RSS FeedWindsor University Videos
This was the best we could come up with from Windsor.
Windsor Law Social Orientation 2007
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fnWPTdO2AQ[/youtube]
Spitzer Scandal Allegedly Violating Copyright Laws
Don D. Buchwald of Kelley, Drye & Warren LLP, counsel for the call-girl involved in the Gov. Spitzer scandal, is standing up for his client’s rights.
He’s not defending against allegations of prostitution or the like.
He’s claiming that photos of Alexandra Dupre found in the media are violating copyright laws.
Photos such as the one on the right were liberally reproduced from her MySpace page by media sources in print and television.
But Buchwald claims that neither permission or royalties were granted for their use.
According to the MySpace policy, he might have grounds for a claim,
Content Posted.
- MySpace.com may delete any Content that in the sole judgment of MySpace.com violates this Agreement or which may be offensive, illegal or violate the rights, harm, or threaten the safety of any person. MySpace.com assumes no responsibility for monitoring the MySpace Services for inappropriate Content or conduct. If at any time MySpace.com chooses, in its sole discretion, to monitor the MySpace Services, MySpace.com nonetheless assumes no responsibility for the Content, no obligation to modify or remove any inappropriate Content, and no responsibility for the conduct of the User submitting any such Content.
Major civil suits have yet to be filed for the use of media use of photos found on the net that retain copyright.
Appropriation of personality is an established grounds for a claim in the U.S., as we’ve previously discussed.
Some commentators are discussing the cost of her personal privacy being offset by potential payoffs from celebrity. Her music downloads have skyrocketed, and there is talk of a book or movie.
But the settlement from royalties off the use of her personal photos could be the best payoff yet.
Expert Opinion
We polled some of the experts, and here is what they thought (available only on our site).
David Nocilly, a patent and IP lawyer with Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC in Syracuse, NY, and Adjunct Professor at Syracuse University, said,
Although the owner of the copyright in photographs, which is the photographer and not the person pictured unless an assignment has been made, has the right to control the makng of copies, there are certain permissible uses under U.S. copyright laws. For example, the “fair use” of a work for news or commentary purposes may not constitute copyright infringement.
Some U.S. states have laws to protect the right to privacy, such as the use of someone’s name, image, or likeness for commerical or advertising purposes. These laws usually have exceptions for news or commentary similar to those for copyrights.
But Greg Curcio, an independent lawyer and screen writer in New York, New York, said,
The lawyer should have a good leg to stand on. Photo’s taken outside of a public figure are in the public domain (Jacqueline Onassis case).
These photo’s were taken before she was famous/infamous.
Several states have passed specific laws on the subject. Caslon Analytics state,
Special ‘rights’ legislation seeks to prevent unauthorised commercial use of an individual’s name, likeness (including silhouette, voice or signature) or other recognisable aspect of that person’s persona. The individual – and in some instances the individual’s heirs – gain an exclusive right to license use of the persona for commercial purposes. In the US the notion dates from a judge’s broad statement in Haelen Laboratories v Topps Chewing Gum, 1953 litigation involving baseball cards.
T.D. Ruth, an entertainment lawyer with Lassiter, Tidwell, Davis, Keller & Hogan PLLC from Nashville, TN, recommended William Patry’s post on the subject. Ruth, who blogs on Digital Copyright News, summarized the issue,
In short, it’s unlikely she has a copyright in several of these photos, as they are instead with the photographer. They are snapshots, and I highly doubt that she considered arranging a work for hire or assignment for such photos. Further, as previously mentioned, no statutory damages or attorney fees without registration prior to infringing activity, thus only actual damages, which are probably minimal.
Even if she did have a copyright claim, it is entirely likely that the new organizations’ use would be deemed fair.
Drew Carson, Ph.D., wrote in,
Interesting question on IP. I’m no lawyer but I’ve read some books on IP applications in test development, and will touch on some themes related to the case you describe.
First, there are two main areas of IP right this relates to: copyright and right of publicity/privacy. I’ll deal with both in turn.
