Source: http://nysbar.com/blogs/EASL/2015/09/
Timestamp: 2019-01-17 17:29:08
Document Index: 682436406

Matched Legal Cases: ['§4', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§2', '§27', '§26', '§24', '§31', '§230', '§ 5']

The Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Blog: September 2015 Archives
NY Judge Issues Ruling in Patriots Deflategate Case, but National Football League Immediately Appeals and Continues the Drama
It's in. Judge Richard Berman of the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York issued his verdict in the nine month long Deflategae saga that has been lurking over the amazing season the National Football League (NFL) and the Patriots had in 2014. The ruling effectively obliterates New England Patriots Super Bowl-winning quarterback Tom Brady's four-game suspension that had been issued by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, and clears Brady to play in the NFL season opener on September 10th.
The judge's 40-page ruling stated that Commissioner Goodell went too far outside the bounds of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) by issuing such a punishment to Brady. Judge Berman condemned Goodell for "dispensing his own brand of industrial justice." The judge said that a player's right to notice was "at the heart" of the CBA "and, for that matter, of our criminal and civil justice systems.'' Specifically, the court found "... that Brady had no notice that he could receive a four-game suspension for general awareness of ball deflation by others."
The ruling is a clear win for Brady and the National Football League Players Association, and blackens the eye of Goodell and the NFL. However, the ruling will not end this dispute, as the NFL decided to appeal the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan only hours after Berman's decision on Thursday. More importantly, NFL attorney Daniel Nash's motion did not seek an emergency stay. Therefore, Tom Brady would be able to play immediately as the appeals court considers the case, which could take several months as Deflategate continues.
Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/deflategate-judge-rules-toss-tom-brady-4-game-ban-article-1.2347193
Sony Altered Concussion Movie to prevent NFL protest
With the decision regarding Tom Brady, Roger Goodell, and Deflategate looming over the NFL's head this week, the last thing the NFL needed was more negative media attention. Yet on Tuesday, Sony Pictures Entertainment decided to release the trailer for a movie named "Concussion," focusing on the death and dementia professional football players have endured from repeated hits to the head, and the NFL's early efforts toward a cover-up.
The trailer showed several scenes depicting lead actor Will Smith portraying Dr. Omalu, who angrily demanded "the truth" from people who appeared to be from the NFL. Dr. Omalu began his work on repeated head trauma in 2002, which has gradually been added to by other scientists to get where we are today. Dr. Omalu's persistence, along with the recent string of concussion related litigations, has made the issue a large area of focus for the game. The NFL has even donated millions of dollars to study the effects and treatment for concussions.
Additionally, the same day as the movie trailer's release, hackers unearthed dozens of emails among Sony studio executives, directors, and representatives of Will Smith, where they discussed altering the script and marketing the film more as a whistle-blower story, rather than a condemnation of football or the NFL. Furthermore, hackers located a July 30, 2014, email from a top Sony lawyer that is said to have taken "most of the bite" out of the film "for legal reasons with the NFL and that it was not a balance issue." Other September 2014 emails discussed an abandoned effort to reach out to the NFL. The NFL and Sony have refused to comment on the movie or its marketing strategy.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/sports/football/makers-of-sonys-concussion-film-tried-to-avoid-angering-nfl-emails-show.html
College Conferences Try to Prohibit Athletes Who Have Violent Pasts
In response to the recent conviction of former Baylor football player Sam Ukwuachu, and the many scandals among college sports regarding sexual assaults and athletes with violent backgrounds, some prominent conferences have finally initiated measures to keep players with troubling or violent pasts off the fields.
Earlier this week, Big 12 athletic directors unanimously voted to adopt a bar on incoming transfers who had been disciplined for "serious misconduct" at their previous universities. The Big 12 becomes the second major conference to move to adopt such a transfer ban. In May, the Southeastern Conference become the first to adopt a similar rule. Overall, this reflects a rising awareness of the issue of sexual violence by athletes on campus. With similar sexual and domestic violence events occurring in professional leagues, it is likely that other colleges and leagues will be proactive and adopt similar rules and bans regarding serious prior misconduct by athletes.
Source: http://www.currenthr.com/college-conferences-try-to-block-athletes-who-have-violent-pasts/
SoundCloud Sued for Copyright Infringement by British Music Agency
Internet music streaming service king SoundCloud recently was sued in Britain by British agency PRS, the latter of whom represents more than 100,000 songwriters and producers. The lawsuit alleges that SoundCloud is guilty of copyright infringement and claims that the streaming service did not obtain licenses or pay royalties for the use of songs on its website.
