Things took a quick turn for the worse when HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher was chatting with Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse. After Sasse asked Maher if he would be willing to come work in the state, Maher responded by using a racial slur traditionally used to target and oppress African-Americans.

Sasse did not react and the studio audience applauded the “joke.”

Bill Maher just said the n word, @BenSasse didn’t look horrified, and the audience applauded. pic.twitter.com/kFAs1S3dyM

— Yashar Ali (@yashar) June 3, 2017

This incident, as would be expected, sparked outrage. Celebrities from both sides of the aisle reacted with either support for Maher or disdain for his insensitive word choice.

Chance the Rapper immediately hopped on Twitter and asked HBO to cancel the show.

Please @HBO Do Not Air Another Episode Of Real Time With Bill Maher.

— Lil Chano From 79th (@chancetherapper) June 3, 2017

Wayne Brady didn’t make a plea to HBO. Instead he simply said, “I told you so.”

I tried to tell people… https://t.co/P8YXL6TflM

— Wayne Brady (@WayneBrady) June 3, 2017

While those celebrities were angry with Maher, rapper Killer Mike didn’t want to dwell on it. Mike, who endorsed Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election, sees larger problems that the black community faces and wanted to focus on those. He tweeted: “black have BIGGER things than N***ER to concern our selves with: Black Banks, Gentrification, Economics & Trade Education. Love, My N***a.”

While some expressed outrage, there was also support for Maher. Fellow talk show hosts Piers Morgan and Larry King defended Maher and hoped that people could move on.

I hope @billmaher doesn’t get fired. Yes, he cracked a dumb, offensive joke. But he’s no racist & America needs his voice, brain & humour. pic.twitter.com/LLn49rCdtz

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) June 5, 2017

I’ve been a friend of @billmaher‘s for years and there’s not a racist bone in his body. Let’s accept his apology and move on.

— Larry King (@kingsthings) June 3, 2017

Even non-celebrities like former Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile pled that society can accept Maher’s apology.

Bill Maher Apologizes for Use of Racial Slur on ‘Real Time’ https://t.co/iHTloTZpDV. Let’s accept his contrition and move on.

— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) June 4, 2017

With celebrities spanning the entire political spectrum, there was both support and disdain for Maher after his actions. While HBO officials did not take Chance’s advice and cancel the show, they did release a statement condemning his words.

“Bill Maher’s comment last night was completely inexcusable and tasteless. We are removing his deeply offensive comment from any subsequent airings of the show,” HBO said.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Celebrities on Twitter React to Bill Maher’s Use of a Racial Slur appeared first on Law Street.

It has become a common sentiment–2016 was awful. One frequent complaint: a bunch of celebrity deaths. It even felt bizarre at points–just how many legendary music stars and acting icons was the Grim Reaper going to take away from us at a time when we need them the most? Think about it: David Bowie, Alan Rickman, Leonard Cohen, Prince, Muhammad Ali, and Gene Wilder all passed away this year.

“Harambe died, America died, Prince and other famous people died.”—Description of 2016 by my 11-year-old, who should be president.

— Ken Layne (@KenLayne) December 2, 2016

So did a lot more celebrities die this year? Or did it just feel that way? The BBC actually looked into that question. It sent its obituaries editor Nick Serpell to check whether there was an abnormal number of stars who died this year.

Serpell analyzed how many pre-prepared obituaries the BBC aired or posted over its TV, radio, and website outlets, from the years 2012-2016. And, interestingly enough, there was huge increase in star deaths in just the first three months of 2016—with twice as many notable deaths compared to the same months in 2015, and five times as many when compared to 2012.

No, It’s NOT Our Imagination. More Famous People HAVE Died in 2016. https://t.co/B5nF6ho3nF pic.twitter.com/alywiBcdtv

— Alan Cross (@alancross) December 16, 2016

Bear in mind though that this is not a completely reliable number to weigh. The BBC doesn’t run an obituary for every single celebrity who dies, and it was only the pre-prepared ones that were measured.

According to Serpell, the spike in celebrity deaths was early and didn’t last. “The last six months of this year were broadly in line with the previous last six months of the previous four or five years,” he said. But, there was an overall increase of 30 percent, which is still noteworthy. “In 2012, we had a total of 16. In 2013, it went to 24. In 2014, it rose again to 29. In 2015, it rose slightly again to 32. For 2016, as of [December 15], it stands at 42,” he said.

I wanna take a moment to remind you how many famous people died (so far) in 2016.

If everyone could stop dying – that’d be great. Thanks. pic.twitter.com/stgjqGepPi

— Nick Monroe (@nickmon1112) November 25, 2016

So, maybe it felt like there was a spike in deaths this year since there were a lot of big names who died, leaving a seemingly large vacuum.  And as Serpell points out, that actually makes a lot of sense. The golden days of the 1960s–when pop culture and TV really exploded–were roughly half a century ago. People who became stars became huge stars. But today, there’s significantly more diversity, so a lot of stars are less universally recognized.

It’s also important to note that the death rate is up generally, because of the enormity of the baby-boomer generation, born between 1946 and 1964. In the U.S., there were about 76 million baby-boomers in 2014–about 23 percent of the U.S. population. These people are now between 52 and 70 years old. That means we may see more celebrity obituaries soon, so get ready and brace yourselves for 2017.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is it Just Us, or Were There a Lot of Celebrity Deaths in 2016? appeared first on Law Street.

The battle between Taylor Swift and Kanye West over his song “Famous” may become a legal one thanks to newly-leaked footage from West’s wife, Kim Kardashian West.

After Kim accused Swift of continuing to “play the victim” on Sunday night’s episode of “Keeping Up With The Kardashians,” she backed up her claims by finally leaking the videotaped telephone conversation between Kanye and Swift on Snapchat. The footage proves that not only did the “Bad Blood” singer  know about the song before its release, but she approved of its lyrics. However, Kimye may want to hold off celebrating, because that recorded phone call may actually be illegal.

But before we get to all that I’ll do my best to catch up all of you who are struggling to follow along because either (a) you don’t religiously follow all of the Kardashians on social media like me or (b) you somehow forgot about that awkward MTV VMAs seven years ago. Here’s a timeline of the drama:

• September 13, 2009: Feud begins after Kanye grabs the mic from Taylor during her MTV VMA acceptance speech for Best Female Video, declaring Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” should have won.
• 2010-2014: Kanye apologizes, then takes back said apology.
• August 30, 2015: Kanye apologizes for real this time after Taylor presents Kanye with Video Vanguard Award at the VMAs.
• February 11, 2016: Kanye releases a song titled “Famous,” in which he referenced the feud rapping: “For all my Southside n***as that know me best/I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex/Why? I made that bitch famous.”
• February 15, 2016: Taylor throws shade at Kanye during her Grammy acceptance speech for Album of the Year saying: “As the first woman to win Album of the Year at the Grammys twice, I want to say to all the young women out there: there are going to be people along the way who will try to undercut your success or take credit for your accomplishments or your fame.”
• February 17, 2016: Kanye flips out on Taylor’s “fake ass” backstage at SNL.
• June 16, 2016: Kim defends her husband in an interview for GQ, revealing that Kanye called Taylor before the song’s release and discussed it with her. Taylor “thought it was funny” and “gave her blessing.” Kim also claims the whole conversation is on tape thanks to Kanye’s videographers. Yet, in the same article a spokesperson for Taylor denies West’s claim, stating Kanye only called to ask Taylor to promote the song on her Twitter account. Taylor’s lawyers also apparently sent a letter demanding they destroy the footage.
• June 24, 2016: Kanye debuts the music video for “Famous,” which consists of a nude Kim and Kanye in bed, surrounded by nude replicas of several celebrities–with a topless Taylor on Kanye’s right.
• July 17, 2016: After venting about the drama on KUWTK, Kim takes to snapchat to release the footage of Kanye and Taylor’s phone conversation, proving the pair was telling the truth. #KimExposedTaylorParty starts trending on Twitter. Here’s the footage:

PART 1: Kanye calling Taylor Swift to tell her about the #FAMOUS lyrics. Courtesy of KKW. pic.twitter.com/TIiqxxzLUh

— TeamKanyeDaily (@TeamKanyeDaily) July 18, 2016

PART 2: Taylor agreeing to tell the media she was in on the #FAMOUS lyrics from the beginning. : KKW. pic.twitter.com/PbXUnGreas

— TeamKanyeDaily (@TeamKanyeDaily) July 18, 2016

• July 18, 2016: Swift responded to the videos with this note on Twitter:

That moment when Kanye West secretly records your phone call, then Kim posts it on the Internet. pic.twitter.com/4GJqdyykQu

— Taylor Swift (@taylorswift13) July 18, 2016

Now that you’re all caught up, here’s where the legality of the footage comes in. Did Kanye break the law by filming his conversation with Swift? It depends on the state.

Federal law “permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties.” This is commonly referred to as “one-party consent.” However, some states require all parties to consent to the recording. These states include: California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

This is where it gets tricky. It’s unclear if Kim and Kanye were in a New York (a one-party consent state) or California (a two-party consent state,) or if Taylor was in Tennessee (a one-party consent state) or somewhere else altogether. In the video Kanye references a Nashville number, but they could simply be talking about an area code.

If two parties are in two different states, the laws in either state, or even federal law, may apply–and California law is strict. Under the California Penal Code, a first-offense for illegal telephone recording can carry a fine of $2,500 or even imprisonment for up to one year.

The California Supreme Court also established a precedent in 2006, ruling in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc. that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that one-party state caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers.

So in other words, it’s unclear whether or not Kanye could face face legal charges for recording the call, or if Kim could be on the hook for distributing the recording. It will be interesting to see whether or not Taylor’s team chooses to pursue legal action.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Kanye Break the Law By Recording Taylor Swift’s Phone Call? appeared first on Law Street.

The leading ladies of Shonda Rhimes’ three current hit shows–“Grey’s Anatomy,” “Scandal,” and “How to Get Away with Murder” are starring in an ad for the Hillary Clinton campaign. The spot is called “Real Life,” and will air in the states that have March 15 primaries.

Check out the spot here:

It stars Shonda Rhimes herself, whose shows dominate ABC’s Thursday night lineup. Also in the spot are Ellen Pompeo, the star of “Grey’s Anatomy,” Kerry Washington, the star of “Scandal,” and Viola Davis, the star of “How to Get Away with Murder.” The ad was directed by Tony Goldwyn, who also stars on “Scandal” as President Fitzgerald Grant.

The ad makes a direct reference to the fact that strong, independent women are a strong theme throughout Rhimes’ shows–Pompeo, Washington, and Davis’s characters all certainly fit that bill. They refer to Hillary Clinton as a real life version of the “brilliant, complex, overqualified, get-it-done woman” they play on TV. In the ad, the three women state:

Our characters are on television. … But the real world has Hillary Clinton — a bonafide rolls-up-her-sleeves, fights-for-what’s-right, in-it-for-you, won’t-back-down, champion for us all

There are other parallels between Rhimes’ shows and Clinton’s campaign. For example (“Scandal” spoiler alert) the first lady on the show, Mellie Grant, goes on to become a Senator and run a presidential campaign.

It’s not really a surprise that the stars of Shondaland are supporting Clinton. Shonda Rhimes has been endorsing Clinton for a while–in fact, she joined with a number of other feminist female celebrities in a separate spot back in February. The video also included Jamie Lee Curtis, Lena Dunham, Amber Tamblyn, Rosie O’Donnell, Amy Poehler, Jemima Kirke, Katy Perry, Retta, Gina Rodriguez, Mary Steenburgen, Tracy Anderson, Constance Wu, Zoe Kazan, Shannon Woodward, Katie Lowes and Uzo Aduba. The women all explained “why I’m with her.”

The next big contest between Hillary Clinton and fellow Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders will be on March 15, when Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio all take to the polls to case their votes. We’ll see if the Shondaland endorsement has any affect on the turnout.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Shondaland is With Hillary appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month, Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler became the third person this year to hit Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump with a cease-and-desist letter for his use of music on the campaign trail. A month earlier, R.E.M. bassist Mike Mills voiced his displeasure at Trump’s use of one of his group’s songs and in June Neil Young asked Trump to stop using his music.

American presidential campaigns have a long history of using music to evoke emotions in audiences. It’s a practice that dates back to the early 1800s and possibly earlier, all the way back to George Washington. Perhaps the most famous example is Dwight Eisenhower’s “They Like Ike” advertisement, which yielded his famous campaign slogan “I like Ike.”

Over the past few decades, however, there’s been a growing trend among songwriters and artists who have come out against campaigns for using their music. The reasons for artists issuing cease-and-desist letters range from disagreeing political views or presenting an image of false endorsement to simply not wanting music played without their permission.

Securing the appropriate legal permissions to use particular songs on the campaign trail is not always enough. Copyright law and fair use are only part of the equation when it comes to a politician’s right to use music. Many states provide protections for famous artists in regards to their image and false endorsement. In fact, it is possible for a politician to legally possess the minimum permissions to use a song and still face a lawsuit from the artist. Read on to learn about the history of music in campaigns and the legal questions that come up time and time again on the campaign trail.

A Brief, Recent History of Campaign Music Fights

Reagan and Springsteen (1984)

As Ronald Reagan campaigned for reelection in the summer of 1984, much of the nation, and in turn Reagan’s presidential campaign, was swept away by Bruce Springsteen’s hit “Born in the USA.” Conservative columnist George Will made a claim to “Born in the USA,” calling it a patriotic, hardworking man’s anthem. Reagan quickly pounced on the opportunity to use the song in his campaign. He was promptly denied the rights to play the song but invoked Springsteen in a speech nonetheless. In a 1994 speech Reagan said,

America’s future rests in a thousand dreams inside your hearts. It rests in the message of hope in songs of a man so many young Americans admire: New Jersey’s own Bruce Springsteen.

The left responded by saying that Reagan and conservatives had misinterpreted the song, claiming that it was a form of protest against the changes that Reagan brought about. Democratic candidate Walter Mondale even believed that Springsteen supported him. However, the song was intentionally crafted to contain both arguments and to be a conflicting piece of music. Ultimately the piece proved to be about disconnection, not belonging to any side, and as a result, probably not the most appropriate campaign tune.

