Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Announces Ban on Trans People Serving in the Military

In a surprise series of tweets this morning, President Donald Trump announced a new military policy. Per Trump’s tweets, he plans on banning trans people from any and all military service.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

It’s unclear which “generals and military experts” he consulted with, but this announcement marks a major departure from current military policy. Last year, it was announced that trans individuals would be able to serve openly in the military. It’s also unclear what will happen to trans people already serving. Exact numbers are, understandably, hard to quantify, but it’s believed that approximately 1,320-6,630 trans Americans currently serve. But their medical care, which Trump cites as the reasoning for precluding them from service, contributes to a miniscule percentage of Department of Defense health care expenditures. Estimates put caring for trans people in the military anywhere from $2-8 million. For context, the DoD’s total yearly health care spending is to the tune of $50 billion.

There are a lot of details still to come, but right now, it seems clear that this move was at least partly political:

Just spoke to a Trump administration official about the transgender military decision. Here’s what they said… pic.twitter.com/eOWdvlxTfd

— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) July 26, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: July 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Rebel Wilson, the Australian comedienne known for her roles in movies like “Pitch Perfect” and “Bachelorette” has spent the last few days in an Australian courtroom. Wilson has sued the parent company of Australian Magazine Woman’s Day, Bauer Media, for defamation. She claims that the magazine published false claims that she had lied about a variety of facts of her life–including her age and upbringing–and that as a result, she has lost work opportunities.

In 2015, Woman’s Day released a series of eight articles in three days about Wilson. The first, which was headlined “Just who is the REAL Rebel?” claimed that she had fabricated some of the details of her life, and according to Wilson’s lawsuit, essentially painted her as a serial or pathological liar. The articles specifically suggested she lied about her age, her real name, and her upbringing. But there doesn’t appear to be evidence that Wilson ever misrepresented her age, and she has been open that “Rebel” is not her birth name, but a nickname that she later changed her name to. The articles also claimed that she had attended an elite boarding school when she was younger, while Wilson has maintained that she was raised in a more rural area.

According to the lawsuit, the information used for the articles came from an anonymous source who claimed to have gone to school with Wilson. The writer of the articles, Shari Nementzik, saw an online comment made by the anonymous source on another Woman’s Day article, and reached out to her. Emails between Nementzik and the source revealed that the source was looking for money to talk about what she “knew.” Originally, it appears as though lawyers told Woman’s Day the story was too risky, legally speaking, to publish. But the information was still published in 2015.

Wilson claims that after the articles were released, her career took a hit. She testified in court earlier this week that she lost roles in the animated films “Trolls” and “Kung Fu Panda 3” after the articles came out, and she has struggled to find work ever since. The trial is ongoing, and Wilson is seeking unspecified damages.

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 Rebel Wilson Sues Australian Magazine for Defamation appeared first on Law Street.

Jennifer Lopez is currently locked in a pretty nasty legal battle with her first ex-husband, Ojani Noa. Noa, who was married to the actress and singer for eleven months in 1997-1998, is in possession of a number of salacious home videos featuring J-Lo. He wants to release them, but she doesn’t want them to see the light of day. Now, they’re stuck in a seemingly interminable legal battle over the issue.

J-Lo’s people have been fighting the release of the tapes for approximately six years now. According to Noa, they contain personal incidences like J-Lo arguing with her mother over gambling. But what appears to have garnered the most attention is the fact that Noa is claiming that he’s in possession of a sex tape of the two of them from their honeymoon. Noa’s business partner Ed Meyer told In Touch:

There is revealing video of her with a lack of clothing and in sexual situations, especially in the hotel footage from the honeymoon.

While J-Lo’s team has been fighting Noa’s team in court for six years, the videos have been kept closed under court order. But J-Lo’s lawyers recently withdrew from the case during arbitration. According to Meyer, that resulted in a loophole that will allow them to release the videos. But Noa and Meyer don’t plan on just releasing the videos, they also plan on profiting from them. Meyer has said: “We are going to produce a DVD and also have a streaming release of the J.Lo home video footage.” It’s seemingly not just about the money, though. Meyer has implied that the attempted release of the videos are in some way vindictive and personal, stating: “The videos contain salacious material and are going to shock her fans. We have unfinished business.”