SoundCloud has previously clashed with others in the music industry and been sued for copyright infringement. The streaming service has been embraced by musicians and fans for its ability to upload and share music easily and rapidly, but has run into problems with record labels and agencies about rights issues. Warner Music and Merlin have signed licensing deals with SoundCloud, but the two largest labels, Sony and Universal, have not.
PRS said that it had been in discussion with SoundCloud for more than five years about the service, but that the latter claimed to be protected by the "Safe Harbor" provisions that applied to Internet Service Providers who host third party content.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/business/media/soundcloud-sued-for-copyright-infringement-by-prs-for-music.html
Stipends, Scholarships, and Fines for College Football Players? Fines? Wait... Fines?
As the college football season officially kicked off yesterday, the NCAA's new approach to stipends and scholarship did as well. This year marks the first that so-called college "student-athletes" can be paid stipends worth as much as several thousand dollars per year. However, after recent comments by several top NCAA coaches, the rules regarding paying these "student-athletes" is unclear.
In January, representatives from 65 colleges in major conferences assembled and created a new governing structure that allowed them the independence to give stipends and make other changes. At this meeting it was decided that universities would be allowed to offer athletes extra funds as part of their financial aid agreements to make up the difference between the value of their scholarships and the full cost of attendance.
Although this was great news to current and future college athletes, the give and take of these funds has already caused confusion. Longstanding Virginia Tech defensive coordinator Bud Foster and Cincinnati Coach Tommy Tuberville have recently suggested that they would fine players and take away portions of cost-of-attendance stipends for behavioral reasons.
The two prominent coaches were instantly met with criticism and told that doing so would almost certainly violate NCAA rules. Specifically, a long-standing NCAA rule states that an athlete's financial aid may not be reduced or canceled for any "athletics reason," including "ability, performance, or contribution to a team's success." Therefore, now that cost of attendance is part of the financial aid package for students (on the 65 college teams that have chosen to adopt it, including Virginia Tech and Cincinnati) withholding any part of it would appear to violate the NCAA rule.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/sports/ncaafootball/fines-for-college-football-players-not-so-fast.html
Posted by Elissa D. Hecker, EASL Blog Coordinator on September 4, 2015 9:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Isn't It Time We Treat National Football League Cheerleaders Like Employees?
On Wednesday, legislators from eight states sent a letter to National Football League (NFL) Commissioner Roger Goodell, asking him to classify cheerleaders as employees and not independent contractors, so that the women could obtain minimum wage and other employee specific benefits. This action continues the onward battle by NFL cheerleaders to be recognized by the NFL and teams.
Over the past year, cheerleaders from the Oakland Raiders, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, New York Jets, Buffalo Bills and Cincinnati Bengals have filed lawsuits alleging minimum wage violations against their respective teams. The main allegations claim that cheerleaders are underpaid, have no job security, and are subject to unfair fines and other acts of intolerant treatment. The Oakland Raiderettes lawsuit led California policymakers to pass a law in July that classifies cheerleaders for professional teams as employees.
In the letter addressed to Goodell, legislators from New York, New Jersey, California, Texas, Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are asking for him to take immediate action by making NFL cheerleaders classified as employees league-wide. The lawmakers believe that cheerleaders should not be forced to approach this on a state by state basis. The NFL currently allows teams to treat cheerleaders as independent contractors and does not mandate an employee relationship. Goodell could require the teams to treat cheerleaders as employees now, instead of waiting for each individual state to create a law for this situation.
The letter has 19 signatures on it, including New York Assemblywomen Nily Rozic and New York State Senator Diane Savino. Rozic and Savino also introduced bills in New York that were similar to the one that was passed in California.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/09/nfl-lawmakers-roger-goodell-cheerleaders-minimum-wage
Aretha Franklin Film Pulled From Toronto Film Festival
The Aretha Franklin documentary titled "Amazing Grace" was withdrawn by its producers from the Toronto International Film Festival this week due to a lawsuit filed by the singer to prevent its release.
Only last week, a screening of the film scheduled for viewing at Telluride Film Festival in Colorado was halted because of a ruling by a federal judge in Denver. Franklin filed a lawsuit requesting an injunction to prevent the film's release. The lawsuit claimed that footage used in the film that was shot by Sydney Pollack in 1972 could only be used for commercial purposes with Franklin's consent, which had not been granted. Jon D. Cantor, an attorney for Franklin, stated that the screening at the Chicago Film Festival in October has also been cancelled while this legal battle plays out.