Bush, Petty, and Hall (2004)

The trend in bands and songwriters protesting the political use of their music greatly increased in the 21st century, particularly within the last several election cycles. In 2004, George W. Bush used the songs “Still the One” and “I Won’t Back Down” by John Hall and Tom Petty, respectively. Both artists took offense to the use of their songs for President Bush’s campaign. Hall, later elected as a Democratic congressman in New York, publicly noted that neither he nor his music supported Bush’s reelection efforts.

McCain, Browne, and Mellencamp (2008)

John McCain received several complaints from artists concerning his use of their music, most notably from John Mellencamp for the use of “Our Country,” and  Jackson Browne for “Running on Empty.” Browne went so far as to sue the McCain campaign claiming that the usage of the song was not only without permission, but it also suggested that Browne supported the McCain campaign. As a Democrat, Browne naturally objected to supporting the campaign in any way. McCain would eventually settle with Browne and apologize.

Palin and Heart (2008)

Sarah Palin, John McCain’s running mate in 2008, faced a backlash from the band Heart for her use of their song “Barracuda.” Ann and Nancy Wilson (the band’s lead singer and guitarist), asked the campaign to stop using its music, noting, “Sarah Palin’s views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song ‘Barracuda’ no longer be used to promote her image.” Despite their desire to be left out of the campaign, the use of their song continued, most notably at Palin’s introduction at the Republican Convention in 2008. After its repeated use, the sisters issued a statement saying,

The song ‘Barracuda’ was written in the late ’70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women. (The ‘barracuda’ represented the business.) While Heart did not and would not authorize the use of their song at the RNC, there’s irony in Republican strategists’ choice to make use of it there.

Charlie Crist and The Talking Heads (2010)

During his senate campaign against Republican candidate Marco Rubio, Charlie Crist used the song “Road to Nowhere” by The Talking Heads on his campaign website and in video advertisements. The group responded with a lawsuit that culminated with Crist issuing a formal apology.

Walker and the Dropkick Murphys (2012)

Both Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and Speaker of the State Assembly Jeff Fitzgerald used the Dropkick Murphys cover of “I’m Shipping up to Boston” at tour stops in 2012 for their campaigns. The band responded to Fitzgerald’s use of their song at the Wisconsin GOP Convention by comparing it to the use of a gangsta rap by a white supremacist.

In 2011, Scott Walker led a campaign to eliminate collective bargaining rights for most state workers, which led to a massive backlash from pro-union organizations and Democrats. A recall election was held in 2012 in which Walker retained his post. Earlier this year, Walker played the same song prior to his speech at the Iowa Freedom Summit resulting in a backlash from the band. Dropkick Murphys, a notably pro-union band, tweeted their response:

@ScottWalker @GovWalker please stop using our music in any way…we literally hate you !!! Love, Dropkick Murphys

— Dropkick Murphys (@DropkickMurphys) January 25, 2015

Obama, Moore, and Lauper (2008 and 2012)

The Obama campaign faced some backlash from Sam Moore, of the band Sam & Dave, for its use of the song “Hold On! I’m Comin'” at rallies. Moore objected to the use of his song by the Obama campaign because he had not publicly endorsed Obama’s election bid, noting that his vote is a private matter. However, Moore did send a letter to Obama proudly noting the historic nature of his campaign.

In 2012, the Obama campaign used Cyndi Lauper’s song “True Colors” in an ad criticizing Mitt Romney and his record. While Lauper was not a Romney supporter, she did not agree with the use of her song in a negative advertisement.

When Can Campaigns Use Music?

To use music in advertisements (television and internet), a campaign needs to receive legal permission from both the song’s publisher and the artist’s record label. The use of music at a live campaign event requires a “public performance” license, generally attained from one of the United States’ performing rights organizations. These organizations track the use of music and help distribute royalties from such events.

Technically, campaigns do not need to receive explicit permission from the artist to use their work, but it should be noted that even if a politician has all the requisite legal permissions the artist can still sue the campaign. The author(s) could make a claim to their “Right of Publicity,” which is a legal protection many states give celebrities and artists. The right of publicity generally protects the use of someone’s name and likeness for commercial reasons. However, this right is not yet nationally recognized. On the federal level, the Lanham Act protects an artist’s trademark or brand by offering protection against false endorsement in which the use of an artist’s work can imply the artist’s support. Politicians and their campaigns also need to acquire proper licensing from the publisher, record label, and venue.

What About Fair Use?

One of the most crucial pieces of U.S. copyright law, created to ensure the protection of free speech, is the doctrine of fair use. Fair use is defined as the copying of copyrighted material done for a “limited and ‘transformative’ purpose,” which may legally be done without the artist’s or license holder’s. However, fair use is loosely defined and limited by various court decisions.

There are two general categories of fair use. The first is commentary, in which a copyrighted work can be used in limited instances to provide examples and clarity–this is most commonly seen in scholarly works. The second category of fair use is parody, in which large sections of an original work may be copied and used in a satirical manner. When fair use claims make it to court, judges employ a four-point test to evaluate how the material was used and what the consequences were. Fair use claims are particularly strong when the use was for educational or informative purposes, or when the original work has been significantly modified to create something new.

When used to set a mood or accompany a politician’s platform, the use of music on a political campaign is generally not protected under fair use. The parody of a popular song for a campaign may constitute fair use, but otherwise artists would still be entitled to the protections established above. Although campaigns are not often afforded fair use protections, these claims are looked at on a case-by-case basis. While there may be some cases in which fair use protects campaigns, generally speaking, that is not the case.

Conclusion

Musicians’ recent outcry against the use of their work for political campaigns is nothing new. However, the number of complaints issued by artists has grown significantly over the past election cycles. These issues may have arisen over the evolution of the fair use and its interpretation in the courts, particularly for music and film. However, it is important to note that political campaigns often do not meet the transformative requirements to constitute fair use when playing music at events or in advertisements. Even if the proper licenses are granted by publishers and record labels, the performing groups themselves may be entitled to protections under the right of publicity and the Lanham Act, meaning their permission is essentially required as well.

In short: if you want to use a song to promote your campaign, talk to the song’s artist, and his or her record label first.

Resources

ASCAP: Using Music in Political Campaigns: What you Should Know

Daily Kos: When Politicians use Music Without Asking Permission

Jefferson R. Cowie: Stayin’ Alive: Book 2, Chapter 8: “Dead Man’s Town”

USA Today: Candidates Carry a Tune on Campaign Trail

BBC: Aerosmith Protest over Trump Campaign Using their Hit Dream On

The Guardian: REM blasts Donald Trump for Using their Music in US Presidential Campaign

NY Times: In Choreographed Campaigns, Candidates Stumble over Choice of Music

Time: A Brief History of Campaign Songs

Boston: Wisconsin Recall Battle Finally Goes to Voters

Kevin L. Vick and Jean-Paul Jassy: Why a Federal Right of Publicity Statute is Necessary

Stanford University Libraries: What is Fair Use?

Cornell University Law School: The Lanham Act (15 U.S. Code), Subchapter III, Provision 1125: False Designations of Origin, False Descriptions, and Dilution Forbidden

Battlefield Sources: 1952 Eisenhower Political Ad – I like Ike – Presidential Campaign Ad

HardMusicTV: Bruce Springsteen vs Ronald Reagan

Law12345100: Charlie Crist Official Apology to David Byrne for Copyright Infringement

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 Campaign Music and Fair Use: What are the Rules? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week at Law Street, our top stories included a look at the top 10 quotes from the first Republican presidential primary debate, Kim K’s latest legal troubles, and some familiar faces running for political office. ICYMI, check out Law Street’s top stories of the week.