For copyright, as David Nocilly notes, it’s the person who owns (or has control over) the facets of the copyright at issue that can bring charges of violation of a specific copyright. And as Nocilly notes, copyright gets subdivided into various facets, each of which can be assigned. Second, someone can bring legal action against another party even if no formal copyright is filed, but you can only collect damages if the copyright was formally registered. So one question is: were copyrights for the images ever formally registered? Third: Curcio references fair use as putting something into the public domain, but I believe he misspeaks. I believe that fair use interpretation doesn’t put a copyrighted item in the public domain as much as protects use of a copyrighted item so long as it falls under the category of fair use. US court decisions tend to work hard (traditionally, at least) to protect individual creative rights associated with copyright; however, to the degree that copyrighted materials bounce up directly to first ammendment rights, at least related to the actions of politicians, courts tend to go the fair use route. The argument that a call girl caught up in a Mann Act investigation involving a sitting governor would seem, on the face of it, to fall onto the side of fair use, and the public’s right to know, and thus be protected by the first ammendment. Curcio’s suggestion that rights protecting images of deceased politician’s wife’s subsequent images would seem to me to be apples and oranges. But then that’s what we have courts for. But my guess is that courts would decide in favor of first ammendment, because publication of the images seemed to contribute to the sitting politician’s decision to resign, this in reaction to public outcry that followed publication of the images in question. If that’s not first ammendment in action, I don’t know what is.
On to right of publicity. These rights are connected with right of privacy, as Nocilly notes. They are especially strong for people who are not famous and might have reasonable expectation to remain that way. If you’re a big deal celebrity or politician, well, you pays your money and generally take your chances when you do something stupid and the public finds out. But you need to be more careful around spreading the stories of the little guy. Well, strikes me that the model lost some of her little guy standing when she started her trysts with the sitting governor of New York. In doing so, a reasonable person might believe that she is moving in the realm of celebrities and politicians. Thus, she might have had a claim for objecting to her image being slapped across all media before she hung with the gov, but she lost that claim the moment the moment she crossed that line. But again, the law would need to be interpreted in relation to the states involved.
Another issue you didn’t raise: let’s speculate for the moment that the business activity in which she was engaged and that caused the photographs to be taken in the first instance falls under the category of RICO. The who operation sounds pretty RICO-like to me, particularly if the clients of the group turn out to be doing any favors for the organization. If so, wouldn’t the government be able to seize all property associated with that criminal enterprise? And wouldn’t that include any copyrights in question, if they were owned by the criminal enterprise?
Wouldn’t it be cool if law school students in IP courses have to argue this in their classrooms?
Todd Sullivan, Managing Attorney at Hayes Soloway PC in Boston, agreed with most of the responses,
Fair use can generally be relied upon by the news media to avoid copyright claims. Even portions of the entertainment media (The Daily Show, The Tonight Show, etc.) can claim the exemption as part of news commentary, I believe. If we assume that she knows the photographer and can get the photographer to assign his rights or enforce them, I don’t expect she will be collecting anything.
With regards to the rights to publicity (or, more aptly, rights from publicity), she gives that up when she becomes newsworthy. Her pictures and name have appeared in many news stories, ipso facto she is newsworthy.
An interesting separate question comes with pages from MySpace. By publishing your photos to the world do you waive some sort of right (separate from copyright) to keep others from showing them to the world? You can’t publish an idea and claim a trade secret in the same. Can you publish yourself and claim a right of privacy in the contents of the publication? The question above does not indicate a complaint as to publicity/privacy rights, but it is an interesting question.
Sean McBeth, Developer at Global Data Consultants, LLC, said,
In the specific case of the Spitzer scandal, use of the call-girl’s photos in new articles is considered “Fair Use” under current Copyright law. As previously stated, she doesn’t own the copyright, either. By default, copyright is assigned to the photographer. In fact, most contracts between photographers, clients, and models are primarily concerned with compensating the photographer for transfering copyright. There really is no discussion on the matter, she neither owns the copyright nor can dictate the use of the photos for the purposes of editorial work.
McBeth also suggested we deal with copyright issues for celebrities the same way we do all other copyright issues,
By framing the question in the context of the Internet, you are making a fundamentally false assumption — that interaction on the Internet is somehow different than all other human interaction. It’s just all talk! While the Internet has changed *how* we communicate en masse, it does not change the fact that we are communicating person-to-person.
The Internet is the most significant advancement in communication since *the printing press*. The printing press revolutionized communication by changing the topography of communication.
