Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Important Court Decisions Chip Away At ISP Liability Shield

Posted by Zonk on from the i-kind-of-like-the-open-internet-personally dept.

An anonymous reader writes "News.com is reporting on a pair of court cases that could prove very important to ISPs in coming years. They both subtly chip away at the legal shield service providers have enjoyed against liability for hosted content. Further court cases could result in a 'chilling effect' on social networks and hosting services, as small businesses steer clear of potentially contentious content. '[The judge's ruling] differed from previous opinions in one important area. He refused to dismiss Jane Doe's argument that FriendFinder's republication of her profile invaded her 'intellectual property rights' under New Hampshire law. She claimed to be concerned about violations to her 'right of publicity,' which says an individual generally has the right to control how his name, image, and likeness is used commercially--and the court ruled that Doe's argument fell into the category of intellectual property law.'"

1 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. Re:They don't. by torstenvl · · Score: 4, Informative

    The difficulty of the case is that Jane Doe also filed suit that her "rights of publicity" were being violated. Which is a far more nebulous concept than IP Rights. No. Rights of publicity are intellectual property rights. [1][2][3]

    Where things get really confusing, though, is that the article suggest that Jane Doe's "rights of publicity" arguments were denied. No, the article explicitly says they werent. [4]

    Instead, the judge is treating it as a pure IP violation case. Which seems only right and proper in my mind. Yes, because publicity rights are intellectual property rights. [1][2][3]

    Yet the article appears to be suggesting that this would set a rather negative precedent across the industry. Which makes very little sense to me. Perhaps someone more in the know could shed some light on the exact problem? (Or if one even exists?) The author (and the OP) are just being sensationalist. The "immunity shield"[5] is inapplicable to intellectual property claims[6], and has been inapplicable to them since it was passed in 1996.

    Nothing to see here, move along.

    [1] ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ'g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915, 928 (6th Cir. 2003)
    [2] J. Thomas McCarthy, Melville B. Nimmer & the Rights of Publicity: A Tribute, 34 U.C.L.A. L.Rev. 1703, 1712 (1987)
    [3] Black's Law Dictionary 368 (3rd pocket ed. 2006)
    [4] Anne Broache, Courts chip away at Web sites' decade-old legal shield, C|Net News.com News Blog, April 8, 2008 at paragraph 9, available at http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9911501-7.html
    [5] 47 U.S.C. s 230(c)(1)
    [6] 47 U.S.C. s 230(e)(2)