#1 Top 10 Quotes from the First Presidential Debate

On Thursday night, the top ten Republican presidential candidates gathered in Cleveland, Ohio to duke it out on stage for the GOP nomination during the first primary debate of the year. Candidates were asked questions on a wide range of topics, from what they believe is the best approach to combat ISIL in the Middle East, to whether or not God has influenced their decisions to run for President. Read the full article here.

#2 Kim Kardashian’s Selfie Comes with an FDA Warning

Even though the world very well may be reaching its breaking point with how much Kardashian news coverage it can take, recent legal trouble between the family’s top breadwinner Kim Kardashian West and the Food and Drug Administration has warranted keeping the reality stars in the spotlight. Read the full article here.

#3 Celebrities Running for Office: Familiar Faces in the 2016 Races

Donald Trump is certainly dominating the news when it comes to the race for the 2016 Republican presidential primary. But “The Donald” didn’t get his start as a politician–he was a business mogul and reality television star before anyone ever saw him on a presidential poll. While that may seem weird to some, celebrities who have gotten famous through other means are consistently trying to join the political ranks. Here are five other celebrities running for office in 2016–and I’m betting they’re just the tip of the iceberg. Read the full article here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street, including Campus Crime rankings, celebs with JDs, and the latest controversy with Harper Lee’s new novel.

#1 Campus Crime 2015: Top 10 Highest Reported Crime Rates For Mid-Sized Colleges

Student safety is a high priority for all colleges and universities. While colleges and universities are typically safer than the areas that surround them, many schools face important and unique challenges. Law Street’s Campus Crime Rankings were created to serve as a comprehensive look at the safety of our college campuses, and to act as a resource for students, families, and college communities. Read full article here.

#2 Seven Celebrities You Didn’t Know Had Law Degrees

While law degrees are usually associated with stern, hardworking, white-collar professionals, there are other J.D. holding candidates who portray a different image. In fact many of us look up to these people without even knowing it, as they resemble some of today’s hottest celebrities and athletes. Read full article here.

#3 Atticus Finch Was Always Racist

This week, the white fiction world has been up in arms about Harper Lee’s portrayal of fictional, white lawyer Atticus Finch as explicitly racist in her long-awaited second book, “Go Set a Watchman.” Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

While law degrees are usually associated with stern, hardworking, white-collar professionals, there are other J.D. holding candidates who portray a different image. In fact many of us look up to these people without even knowing it, as they resemble some of today’s hottest celebrities and athletes.

Check out the slideshow below to learn which of your favorite celebs happen to hold law degrees.

Image courtesy of ljzerman via Flickr

Law School Attended: Leiden University
Graduated: 2003

If you’ve ever listened to the music genre EDM, you know the name Armin van Buuren; however, electronic fans would be surprised to learn that the Dutch DJ, radio host, and music producer also happens to have an accredited law degree.

Not only does this worldwide celebrity’s career span a staggering 15 years, but his singles have topped DJ Mag’s Top 100 poll on five different occasions. Van Buuren has also performed at every major music festival including EDC, Ultra Music Festival, Tomorrow World, and Tomorrow Land, just to name a few.

But in the early days, van Buuren attended Leiden University in the Netherlands and studied law. After three sporadic years, he finally completed his J.D. in 2003.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 7 Celebrities You Didn’t Know Had Law Degrees appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year! Get ready for a full day of listening to your friends, family, and every D-lister on the morning shows drone on and on about their 2015 resolutions. Diets, new jobs, and all the usual suspects will make the rounds no matter who you talk to, but here are some resolutions celebrities and politicians should be making if they were really being honest with themselves.

Rep. Michael Grimm

Start paying taxes; stop threatening to throw reporters off balconies.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Sony Co-Chair Amy Pascal

Leave racially insensitive comments to unfiltered grandparents during the holidays and not in emails to colleagues.

Latest Sony email hack shows Scott Rudin and Amy Pascal making racist jokes about Obama http://t.co/RrNLdhplvR

— NY Daily News Gossip (@NYDNgossip) December 11, 2014

Justin Bieber

Start the Justin Bieber “Center for Kids Who Can’t Give Depositions Good and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too.” Also, avoid Interpol.  

President Obama

Figure out a way to differentiate the Baltimore Ravens roster from the Freaks and Geeks cast.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Kim Kardashian

Learn how the internet works; determine whether or not it’s actually “breakable.”

The 10 most popular stories of the year on http://t.co/M1Ru3U4Ixe http://t.co/SQUr0yv8JQ pic.twitter.com/OwzDevBv0Y — PAPER Magazine (@papermagazine) December 31, 2014

Zooey Deschanel

Don’t break any more horses.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Sen. Ted Cruz

Stop practicing puppy dog face in mirror. Face is beginning to get stuck that way.

Courtesy of Twitchy.com.

Taylor Swift

Bring back surprised face–people seem to miss it.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Shonda Rhimes

Take over ABC, rename Shondaland. Make sure all programming includes strong female lead with some flaws, an emotional kiss scene, and an improbable natural catasrophe.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Charlie Crist

Track down promised campaign donation from the United Fan Makers of America.

Hon. John Dingell

Keep being awesome.

Proud Michigan resident & dear friend @grahamdavis got a bulldog today and named it Dingell. I see no similarities. pic.twitter.com/aqKwGwMM9Y

— Rep. John Dingell (@john_dingell) October 19, 2014

Mama June Shannon

Take a break from dating.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Former Rep. Trey Radel

Stop throwing stones from glass house.

Ya give him a breathalyzer test every-time he votes…duh http://t.co/lX5ojfqnqu — starchy (@me_starchy) December 31, 2014

What other resolutions do you think they should make? Let us know in the comments.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Year’s Resolutions Celebs & Politicians Should Make for 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a few weeks since the announcement that the Ferguson grand jury would not indict Officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown to death. It’s been about a week since a Staten Island grand jury announced that Officer Daniel Pantaleo would not be indicted for the death of Eric Garner. Protests have continued in many major cities, and everyone is still talking about the injustices inherent in our judicial system. #ICan’tBreathe, a reference to Garner’s last words as he died after being put in a chokehold by Panteleo, is still trending on Twitter as I write this.

Now, celebrities are starting to get involved. A few nights ago, Kobe Bryant and other members of the Los Angeles Lakers wore “I Can’t Breathe” t-shirts before their game.