The Internet changes the topography of communication again, unlike any other innovation in media since the printing press. Radio, motion pictures, television, all capitalize on the same 1-to-Many topography as the printing press. Only the Internet has expanded the topography to Many-to-Many.
Before the printing press, communication was limited to 1-on-1 correspondance. Dedicated monks spent lifetimes copying tomes by hand, letter for letter, in the sanctified (and inaccesible) halls of the monastery. Knowledge was limited to the elite few and such a rarified commodity that a concept of copyright was unnecessary. It just wasn’t physically possible to copy without the concent of the owner!
With the printing press, we achieved a reliable, efficient means of 1-to-many correspondance. Knowledge became accessible, and it is here that we see the true age of enlightenment of mankind. When people could access knowledge without having to become an impoverished monk, people could grow and create the modern, industrialized world. However, this came at a price, as the ease of copying made it too easy to short-change the original producer of the work. This is where copyright law came into play, to protect the content producer.
With the Internet, we have changed the dynamic again, we now have Many-to-Many communication, something we have never had before. We are in the beginnings of a new era. Suddenly, anyone may become a producer of content, and people may collaberate on content creation more freely. But that is the only change. The fact that content is being consumed by many people is still the same.
Whereas copyright law was introduced to protect producers from nefarious consumers, in the age of the Internet nothing has changed from the perspective of the producer. All that we have changed is who can become content producers. If anything, this suggests that copyright law should be broadened to reconsider who owns copyright of material, specifically in regards to collaberative works, but does not suggest anything should be changed about how that right should be protected.
Matt Digesti of HRD Law in San Diego said,
…the analysis is fact-sensitive and cannot be made through recitation of broad copyright consepts and rules.
I must agree with William Patry’s post and conclude that the controlling “fair use” determination under these facts is whether the reproduction of the pictures is a “transformation of the work into news” or whether the reproduction of the pictures is a based merely on the “newsworthiness of the works themselves.” Nunez v. Caribbean International News Corp, 235 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2000).
In Nunez, the reproduction of pictures was considered a transformation of the work into news for the following reason: the photos were originally taken for a modeling portfolio and the subject of the news article was whether the model could sufficiently represent Puerto Rico as Miss Universe with such pictures accessible to the public. As such, the reproduction of the pictures furthered the topic of the article and in essence, transformed the photographs into news. Put differently, the photographs were reproduced “not just to entice the buying public, but to place its news article in context” and inform the public.
Here, the Post could cite the Nunez case and argue that the use of the photographs were not reproduced merely to entice the buying public, but to place the news article in context and inform the public of the identity of the call-girl. Consequently, the reproduction of the pictures transformed the photographs into news and the fair use exception under the first factor in section 107 most likely applies.
Susan Singleton of Singletons in Harrow, UK, one of the leaders in IP/IT in their country said,
As in the US the subject of the photograph doesn’t own the copyright unless that is agreed. For example Ms Dupre when she was 18 allegedly took part in some filming on a bus (the videos, many hours of them that are now available to download for a fee by the company that was about to pay her when they realised they already had this material from years before). She would have signed something when she took part in that and that will be that (unless she didn’t know what she was doing or was under age or whatever). Other photos – again depends what was agreed at the time.
In the UK we had a recent case concerning the child of JK Rowling, the author. Our courts held you can photograph anyone in the street and publish it and that will not breach any privacy, data protection or human rights laws, whereas if you sneak into their private house and take pictures even though you own the copyright you are unlikely to be free to print them. (We also have some fair use rights here too).
I would doubt she owned the copyright in any of the photos being used but those who do may be able to try to recover some royalties.
Future of Class-Actions in Canada
The largest Canadian Constitutional class-action suit in currently under scrutiny.
Background
Following M. v. H (1999), the Canada Pension Plan (1985) (CPP) was amended in 2000 to include survivor benefits for same-sex couples to comply with equality provisions under s. 15 of the Charter,
Section 15.
- Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
- Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Hislop v. Canada
However, gay activists challenged the CPP further on the following grounds in Hislop v. Canada (2007) in the largest constitutional class-action in Canada:
-
- S. 44(1.1) of the CPP, eligibility was limited to same‑sex partners whose “spouse” died on or after January 1, 1998. Benefits were not retroactive to April 17, 1985, when s. 15(1) came into force, or the date of death of the “spouse”, whichever occurred later.
