Automattic Rejects Series Of Bogus Janet Jackson Takedown Attempts By Using Janet Jackson Song Titles

from the automattic-wins-the-internet dept

Via Parker Higgins we learn that Automattic (better known as the Wordpress people) have added singer Janet Jackson to their "Hall of Shame" for sending totally bogus takedowns. Apparently, her people made the wacky claim that this post on "what would your WWE smackdown name be?" represented trademark infringement. It doesn't. The only place it even mentions Jackson is in showing a picture of Sacha Baron Cohen with the following explanation:

Costume and entrance: Picture Sacha Baron Cohen in, what else? his movie The Dictator. Elaborate General’s outfit, hat, etc. He walks in flanked by half a dozen sexy female soldiers inspired by the Janet Jackson Rhythm Nation video.

Uh, yeah. That's not trademark infringement. It's not copyright infringement. It's not anything but someone writing.

The other takedown is equally problematic. It claims the following image is copyright infringement: As you can clearly see that's using a photo of Jackson's famous "wardrobe malfunction" from the Superbowl many years ago, and applying the Things Tim Howard Could Save meme to it. Marginally funny. But not copyright infringement. Not only does Jackson not hold the copyright on that image, it's obvious fair use for whoever does hold the copyright.

Still, Automattic's lawyers had some fun with their response, noting that they "tried to use as many Janet Jackson song titles as possible" in the response (while also noting they hope that doesn't lead to another takedown demand):

It seems like you believe the use of the trademark “Janet Jackson” is reserved all for you, but we were hoping you’d be open to some feedback because your attempt to control every use of the mark is pretty nasty. If you read up on nominative use, you’ll discover that it doesn’t really matter that “Janet Jackson” is used on this site. If you believe there are any other alleged infringements, would you mind submitting a notice again via our trademark form?

http://automattic.com/trademark-policy/

So excited to work with you going forward

Nicely done.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, janet jackson, takedowns, trademark, wordpress
Companies: automattic

Supreme Court Overrules Fine For Naked Butt On TV; Punts On 1st Amendment Question

from the indecently-speaking dept

We've been following a series of cases over the past few years concerning the FCC's attempt to fine TV stations for "indecency." These cases include "fleeting expletives" like Bono cursing during an awards show ("this is fucking brilliant") to fleeting nudity like the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction... and, the case that just got decided: NYPD Blue's episode where actress Charlotte Ross is shown getting ready for a shower, dropping her robe and having her bare buttocks on screen for approximately seven seconds. As we noted, when the FCC originally went after ABC for this footage, it helped drive millions of people to go seek out the footage online, getting her butt a lot more attention than if they'd just let it go. Either way the case has meandered through the courts, with an early decision saying the policy was a First Amendment problem and a later ruling striking down the fine.

Some of the cases involving both fleeting expletives and fleeting nudity got merged into one along the way. The Supreme Court actually already had this case a few years ago and rejected one of the lower court decisions that found the policy "arbitrary and capricious," but failed to rule on whether the fine was legal. The appeals court, on remand, still tossed out the ruling, now saying that if the policy wasn't arbitrary and capricious, it was too vague.

The Supreme Court has now agreed (pdf), and rejected the FCC's fine.

The Commission failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent. Therefore, the Commission’s standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague, and the Commission’s orders must be set aside.

That said, the Court (as it has been doing with annoying regularity these days) was very, very careful to try to make the scope of the ruling as narrow as possible. In this case, it specifically refused to rule on the First Amendment question of whether or not the FCC's indecency policy violated the First Amendment. That's too bad. Justice Ginsburg did issue a very, very brief concurrence, in which she suggested that the Court really ought to review its original ruling (FCC v. Pacifica) which established that the FCC could issue fines for indecency on TV. In other words, she seems to think that it's time to review the First Amendment question:

In my view, the Court’s decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978), was wrong when it issued. Time, technological advances, and the Commission's untenable rulings in the cases now before the Court show why Pacifica bears reconsideration.

Furthermore, even in the majority opinion, there are hints of concern about the First Amendment issues raised here:

This would be true with respect to a regulatory change this abrupt onany subject, but it is surely the case when applied to theregulations in question, regulations that touch upon “sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms,” Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 372 (1964); see also Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 870–871 (1997) (“The vagueness of [a content-based regulation of speech] raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect”).

Hopefully, this means that if the First Amendment question does finally come before the court, it's ready to overturn that earlier ruling. Of course, I'm still amazed at how this very same Supreme Court always seems to ignore the "obvious chilling effect" issue when it comes to cases involving copyright law... but that's another story for another post.

