of data regarding dog bites and fatalities in the United States. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks represent only a very small proportion of total dog bite injuries, and that it’s impossible to calculate the bite rates of specific breeds. No evidence supports the idea that a specific type of dog is more prone to attacks. Furthermore, breed specific laws have not succeeded in reducing overall bite-related injuries in any area where they were implemented.

The U.S. Military also has contentious BSL. The Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force all ban large dogs with a predisposition for aggressive behavior. Dogs such as pit bulls and rottweilers are not allowed to live at base housing, and families wishing to have these dogs may be moved off base. Many feel this treatment is unfair to those who are fighting for their country.

Are there other alternatives to BSL?

Organizations who oppose BSL advocate a number of solutions they feel are more effective. The CDC proposes a community-based approach. This approach includes:

• Public dialogue identifying community issues
• Developing an advisory council
• Monitoring bite response
• Data reporting
• Public education campaign
• Businesses addressing prevention techniques
• Effectively conveying information through local media

The CDC reports that aggression in dogs is tied to a number of factors beyond breed. These factors include sex, socialization, heredity, and treatment. More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs. An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog. Eighty-four percent of bite cases involved dogs who were maintained by reckless owners — the dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or allowed to interact with children unsupervised. Seventy-eight percent of the dogs in bite cases were not kept as pets but as guard, breeding, or yard dogs.

The statistics show that rather than outlawing specific breeds, campaigns to prevent dog-biting should focus on creating caring owners and encouraging the spaying and neutering of dogs. Further, children must be educated to understand how to play with dogs and when to leave them alone. Dogs themselves may not be dangerous, but a bad situation can make any dog more prone to aggressive behavior. While pit bulls and other “aggressive” breeds can pose threats to a community, outlawing these dogs through BSL is not a surefire solution.

Resources

Primary

ASPCA: Breed Specific Legislation

DogsBite.org: Military Breed-Specific Policies

DogsBite.org: BSL by State

Additional

TIME: Obama Blasts Legislation Targeting Specific Dog Breeds

StopBSL.org: Expense of BSL

Animal Legal Defense Fund: Challenging Denver’s Pit Bull Ban

American Veterinary Medical Association: Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention

Animal Legal Defense Fund: Pit Bull Bans: The State of Breed-Specific Legislation

National Canine Research Council: Denver’s Breed-Specific Legislation: Brutal, Costly, and Ineffective

Animal Law Coalition: Denver’s Holocaust: Call For an End to the Pit Bull Ban

United Kennel Club: Punish the Deeds, Not the Breeds

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bullying Pit Bulls: Do Breed-Specific Laws Work? appeared first on Law Street.

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act, passed in 1984, is turning 30 this year. The law, meant to curb teen drunk driving, has been the topic of debate since it was passed. Read on to learn more about what inspired the law, whether or not it works, and a few unintended consequences.

What is the National Minimum Drinking Age Act

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 set the drinking age of every state at 21.

Well, not exactly– congress is not allowed to tell states that they have to make their drinking age a certain number. However, Congress does have power to control spending, including the allocations of funds to states. That’s why this act threatened to cut ten percent of federal highway funding to any state that did not change their drinking age to 21. By 1988, every state had changed their drinking age to 21.

Critics of the law had two main arguments. Some complained that the law was was an intrusion on states’ rights. Others argued that it was not fair that the federal government could call 18 year olds adults when they fight for their country, but not when they want a beer.

Watch the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), author of the National Minimum Wage Drinking Age Act Late, respond to these criticisms on PBS NewsHour.

Why was it passed?

This bill was the end result of a massive campaign by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to lower the drinking age.

MADD was started in 1980 by Candy Lightner when her daughter was killed by a repeat drunk driver. The group aggressively lobbied President Reagan and Congress to combat the issue of drunk driving, in part by increasing the drinking age to 21. The problem, in MADD’s eyes, had started a decade earlier. In the 1970s, as a result of the Vietnam War drafting 18-year-olds, some states decided to lower their drinking ages to 18. It only seemed fair; if you could be forced to fight, you should be allowed to drink. However, this led to a sharp spike in drunk driving fatalities.