Kobe and the rest of the #Lakers wearing #ICantBreathe T-Shirts during warm ups ( pic via @lakers ) pic.twitter.com/kd2OlxrZfm

— Jeff G. (@TheSportsDude) December 10, 2014

The Lakers weren’t the first team to participate in protests. The St. Louis Rams, shortly after the Ferguson grand jury decision, walked out onto the field with their hands in the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture that has been a symbol of the Ferguson protests:

Rams players said they ‘absolutely’ would repeat ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture http://t.co/lxshSRD8wrpic.twitter.com/H4Z71QQWau

— Sportsnet (@Sportsnet) December 4, 2014

Rams player Davin Joseph also kept his support going by writing “I Can’t Breathe” on his shoes before a recent game:

R.I.P Eric Garner pic.twitter.com/i84grny7pR

— Davin Joseph (@DavinJoseph75) December 7, 2014

Detroit Lions player Reggie Bush also showed his support with a homemade “I Can’t Breathe” shirt:

ICYMI: Reggie Bush supports Eric Garner with message on shirt http://t.co/N6oDRFTcQD pic.twitter.com/LqMsc2eCsx — Josh Katzenstein (@jkatzenstein) December 7, 2014

It’s not just professional athletes who are showing their support; other celebrities have chosen to throw their weight around as well and bring attention to the Brown and Garner-inspired protests. Singer/songwriter John Legend and his wife Chrissy Teigen, a model, paid for an entire fleet of food trucks to serve protesters in Lincoln Square in New York on Sunday. 

.@johnlegend and his wife pay for a food truck to feed #EricGarner supporters at #NYC protest. http://t.co/HYLPqHTFZxpic.twitter.com/0JJqqEuIIu — Jassiel Perez (@fl_dreamer) December 8, 2014

Finally, members of Congress have shown their support. Four members have done the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture on the floor of the House of Representatives: New York Reps. Hakeem Jeffries and Yvette Clarke, and Texas Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green. 

Four Members of Congress do ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ gesture on House floor. http://t.co/EMPkdTk6otpic.twitter.com/YanQI5RzJ4 — NYDN Politics (@NYDNPolitics) December 2, 2014

Although many celebrities have made their opinions known about the lack of indictments in these cases, these athletes, celebrities, and politicians have stood out. They’re in good company–it’s only by bringing attention to these issues that we can ever hope to enact change. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #HandsUpDontShoot #ICantBreathe: Celebrities Weigh In appeared first on Law Street.

In recent weeks, celebrity Chelsea Handler has created quite a virtual stir by posting revealing photographs of herself on the popular photo-sharing app Instagram, which were subsequently taken down for violating the company’s mature content policy.

Handler’s photos being removed by the site’s admin would seem to be a cut-and-dried case–the second item on Instagram’s Basic Terms is “You may not post violent, nude, partially nude . . . pornographic or sexually suggestive photos or other content via the Service.”

However, the star’s next move was to point out the gender politics at play because men’s nipples are acceptable to show on the site. Here’s a quick rundown of Handler’s Instagram drama that aired on CNN.

It’s worth noting that in the video, they showed a screenshot of the removed post that Handler tweeted, as Twitter’s guidelines are less strict. This ability to reach more than five million Twitter followers without censorship is probably why this specific case of Instagram content removal has garnered so much attention.

And Chelsea Handler isn’t the only famous face to come into conflict with Instagram’s restrictions.

Singer Rihanna’s account was mistakenly shut down after posting photos from a cover shoot for Lui magazine, prompting the fed-up star to leave the site altogether. Actor Scout Willis was banned from the site after posting a photo of a jacket she designed that depicted the torsos of two topless women. Grace Coddington, Creative Director for Vogue, was banned in May for posting a line drawing of herself topless.

Coddington’s image has since been restored to her again-functional Instagram account.

The sheer variety of reasons relating to nudity and the female nipple that people have been banned from Instagram, even temporarily, has sparked conversation among those who would follow Willis’ lead and #FreeTheNipple, or more specifically, erase the stigma that makes the female nipple something to be hidden or censored while males can go shirtless in public or in the media without reproach.

Willis then took her protest to the streets by walking around topless, arguing the fact that something legal in New York City isn’t allowed on Instagram. Newsy explains in the video below.

Willis went on to explain for herself in an article for XOJane, in which she remarks that this censorship doesn’t just apply to celebrities, though their cases are the most obvious examples. She writes, “My situation was in no way unique; women are regularly kicked off Instagram for posting photos with any portion of the areola exposed, while photos sans nipple–degrading as they might be–remain unchallenged.“

In light of the site’s controversy, should nudity continue to be banned on Instagram?

What’s the Argument for Enforcing the Guidelines?

Ultimately, Instagram has laid out its policies in black and white in its ever-ignored Terms and Conditions section, including its right to “modify or terminate the Service or your access to the Service for any reason, without notice, at any time…” Those who run Instagram have the power and the prerogative to dictate how the site is to be utilized by users.

And that’s not to say there’s no reasoning behind Instagram’s guidelines pertaining to nudity and inappropriate content.

In an age where Internet trolls can hide behind their keyboards, the rules can be the difference between a safe space for users and a cyber-bully’s haven. This is especially true for celebrities, whose lives are constantly up for scrutiny in the media and who are often subjected to online harassment, threats, and criticism.

Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom defended the company’s policies in an interview with BBC Newsbeat, saying, “Our goal is really to make sure that Instagram, whether you’re a celebrity or not, is a safe place, and that the content that gets posted is something that’s appropriate for teens and also for adults.”

While only 11 percent of teens had Instagram in 2012, according to Pew Research, this is a demographic the company would be foolish to ignore. By censoring nudity on the site, Instagram is ensuring it won’t be a social media outlet that parents should fear, as 62 percent of parents worry about the kind of content available to their children on the Internet.

The idea of what’s appropriate for viewing can also be applied on a global scale, as in the past few years Instagram has achieved growing success worldwide. According to the site, upward of 65 percent of users are outside the U.S. With a variety of users, creating a standard to minimize discomfort for those in areas that are more conservative is a good way to make sure Instagram can flourish there uninhibited by social restraint.

Against the Guidelines

If a person is offended by the site’s content, he or she could simply unfollow the offending user. For example, if a user is conservative for religious, social, or personal reasons, it might not be the best idea to follow Chelsea Handler, as she is known for her brash and pulls-no-punches comedy.

And even under the nudity guidelines, unfollowing still might be necessary because what is deemed inappropriate by the site’s admin (and by those who flag photos for review because of inappropriate content) seems arbitrary and ambiguous. Take, for example, the cover shoot that caused problems between Rihanna and Instagram. She was featured relaxing in what one assumes is a chair on a beach you can’t see in a hat and pink bikini bottoms. Her nipples are clearly shown.

However, there’s been another photo shoot recently, and it’s caused a lot of buzz–Kim Kardashian posed nude for Paper Magazine. Its photos have been shown across media platforms (sometimes with censoring, sometimes without), including on the star’s Instagram.

Kardashian wasn’t banned, even temporarily, and the content has not been removed. There are no female nipples involved, but there is certainly nudity.

One might question if there were an exception because the photo shoot could be considered art or fashion, but recalling Rihanna’s magazine cover, Scout Willis’ jacket, and Grace Coddington’s drawing invalidates that theory.

Even within Handler’s own account there is ambiguity, but again it comes down to the female nipple as opposed to nudity in general. In one photo that has gone uncontested, Handler is sitting wearing only underwear, but it is taken from an angle that obscures her breasts. In another photo, her naked butt is fully visible and shown side by side with the Kim Kardashian photo above. In the caption, Handler challenges the site with, “Your move, Instagram.”

While they are a central focus for celebrities taking a stand, nipples aren’t the only source of ambiguity on the site, though. Earlier this year, blogger Meghan Tonjes posted a photo of her underwear-clad butt on her Instagram as a statement of body positivity with the hashtag #honormycurves.