Limitation
*(1.1) In the case of a common-law partner who was not, immediately before the coming into force of this subsection, a person described in subparagraph (a)(ii) of the definition “spouse” in subsection 2(1) as that definition read at that time, no survivor’s pension shall be paid under paragraph (1)(d) unless the common-law partner became a survivor on or after January 1, 1998.
* [Note: Subsection 44(1.1) in force July 31, 2000, see SI/2000-76.]
- S. 44(1.1) of the CPP, eligibility was limited to same‑sex partners whose “spouse” died on or after January 1, 1998. Benefits were not retroactive to April 17, 1985, when s. 15(1) came into force, or the date of death of the “spouse”, whichever occurred later.
- S. 72(1) limited survivor’s arrears benefits to no more than 12 months prior to the time of application, and under S.72(2), precluded payments to same-sex xurvivors before July 2001.
72. (1) Subject to subsection (2) and section 62, where payment of a survivor’s pension is approved, the pension is payable for each month commencing with the month following
(a) the month in which the contributor died, in the case of a survivor who at the time of the death of the contributor had reached thirty-five years of age or was a survivor with dependent children,
(b) the month in which the survivor became a survivor who, not having reached sixty-five years of age, is disabled, in the case of a survivor other than a survivor described in paragraph (a), or
(c) the month in which the survivor reached sixty-five years of age, in the case of a survivor other than a survivor described in paragraph (a) or (b),
but in no case earlier than the twelfth month preceding the month following the month in which the application was received.
Limitation
*(2) In the case of a survivor who was the contributor’s common-law partner and was not, immediately before the coming into force of this subsection, a person described in subparagraph (a)(ii) of the definition “spouse” in subsection 2(1) as that definition read at that time, no survivor’s pension may be paid for any month before the month in which this subsection comes into force.
* [Note: Subsection 72(2) in force July 31, 2000, see SI/2000-76.]
R.S., 1985, c. C-8, s. 72; 2000, c. 12, ss. 54, 64.
- S. 60(2) limits the rights of estates of survivors from benefits if the application is not made within 12 months of death.
Application for benefit by estate, etc.
60. (2) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, but subject to subsections (2.1) and (2.2), an application for a benefit, other than a death benefit, that would have been payable in respect of a month to a deceased person who, prior to the person’s death, would have been entitled on approval of an application to payment of that benefit under this Act may be approved in respect of that month only if it is made within 12 months after the death of that person by the estate, the representative or heir of that person or by any person that may be prescribed by regulation.
- S. 60(2) limits the rights of estates of survivors from benefits if the application is not made within 12 months of death.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled, affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, that ss. 44(1.1) and 72(2) violated reasonable limits of s. 15(1) of the Charter and struck down, and exemptions were granted under ss. 60(2) and 72(1), even though they did not infringe on s. 15(1).
Douglas Elliot of Roy Elliott Kim O’Connor LLP (REKO), counsel for the plaintiffs explained the importance of the case,
With Schachter [v. Canada] and Doucet-Boudreau [v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education)], I believe that Hislop will complete the trilogy of the three great constitutional remedy cases
Payment Ruling
On Feb. 9, 2008, a retainer agreement for the class-action approved of four years ago by the Ontario court has been challenged, which could result in the loss of millions of dollars in legal fees.
Kirk Baert, a Toronto civil litigation lawyer commented on the potential fallout of class-actions,
The result here isn’t fair. This is not a case where the lawyers were getting a windfall. They took the case to trial after many years; they had to go through two levels of (appeal) courts. It was very well done, to the benefit of a lot of people, and involved an important social issue.
It was the law firms’ work and skill and effort that generated the money flowing from the Canada Pension Plan in the first place.
Members to the class-action, such as Lothar Zeterberg of Vancouver, seemed to agree,
Nobody works for free. They (class action lawyers) spent time and money and all the rest of it doing this, so they should be compensated. No question about that.
But these types of pleas were not considered convincing by the court,
[65] I am not persuaded that this result will deter future class actions or frustrate the access to justice principles embodied in the CPA. While I am sympathetic to PCG’s position and the possible difficulties it will face in collecting the fees it deserves, it also seems prudent to suggest that future class counsel confirm that the s. 32(3) charge is available and not negated by other legislation such as s. 65 of the CPP.