One major cause was the phenomenon of “blood borders.” These were the borders between states with high drinking ages and states with low drinking ages. Historically, 18 years olds would drive to neighboring states to drink, then while driving back, crash and die. The hope was that raising the drinking age to 21 would lower drunk driving rates.

Has it worked?

Sort of — a Boston University study has shown that, since the drinking age was raised, there have been significantly fewer drunk driving accidents, and a strong majority, 89 percent, of drunk drivers today are between the ages of 21 and 44.

But, lower drunk driving rates are not just limited to those who are banned from drinking. Drunk driving in general has reduced across almost every age group.

Courtesy of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

As you can see, the most dramatic drop was in the 21-29 age group. The minimum drinking age did not impact them. Admittedly, there was also a notable drop in the 16-20 age group.

This decrease in drunk driving rates for all ages could still be the result of a lower drinking age if young people had stopped drinking. However, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), 39 percent of high school students still say they drink. The statistics from the National Institute of Health are even more eye-opening. It states 72 percent of 12 graders have tried alcohol and 85 percent of college students drink, even though they are not 21.

So, if young people are still drinking, why did drunk driving decrease so dramatically? Choose Responsibly, an organization that sparks debate about alcohol laws and supports lowering the drinking age, argues that a mix of seatbelt laws, a lower legal BAC, and public awareness all explain the drop in drunk driving fatalities. They also argue that the drop in alcohol-related fatalities actually started in the 1970s, well before the drinking age was raised to 21.

Have there been any unintended consequences?

Different sources have come to different conclusions. While some say that the higher drinking age has definitely saved lives, others argue that unintended consequences have led to a binge drinking crisis.

According to the earlier mentioned NIH report, “underage drinkers consume, on average, four to five drinks per occasion about five times a month. By comparison, drinkers age 26 and older consume two to three drinks per occasion, about nine times a month.” So, while an adult might have a couple glasses of wine a few times a week, a young person will instead have double that amount once a week. Young people are drinking more alcohol in a shorter timeframe.

Watch this clip to learn about why this trend is so dangerous:

Binge drinking can also indirectly cause dangerous behavior in college students. This includes violence, unprotected sex, and even sexual assault. Choose Responsibly argues that this is a consequence of a high drinking age. If these young people were allowed to drink with adult supervision, they would learn how to drink safely and responsibly. Since drinking is illegal, they have been pushed into the shadows. It’s a lot easier to get dangerously drunk in your friend’s basement than it is at a bar.

The binge drinking trend has led some to call for a repeal, or at least a discussion, of the minimum drinking age. A 137 college presidents are signatories on a statement from the Amethyst Initiative, a group dedicated to lowering the drinking age. The presidents argue that they have seen the negative impact of a high drinking age on their own campuses, including high amount of binge drinking amongst their students.

On this point, the presidents are wrong and right. For one, Americans are binge drinking less than they used to as a whole. However, college students are the only group of Americans that are binge drinking as much as they used to. With this in mind, it makes sense the college presidents would be so concerned about this issue. Their point of view is shaped by their experience with a group that represents an outlier in drinking attitudes nationwide. College students are still binge drinking at higher rates than the rest of the country, but raising the drinking age to 21 seems to have lowered the amount of binge drinking amongst young people who are not in college.

Still, Amethyst presidents are concerned about a culture where college drinkers move from bars, where someone can cut them off, to basements and pre-games that are unregulated and unchecked.

Signatories to the Amethyst Initiative have other reasons to lower the drinking age, mostly philosophical. For one, they believe that forcing young people to drink in secret and violate the law fosters a disrespect for all laws. They also believe that a person who can vote, smoke, marry, and fight for their country should be given all of the responsibilities of adulthood, including drinking.

Conclusion

It’s been 30 years since the National Minimum Drinking Age Act became a law, and it is still hard to measure the act’s impact. It’s difficult to tell how many lives it saved from drunk driving accidents because there are so many other factors. It’s also challenging to figure out if it has really curbed underage and binge drinking. More research needs to be done on the issue before the act can be defined as a success or failure.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984

Additional

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Impaired Driving: Get the Facts

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: Epidemiology and Consequences of Drinking and Driving

Mothers Against Drunk Driving: No More Victims

Fox News: When Drunk Driving Deterrence Becomes Neo-Prohibition

Mental Floss: Why is the Drinking Age 21?