Given that her photo is not unique on a site where butt selfies are, indeed, a thing, Tonjes believes her photo was flagged for inappropriate content because of her plus-sized body type. This experience led Tonjes to launch a body positivity campaign on Instagram and YouTube, beginning with the response video included below. In her response, Tonjes shows a variety of photos that haven’t been removed from Instagram that look no different (or, debatably, even more inappropriate) than those images that have been taken down.

[Note: The video automatically skips to around the six-minute mark, but she begins explaining her situation around 55 seconds in.]

Instagram eventually restored the photo to Tonjes’ account with an apology, but not before she could expose some very blatant double standards in the admin’s judgment, as well as the judgment of those who flag photos for inappropriate content because of personal discomfort rather than an overarching problem. Tonjes also points out that there is no appeal process for when content is removed in which a user can defend themselves or their photos.

Conclusion

It is clear that Instagram has some unhappy users, some of whom have decided to terminate their accounts altogether. Should the site acquiesce, which would placate some users and potentially draw in new ones, and risk losing some of their more conservative following?

One potential alternative would be to find a more fair way to enforce the rules the site clearly wants to keep, so those whose photos are removed feel less targeted and alienated. It seems the problem isn’t in the use of guidelines per se, but is rather in the vague nature of the terminology “inappropriate content” and what exactly is considered “nudity” or “partial nudity.” If these terms were clearly defined, the company would have a much more solid argument for enforcing their Terms and Conditions.

Or the site could continue unchanged because ultimately the business has been expanding regardless of a little outrage.

Resources

Primary

Instagram: Instagram Terms of Use

Instagram: Press Page

Pew: Teens, Social Media, and Privacy

Pew: Teenage Life Online

XoJane: I am Scout Willis And This Is The Only Thing I Have To Say About Walking Topless Down The Streets of New York Last Week

Additional 

BET: Rihanna’s Instagram Account ‘Briefly Disabled’

Independent: Instagram Defends Nudity Rules After Scout Willis ‘Nipple Ban’ Topless Protest

Independent: Grace Coddington Banned From Instagram for Posting Topless Line Cartoon

Independent: Scout Willis Topless Instagram Protest

BBC: Instagram Defends Nudity Rules After ‘Nipple Ban’ Protest

Buzzfeed: This Woman’s Butt Selfie Was Banned From Instagram, So She Fought Back

Kelsey Kennedy

Kelsey Kennedy is a freelance editor with degrees in Magazine Journalism and Performance Theatre from the University of Missouri, Columbia (MIZ!). When she isn’t out exploring New York, she loves getting far too invested in characters on the page, stage, and screen. She ultimately wants to make a difference in the world and surround herself with creative people. Contact Kelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Instagram Nudity Problem: What’s the App to Do? appeared first on Law Street.

Okay, so it didn’t try to ban it as much as it suggested that it should be banned–in a poll asking readers to vote which word should be removed from the English language.

Which is still a problem.

TIME is kind of a big deal. I mean, it is nationally recognized for breaking news and excellent writing. So why would a high-brow publication imply that “feminist” is a bad word? And why in the world would it place it alongside words whose use absolutely should be forbidden like “bae” or “turnt”?

Apparently, TIME does not think feminism itself is bad. It just think the word is bad. Yes, let’s by all means quit using the word associated with such a fantastic movement. What would it have us do instead, telepathically communicate our feminist discussions? Keep fighting for feminism, but without talking about it?

The reasoning behind its inclusion on the list seems simple: “When did it become a thing that every celebrity had to state their position on whether this word applies to them, like some politician declaring a party? Let’s stick to the issues and quit throwing this label around like ticker tape at a Susan B. Anthony parade.”

LOL YOU’RE SO CLEVER, TIME.

Just because celebrities decide to discuss feminism does not mean it is any less important. Besides, celebrities discussing the movement keeps it in the news and in discussions. That is good! As for whether or not “this word applies to them,” doesn’t feminism apply to everyone with social or political views? As in you either agree with feminist ideals or you don’t?

To make its argument even more irrelevant, its cover girl this issue is Taylor Swift–a recently declared feminist–who even discusses her adoption of the title in her TIME interview. The inconsistency is astounding.

For awhile, “feminist” was the option that was ahead in the polls–thanks for the most part to troll factories like 4chan.com and 9gag.com, which have made news recently for targeting feminist celebrities by leaking their nude photographs.

Luckily, TIME editors came to their senses and discontinued the poll. Managing editor Nancy Gibbs even inserted a little note on the article:

TIME apologizes for the execution of this poll; the word ‘feminist’ should not have been included in a list of words to ban. While we meant to invite debate about some ways the word was used this year, that nuance was lost, and we regret that its inclusion has become a distraction from the important debate over equality and justice.

Thanks, Nancy, but maybe you should have caught on to the loss of its “nuance” before the poll was published. Instead of inviting a debate focused on feminism’s true meaning, you invited anti-feminists to exploit the polls and brought negative attention to the concept.

In response to TIME, I will conduct a poll of my own in which you vote on which word is worse than “feminist.” Tweet your vote to @TIME and be sure to include #wordsmoreannoyingthanfeminist. Here are your choices:

• Patriarchy
• Male dominance
• Rape
• Inequality
• Racism
• Bipartisan

Let TIME know what you think.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post TIME Ends Feminist-Banning Poll, But It’s Too Little Too Late appeared first on Law Street.

Time and time again, celebrities have evaded prison sentences because they claimed to be too fragile for life behind bars. In the case of recently tried and convicted Olympian Oscar Pistorius, he may be able to serve just ten months of his five-year maximum for shooting and killing his then-girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. After those ten months, he can request to be moved to house arrest in his mansion. That’s a rough life right there.

In Pistorious’ case, it’s a bit tricky. He is a double-amputee, and because of this, many claim that prison is simply not suitable for him. Nooshin Erfani-Ghadimi, project coordinator for the Wits Justice Project, a civil society group, said before the sentencing that she believed Pistorius would probably receive far better treatment than the average prisoner and has throughout the entire judicial process thus far. However, she also noted “I don’t think anyone with a disability necessarily will be able to be provided for at the moment in a way that ensures that they would have the correct medical treatment, that they have the correct physical structures.”

Pistorius’ prosthetic limbs are not the only issue. Health risks such as tuberculosis are often cited as a problem in South African prisons due to poor air circulation, and many fear that he will be susceptible to contracting the illness. Some believe that his celebrity status will make him a target for gang violence.

While defending his client, Pistorius’ attorney, Barry Roux, argued that there is extreme overcrowding in South African prisons. This point is irrelevant, however, as his celebrity status would easily prevent him from sharing a cell. The other health fears such as inmates not receiving their medication because of the inadequate number of health workers in prisons are unlikely to be of valid concern. He is a celebrity. History shows that celebrities receive special treatment in prison.

Efraini-Ghadimi conceded that South African law has policies for accommodating physically disabled inmates. Zach Modise, acting National Commissioner of Correctional Services, pointed out that there are 128 disabled inmates currently doing time and therefore prisons are properly equipped with the appropriate facilities.

Currently, Pistorius is living in a single cell with everything he needs along with access to the medical care for any ailments both physical and psychological. In ten months, he will likely be permitted to move to his home in the Silver Woods Estate in Pretoria.