Future of Class-Actions in Canada
The new big thing in law might be class action suits brought by shareholders, technically against themselves.
Securities class actions have risen enormously beyond anyone’s expectations, characterized by an astonishing increase of 300 per cent in settlement sizes.
A report by Cornerstone Research last year found that a number of mega-settlements were responsible for the growth. But they do not anticipate this to be repeated in the following year.
Other Clouds on the Horizon
An October 12, 2007 decision on another class-action landmark case against Danier Leather Inc. has raised other concerns.
The case found that a proper closing was not conducted in 1998 by two senior officers who should have realized that forecasted results were not achievable, and shareholders sued in a class-action by Lerners LLP.
Jean M. Fraser, Mark DesLauriers, Donald C. Ross and Douglas R. Marshall of Osler LLP indicated in 2004 the initial consequences of the case, which included:
- due diligence investigation for prospectus
- forecasts can be a material fact
- prospectus amendments
- minimizing date of closing
- private placements of securities
But the more recent ruling on costs, which had been deferred, had even farther reaching consequences.
The court awarded costs in the class-action against unsuccessful plaintiffs. This is also likely have a deterring effect on the number of class-actions in the future.
Expert Opinion
To gather some more ideas on this area of legal practice, we consulted some experts in the field.
Mikio Miyawaki, Partner and Chair of the M&A Practice Group at Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC said,
[S]ome very prominent practitoners have recently gone to prison for paying kickbacks to plaintiffs… I wonder what kind of impact the case would have.
Michael E. Clark, a partner at Hamel Bowers & Clark LLP in Houston, Texas, said,
The Stanford Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, along with Cornerstone Research, actively tracks this information and trends. It’s a wonderful resource. As you may expect, there has been a large number of filings of late related to the subprime market collapse. I know that this is the theory du jour and has engulfed large, well-heeled companies (or some that used to be like Bear Stearns).
But not everyone agreed.
Richard Cassidy, partner at Hoff Curtis in Vermont, said,
I suspect that the hayday of securities class-actions has passed.
Some of our other contacts reminded us that Cornerstone is a defense oriented organization, whose primary clients are large defence firms. Similarly, Stanford Clearinghouse is allegedly run by a professor at Stanford that testifies exclusively for defence firms.
Class-actions were also projected to grow as a litigation strategy in the future. Economies of scale can be realized by dealing with class-action suits, rather than repeated, subsequent suits, which can be costly. However, this can be an advantage to some defendants who may prefer to deal with an initial class-action up front, such as tobacco companies.
Branding Takes on a New Meaning
It might be a corporate marketer’s dream.
Millions are already spent on clothing and apparel to increase recognition of a company’s logo or brand.
But some people willingly placing logos on their skin, through tattoos and iron brands.
One that has reached particular infamy is the Google tattoo, apparently from China.
Others have since followed suit.
But what do companies do about protecting their brand from being used without their permission, or in ways they would not approve of?
Can trade mark protections be extended to tattoos?
Can royalties be demanded?
We asked these guys, who appear to be in the know with everything tattoos and otherwise (Warning: site contains very graphic images).
Maybe they have an answer.
Bearly Liable for Damages
We’ve previously mused on the status of animals before the law.
But the subject beared (sic) it’s ugly head in Macedonia this month.
A court found a wild bear guilty for damages of US$3,500 for damaging beehives. The bear was convicted in absence, and now has a criminal record.
It gets worse.
The bear is still at large. Since the bear did not have an owner, and was part of an endangered species, the fine was actually levied against the government.
The hivekeeper had managed to scare the bear away for one month, using a generator to power lights and loud Serbian music, and incurred the damages only once the generator lost power.
Rory McGillis, a first-year law student at UBC, asked,
If they find this bear can they sell him to a circus or put him to work to pay off the debt, or are their workhouse laws against that?
Thanks to Rory McGillis of UBC Law for the heads up.
N.B. Sues Big Tobacco
The Attorney General of New Brunswick, T.J. Burke, announced last week a suit will be launched by the province against 14 tobacco companies.