Sotheby's Wins Right to Auction A. Alfred Taubman's $500 Million Art Trove
On Thursday, famed auction house Sotheby's announced that it had won the right to sell the estate of A. Alfred Taubman. Sotheby's beat out its competitor, Christie's, after a heated battle for consignment between the two that lasted over several months.
The Taubman estate includes a large and varied art collection with over 500 pieces in all, including furniture. Many of the works were created by coveted names like Mark Rothko, Amedeo Modigliani and Raphael. Several of the most expensive pieces, such as Willem de Kooning's "Untitled XXI" from 1976, with an estimate of $25 million to $35 million, have never been publicly auctioned. The auction house estimated that the sales, planned for November and January, would bring in more than $500 million. Experts believe that the Taubman trove could be one of the most valuable private art collections ever brought to auction.
As part of the deal negotiated by Sotheby's, the Taubman estate collection is fully guaranteed, which exemplifies just how far the auction house went to out-negotiate its rival. The company would not reveal the minimum amount that had been guaranteed for the collection.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/arts/design/sothebys-to-auction-a-alfred-taubmans-500-million-trove.html?_r=0
Deflategate Class Offered at University of New Hampshire School of Law
Sports Illustrated writer and National Basketball Association TV legal analyst Michael McCann will teach a course simply called "Deflategate" at the University of New Hampshire School of Law this fall. The course has a roster of 75 students and had its first class this week. Judge Berman's decision in the Deflategate case could not have come at a better time for McCann and the start of this class, the first of which included those enrolled and local and national media outlets. McCann stated that this is an intensive course that teaches students about the core foundations of law and journalism and then asks them to apply what they have learned to Deflategate.
The course description: "This course is not about deflated footballs. Instead, it is about the interplay between those footballs -- along with numerous other sports things -- and the legal, regulatory and journalistic systems governing sports. Students in Deflategate learn about crucial areas of law that relate to sports and the methodologies used to practice in relevant fields. Students also gain valuable instruction on core journalism methods and their applications to a sports story attracting national headlines. The course concludes with an application of methodologies in law and journalism to Deflategate."
http://courses.unh.edu/class/201510/16974">href="http://courses.unh.edu/class/201510/16974 and https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/05/08/university-of-new-hampshire-law-school-to-offer-deflategate-class/">courses.unh.edu/class/201510/16974
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/05/08/university-of-new-hampshire-law-school-to-offer-deflategate-class/
Film Academy Surprisingly Loses to GoDaddy in Oscars Cybersquatting Battle
In a cybersquatting case that lasted more than five years, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS, the Film Academy) has suffered a landmark loss to GoDaddy. On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Andre Birotte Jr. ruled for GoDaddy, and declared that the Film Academy did not have proof that GoDaddy had bad faith intent to traffic in trademarks like the "Academy Awards" and "Oscars." AMPAS was thought to be the favorite in the case, with disclosures of its various settlement offers (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/film-academy-blasts-godaddy-revealing-767681), including $20 million at the outset and $6 million as recently as 2013. Prior to Thursday's ruling, AMPAS was hoping to win more than $30 million, but will now be taking away nothing.
The original lawsuit filed in 2010 against GoDaddy alleged that the giant allowed customers to buy domain names like 2011Oscars.com or betacademyawards.com, "park" those pages and collect a portion of revenue from GoDaddy's advertising partners on a pay-per-click basis. On summary judgment at an earlier stage in the case, the Film Academy prevailed in showing that all but 57 of 293 domains at issue were confusingly similar to its own trademarks. Another trial was held in early August, and GoDaddy threw up a hail mary and relied on its last defense, that there was no bad faith intent to profit, which prevailed.
In a 129-page decision, Judge Birotte states that "the unique circumstances compel a finding that GoDaddy did not possess the requisite bad faith intent to profit from the AMPAS Marks." The court also makes note of the nominative fair use of trademarks, noting how newspapers are filled with ads for "Academy Award Nominated" films.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/film-academy-loses-godaddy-oscars-821998
Posted by Elissa D. Hecker, EASL Blog Coordinator on September 11, 2015 2:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted by Elissa D. Hecker, EASL Blog Coordinator on September 18, 2015 11:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Center for Art Law Case Updates and Legal/Art News
Simcor LLC v. Mahama, 2:15-cv-4539 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2015) --After discovering unknown Ghanian artist Ibrahim Mahama, plaintiffs Stefan Simchowitz and Jonathan Ellis King helped to build the young artist a studio and reputation. Mahama then contracted to create works exclusively for Simchowitz and King to display and sell. According to the plaintiffs, Mahama breached this agreement by selling 20 similar works to an unnamed collector and by disclaiming authorship of the 294 signed, commissioned works, reportedly because he was dissatisfied with the quality of the finished products. The plaintiffs have sued to recover $4.45 million from Mahama, the estimated value of the 267 unsold works in their possession.