This case is undoubtedly tricky. If Pistorius did not have his celebrity status, his prison sentence would be of greater concerned because it would mean less special treatment behind bars. For example, a paraplegic man, Ronnie Fakude, struggled with very real concerns while serving a prison sentence; however, he did not enjoy the status as a famous individual the way that Pistorius does.

Just because you are in the media spotlight doesn’t make it okay to commit crimes, and hopefully this case will shed light on that fact, even though he is getting off relatively easily. Even Arnold Pistorius, Oscar’s uncle, said that the family accepted Oscar’s sentence and viewed it as a way for his nephew to pay back society. Perhaps in ten short months Mr. Pistorius can relax in the comfort of his own home again. Only time will tell…

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pistorius Can Opt for House Arrest in Just 10 Months 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.

On Sunday September 21, a recently appointed UN ambassador gave a speech on gender equality that received a standing ovation. That ambassador was Emma Watson, the 24-year-old woman most know for playing Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films. Her topic was feminism and a campaign the UN is launching called “HeForShe,” which Watson will spearhead. You can watch the entire speech below.

Since Sunday, Watson’s speech has gone viral, garnering support both for her cause and for feminism itself. I was especially pleased to see one of my own Facebook friends share the video with the caption: “Worth the watch, for both men and women! Gave me a whole new perspective on the word ‘feminist’.”

Good! That was the point. Watson shares not only the true definition of feminism, but says that thinking of feminists as “man haters” needs to stop. She said that becoming a feminist should be “uncomplicated” and did not narrow her audience to just women. It was a brilliant speech, and completely deserved the standing ovation.

As is to be expected, what with the internet being the internet, she has also received negative feedback. Some users of 4Chan have created a website threatening to reveal sexually explicit pictures of Watson, claiming that they will somehow demean or demolish her feminist views. Rush Limbaugh (who I think should be taken off air immediately) said in his September 23 broadcast: “I know exactly what she’s talking about here, and it’s youth speaking, it’s youthful idealism speaking.  I mean, the truth is every man knows that women run things…That’s been the problem with feminism all along.  Feminism has sought to change basic human nature, and you can’t do that no matter what you do.”

Wow. Thanks for the vote of confidence, Rush!

Other anonymous critics on sites like Reddit, tumblr, and Imgur agree with Watson’s views on feminism but take issue with the name “HeForShe,” arguing that the preposition “for” implies that men will do all the work and women will sit idly by as males react to her call for action. Still others complain that Watson’s celebrity is giving her an unfair advantage on issues like gender equality; that someone less famous or less attractive should have been able to stand up there and give the speech to the same effect.

Each of these arguments stems, I think, from a place of fear. People don’t like change, and with Watson’s speech taking on the momentum it already has, gender equality has made an enormous leap forward. This is threatening to those who are so entrenched in their male-dominated world that they wouldn’t see it change for anything. To those people I say: too damn bad! Society has changed a thousand times over, and it certainly isn’t done.

Let’s address each of these critiques briefly, so I can point out where they have veered off from logic.

Just a few weeks ago, users of 4chan hacked the phones of female celebrities and leaked their nude photographs online. These same people are at it again, thinking that showing feminist, female celebrities as sexual creatures will somehow undermine their feminist message. The short answer is: it won’t. Just because a woman enjoys sex or flaunts her sexuality does not mean she can’t be a feminist. In fact, if a woman is so comfortable in her own skin that nude photos being leaked doesn’t even phase her, that’s a feminist I would hope people idolize.

As for Rush Limbaugh, he is a prime example of a man who sees his male-dominance being threatened and lashes out in any way possible. His claim that “Feminism has sought to change basic human nature” is bullshit. Human nature may be to blame for many of our baser instincts, like seeking out a mate or wanting to procreate, but one gender dominating the other actually comes — most often — from various religions. Ancient, pagan religions favor women above men, and religions like Christianity favor men. Over the years, society took those religious doctrines and accepted them as fact. Oh and losing the “man-hating” connotation that comes from the word “feminism” being “youthful idealism”? Wrong again, Rush. Feminism isn’t just for 24 year olds, and some of gender equality’s most prevalent spokespeople are decades older than Watson.

Next up, the problem with the name “HeForShe,” If you listen to Watson’s entire speech, you’ll hear her call on men AND women multiple times. She wants women to stop being afraid of calling themselves feminists, and for men to accept the title just as willingly. The name, to me, means that, since men are currently the dominant gender, men need to be a driving force behind changing that. It does not mean that women will sit idly by, it means that both genders will work together to achieve equality. As they should.

Finally, Watson’s celebrity makes me thankful she was the one to make that speech. In a perfect world, any man or woman could have made that speech and gotten the same response, but this is not a perfect world. I have said before that celebrities using their fame to support important causes should be admired, not shamed. Waton’s expansive fan base of both men and women made her the perfect person to make that speech, because those fans that truly respect her will hear it, believe it, and share it.

So, as a fan of Emma Watson and of gender equality, I intend to answer her call to action and continue supporting feminism. After you hear it, what will you do?

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Answer Emma Watson’s Call for Gender Equality appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Thirteen years ago yesterday our country was shaken to the core. I was sixteen, skipping school and watching some awful show on television when the program was interrupted by the news reporting on the first airplane hitting the Twin Towers in New York City. Not even 20 minutes later, as the news anchors were still reporting on the crash, we all watched as another plane crashed into the second tower. It was live TV and there was no controlling what the viewers were going to see. The confusion and horror coming from the news anchors was something I could never forget. My brother and I sat in silence not knowing what to do, what to think, or what was going to happen next. Parents pulled their kids out of school and I remember this feeling of urgency in the air and the uneasiness of what could possibly happen next. Thousands of people had just lost their lives and the country witnessed it. There were no answers, only questions of why and what will happen next.

Every year we remember that horrendous day. It was a constant fear for the first year or two, but also a great feeling that our country had come together and we had heroes to thank daily. Budweiser aired a commercial during Superbowl XXXVI that really demonstrated the somber tone and respect the entire country had for the events of September 11, 2001. The ad was only shown once to ensure they did not profit from it in any way. Even today, 13 years later, it is the most moving dedication done in such a small amount of time.

Yesterday was a somber day for us all. Most news outlets covered the anniversary in addition to current events. While watching one of the programs I had to do a quick rewind to make sure I was hearing it correctly. Young America’s Foundation had gone to the George Washington University campus in Washington, DC last Friday, September 5, to interview students about the anniversary of September 11. YAF only had a few questions to ask these students:

1. Next week marks the anniversary of a major national event. Do you know what that is?
2. Do you know what ISIS is?
3. Did you know that ISIS is responsible for the beheading of two American journalists? If so, could you name one?
4. Are you aware of the celebrity “nude photo” hacking scandal? If so, could you name any of the celebrities involved?

The responses from these kids are just mind blowing…

So the total results:

• Six out of 30 students recognized that this week is the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
• Four out of 30 students were able to name one of the American journalists beheaded at the hands of ISIS.
• 29 out of 30 students were able to identify one or more celebrities involved in the nude photo hacking scandal.