The claim? People are dying prematurely in the province due to smoking, which costs the province health dollars. Grounds have been presented of alleged misrepresentation of the hazards of tobacco smoke.
Health Minister Mike Murphy said,
The suit is on behalf of people whose health has been harmed by tobacco products, families who have lost loved ones to tobacco-related illness, and taxpayers who have borne the added costs to the health-care system
Legislative Basis
New Brunswick follows a previous suit in 2001 by B.C. on similar ground, which has yet to be resolved. Rothmans, Inc. states that the suit was not unexpected,
The legal action has been brought pursuant to the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (New Brunswick) which was recently proclaimed in force.
The new Act states,
2(1) Her Majesty in right of the Province has a direct and distinct action against a manufacturer to recover the cost of health care benefits caused or contributed to by a tobacco-related wrong…
2(4) In an action under subsection (1), Her Majesty in right of the Province may recover the cost of health care benefits
(a) for particular individual insured persons, or
(b) on an aggregate basis, for a population of insured persons as a result of exposure to a type of tobacco product.
The two-year limitation period stipulated in s. 6 would have expired this June, making the suit more than likely within the next few months.
A Money Grab, or Good Social Policy?
Tobacco manufacturers are disputing the claims. Imperial Tobacco states that the government earns 18 times more in tobacco taxes than the entire industry combined, and that this is motivated by nothing more than greed.
Imperial Tobacco President and CEO, Benjamin Kemball, said,
It is hypocritical that governments, like New Brunswick, turn around and sue a legal industry that they oversee and license while allowing an illegal tobacco industry to flourish…This lawsuit is a waste of taxpayers’ money and will never result in the monetary windfall the New Brunswick government hopes for.
But the province is specifically seeking damages to subsidize health care costs, which are skyrocketing across the country, in no small part due to the rise of tobacco-related illnesses. The epidemiological information cited in s. 5 of the Act could prove a substantial causal link.
Should manufacturers be held liable in this manner?
In the end, the lawyers always win.
Kemball predicts that the suit will be unsuccessful, and take many years to resolve.
But he does concede that someone will benefit from the entire ordeal – the lawyers.
Unfair Dealing – Another Independent Documentary
A new independent documentary has been released on the Internet called Unfair Dealings by David Weingarten. CKLN’s Mark Bills interviewed Weingarten on the production of the film.
The documentary covers the arrest of the Toronto 18. But the publication ban severely limits the information potentially collected by the producers.
One of the commentators appears to be RCMP informant, Mubeen Shaikh, and says,
Weak documentary. Too many assumptions regarding lack of evidence. Without getting into details, I can tell you that there is MUCH that was caught on tape. Only a defeat of the publication ban will help that come out into the public.
Please understand, though, that there are varying degrees of involvement of the accused and this is reflected in the charges laid.
I am interested in seeing the rhetoric that will flow when the evidence is out. A lot of people are gonna feel real stupid.
He rejects some of the other accusations as well, and the real story will only be unveiled as the case is resolved. But then he is understandably upset, being accused in the film as an agent provocateur.
Maybe the bigger question is whether independent films such as this would be considered “offensive” enough to be denied tax credits by Conservatives under the proposed Bill C-10.
Liberals have vowed to prevent the bill from becoming a tool for censorship.
Part 1
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-kFa2RiZ08[/youtube]
Part 2 [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW-X-EfyFc4&feature=related[/youtube]
Part 3 [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04ypY_5Uy7I&feature=related[/youtube]
Part 4
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKwLwMZaMRM&feature=related[/youtube]
Part 5 [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyk-cXiKuGU&feature=related[/youtube]
Part 6 [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGzfvex1dSM&feature=related[/youtube]
Updates
- Recently published court documents do led credibility to the Crown’s claims. But since the partial publication ban prevents linking of such statements to specific names, there is no way of determining whether they were made by the same individuals from among the 18 that the informant identified as being the only ones guilty. Charges against 3 of the accused have already been stayed.
- The Globe covered the documentary in a story and repeat concerns that only a small number are responsible for the most serious charges. Defence for the accused states that any supposed plans were grossly exaggerated by informants, police and media. The article also raises the credibility issues surrounding the informant,
Mr. Shaikh is under a kind of trial himself, though outside the courtroom – on YouTube, where a six-part video on the Toronto 18 case, overtly hostile to the informant, is now circulating.
