davidNeedham

Article 1

Facebook Adds Privacy Controls, IM

http://blogs.mediapost.com/online_minute/?p=1696

My biggest gripe about Facebook is the general lack of privacy. Everyone can see anything they want about almost anyone else on facebook. That's why I'm a little anal about my privacy settings and make sure to set all of my options to "viewable by friends only" in addition to changing other options to further restrict what people can see. Apparently Facebook will soon be implementing additional privacy controls including the biggest right of publicity issue - "harnessing [a user's] name and image for commercial purposes". These "socialAds" as facebook calls them will soon be able to be opted out of - which comes as a huge relief to me. It's about time! This reminded me a lot about the ways that people can be "owned" as mentioned in the McLeod book (Ch6). This fits right in with owning databases of customer information and profiles - and I bet facebook is making a killing at selling that information.

Article 2

California’s Amended Right of Publicity Statute

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=57954

Gov. Arnold of California signed into law a bill which addresses some right of publicity issues in regards to people that have passed away. Apparently California has had right of publicity laws in the last (since at least 1979), but this law clears up some of the problems that the courts have been having lately over the rights of publicity for celebrities that have already died. The Monroe case (Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. CMG Worldwide, Inc.) is mentioned, but this article also takes note of Gidatex S.r.L. v. Campaniello Imports, Ltd., Apple Corps Ltd. v. Int’l Collectors Society, and many other cases that are relevant to this new law. I did not check to confirm if the cases in this article were identical to the ones mentioned in "chp6_ropp_def" pdf, but they sounded pretty similar to some of the cases we had to read over.

Article 3

MLB hoping Supreme Court will hear fantasy sports case

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2008-02-29-fantasy-lawsuit_N.htm

Major League Baseball (MLBAM and MLBPA) is fighting against CDM Fantasy sports because CDM is using their players names and statistics without paying any sort of royalty fee. MLB is claiming their players should always get some sort of compensation whenever their names are used in fantasy baseball leagues - just like they are in endorsements. They believe this fits under the rights of publicity. So far the lower courts have all said that it is not the same as endorsement so it will not count as needing any royalty. MLB is hoping to be heard by the supreme court for a final ruling about if they should get royalties for this or not. Just like with the first article, this reminded me of McLeod's chapter on owning people. In this case, however, it's the celebrity image that is owned.