While the release of celebrity sex tapes, or celebrity nude pictures, have become sadly the norm, the threatened release of J-Lo’s sex tape, as well as other aspects of her private life are still horrifying. While Lopez’s marriage to Noa clearly didn’t have a happy ending, that does not entitle him, or his business partner, to exploit her private life and shame her for her sex life with Noa. Regardless of Meyer and Noa’s plans, Lopez’s team will probably continue to attempt to block the release of the video–we’ll see if they’re ultimately successful.

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 J-Lo vs. Her Ex-Husband: Former Couple in Court Over Sex Tape appeared first on Law Street.

Memes are fun–they’re customizable, shareable, and all over the internet. But they do bring up some important questions about copyright laws and photo ownership. For example, many of you have probably seen the “confused face girl” meme that has gone viral all over social media. While most people find this meme utterly hilarious, a news story spread last week that the “face” of the meme–a girl named Keisha Johnson–wasn’t laughing. In fact, she supposedly tried to sue Instagram for $500 million for copyright infringement and defamation because people keep using a picture of her posted on Instagram as a meme. This story ended up being a fake, created by the satirical news outlet OD Gossip, but news organizations who didn’t know any better still picked it up.

Thanks Hundike

Here were the made-up details of Johnson’s legal battle:

The 16-year-old Alabama native was just hanging out with her friends when one of them took a bad photo of her and uploaded it to Instagram. Almost instantly, the photo went viral and was shared on millions of profiles, including those of celebrities. In addition to turning the photo into a meme, people everywhere have been posing for their own “confused face” photos in apparent attempt to mock Johnson. Clearly embarrassed by the photo, Johnson said, “my face looked ugly like I was about to throw up. I look nothing like that in real life… I’m really a bad b*tch!”

While this made-up girl named Keisha Johnson did not, obviously, sue Instagram for $500 million, the story and resulting press attention got me thinking: what would happen if someone were to actually sue Instagram? Well, according to the Instagram terms and conditions that every user must agree to before they sign up for the social media site, people who use the network are responsible for the content that they choose to share.  Now in fairness, in the hypothetical story, Johnson was not the one who posted the photo. However, according to the terms, her friends would have been 100 percent responsible for choosing to embarrass their friend. So hypothetically, if the girl in the photo were to sue someone, it’s her friends who are responsible for deciding to post a bad photo of her, not Instagram.

The site OD Gossip also released another fake story about another fake lawsuit–this time over a selfie that was turned into a meme. According to OD Gossip, “Makayla Edwards,” known more commonly as the topless boy/girl face a** meme, has also decided to file a defamation lawsuit against Instagram. Just like the story about Johnson, this is a hoax, but there have been millions of photos posted to people’s Instagram accounts making fun of the meme. The photo has also popped up on sites like Facebook and Twitter.

Now as previously established, the fake “Makayla Edwards” cannot sue Instagram for people choosing to repost her photo. But, is there anything stopping her from suing the people who reposted her photo? In order to figure this out, I looked into copyright laws and how they apply to social media selfies.

First, it’s important to understand the basic copyright laws for online images. Copyright attaches to a work, in this case an image, as soon as it is created. Unlike with patents and trademarks, people do not need to apply for a copyright, it’s automatic. So once you create an image–by drawing it, creating it on the computer, or by taking a photo–you have the rights to do whatever you want with it. This includes reproducing it, displaying it publicly, altering it, selling it, and distributing it.

But most of us don’t create our own images, we use ones created by others. In order to legally use someone else’s image, you must get express permission from the copyright owner and, once you get permission, give them proper credit for the image. Now, there are ways that you can legally use a copyrighted image without getting permission, such as by using one with a creative commons license, but these likely do not apply to social media photos.

So what are the rules when it comes to social media, where people constantly and publicly post their photos for anyone to see? According to Social Media Today, images posted on social media sites are still bound by copyright. This means that if you want to use or re-post someone else’s photo on Facebook or Instagram, you need their permission.

So these made-up lawsuits are not completely ridiculous–they probably could happen, although for way less money. However, if anyone has a reason to sue, it’s the person who took the picture, not the girl in it. And they wouldn’t be suing Instagram, but the millions of people who re-posted the photo without permission. Still, next time you snap a silly selfie, or take a bad picture of a friend, these rules are something to keep in mind.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Shawn Ahmed via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Memes and Selfies: Internet Trends Bring New Copyright Issues appeared first on Law Street.