Monday, October 29, 2018

Legal Geek No. 151: What to Expect from the Roberts Court

Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we come back to a subject promised 3 months ago when we covered the end of the prior Supreme Court term and retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy's legacy, that being what we can expect from the Roberts court now that Kennedy has been replaced by Brett Kavanaugh.


Even though John Roberts has been the Chief Justice since replacing former Chief William Rehnquist in 2005, his first decade plus on the court will likely be known in history as the Kennedy court because Anthony Kennedy was a libertarian thinker who often split the difference between the court's liberal justices and conservative justices.  Now, however, Roberts is the most moderate conservative in a clear 5-justice majority thanks to the addition of Justice Kavanaugh to the likes of Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.

This means Roberts will likely be the new person to chart the course for how decisions in the Supreme Court will head in the next few terms.  Furthermore, his role as Chief Justice also gives him power to assign opinions when he is in the majority, lending him more power and influence as the court shifts to put him in the center.  Roberts has also opined frequently on the importance of the Supreme Court as an institution and its credibility.  Those concerns may lead him to push for more compromises across the liberal-conservative aisle.

Roberts has had a couple notable decisions where he broke from his conservative mates, most notably in upholding the Affordable Care Act in the biggest challenge to the law known as Obamacare.  But for the most part, his personal views and decisions have been largely conservative.  So outside a true shift in his judicial philosophies, the Roberts court will likely be a time of changing and challenging precedents of the past, up to and perhaps including abortion rights.  It certainly doesn't look great for those of progressive thoughts and political agendas.

The other major change will be the inclusion of Justice Kavanaugh, who was the biggest confirmation firestorm since Clarence Thomas and for similar reasons.  In his first week of oral arguments at the Court, Kavanaugh spoke up and asked questions less frequently than most of his colleagues, but when he did speak, he tended to speak more words on average than every other justice.  So unlike Justice Thomas, Kavanaugh appears like he will not shy away from participating substantively in oral arguments.  That means the bench will remain relatively hot for lawyers who appear to argue before the Court, which is a good thing.

Historically, justices on the Court tend to start fairly moderate in their first terms and then sway more towards their ideological sides as time goes on.  So Brett Kavanaugh could follow this formula and be less conservative in these first couple years than where he will end up.  That could allow for Chief Justice Roberts to find a happy medium and perhaps shift to more of a centrist in this time period without much precedent from the last 50 years being upset.  But that's only one potential outcome, and we must see where Kavanaugh comes out on his first term before we evaluate his likely ideological further moves.

The Bottom Line is, this is a huge potential shift for the Supreme Court changing from Kennedy to Kavanaugh, but Chief Justice Roberts holds the key for what the future will look like.  It has been very rare in history for the center-most justice to also be in the role of Chief, so this will be a fascinating case study for future historians regardless of the politics.

----------------------------------

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


Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Legal Geek No. 150: Protecting Jet Li's Ninja Moves

Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we discuss a story brought to our attention by Brian Dunaway and Stephen King on Twitter, that being the revelation that Jet Li turned down a major role in the Matrix sequels to protect his creative interests in his own martial arts moves.

The role of Seraph in the Matrix sequels had an interesting history behind the scenes.  Originally this iconic role was written as a woman and offered to Michelle Yeoh, most recently of Star Trek Discovery fame, but she turned it down for scheduling conflicts.  The Wachowski brothers then rewrote the part as a man and offered it to Jet Li, famous martial artist.  But he turned the part down as well, which led to Collin Chou taking on the role in the final films.  This turn of events is interesting enough, but the reasons Li turned down the role are even more interesting.

The movie crew wanted Jet Li to film his parts in the movie over a 3-month window, and then spend 6 more months doing motion capture to make a digital library of all his martial arts moves.  Li turned down the role based on this latter requirement because he did not agree to the terms offered in the contract, including that the digital library of martial arts moves would be owned by the studio as the studio's IP at the end of the filming.