- Another story in The Star indicates that alleged training camps were believed by some to be a harmless winter camping trip. Others more directly responsible had neither the skills nor ability to carry out any of the threats some have purported to have made. In short, the factum demonstrates a large number of completely innocent parties, and others who may have had some animosity but no real designs for violence.
- Advocate for the Toronto 18, Beenish Gaya, writes in to us and sent us comments posted here.
- A Press Release we received on the subject follows:
NEW FILM VINDICATES TORONTO TERROR SUSPECTS; ALLEGES ENTRAPMENT BY RCMP
Shocking facts about alleged “homegrown terrorism” in Toronto are revealed for the first time in a new and independent documentary.
The film, entitled “Unfair Dealing”, is the creation of Toronto-area broadcaster David Weingarten. “Unfair Dealing” examines the ongoing case of 18 mostly Muslim Canadians, arrested during the summer of 2006 and accused of plotting to detonate fertilizer-bombs in Southern Ontario. The film contains exclusive interviews with:
Tariq Abdelhaleem, father of suspect Shareef Abdelhaleem
Ken Kerr, witness and neighbour of the warehouse which received the bomb-making materials, or ammonium nitrateQUOTE: “Any features we’ve seen on this particular topic are pretty biased,” says writer and narrator David Weingarten. “They unfairly paint the suspects a shade of guilty.”
“We’ve created a film that looks at the suspects the way they’re supposed to be looked at in a free and just society – innocent until proven guilty.”
“Our documentary serves as a comprehensive guide to how this case developed into what it has.”
“Unfair Dealing” also examines some of the controversial evidence and facts involved in the ongoing case of alleged “homegrown terrorism”, including:
The fact that federal MP Wajid Kahn was instrumental in surveillance of the suspects
The fact that one paid informants degree in ‘agricultural engineering’ gave him – and only him – the capability to buy the alleged bomb-making fertilizer
The fact that the warehouse which received the bomb-making materials is within 500 meters of the RCMP detachment in Newmarket, Ontario, at 1228 Gorham St., Unit 6
The allegation that the RCMP secured the rental of the warehouse – not the suspects – according to an exclusive interview with Ken Kerr of 1228 Gorham Street, as told to him by the warehouse co-owner, Robert Lassaline. This allegation challenges Crown documents stating that Shareef Abdelhaleem was the one to secure rental of the warehouse
The well-documented history of RCMP and CSIS dirty-trick tactics and staged operations (Phony FLQ Manifesto, Barn-Burning, Operation Bricole, Operation Ham, Operation Kabriole, Project Thread, Etc…)
QUOTE: “As we have seen in the taser-death of Robert Dziekanski, and during the RCMP dirty-tricks campaign at the SPP Montebello protests in Quebec, citizen-journalism has the potential to break news and information, and command political attention in the form of inquiries and investigations” says writer and narrator David Weingarten. “This film highlights some of the little-known facts about an extremely important case that is likely to remain in the courts for years. It really is something the public needs to see.”
Problems with Podpress
If you can’t see the previous post, try viewing it with Firefox.
We’re having some problems with our site after a security breach by individuals claiming to be affiliated with XTech Solutions Inc. from Calgary, Alberta.
Sorry.
Law is Cool – Podcast #8
Show Notes
(Total running time 24:19)
0:14 Jacob Kaufman and Omar Ha-Redeye introduce themselves
0:25 Jacob mentions Canadian Lawyer’s listing of Law is Cool as the Top Ten of the Canadian Blawgosphere
0:52 Omar congratulates all the winners, as well as some honourable mentions on the site
0:58 Jacob comments on the word “Blawgosphere,” and says it sounds like something out of Dr. Seuss
1:12 Omar introduces Mark Popiel, senior counsel at Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLCC, stationed in Buffalo, N.Y., who specializes in U.S. corporate immigration
2:41 Mark explains how the Internet gives him greater exposure to clients worldwide, and enhances communication and legal services across timezones
4:26 Mark projects some developments in immigration law, that expect increase trade across borders despite recent travel restrictions
5:34 The Internet allows movement of documents at a much more rapid rate, and the emergence of Canadian company Research in Motion’s Blackberry promotes greater accessibility
6:07 Mark explains some of the opportunities for Canadian lawyers, including NAFTA work permits that are quick and inexpensive
7:17 Mark shares how he made the transition to working in the U.S. as a Canadian who decided to study law in the U.S.
