This blog post is part of a class project. My intended audience is my professor and my classmates.
1. Read the posted privacy policy of your favorite Web site, preferably one for which you supply information and/or content. Write a response to the policy that includes any objections to the ways in which the site reserves the right to use the information and content supplied to or published on it.
(Yahoo! Sports Privacy Policy)
The Privacy Policy for Yahoo! Sports is limited at first glance. The policy is used to cover all applications Yahoo! uses in sports related applications. In my instance, I use Yahoo! Sports to play Fantasy Football. This is a free service and is played for the fun of tracking stats for NFL football games.
The initial policy for Yahoo! Sports lays out the basics and handles the content in three very broad categories that are detailed. The interactor must take it upon themselves to dig deeper into the policy to find the bulk of Yahoo!’s full policy.
Information Collection and Use Practices
I am notified in this section that I can choose to enter a public or private league, as well as creating a private league of my own. I also have the option of having my email displayed to other people in my league. It does not, however, point out if other interactors within the Yahoo! network can view my information if I sign up for a public league.
The premium package requires the interactor to set up another Yahoo! service called the Yahoo! Wallet. This is an account that stores credit card, shipping and billing information.
I am also told him section that I am required to provide a name and email address when submitting feedback to Yahoo! Sports. There is an assurance that my name and email address that are submitted for this purpose will not be used for marketing any products to me. They are simply to allow Yahoo! Sports to respond to me.
Information Sharing and Disclosure Practices
This section details what Yahoo! Sports can do with the information I provide. It does not detail how I limit my personal information but that is to be expected. I can only assume since it is not specified here that I must set those restrictions in the signup process or figure out how to edit my account once it is set up.
Promotions are covered here to let me know that sometimes there are sweepstakes in connection with the fantasy games on Yahoo! Sports. I cannot tell whether or not I am automatically enrolled in these sweepstakes or not. I would like to see this section be more clear as to how interactors are entered into these contests.
The final point in this section is a good disclaimer to let me know that if I choose to post personal information third party agents my contact me based on the publishing of that information. Yahoo! Sports can plausibly deny any responsibility for that contact based on this disclaimer.
Other
The final section of the privacy policy is also very vague and is simply a reference to other web pages within the Yahoo! framework. The first point is a reference to the Yahoo! Terms of Service, which is a 13-page legal document.
The second point is a helpful link to the Yahoo! Frequently Asked Questions page. The policy wraps up with a link to the full Yahoo! privacy policy that covers all Yahoo! properties.
While this single page initially appeared vague to me, it provides a clean link to all necessary pages in the Yahoo! infrastructure. It requires a great deal of due diligence on the part of the interactor to find all of the information they are looking for but all of the bases appear to be covered. It’s not entirely clear where the opt-in and opt-out opportunities are and I believe that is the most glaring issue with this policy.
2. Read through the following news article excerpt and argue for or against NRECA’s infringement claim by applying U.S. copyright law’s “Fair Use” provisions (Title 17, U.S.C. § 107). Include in your answer a rationale for how copyright law should be applied in the United States, a rationale that articulates the purpose for copyright and intellectual property protection.
In defense of a copyright infringement suit against the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the CEI is justified in their claim that the copyrighted footage in question is protected under United States Trademark Law under “fair use.” The argument for or against copyright infringement has merit on both sides and the decision could easily go either way. However, based on the facts provided, the claim of fair use has more substance.
To be able to justify fair use, the claim must be able to stand on its own. There are many criteria that must be taken into account. Criticism, commentary and news reporting are among the fair use foundations and have used as justification for fair use in previous cases. The footage in question does not demean the overall value of the copyrighted material, especially considering how little is used from the overall piece. The fact that the footage is being used by a non-profit agency also assists the claim.
The fact that NRECA placed the footage on YouTube does not reduce NRECA’s copyright ownership and this point is somewhat insignificant in terms of legal claim. However, a copyright owner must assume some risk when placing material on a file-sharing medium such as YouTube. In the end, the fact that NRECA posted the footage on YouTube has little bearing in this case.