So Matrix fans were denied having one of the highest artisans in the field of martial arts play in these movies over this desire to create and own a digital library of stored martial arts moves. You may be asking, what legal protection grounds was Jet Li standing on or trying to protect by this move?  As always in legal world, it's fairly complicated.

Although not common based on the long history of martial arts, it would be theoretically possible to hold a copyright in Li's particular expression of martial arts moves, in other words, the artistic expression he creates when performing those moves.  It is unclear whether such a copyright would be able to be successfully registered by federal governments, as a similar attempt by Eddie Van Halen to register a copyright in his guitar playing moves failed many years ago.  But certainly, there's a possible claim under IP that Jet Li would be undermining if he gave these rights to the Matrix filmmakers.

Regardless of this bigger question, Jet Li could certainly contractually give up his rights to whatever moves he allowed to be captured by motion capture if he had done the 6 months of work as requested by the Wachowski brothers.  In other words, the filmed or digital captured moves is a recording that certainly creates potential copyright in the recording itself, which could be contracted away.  Then the question would become how limiting the grant of rights in the contract was because Jet Li would want to be able to continue to provide his skills in the martial arts and film communities, without risking breaking the contract.  We don't know the specific terms of the contract, unfortunately, but Li appears to express concern that he would not be able to compete as he aged with a digital library of moves he created at a younger age.  That concern seems reasonable.

So legally, Jet Li did have some valid concerns or grounds to protect in this regard, but the downside is that we end up not having a motion capture collection of his best moves to share in the public domain when any copyright or other legal rights lapse and go into the public domain.  It's an understandable conclusion, even if it's a frustrating one.

The Bottom Line is, legal fields such as copyright extend much farther than people realize sometimes, and it is wise of top artisans like Jet Li to be aware of his rights before signing contracts.  Despite not seeing Li in the Matrix movies, we thankfully have plenty of other films to enjoy his martial arts in, including the upcoming live action Mulan from Disney in 2020.  One would guess Disney won't be asking for 6 months of motion capture in that endeavor.

----------------------------------
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, October 15, 2018

Legal Geek No. 149: Amazon Reviews lead to FTC Penalties

Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we introduce this segment's listeners to a new area of law that always provides interesting developments, that being consumer laws and enforcement actions by the Federal Trade Commission.

The Federal Trade Commission was founded in 1914 to help prevent unfair methods of competition in commerce, with the organization growing in power and authority over the past 100 years.  Interestingly, the organization is headed by five Commissioners who have to split in politics by a 3-2 margin between the two major parties.  This provides some consistency despite a lot of turnover in the five leadership roles over time.

This week, let's introduce you to the FTC by looking at one of their recent interesting enforcement actions taken against a company called Mikey and Momo, who sold an Aromaflage spray product and candles that allegedly were insect and mosquito repellant.  Aromaflage used a marketing campaign centered on the phrase "fragrance with function," again referring to the claims that the products were effective repellants for mosquitos carrying Zika and other viruses.  However, there was no scientific evidence to back up these claims, making them false and misleading to consumers.

That's precisely the type of activity that the FTC was created to stop, and hence, they brought a case against Mikey and Momo to stop this deceptive marketing.  There was another angle to the case that caught my attention though, as it implies bigger impact for many more small companies and individuals doing business online.

The Aromaflage products had several 5-star reviews posted very quickly after the product release on Amazon.  The FTC discovered that all of these 5-star reviews were written by one of the owners of the business or her relatives.  The FTC in the final consent order against the company required this company to clearly and conspicuously disclose any material connections with reviewers and endorsers on Amazon and other online platforms in the future.  In other words, getting your mom and aunt to post glowing product reviews to boost your initial Amazon ratings was deemed a deceptive business practice the FTC wants to curtail.

Obviously this type of administrative ruling could have far reach if it begins to be enforced against small sellers who often engage in such boosted reviews to have a chance on the open marketplace.  The risk is that if the product becomes successful, these reviews could lead to FTC fines and orders against the company later.  In the short term, if you do business on these online platforms or anywhere reviews are posted, you should make sure any connections you have to reviewers is properly disclosed, whether that be you giving free product to a reviewer or a familial relation.