8:35 Jacob introduces Ian Hull of Hull & Hull, an estates lawyer with a firm that is a leader in technology initiatives
9:17 Ian describes their daily blogs and two weekly podcasts, which focus on potential clients as well as lawyers in the field, who are their referral sources
10:58 Mark shares how he got involved in blogging and podcasting through Terry Fallis of Inside PR in March 2007
11:38 Mark explains how blogging and podcasts have changed his practice, its usefulness in communicating internally on important issues, and how their audience has grown over time
13:56 Mark explains the learning curve for blogging and podcast, and how their show improved over time
15:16 Mark addresses fears and apprehensions that large law firms have over blogging, likens it to a daily newsletter
16:53 Mark describes how their firm ensures editorial oversight by having a partner review content produced by associates
17:37 Mark mentions Podcasters Across Borders, how their podcast has grown, the perceptions of their firm in the legal community, and an umbrella of benefits that are often not anticipated
19:01 Mark says that lawyers are often technology dinosaurs, and often miss on innovative developments in the field
19:46 Mark provides some feedback about LawIsCool
20:23 Jacob raises some issues with the problems on some social media sites such as Facebook, including a recent case R. v. Sather of potential threats on his status updates, where technology expert Jesse Hirsch testified
21:32 Jacob claims that there have been very few cases mentioning Facebook to date, most not fully understanding it, and how photos of people’s personal activity can affect personal injury cases
22:23 Jacob mentions an upcoming event hosted by Jesse Hirsch where Omar is speaking on a panel on March 18, 2008
22:53 Omar states that Law Is Cool will be slowing down for exams, and indicates that the site will be announcing a recognition of one of the team members who has provided a unique contribution over the past year
23:18 Jacob states that incoming law students for the 2008-2009 interested in joining the site should contact us at: admin[at]lawiscool[dot]com
23:40 Omar signs off
UBC Videos
Law Revue 2008
Wet Hot Valedictorian Summer
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P5KXY86pUo[/youtube]
Thanks to Mike Berger of UBC for the heads up.
Product Placement in Popular Culture – Entertainment of Persuasion?
Ethics at Ryerson Speaker Series
November 15, 2007, Noon – 1pm:
“Advertising, Branding, Intellectual Property Issues Across the Professions”
Product Placement in Popular Culture – Entertainment of Persuasion?
Dr. Melanie Dempsey, Ted Rogers School of Business Management
Max Valiquette, President & CEO, Youthography
Connection Speed
View
WebcastVideo Webcast
56K
(Dialup Modem)Video Webcast
128KVideo Webcast
256K or FasterVideo Webcast
High Bandwidth 1M
ON Tory: “KKK White Power”
Justin Morris, a member of the Ryerson University Conservative Club, sent an e-mail to Heather Kere, the vice-president of education at Ryerson.
But Kere is also a member of the United Black Students of Ryerson. And the e-mail had little to do with her role as VP Education.
Morris’ e-mail accused Kere of being a racist for inviting a former Black Panther to speak at Ryerson. But his e-mail also used the title, KKK — White Power, in the subject line.
Maybe we can be very tolerant and invite Black Panthers to Ryerson to teach us that whites are some sort of disease and that we must be exterminated off the face of the planet.
To their credit, Ryerson Conservatives have denounced the e-mail and expelled related members from the group. John Tory, the Party leader, has also condemned the e-mail. Tory was featured last year in Toronto Life as Conservatism’s last hope, especially because he was the first Conservative leader to make genuine and significant overtures to minorities.
But this does confirm previous suspicions. Although there is nothing inherent about Conservatism that fosters racism, those with racist views invariably are members of the Conservative Party.
The situation may have been different had controversial Tory Randy Hillier created his own far-right party, as he threatened to do last election. But for the time being, such right-wing radicals have only the Conservative Party to rely on, and we can only suspect how their lobbying efforts affect Conservative policy.
Thanks to Chris Drew of Ryerson University and Ontario Young Liberals for the heads up.