CNN: Drinking Age of 21 Does Not Work

Amethyst Initative: Rethink the Drinking Age

Washington Post: Drinking Age Paradox

Washington University in St. Louis: Higher Drinking Age Linked to Less Binge Drinking…Except in College Students

Boston University: New Report on Minimum Drinking Age Makes Strong Case for Existing Laws

National Institutes of Health: Underage Drinking Fact Sheet

Choose Responibility: Those Who Choose to Drink Are Drinking More

Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Binge Drinking Fact Sheet

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turn Down for What: Does the Minimum Drinking Age Act Work? appeared first on Law Street.

As soccer fans around the globe eagerly tune in to the FIFA World Cup in Brazil, it is important to take a hard look at the world’s most beloved tournament and its impact on the host countries. It may initially seem that host country selection is a tremendous honor and will result in an economic boom; however, systemic corruption and bribery suggest that not all money is good money.

The Benefits and Impacts of Hosting

Following the announcement on October 30, 2001 that Brazil would be the Host Nation of the 2014 FIFA World Cup, the developing country was propelled into a state of pride and eager anticipation. Five-time world champions and birthplace to an abundance of soccer legends such as Pelé and Ronaldinho, Brazil initially viewed hosting the 20th World Cup as an honor. The sport is not only revered at a near religious sacredness in Brazil, but additionally, the perceived economic benefits would be tantalizing for any nation.

Tourism

• The final match of the 2010 World Cup between Spain and the Netherlands drew in at least 1 billion viewers, with the 2014 games expecting to surpass that number.
• 3.7 million tourists will descend upon the country during the tournament’s four-week run.
• A projected $11.1 billion will be spent on hotels, airlines, advertising, and various other expenditures.

Job Creation

• Brazil estimates that 380,000 jobs were created because of the World Cup.

The preliminary sense of privilege, however, began to wear away as obstacles continued to emerge and speculation of Brazil’s inability to host the tournament could not be alleviated.

World Cup 2014: Brazil

How is it Financed?

The country’s original plan claimed that private donors would finance the development and renovation of stadiums. Much to the dismay of Brazilians, this plan has greatly diverted. According to The Wall Street Journal’s John Lyons and Loretta Chao, taxpayers have paid $3.6 billion for the stadiums. São Paulo will be the arena for the opening game, a brand new stadium with 62,000 seats that came with a  $550 million price tag. The stadium will go to the Corinthians soccer team after the Cup, but since the team was unable to provide enough private lenders, the stadium’s financing ended up coming from $200 million in tax breaks and government loans. The 2014 World Cup has accumulated a cost of $11.5 billion, which is twice the amount of the previous two World Cups in South Africa and Germany.

Reported by the Pew Research Center, 72 percent of Brazilians are dissatisfied with the way things are going in their country. Additionally, 61 percent of citizens believe hosting the event has been damaging for Brazil because it takes funding away from schools, heath care, and other public services.

Location

Manaus Stadium is another example of poor planning. The 39,000-seat stadium was constructed in the capital city in the state of Amazonas while its greatest local games scarcely attract 1,500 spectators. Since the city lacks a notable soccer team, the stadium will be rendered useless after the Cup — a significant reason as to why private lenders once again did not contribute and the blunt of the cost fell on to the citizens.

Corruption

Following the historical trend, many corruption allegations have surfaced in the lead up to this year’s World Cup. One such example, according to a report by a city auditor, is that the cost to build a stadium in Brasília was $636 million, a 68 percent increase compared to the initial projected cost. Andrade Gutierrez S.A., the builder of the stadium, chose not to comment on the “grave irregularities” found in the report. These abnormalities, such as transportation being over-billed and a 12.1 percent loss rate on steel, were a source of the distended budget.

With $4 billion spent on stadiums and an insufficient amount of funds allocated to public services, the people of Brazil have taken to strikes and protest to promote their needs.