Filed Under: bono, charlotte ross, fcc, first amendment, indecency, janet jackson, scotus, wardrobe malfunction
Companies: abc

Once Again Court Says FCC Can't Fine Janet Jackson For Wardrobe Malfunction

from the fleeting-fcc-rules dept

A few days late on this one (just didn't have the time to get to it last week), but the 3rd Circuit appeals court did pretty much exactly what most people expected in rejecting the FCC's fine of CBS for Janet Jackson's famous "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl. As we've been covering, the FCC (mainly under the Kevin Martin regime) tried to crack down on "indecency" with some questionable fines, all of which have been thrown out one by one. There was the fleeting expletives case and the Charlotte Ross's naked butt case, both of which ended up with the FCC losing, so this latest ruling wasn't much of a surprise.

The FCC had already lost this case for its rules being "arbitrary and capricious," but the Supreme Court had asked the court to reconsider its ruling, following the fleeting expletives ruling. However, the court here points out that, basically, nothing in that ruling changes anything about how the court feels about the wardrobe malfunction, and (if anything) it just reinforces the position it already took. The interesting thing, however, may be that the earlier decision was unanimous -- and the judge who wrote that decision, Anthony Scirica, actually changed his mind on the case this time around. He dissented, while the others on the panel upheld their earlier ruling, arguing that the FCC's claim that while its "fleeting expletives" policy had changed, it's position on nudity had never changed, was not at all compelling. The dissent, from Scirica, more or less buys the FCC's claim that broadcasters give up 1st Amendment rights and also argues that there's no evidence of a real policy change here.

Either way, this triumverate of cases may not be complete yet as the Supreme Court is expected to weigh in again on these cases on the First Amendment question (separate from the 'arbitrary and capricious' question). So, fear not, we'll still have more to talk about with all of these cases...

Filed Under: arbitrary and capricious, fcc, first amendment, janet jackson, obscenity
Companies: cbs

Janet Jackson's Wardrobe Malfunction Leads To FCC Malfunction: Claims Broadcasters Give Up 1st Amendment Rights

from the fcc-malfunction dept

Would you believe that the FCC, CBS and the courts are still fighting over the FCC's right to fine CBS over Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" during the half-time show of the Superbowl in 2004 (yes, seven years ago). There have actually been a series of related cases bouncing up and down through the court system, trying to establish whether or not the FCC's policies on "fleeting expletives" or "fleeting nudity" are arbitrary and if they violate the First Amendment. A court had originally found the FCC's policies to be arbitrary and tossed them out. The Supreme Court, in a related but different case (focusing on the fleeting expletives), ruled extremely narrowly that the FCC was allowed to change its policies, but did not rule on the constitutionality of the policy itself. The Second Circuit appeals court then ruled that even if the rule change was allowed, it still violated the First Amendment. From that, the court then asked -- if such rules on fleeting expletives are not allowed -- does that also cover fleeting nudity -- but that involved a separate case involving a scene of a bare rear end on NYPD Blue. But, of course, the Janet Jackson case, in the Third Circuit, also is relevant here as well.

Which brings us mostly up-to-date, other than the latest news in the Janet Jackson case, which is that the FCC is now trying to claim that broadcasters give up some of their First Amendment rights when they get a government license to broadcast over public airwaves. This seems like a huge stretch as a legal interpretation, which would have serious implications for anyone using public airwaves. I don't recall the First Amendment saying "Congress shall make no law... except if it involves public airwaves." Either way, as the article linked above notes, this will all be going back to the Supreme Court eventually.

Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, janet jackson, obscenities, wardrove malfunction
Companies: cbs, fcc

Wardrobe Malfunction, Obscenity Or Censorship Malfunction?

from the fcc-appeals dept

Earlier this year, a court tossed out the FCC's fine on CBS for Janet Jackson's infamous Superbowl half time show "wardrobe malfunction." As the court noted, the FCC's reasoning for the fine showed an arbitrary decision that did not fit with any existing guidelines. However, it appears the FCC disagrees and is now appealing the ruling to the Supreme Court, saying that it was the court, not the FCC, that misapplied indecency rules. Of course, we're still wondering why this matters nearly five years after the incident.

Filed Under: fcc, indecency, janet jackson, obscenity, wardrobe malfunction

The FCC's Obscenity Malfunction

from the arbitrariness-is-no-way-to-govern dept

The FCC has a pretty spotty record when it comes to dealing with indecency charges. Basically, it seems to randomly fine stations if it receives enough complaints, even if most of those complaints come from auto-generated scripts from people who didn't actually see the content at all. Of course, perhaps the most highly publicized case where the FCC got involved over what it found to be indecent content was the infamous Janet Jackson Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction. However a court has now ruled that, rather than a wardrobe malfunction, the real malfunction was by the FCC, which had changed its obscenity standards arbitrarily and with no explanation whatsoever in doling out fines over the incident. The court points out that the FCC is allowed to change its standards, but with an explanation and not so arbitrarily. In this case, though, it seemed clear that the response was politically motivated -- and the court has tossed out the fines.

Filed Under: fcc, indecency, janet jackson, obscenity, superbowl, wardrobe malfunction