Fontes v. Autocom Networks, Inc., C 15-02044 CRB (N.D. Cal. 2015) -- Dan Fontes' mural of Lake Merritt had been locally famous since it was painted on the side of an Oakland building in 1987. Fontes has filed suit against the building's current and former owners after the current tenant, a Nissan dealership, whitewashed the mural, which had already been damaged by graffiti. Fontes is seeking $400,000, arguing that the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) requires the building owner to give 90 days notice of its intent to remove an artist's work from its property.
Honolulu Art Museum v. Greene, Civil No. 15-1-1515-07 ECN (HI Cir. 1st, Aug. 28, 2015) -- The Honolulu Art Museum has filed suit against 80 year old art collector Joel A. Greene for $880,000, alleging that Greene failed to provide adequate provenance for five Southeast Asian works of art that he donated in exchange for quarterly payments of $80,000 for the duration of his life. Suspicions about the works, worth $1.275 million, first arose in 2011 after the Department of Homeland Security seized seven works from the museum that had originated from Asian art smuggler Subhash Kapoor.
Committee to Save Cooper Union v. Bd. of Trustees of the Cooper Union, No. 0155185-2014 (N.Y. Sup. 2015) -- Cooper Union has agreed to settle a 2014 lawsuit filed by a group of faculty and alumni to restore the school's 155 year old tuition-free model. The settlement, pending review by the New York Supreme Court, would create a "Free Education Committee" tasked with developing a plan to return to the no tuition system. The art, design and engineering college will also add alumni-elected members and two students to its Board of Trustees.
Other legal/art news:
PALMYRA NO MORE: Islamic State insurgents captured the ancient city of Palmyra in May, and despite statements that the historic site would not be damaged, proceeded to destroy ancient temples in August. According to the Director-General of UNESCO, the systematic destruction of the cultural heritage monuments "are war crimes and their perpetrators must be accountable for their actions. UNESCO stands by all Syrian people in their efforts to safeguard their heritage, a heritage for all humanity." The barbaric actions were preceded by the beheading of an 82-year old antiquities scholar, Khaled Assad, who supervised preservation of antiques in Palmyra for over 50 years."
HARD FEELINGS IN THE CLOUD: Anish Kapoor is feeling protective, read defensive, as his creations generate reaction from the viewers. In France, his installation "Dirty Corner" at Versailles was vandalized, to which Kapoor reportedly observed that the vandalism "represents a certain intolerance that is appearing in France about art." Following Kapoor's decision to leave the hateful graffiti on his work, Versailles municipal councilor, Fabien Bouglé, filed a complaint against the artist, stating that Kapoor's decision is breeding intolerance. Meanwhile, in China, a newly created public artwork, "Big Oil Bubble," by an unnamed artist, looks suspiciously like Kapoor's "Cloud Gate" in Chicago. Legal action may be forthcoming.
RESTITUTION CLAIM REJECTED: After reviewing a claim for a Renior painting held by the Bristol Museum and Art Gallery, the U.K. Spoliation Advisory Panel has decided that the painting will not be restituted to the heirs of Jakob and Rosa Oppenheimer. The rejection is based on a lack of evidence that supports the claim that the painting was part of a Nazi-forced sale in 1935.
FAMILY'S WARHOLS REPLACED WITH FAKES: A Los Angeles family recently discovered that their prized Warhol prints have been replaced with fakes. The prints were displayed in the family's movie editing studio for decades; the crime was discovered when the silkscreens began to sag in their frames and were taken for reframing.
DUE DILIGENCE? A French judge fined art dealer Yves Bouvier 27 million euros for his involvement in the sale a numerous stolen Picassos. Bouvier asserts that he was not aware the works he sold were stolen, and in fact performed due diligence checks on the works in question.