Civil unrest

Movimento Passe Livre (Free Fare Movement), which advocates for free public transportation, gained attention on June 13, 2013 when police turned a peaceful protest into a place of terror. Officers fired rubber bullets and firing grenades at bystanders and fleeing protesters. Those who were trapped in the mayhem were subjected to inhaling pepper spray and tear gas. The movement quickly spread across a dozen state capitals. These protests occurred simultaneously with the Confederations Cup matches. BBC Sport’s Ben Smith reported that throughout the June 6, 2013 match between Uruguay and Nigeria, “the deep rumblings, loud bangs and the crackle of police weapons could be heard in the streets nearby,” leaving many with questions if the social problems Brazil is facing would hinder its ability to host the Cup a year later.

Subway Strikes

Close to the opening ceremonies, subway strikes erupted in Sao Paulo. Approximately four million people a day use the subway. The workers hoped that the strike would lead to increase in pay and better working conditions; however, the São Paulo court ruled that striking over pay was illegal.

The Homeless Demand Answers

In May 2014, the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem-Teto (Homeless Workers’ Movement, or MTST) and the Fronte de Resistência Urbana (Urban Resistance Front) — both organizations representing homeless citizens — protested 20,000 strong in São Paulo. The protesters demanded answers about how the government spent public funds on the World Cup. The protesters were able to garner international attention and disrupt traffic for more than 150 miles.

World Cup 2010: South Africa

Match fixing

The New York Times‘ Declan Hill and Jeré Longman investigated incidents of match fixing that took place in five exhibition matches during the South Africa 2010 World Cup. Football 4U International was the Singapore-based company that arranged the match rigging.

“At least five matches and possibly more” were manipulated, while “as many as 15 matches were targets.” The exhibition matches were exploited for betting purposes, especially in underground Asian markets. In a report obtained by The New York Times, it is estimated that the illegal betting markets in Asia total hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Football 4U International

The South Africa-Guatemala friendly was one of the matches fixed by Football 4U International. Ibrahim Chaibou was the referee supplied for that game, receiving $60,000 for manipulating a 5-0 South African victory.

Steve Goddard, the acting head of refereeing for the South African Football Association at the time of the 2010 World Cup, was offered a bribe by Football 4U International executive Wilson Raj Perumal. The bribe of $3,500 was for the organization to supply referees for the exhibition matches.

These revelations have spurred FIFA to work closely with law enforcement officials to patrol potential match fixing during the 2014 games.

World Cup 2022: Qatar

Appalling Living and Working Conditions

While Brazil’s hosting capability has been in question, it is nearly unanimous that Qatar hosting the World Cup in 2022 is a treacherous affair. In an interview with Swiss broadcaster RTS about if choosing Qatar to host in 2022 was a mistake, Sepp Blatter, FIFA’s president, said “Yes, it was a mistake of course, but one makes lots of mistakes in life.” Journalists, fans, and officials directly connected to FIFA are calling for a new vote if it is confirmed that Qatar won because of a corrupt system. The BBC reported that Football Association chairman Greg Dyke would support a new vote.

In an interview with ESPN published June 1, 2014, Sharan Burrow of the International Union Confederation (ITUC) was asked, “How do Qataris view the people who are there building this vast infrastructure for a country with only 200,000 citizens?” Her response came as a chilling summation of the hostility,  “I don’t think they see them as human.”

Reported by Richard Conway of BBC, “Almost 200 Nepalese men are reported to have died last year working on construction projects in Qatar,” and “up to 4,000 workers could die by 2022 if current laws and attitudes persist.”

According to the ITUC Special Report “The Case Against Qatar:”

• Employers are demanding deposits of $275 paid by workers before they are allowed to leave for holidays.
• 191 Nepalese workers died in 2013 and 169 in 2012.
• 218 Indian nationals died in 2013, 237 died in 2012 and 239 in 2011.
• On average 20 Indian migrants died per month in 2013.

Qatar follows a ‘kefala’ employment system, which ties migrant workers to their sponsor companies. Human rights groups and trade unions are highly critical of this system as it requires exit visas that do not allow workers to leave without their employer’s permission.

