Headline Screws

Mark Glaser has an article in today's Online Journalism Review, "Libel Ruling Provides Protection for Forums, Not Individual Bloggers:" "Putting a word such as 'Weblog,' 'blog' or 'blogger' into your news story's headline seems to do strange things to people. First, every Weblog known to humanity has to link to your story...."

In addition to succumbing to the inexorable link compulsion Mark notes, I mention it because the article assesses headlines relating to the Ninth Circuit's recent Batzel decision and finds them to have been a little hasty and overzealous in suggesting the case might afford blanket libel protection for bloggers: "What really happened in this ruling is much more complex than that and only protects third-party content that's being passed along to an e-mail listserv, a forum or perhaps a Weblog's comments section. When a blogger starts making original commentary, he/she is liable for these comments."

Mark's right on when he points out that bloggers—and anyone passing along third party comments—who care about accuracy and credibility would do well to take a page from the "real" journalists: "In the end, the real onus is on [defendant] Cremers and the individual publisher/writer/editor. Under this ruling, the publisher would be protected from libel for reprinting e-mails intended for publication—even if the content is libelous. But that publisher would be setting a poor example for online journalists by not making the most basic checks of the material to make sure they're not injuring someone by disseminating the story." I assume Mark would include in those basic checks affording the subject the opportunity to address and respond to the assertion. According to the Batzel opinion, Ellen Batzel did not learn of the allegation that she owned looted art until several months after the posting.

(Of course it's always fun to tweak IBM. The courts just might not be there for you whenever Big (B)Lou comes a knockin'.)

Bound, Gagged And Precedential

It took no time at all for various Slashdotters to correct their original tipster on the Kelly v. Arriba Soft decision, concerning the fact that most decisions of the United States Courts of Appeal are resolved by three judge panels and nothing about such a resolution deprives an opinion of binding and precedential effect. Several commenters quickly jumped in, and self-flagellation ensued scarcely three hours after the posting.

It's Quiet—It's Too Quiet

Oral argument today, back soon. (You haven't lived until you've tried finding something appropriate to wear to the Court of Appeal when you're pregnant...)

Meanwhile, I see from Marty that the Kelly v. Arriba Soft (PDF) decision has just come down, approving use of copyrighted images as thumbnails in image search results (although the holding likely is broader than that). There were also some interesting linking analyses in this case (see my posts from 2/12/02 and 4/9/02). It's definitely on my reading list for the afternoon. From the intro: "This case involves the application of copyright law to the vast world of the internet and internet search engines."

"Controlled Breathing, In The Extreme"

Vanessa Grigoriadis reports on the latest in the Bikram yoga copyright wars. From the article—

Dana Flynn (owner of the Laughing Lotus Yoga Center in New York): "Bikram is a bit of a pirate."

Bikram Choudhury (referring to the owners of the studio where I practice, whom he sued): "They are on the street today. They are closing their school. They cannot say my name. She cannot teach my yoga anymore, because she lost her license."

While I can't debunk the first quote I can debunk part of the second, having just come from an excellent class taught by Kim Morrison, the "she" in question. And no, it wasn't taught in the street but in their comfortable studio, which seems to be doing just fine.

Summer

Laguna Roses