Posted by Elissa D. Hecker, EASL Blog Coordinator on September 18, 2015 6:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Judge Fines Russia $44 Million for Refusing to Hand Over Jewish Books
Recently a federal judge ordered Russia to pay a $43.7 million dollar fine for refusing to return collections of Jewish books and documents to the Hasidic Chabad-Lubavitch group located in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. The center of this dispute relates to a collection of 12,000 books and 50,000 religious documents known as the Schneerson Library. These texts were gathered by the Chabad organization for over 200 years prior to World War II, and stored in Russia.
This ruling relates back to a 2010 decision by a federal district court for the District of Columbia that ordered the Russian government to hand over the Schneerson Library collection. The Russians claimed that this collection is a "treasure of the Russian people," and refused to abide by this decision. The Russians' failure to comply with this order forced the judge to fine Russia $50,000 a day in 2013. Now, with Russia's continued objections, the judge has issued another order. The $44 million order is an accrual of the previous fines so far.
Since 2010 the State Department has commented on this high profile case, and has claimed that the judge's decisions could inflame Russian-American relations. However, the judge and many others disagree.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/books/russia-fined-44-million-for-refusing-to-hand-over-jewish-books.html?_r=2
'London Fields' Premiere at Toronto Festival Suffers Creative Rift
The Toronto International Film Festival saw the world premiere of "London Fields." The movie that is based on a noir, pre-apocalyptic crime thrilling novel by Martin Amis. However, the producer's version of this book caused a recent dispute over the control and content of the movie.
The film's top four stars -- Johnny Depp, Billy Bob Thronton, Jim Sturgess and Amber Heard -- all wrote letters to the movie's producers, objecting to a provocative cut of the movie. According to the letters, the movie's new cut includes violent imagery that was not overseen by the film's credited director, Mathew Cullen, but by another producer, Chris Hanley. For several months Cullen and the aforementioned actors claimed that Hanley turned "London Fields" into an unrecognizable, avant-garde experiment that violated the spirit of the project.
This battle regarding the new cut of the movie led Cullen to file charges against Hanley in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The complaint alleges that Hanley and his crew "secretly prepared their own version of the film." The suit requests that Cullen's name be removed from connection with this film, among other remedies.
The Toronto Festival's artistic director, Cameron Bailey, acknowledged the dispute in an email statement. Bailey concluded by stating, "We're aware that the team that made the film is coming to agreement, and we're looking forward to launching it." The dispute puts a cloud around a star-laden project. Hanley, on the other hand, described this situation a little differently, claiming that these creative rifts are a familiar part of the production process for him.
YouTube Dancing Baby Case Sets Fair Use Copyright Guidelines
The decision in the highly awaited "dancing baby" case is in. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco issued a ruling that will change the way media companies handle their intellectual property online. The three-judge panel ruled that copyright holders must consider fair use before asking media companies like YouTube to remove videos that the copyright holders believe infringe upon their rights.
The ruling is viewed as a victory for Internet users, as the activity at issue in this case represents one that millions of individuals engage in on an ordinary basis. More specifically, recording family, friends, or one's self dancing or doing silly things with only minimal use of copyrighted material, is a regular happenstance.
The facts of this case could apply to almost anyone. In February 2007, Stephanie Lenz from Pennsylvania, filmed her toddler dancing to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy" and uploaded it to YouTube. The 29-second video caused Prince's publishers to object to its posting and demand that it be taken down. Lenz then filed suit, which started a legal battle that lasted for more than eight years.
The advocacy group known as Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) represented Lenz in this lawsuit against media giant Universal. EFF's legal director stated that the ruling "sends a strong message that copyright law does not authorize thoughtless censorship of lawful speech."
A spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America, Jonathan Lamy, said, "We respectfully disagree with the court's conclusion about the D.M.C.A. and the burden the court places upon copyright holders before sending takedown notices," referring to the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Instagram Is Redefining The Term 'User Engagement'
With the "dancing baby" decision highlighting one of the emerging areas of copyright law, the area relating to user-generated content remains murky. The New York Times highlighted the not so rare situation of Shareen Way, a mother who posted a picture of her four-year old daughter on Instagram wearing pink Crocs sandals, which image Crocs used for marketing purposes. Shareen posted her image using the hashtag #Crocs, and the company pulled that image from her Instagram account, featuring it in a gallery of its user-generated photos on its website without her consent. Only after a reporter on Instragram notified her did Crocs seek permission from her to use the image.