With eight years left until Qatar is set to host the World Cup, these numbers are frightening to both human rights activists and soccer spectators.

How Bribery Gave Qatar the World Cup

In addition to the current welfare of the workers, allegations that Qatar won the bid due to fraudulent measures have also surfaced. Qatar’s former top football official, Mohamed Bin Hammam, stands at the center of it all.

• The Sunday Times obtained numerous leaked e-mails stating how bin Hammam paid off and lobbied numerous senior officials to support Qatar’s bid.
• According to Mike Singer of CBS, “Regarding former FIFA VP Jack Warner, Bin Hammam was accused of paying him more than $1.6 million in order to garner his support. Warner eventually resigned in 2011 to avoid an investigation connected to Bin Hammam’s failed attempt to become FIFA president.“
• Bin Hammam is also said to have paid up to $200,000 to multiple African soccer associations through ten slush funds in his company. In turn for receiving the money, the associations persuaded the top four FIFA officials in Africa to vote how Bin Hammam desired.

Corruption is nothing new to Bin Hammam as he has been banned for life by FIFA twice. In 2012 following a natural gas deal with Thailand (home to Worawi Makudi who is a FIFA board ally), Bin Hammam was expelled based on financial wrongdoing. Supplementing the public’s disdain for how events are transpiring thus far in Qatar, FIFA’s top sponsors have vocalized their displeasure. Visa has requested FIFA to “maintain strong ethical standards and operate with transparency.” Adidas, FIFA’s longest-standing sponsor and ball provider for the World Cup said, “The negative tenor of the public debate around FIFA at the moment is neither good for football nor for FIFA and its partners.” Meeting opposition by six of FIFA’s sponsors — who will pay $700 million collectively over four years toward the 2014 games — are sure to influence how FIFA handles the situation.

Resources

Primary 

The New York Times: Referees Exchange Letter 

Additional

International Trade Union Confederation: “The Case Against Qatar”

FIFA: Brazil Confirmed as 2014 Hosts

Wall Street Journal: Hopes Fades in Brazil for a World Cup Economic Boost

Soccerly: World Cup Expected to Bring 3.7 Million Tourist Invasion

Pew Research Center: Brazilian Discontent Ahead of World Cup

Wall Street Journal: São Paulo Subway Workers to Strike

International Business Times: No to the Cup: Homeless Workers’ Association Leads 20,000 People in Sao Paulo to Demonstrate Against World Cup Costs

The New York Times: Fixed Soccer Matches Cast Shadow Over World Cup

Economist: The Streets Erupt

BBC: Qatar World Cup 2022: FIFA Vice-President ‘Would Support’ Re-Vote

ESPN : Qatar’s World Cup

BBC: Qatar 2022: Plans to Protect World Cup Workers Unveiled

CBS: Report: Former FIFA Exec Paid $5 Million to Support Qatar WC Bid

Guardian: World Cup 2014: Brazil Still Facing Issues With 100 Days to Go 

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post The Dark Side of the World Cup: Corruption, Bribery, and Civil Unrest appeared first on Law Street.

It was the event that no one could stop talking about between 1994 and 1995. Everyone around the country was glued to the television to see what would happen to O.J. Simpson, once-beloved celebrity and accused murderer. Before O.J., there were televised trials of Ted Bundy, the Menendez Brothers, and Jeffrey Dahmer, among others. And since O.J., we’ve televised quite a few high profile trials. For celebrity buffs, Lindsey Lohan’s streamed on TMZ. There was, of course, the horrifying Casey Anthony case that captured national attention during the summer of 2011. Most recently, spectators were able to watch the Jodi Arias and George Zimmerman proceedings from their homes.

In fact, media streams of famous court cases have become rather ubiquitous in American culture. But should they be? We’ve turned everything from Congressional debate to young children in beauty pageants into must-see TV. Should trials be the same way? Read on to learn about the debate over televising trials, and the arguments for and against allowing cameras into courtrooms.

 What are the rules about filming trials?

