Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we cover the breaking news of this week's Supreme Court decision to allow sports gambling nationwide, followed by coverage of how a fictional card game from Star Wars is being enforced by Disney in a copyright lawsuit.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp135
In 1992, Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act or PASPA, a law that barred state-authorized sports gambling outside the state of Nevada. That left Nevada and specifically Las Vegas as the only places where a person could legally bet on the outcome of any single sports game, and the profits obviously rolled in there.
This law was challenged as unconstitutional by the state of New Jersey, which obviously has a bustling casino scene in Atlantic City and other places. While New Jersey lost at every federal court case leading up to the Supreme Court appeal, the highest court in the land ruled 6-3 this week in the case Murphy v NCAA that the PASPA was unconstitutional.
Ironically, the Court's decision was written on the basis of federalism by conservative Justice Alito, while opening up similar arguments for other progressive causes like marijuana legalization and sanctuary cities to be regulated by the states instead of the federal government. More specifically, PASPA was deemed to violate the anti-commandeering doctrine from the 10th Amendment, which bars the federal government from compelling state officials to implement federal policy. So forcing states to maintain their bans on sports gambling to serve federal law interests was not constitutional. So what does this decision mean?
Basically, it's now left to the states to decide whether to enact laws to allow such gambling, just like with state-run lotteries and the like. New Jersey hopes to be up and running in a couple weeks, while other states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Delaware have legislation pending already in hopes to be open for gambling business by football season. This decision will also hopefully curtail the illegal betting markets and pressures that have been present since PASPA's introduction in the early 90s. So sports and betting fans, stay tuned for some local betting near you soon.
Turning to our second story, a mobile game app developer named Ren Ventures and Sabacc Creative Industries created a virtual card game called sabbac. Lucasfilm and Disney took umbrage to this because the game sabacc first appeared in the novelization of the 1980 movie The Empire Strikes Back, and the app developer allegedly uses several copyrighted images and characters from the Star Wars universe to promote their game on Facebook and Twitter. Thus, after a Cease and Desist letter in April 2017, a lawsuit was filed last December.
Last week, Lucasfilm moved for a summary judgement win by claiming that Ren Ventures is clearly willfully infringing on the copyrights and trademarks of Star Wars. Ren Ventures has counterclaimed based on its registered trademark for the game name sabacc, saying that Lucasfilm is infringing its trademark.
So who wins in this battle of the sci fi stars? While it's true that Ren Ventures has a trademark for the name sabacc for computer games and apps as of 2016. Lucasfilm likely has the superior claim thanks to the much older copyrighted materials. The mere concept of a game described in a piece of literature would not be automatically protected by copyright or trademark, but Ren Ventures probably crossed the line more clearly with marketing materials used on social media.
The Bottom Line is, anytime something is a big money maker like sports gambling or the Star Wars franchise, it's not surprising when others come in to try and get a piece of the pie. In the case of gambling in New Jersey, the motives are solely profit-driven, while in the case of Ren Ventures, the app may be just as much a fan homage to Star Wars as a play for profit. If nothing else, we learn once again not to mess with Jersey casinos or Disney, the king of enforcing IP rights.
----------------------------------
Do you have a question? Send it in!
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
Monday, May 14, 2018
Monday, May 7, 2018
Legal Geek No. 134: Giuliani Brews Up a Storm(y) about Campaign Finance Laws
Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we review the media blitz Rudy Giuliani has been on in the previous week as an attorney for President Trump, and explain why his comments regarding payments to Stormy Daniels don't paint a full picture of the issues surrounding the administration on this issue.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp134
If you aren't up to speed on the sideshow that is the Stormy Daniels story, here's a brief overview. Stormy Daniels is an adult film star who apparently had an affair with Donald Trump about a decade ago. Daniels was paid $130,000 in late 2016 just before the election by Trump's attorney Michael Cohen to keep her from reporting the affair to news outlets at that time. As the FBI investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election led by special counsel Robert Mueller works through the process of investigating Cohen and others, this payout and the affair have become public knowledge and a source of debate of potential crimes or violations they may reveal.
Coming back to this week, Rudy Giuliani took to the cable TV news airwaves with many appearances and statements regarding the Stormy Daniels payout and his take on it. Here's his quote regarding potential campaign finance violations:
INSERT QUOTE
Campaign finance law is a field with ever-changing parameters, as the Supreme Court often weighs in on the laws and regulations applied by the Federal Elections Commission or FEC. Limits on individual contributions to a political campaign are set forth in Section 30116 of Title 52 of the U.S. Code, and there's a duty to report any payments made to or on behalf of a campaign so that voters can be sure who follows the fairness rules. That latter point is where the debate will hinge.