I believe the footage was used to dispute certain claims that conflict with the mission of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In addition, the particular footage was a direct implication that some of the most vocal opponents of the CEI and their causes do not always practice what they preach. In a way, it can be translated to be a parody of Al Gore to show a different view of his activism on behalf of Global Warming.
Using parody as a claim in fair use has some precedent. Dating back to 2002, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of an artist, Tom Forsythe, in a copyright infringement suit filed by the Mattel Corporation. Mr. Forsythe created a line of art using Mattel’s Barbie Doll called “Food Chain Barbie.” Forsythe intended the work to be a parody of the Barbie line of toys. The 9th Circuit ruled that his inclusion of the Barbie Doll was protected under fair use
The summary from the court stated:
“However one may feel about his message – whether he is wrong or right, whether his methods are powerful or banal – his photographs parody Barbie and everything Mattel’s doll has come to signify. Undoubtedly, one could make similar statements through other means about society, gender roles, sexuality and perhaps even social class. But Barbie, and all the associations she has acquired through Mattel’s impressive marketing success, conveys these messages in a particular way that is ripe for social comment.”
Similarly, the activism of Al Gore on behalf of the Global Warming initiative is open for social comment. I believe that is what the CEI was aiming to do with the use of this footage. Based on that conclusion, and the definition of “fair use” given above, the ruling should favor CEI.
3. You are legal counsel to MyFacebookSpaceNews.com, which is facing a libel suit. Advise the news site as to how to avoid or win the libel action.
In any libel or defamation case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Based on the article this case is centered upon, Mr. Simmons must prove libel per se.
Libel per se would have to show an attack on his moral character or his integrity. I believe Mr. Simmons would have a hard time proving an attack on his moral character by MyFacebookSpaceNews.com. The two instances in this article that could pertain to an attack on his moral character or his integrity were the quotes by Sgt. Rocco T. Ruggiero and Robin Hubier. The MyFacebookSpaceNews.com reporter was simply quoting the available sources at the time.
There are six ways in which a plaintiff can prove libel per se. They consist of defamation, identification, publication, fault, falsity and injury. I will deal with each of these individually.
The claim on defamation may exist, but not at the fault of MyFacebookSpaceNews.com. The only claim Mr. Simmons could make in the form of defamation would be directed at Robin Hubier. The fact that MyFacebookSpaceNews.com printed a quote from this eyewitness does not hold the web site liable for what the eyewitness says.
The identification in this article came from the New York Police Sargent. Sgt. Ruggiero identified the driver as Mr. Simmons and the reporter was simply reporting the fact as given to them.
By publishing the article, MyFacebookSpaceNews.com is responsible for this information being available in a public space. This is a very shaky claim and if Mr.Simmons’ case depends on this area as proof of libel then he has no case.
The issue of fault is one of the areas where I believe this case will favor MyFacebookSpaceNews.com. As stated earlier, if any libelous activity occurred in this case, it is not the fault of your web site. The reporter was stating the facts as presented to them. The fault, if any, would be on the law enforcement officer and the eyewitness.
Similarly, Mr. Simmons may be able to prove falsity in this case based on what was reported. Depending on a breathalyzer test conducted after the fact, he may be able to prove the claims of driving under the influence were false. However, the reporter for MyFacebookSpaceNews.com was not intending to print a false statement and was rather quoting his or her source. He was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence. This is a fact and that is what the reporter was stating.
Other than the obvious injury to the other individuals referenced in this story, Mr. Simmons would have a hard time proving injury to him based on this article. If any injury to his emotional well-being is claimed, there is no way to prove whether or not that emotional injury is a derivative of the article or if it is a result of his being involved in a terrible accident and being incarcerated.
I believe MyFacebookSpaceNews.com should focus on these categories because they are what Mr. Simmons needs to prove if he is to be awarded a settlement in a libel case. Without significant proof of some kind to show that the two individuals conspired with the reporter against Mr. Simmons, there is very little here for a libel case to get any traction.