In the United States, the general rule is that photography and broadcasting of criminal trials in federal courts is banned but can be overridden by a law or another court rule. Many judges decided to ban broadcasting and photography from courtrooms after the O.J. Simpson trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that televising trials is not a violation of constitutional due process.  In certain cases, jury deliberations are publicly broadcasted. The broadcasting of criminal trials is very controversial and even the Senate Judiciary Committee and the U.S. Supreme Court have differing views about its propriety.

 What’s the argument for putting criminal trials on TV?

Proponents of televising criminal trials assert various arguments, including that since many Americans have no personal experience with the criminal justice system and many learn about current events entirely from television, televising criminal trials is vital to individuals’ understanding of the legal system.  U.S. Senator Charles Schumer stated that:

Courts are an important part of our government, and the more our government institutions are shown to the public, the more dignified they become, and the more the public comes to understand them. Allowing cameras into our courtrooms will help demystify them and let the public evaluate how well the system works.

Furthermore, a Colorado Supreme Court Justice argued that religious worship and ceremonies are televised and there is no public consensus that religious practices are denigrated when broadcast so there is no reason to assume that the legal process will be.

Even if being televised can make witnesses nervous, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Nervousness makes potential discrepancies and inaccuracies easier to notice and reluctant witnesses can be persuaded by the legal action that brings them to court e.g. police escort and subpoenas. Finally, though there is an ongoing study, there is no evidence that televising criminal cases has more impact on a criminal trial than the presence of an audience, which is generally permitted.

What’s the argument against televising trials?

Opponents of televising criminal trials argue that it creates numerous procedural difficulties that waste the court’s time and may prejudice the defendant. These include the necessity of judges monitoring the manner of the broadcasting. It is also difficult to sequester juries to prevent them from watching the trial on TV. Broadcasting trials makes it more difficult to impanel an impartial jury if a second trial is necessary. There is an increased need for marshals and being broadcast has a significant mental effect on witnesses, jurors, and court officers.

If criminal trials are televised then they become spectacles for the public and the solemnity and dignity of the judiciary will be compromised for the sake of entertainment. For example, after an expert witness testified in Jodi Arias’ case, she was attacked online and the media coverage could have possibly swayed what weight was given to her testimony.

Televising the conduct of judges and lawyers creates a virtually universal conflict of interest within the court system. The Court’s officers will be tempted to consider their television appearance in addition to the needs of their client. It is even possible that a lawyer could weigh his interest in having an attractive TV appearance higher than his duty to his client. Lawyers may try risky strategies in order to impress a potential television market, and judges may behave in ways that are most conducive to their political aspirations even if they are not warranted by the law. If a highly controversial criminal trial (e.g. the George Zimmerman trial) is televised and the verdict is not popular with a significant portion of the public, then an officer of the court or juror could be a target of disgruntled viewers.

Conclusion

We now have the ability to broadcast basically whatever we want. Trials are public for the most part–family, friends, and others who know or do not know the parties are often able to go and observe the proceedings. Televising trials allows everyone to have that access to the justice system, and promotes transparency and understanding. That being said, broadcasting trials and the resulting media coverage and analysis could have potential to affect the trial itself. While justice may very well be blind–should our knowledge of court cases be? It’s not an easy question or an easy answer, but one that will have to be answered very soon.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Constitution: Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

Second Circuit Court of Appeals: Westmoreland v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

United States Courts: Cameras in Courts

Maryland Courts: Report of the Committee to Study Extended Media Coverage of Criminal Trial Proceedings in Maryland

Supreme Court: Chandler v. Florida

Additional

RTDNA: Cameras in the Court: A State-by-State Guide

WJBO: Televise Criminal Trials? Of Course?

Guardian: Televising the Courts: the Time Has Come

Voice of America: Chinese Courts Put More Criminal Trials Online

Townhall: Say No to Televised Trial

CJ Online: Time to Tune Out Televised Trials

Debate: Should Criminal Trials be Televised?

DebateWise: Cameras in Courtrooms

Examiner: Zimmerman Case Coverage Highlights Flaws in Media

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Criminal Trials on TV: What’s the Verdict? appeared first on Law Street.