The kid interviewed two minutes in genuinely reacts like he had no idea what had been going on and it clearly upset him, which is great but frustrating. Actually this whole situation is frustrating. How is it that college students in their late teens and early twenties know more about pop culture and the ridiculousness of a nude picture hacking scandal than they do about current events and the death of two Americans at the hands of terrorists? This is not only the responsibility of these young adults to know what’s going on but it is the responsibility of teachers, parents, and our society as a whole.

There are already so many issues with what kids are learning in the classroom today that this should not surprise me, but it honestly does. How is this possible? When I was growing up my parents and grandparents talked to me about Pearl Harbor and the significance of that date. We may have brushed through it in history class but it is a day that I remember because it was an important part of history. My grandparents even lost friends and family members during the attack on Pearl Harbor and World War II. The same could be said about 9/11 and the Iraq War that followed. Hell, there are even movies about the two events. While there have been about seven movies made about the Pearl Harbor attacks, nearly 20 have been produced about 9/11.

What has become of our younger generation? Things need to change or our society will become Idiocracy.

This video is a great representation of what is going on in our culture and it needs to stop. We need our children to be better and smarter and more informed. We are not only disappointing our parents and grandparents, but we are disappointing our country, our culture, the world, and our Founding Fathers! Flabbergasted.

I don’t want to end this post on a note of frustration for our society. Instead I want to share a moving video about the last surviving search and rescue dog who returned to Ground Zero yesterday, a place she had not been to since 2001.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Never Forget.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 9/11 Never Forget? Not Exactly For These GW Students appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve been on the internet in the last few days, you’ve probably seen news stories about a massive leak of celebrity nude photos. In a rather uncouth display, the mass release has been dubbed “The Fappening” by the internet. It’s a mix of “The Happening,” and…I’ll let you figure out the other part on your own. Celebrities included on the steadily growing list include Jennifer Lawrence, Rihanna, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kirsten Dunst, Kaley Cuoco, Ariana Grande, Kate Upton, Victoria Justice, and more. Some, like Mary Elizabeth Winstead, have acknowledged that the photos were real, while others like Victoria Justice claim they are fakes.

The pictures mostly surfaced on reddit and 4chan beginning on August 31. The photos then made their way to Twitter and other more mainstream sites. Most of the photos seem to have been obtained through hacking iCloud accounts. Put extremely simply, that means that the photos had been stored by the celebrity users to their personal accounts that included storage in the iCloud network. Benefits of the iCloud include the ability to access it from multiple accounts and locations, as well as freeing up space on a hard drive or other storage device.

How exactly the hackers obtained the nude photos is uncertain — they could have exploited a security flaw that Apple was unaware of, or they could have obtained the celebrities’ emails and then managed to gain access to their passwords by guessing security questions or some other method. Since celebrities seem to have been specifically targeted, the average user probably shouldn’t be too worried about sensitive material being stolen off their clouds right now — but the whole controversy does raise questions about cloud-type storage. The FBI has now gotten involved in the scandal and it appears to be searching for the hacker(s) who managed to get into the iCloud accounts and released the photos.

The whole fact that the photos got out in the first place is concerning. Celebrity pictures are leaked frequently, but usually just one or two. These leaks encompass hundreds, perhaps thousands, of photographs of young women whose privacy was seriously invaded for no other reason than the fact that they are both attractive and good at their jobs. And not only have their private accounts been hacked, the omnipresent internet trolls are more than willing to make fun of them for their concerns. Many have said that because the women took the pictures and uploaded them to the cloud at all, they deserve to have them released en masse.

Seriously? These women took pictures in the privacy of their own homes, with no intention of releasing them to the public. True, uploading them to a possibly hackable network was their own choice, but it was far from a damnable one. Imagine that these women had nude pictures taken of them by a peeping tom or a stalker. I have to think the public outcry would be greater — at least I hope it would be — but I don’t really see a huge difference. Either way, privacy is being ignored. The photos that have been leaked were stolen, plain and simple. And now that they’re out there, they’re going to be almost impossible to get down.

There’s a reason that one of the classic nightmare archetypes is realizing that you’re naked somewhere. I have a feeling that even if you’re a famous celebrity, that holds true. To all the people who are looking at the photos right now, please remember that those are real people who did not consent to have these pictures released to the public. Remember that before you look, and think about how you’d feel to have the entire world see your naked photos. I have a feeling it’s eerily similar to a nightmare.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Massive Celebrity Nude Photo Leak is Major Privacy Breach appeared first on Law Street.

Not even the rich and famous can escape being subpoenaed. And sometimes, a delusional fan is the reason for it.

At the premiere of his latest movie last Thursday, Johnny Depp was served legal documents calling him as a witness in a murder case. But Depp wasn’t a witness to the crime, nor does he know the person who committed it. So what’s the connection?

In 2009, Nancy Lekon  was driving in Los Angeles when she struck and killed a passenger, who was dragged by her car for over a mile. Lekon claimed that she was in such a rush because she was on her way to meet Depp; with whom she claimed to be in a relationship.  But there is no connection between Depp and Lekon besides the woman’s (perhaps) delusional obsession with him.

Lekon’s lawyer has been trying to prove she is not guilty by reason of mental insanity, and wants Depp’s testimony to prove that. If Depp testifies that he was not dating Lekon, it would go to support the claim. The fact Depp was subpoenaed is a bit of an anomaly in itself. A subpoena is a legal document that compels someone to testify in court. If you’re subpoenaed and don’t show up, you could be held in contempt.

In a lot of cases, it makes sense to subpoena someone. If there is a crime with one key witness, or someone with a very specialized field of knowledge, it would make sense to compel them to testify in a trial- without them, important information would not be heard by the jury or judge, and the verdict could be skewed as a result. But in this case, it seems like just about anyone could have surmised that Lekon wasn’t actually dating Depp.

So why was Depp subpoenaed so publicly, five years after the crime? One would assume Mr. Depp’s publicists could have gotten this information to Lekon’s attorney in writing, and have the information be just as effective. It’s possible that despite this subpoena, which Depp probably wasn’t expecting, he won’t take the stand physically. Rather, he could submit a written statement, or testify via a phone call.

This isn’t the first time a celebrity will have testified about someone they don’t know. In November of 2013, Alec Baldwin took the stand to testify against a stalker of his. But the difference between Baldwin and Depp is that Baldwin’s life had been affected by the woman stalking him- as she repeatedly called and messaged him. Depp, on the other hand, has never been in contact with Lekon.

Nonetheless, the tactic is an interesting one from Lekon’s public defender. There will probably be other medical evidence and professional testimony to support the insanity defense, but the ability to utilize a figure as public and well known as Depp himself might really drive home the attorney’s assertion about Lekon. While many people claim insanity defense as a way to escape being held responsible for their actions, a delusion as grandiose as this one could be the icing on the cake to help Lekon escape this murder charge.

And while this is definitely a new (and odd) tactic, it’s possible that Lekon’s attorney is doing it for show. In situations like this, where a party has relevant information but could provide the same information in a written format, they would just go through a deposition. So the fact Depp was served these papers at his movie premiere, about a 5-year-old case, regarding a woman he has never met, seems fishy at best. Knowing the extent of Depp’s resources, it wouldn’t be surprising if his own lawyers find a way for Depp to get out of testifying in person.

[CNN] [TMZ]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Caroline Bonarde Ucci via Wikipedia]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Celebrity News: Johnny Depp Subpoenaed appeared first on Law Street.