The Bottom Line is, the FTC often defines the course for what is appropriate under marketing and consumer protection rules, and this month's ruling against Aromaflage is one of the first notable decisions looking to change biased online commenting on commerce sites.  We will keep our eyes on how the FTC affects our tech world and online consumer world as we move forward, as the government organization often provides much to discuss.

----------------------------------
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

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Legal Geek No. 148: Comicsgate Leader files Defamation Suit

Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we cover a story from the Current Geek subreddit suggested by Action_Nate, on how the leader of the Comicsgate movement is suing a DC/Marvel writer for defamation and tortious interference with contract following a public feud online.
Richard Meyer is the figurehead for Comicsgate, and he is known for his conservative reactionary views often expressed on YouTube videos.  He has provoked harassment campaigns in the past against women and minorities in that industry, and he created his own comic names Jawbreakers about a team of former superheroes who are a response to his perceived progressive bias in the comics of Marvel and DC.  If you're unfamiliar with him, you can think of him as an analogue to Alex Jones or Fox News, just in the comic book industry.

Jawbreakers was to be published by a small indie publisher Antarctic Press, but the publisher backed off in response to public pressure from the comic community about Meyer.  This pressure came from several major retailers as well as prominent artists and writers in the comic field, including Mark Waid.  Waid specifically posted to Facebook that he put a call in Antarctic Press to explain the type of person Meyer is and why he believed they would be making a mistake to put out Jawbreakers.

When Antarctic Press backed off, Meyer turned to Indiegogo to fund his Jawbreakers comic, and then he turned to the court this month to sue Waid for defamation and tortious interference with contract.  While Meyer actually benefitted from the controversy in that he drummed up more support for his culture wars comic, as he styles it, he still wants to go after Waid as a representative of what he sees as the establishment in comics, AKA, the folks keeping his views suppressed.  But does Meyer have a chance to win here?

Although each state defines defamation a little differently, it generally requires a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation and published with negligence or malice against the subject.  The key question here is whether any of Waid's statements about Meyer were false.  It seems based on Meyer's reputation and history on YouTube and other social media platforms, it will be difficult to prove any of the published comments to be false, and even if one is false, it is questionable whether they really harmed Meyer's reputation in a meaningful way.  It seems defamation will be a hard sell for someone in Meyer's position.

Turning to tortious interference with contract, the elements required include actual interference with a contract by a third party who intends to interfere with the contract, and in an improper manner that causes damage to the plaintiff.  While Waid clearly left a voicemail message to Antarctic Press about his concerns with publishing Meyer's work, the publisher is not indicating that made any difference in their decision to back out of the publication.  There were a lot of other potential factors and influencers in that decision.  That will make it a gray area if this claim can have any traction in court, and the damages caused are unclear even if the claim is successful, in view of the later success of the Indiegogo campaign.

Perhaps the biggest indicator we have is that Waid has hired a well-known powerful lawyer Mark Zaid, who has been very successful in this field on high profile cases like suing Libya over the Pan Am bombing.  An imbalance in the sophistication of the counsel in this case makes it even more likely that these claims will be picked apart and likely unsuccessful.  But going against the establishment is on brand for Richard Meyer, so maybe this is all part of his plan.

The Bottom Line is, as the political world around us becomes more polarized, these types of legal conflicts will increase where those of minority views or perceived minority views feel suppressed and discriminated against by industry.  It's an unfortunate side effect of the world we're in at the moment, but this particular case seems doomed to fail, by this attorney's eyes.

Thanks again to Action Nate for the subreddit suggestion, and also a quick shoutout to Jeff Rose for linking another interesting legal story we didn't cover in which Utah must cover almost half a million in legal fees after losing a lawsuit over a movie theater selling alcohol during a screening of Deadpool two years ago.  Ouch to Scott Johnson's home state!  Check out the subreddit for more on that, and please continue to send suggestions for the main show and this segment.

----------------------------------
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