Kaufman vs. Islamic Society of Arlington, Texas, Islamic Center of Irving, DFW Islamic Educational Center, INC., Dar Elsalam Islamic Center, Al Hedayah Islamic Center, Islamic Association of Tarrannt County and Muslim American Society of Dallas. No. 2-09-023-CV. January 22, 2009.

This court of appeals decision from Texas rules on the case of Kaufman, the author of an online article asserting that Islamic extremists and terrorists were invading Six Flags during their Muslim Family Day. The court decided in favor of Kaufman, arguing that his article did not refer to any of the groups that filed suit against him, and that a 'reasonable reader' would in no way link the groups and implicate the Islamic groups in question with the groups mentioned by Kaufman as terrorist affiliated. The court asserts that "...an internet author's status as a member of the electronic media should be adjudged by the same principles that courts should use to determine the author's status under more traditional media." It's decision classifies Kaufman as an 'online journalist' and argues that his legal rights are thus equal to those of traditional journalists.

Though the court's decision in favor of Kaufman holds little bearing on my thesis, their ruling affects the validity and status of online journalism because it equates it with print and traditional journalism. They argued that a blogger writing without an editor and without performing investigation and substantiation of their claims would not necessarliy be considered an online journalist and would not necessarily receive the same legal rights as online journalists like Kaufman. The questions is, of course, what makes Kaufman a 'journalist'. The court quoted U.S.C.A 552(a)(4)(A)(ii) (West Supp. 2009), arguing that media includes "any 'person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the way materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.'" By this measure, bloggers who discuss news (as opposed to just personal experience and opinion) are certainly included in the realm of online media.

The United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit lays out the Roger v. Koons case, and the arguments for each side.  Koons argues for the fair use arguement for parody, however, the court did not see the need to find parody in the photograph.  

Art Rogers, a professional art photographer, had been commissioned to make this photograph of a husband and wife holding the litter of puppies.  Jeff Koons, a prominent and controversial modern artist, found the postcard in what he described to be a tourist shop.  He apparently ripped off the copyright and sent it to his studio to be copied.  Koons argued that it was like many other postcards he owned, a product of mass culture.  And as one of the most successful artists of his time did not expect the less well known artist of this arguably mundane postcard to question him.

The document is central to understanding the depth of the case, in terms of the legal aspects and the rights of the artist, in this case two artists.  It begs the question and reality of why a more famous artist should have an advantage and monopoly over other less prominent artist’s works, and notes that this cannot be taken for granted.  This article goes into depth of how Koons’ work could be fair use and where the loopholes exist.  However, it is important to establish in law the ‘Ownership of Copyright in an Original Work of Art’, (I, § 8 of the United States Constitution) for a certain time period, which seeks to promote the progress of science and the arts.  Thus, Rogers’ has some claim over his work for a period of time, which he is entitled to.

Enough "substantial similarity" was found in Koons' three dimensional sculpture and the postcard, that the average person could see it, thus it was not transformative enough.  The court found copyright infringement for both this reason, and because Koons had removed the copyright notice unlawfully.

Diane Von Furstenberg Studio, LP v. Forever 21, Inc. et al - 19, No. 1:07-cv-02413-VM (United States District Court Southern District of New York July 9, 2007).

This source is court case; specifically, high-end designer Diane Von Furstenberg filed a copyright- infringement lawsuit against the store Forever 21, who has more than once created apparel with designs that were extremely similar to Furstenberg's pieces. In addition to seeking financial damages, von Furstenberg requested a court order that Forever 21 remove and take back the dresses and any promotional display or commercial distribution of any of their pieces that infringe on DVF's copyrights. Furstenberg and many other designers have always had problems with copying from stores such as Forever 21. This is just one example out of numerous other court cases Furstenberg filed against Forever 21. Of course, Forever 21 and other stores at present are still creating knock-off copies of designer dresses because there is still no copyright law enforced prohibiting them from doing so.

This source will be very helpful for my paper because it is an actual lawsuit filed against a store that produced knockoffs of a particular designer. Since this is a specific example, I will be able to refer to this court case when I mention the designers' point of view on fashion copyright and whether it should be enforced. Moreover, including an actual court case will give my essay more credibility.

Elkins, Becky, Helms, Lelia B., and Pierson, Christopher T. “Greek-Letter Organizations, Alcohol, and the Courts: A Risky Mix?” Journal of College

    Student Development. 2003, American College Personnel Association. University of Pennsylvania. April 2008
    <http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_college_student_development/v044/44.1elkins.html>.    

    Alcohol is obviously a problem in college Greek life. Not only are fraternities known for binge and underage drinking, but over the past few decades they have also brought alcohol to the courts. The article juxtaposes concern for legal matters with concern for the health and progress of students who engage in more alcohol-related activities than the average person. Heavy drinking has immediate and possible indirect consequences, such as unwanted sexual situations, fighting, drunk driving, and so on. These are the cases that lead to legal matters, some of which involve death. Students have gone to court for alcohol-related cases progressively more and more since the early 1980s. However, fraternity and sorority events still prosper because members admit that “partying and drinking [are] important to them.”
    Are films such as Animal House affecting this? They certainly exhibit it. Dean Wormer of Faber College enters the Delta house, and the members are caught with alcohol, despite the failed attempt to inconspicuously hide the beers. However, all Dean Wormer can throw at them are inventions such as double secret probation and empty threats. Delta house is a danger to Faber College’s reputation, but there is not enough authority to stop them from downing alcohol at every chance. The article recommends that the universities take action to protect them legally, but to not let this intrude on or dominate over “ethical obligations to teach students to behave responsibly.” This is where Dean Wormer fails and Delta house prevails. Universities learn from these mistakes, which is why modern institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania has programs such as Fling Safe and organizations such as the Vice Provost for University Life.