According to Section 30116, all contributions made by a person, directly or indirectly, on behalf of a particular candidate, shall be treated as contributions from such person to the candidate, even if an intermediary is involved in some manner. Daniels's attorney is making a public case that the payment from Michael Cohen to her was inherently related to Trump's campaign given the timing shortly before the election and the broad language of the law at hand. Cohen certainly made the payment as an agent of Trump, and he's since been reimbursed by Trump for the payment to Daniels. It's not as simple as Giuliani claims because the law clearly covers more than just movement of actual campaign funds.
If this hush money payment does qualify as a contribution under campaign finance laws, then it should have been disclosed. Furthermore, there are criminal penalties for knowing or willful failures to report such contributions. So there's a lot left to untangle in the facts surrounding Cohen and his payment to Daniels, as well as the knowledge and intent of Cohen and Trump, as there are big differences depending on whether Daniels approached Cohen to extort a payment or Cohen voluntarily sought out Daniels.
Of course, even if the FEC finds this to be a violation of campaign finance laws, another hurdle to cross is whether President Trump can actually be sued or held liable while in the executive branch. Presidential immunity may not go so far as to protect from a lawsuit of this variety, but it would be a question of first impression at the courts if it occurs.
The Bottom Line is, Campaign finance laws are in place to allow voters to have a fair and full picture of the candidates they cast ballots for. By obfuscating how the law actually reads and is applied, Giuliani is trying to paint a positive picture for his client Trump. But his oversimplifications and misstatements will likely not carry the day at the FEC. What's more interesting than the salacious nature of this affair or the one-sided comments of Giuliani is the potential effect of this issue on the Trump Administration. While this by itself is likely not enough to remove Trump from office, it's one of a number of factors that could combine into an avalanche should something like the Russia investigation produce more problems.
----------------------------------
Do you have a question? Send it in!
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp134
If you aren't up to speed on the sideshow that is the Stormy Daniels story, here's a brief overview. Stormy Daniels is an adult film star who apparently had an affair with Donald Trump about a decade ago. Daniels was paid $130,000 in late 2016 just before the election by Trump's attorney Michael Cohen to keep her from reporting the affair to news outlets at that time. As the FBI investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election led by special counsel Robert Mueller works through the process of investigating Cohen and others, this payout and the affair have become public knowledge and a source of debate of potential crimes or violations they may reveal.
Coming back to this week, Rudy Giuliani took to the cable TV news airwaves with many appearances and statements regarding the Stormy Daniels payout and his take on it. Here's his quote regarding potential campaign finance violations:
INSERT QUOTE
Campaign finance law is a field with ever-changing parameters, as the Supreme Court often weighs in on the laws and regulations applied by the Federal Elections Commission or FEC. Limits on individual contributions to a political campaign are set forth in Section 30116 of Title 52 of the U.S. Code, and there's a duty to report any payments made to or on behalf of a campaign so that voters can be sure who follows the fairness rules. That latter point is where the debate will hinge.
According to Section 30116, all contributions made by a person, directly or indirectly, on behalf of a particular candidate, shall be treated as contributions from such person to the candidate, even if an intermediary is involved in some manner. Daniels's attorney is making a public case that the payment from Michael Cohen to her was inherently related to Trump's campaign given the timing shortly before the election and the broad language of the law at hand. Cohen certainly made the payment as an agent of Trump, and he's since been reimbursed by Trump for the payment to Daniels. It's not as simple as Giuliani claims because the law clearly covers more than just movement of actual campaign funds.
If this hush money payment does qualify as a contribution under campaign finance laws, then it should have been disclosed. Furthermore, there are criminal penalties for knowing or willful failures to report such contributions. So there's a lot left to untangle in the facts surrounding Cohen and his payment to Daniels, as well as the knowledge and intent of Cohen and Trump, as there are big differences depending on whether Daniels approached Cohen to extort a payment or Cohen voluntarily sought out Daniels.
Of course, even if the FEC finds this to be a violation of campaign finance laws, another hurdle to cross is whether President Trump can actually be sued or held liable while in the executive branch. Presidential immunity may not go so far as to protect from a lawsuit of this variety, but it would be a question of first impression at the courts if it occurs.
The Bottom Line is, Campaign finance laws are in place to allow voters to have a fair and full picture of the candidates they cast ballots for. By obfuscating how the law actually reads and is applied, Giuliani is trying to paint a positive picture for his client Trump. But his oversimplifications and misstatements will likely not carry the day at the FEC. What's more interesting than the salacious nature of this affair or the one-sided comments of Giuliani is the potential effect of this issue on the Trump Administration. While this by itself is likely not enough to remove Trump from office, it's one of a number of factors that could combine into an avalanche should something like the Russia investigation produce more problems.
----------------------------------
Do you have a question? Send it in!
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)