Social media sites like Instagram, Pinterest and Twitter have long been sources of selfies and candid shots that retailers and other companies mine for "consumer engagement." Instagram claims that it is only responsible for how brands use consumers photos posted on its site. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could essentially step in if Instagram violates its own privacy policy or terms of service, however, both situations are rare and leave users like Way with few options other than costly litigation.
The increase in user-generated content by companies and brands, mixed with the concerns by privacy groups and consumer advocates has only added to the confusion, as legal boundaries are far from clear. In 2012, Facebook reached a class-action settlement over its practice of turning a users' "likes" into ads tailored to their friends. The settlement is currently being appealed, however, it further accentuates the cloudy area into which user-generated content falls.
"Happy Birthday" Song Invalidated by Judge
Last week a judge ruled that the long held copyright in the "Happy Birthday to You" song is not valid. If the ruling stands, the song will become part of the Public Domain. Warner Music Group (Warner) has controlled the song's usage since 1988, and collected a reported $2 million annually in licensing. However, a Los Angles District Court decision has invalidated the company's right to the most popular tune in the English language.
The closely watched case began in 2013, when Jennifer Nelson, an independent filmmaker planning to make a documentary about the song, filed suit. The long awaited ruling this week discussed the complex history of the song, including the existence of copyright registrations and songbooks stretching back more than a century.
In short, the judge found that the successors-in-interest did not own a valid copyright in the "Happy Birthday" lyrics, thus invalidating the present claim by Warner. The 43-page ruling gives plenty of reasons for those closely watching this case as a challenge to long copyright terms and corporate control. A spokesman for Warner said that the company was "looking at the court's lengthy opinion and considering our options."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/business/media/happy-birthday-copyright-invalidated-by-judge.html
Posted by Elissa D. Hecker, EASL Blog Coordinator on September 29, 2015 12:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Freedom to Engage in Cultural Activities and Other Legal Issues in Busking
Busking has gained popularity in Hong Kong, which has yet to implement a licensing scheme for such solicitation. This blog examines various laws that impact the right of buskers.
Playing Musical Instrument and Obstruction
The Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap 228) (SOO) creates the below offences punishable by a fine of $500 or to imprisonment for 3 months:
•	Under §4(15), it is an offence for any person to without lawful authority or excuse play any musical instrument in any public street or road save under and in accordance with the conditions of any such general or special permit as the Commissioner of Police in his absolute discretion may issue. (emphasis added)
•	Under §4(28), it is an offence for any person to without lawful authority or excuse do any act whereby injury or obstruction, whether directly or consequentially, may accrue to a public place. (emphasis added)
Under Article 34 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong residents have the freedom to engage in academic research, literary and artistic creation, and other cultural activities. The courts have held that the restrictions of such freedom under the SOO are rational and proportional for the purpose of public safety.
While §4(15) mentions that a permit to play musical instrument in public street may be secured from the Commissioner of Police, no information is available on the Hong Kong Police Force website. In Wong Chung Sing (HCMA 92/2015), Judge Li criticized the obscurity of the permit application process and the lack of appeal mechanism. It was held that playing an instrument without a police permit would not constitute an offence if there was a "lawful excuse" to do so.
In relation to "lawful excuse", the Court of Final Appeal held in Yeung May Wan ((2005) 8 HKCFAR 137) that the prosecution must show that the defendant had no lawful excuse to obstruct before there could be a conviction under §4(28). A person who obstructs a place "cannot be said to be acting without lawful excuse if his conduct involves a reasonable use of the...public place". ((2005) 8 HKCFAR 137 at paragraph 42) When assessing whether the obstruction is reasonable, the protection given by the Basic Law, such as the freedom to demonstrate under Article 27, must bear substantial weight.
It follows that when considering whether there is lawful excuse in playing an instrument in a public place under §4(15), the court must consider the reasonableness of the act with reference to the freedom to engage in cultural activities under Article 34. The prosecution would only succeed if it could show that the busker acted outside the scope of the lawful excuse by causing excessive obstruction or annoyance. Unfortunately, it appears that not all police and prosecution are mindful of this balancing exercise in performing their duties:
•	Wong Chung Sing, a busking musician, was convicted under §4(15) on three individual occasions in 2008, 2009 and 2015. (HCMA 357/2008, HCMA161/2009 and HCMA 92/2015) He appealed each time by referring to his rights under Article 34, but only succeeded in the most recent case in which Judge Li quashed the conviction on the basis that the Magistrate erred in imposing the prosecution's burden of proof onto Wong and did not give substantially weight in considering Wong's freedom to engage in cultural activities under Article 34 (HCMA 92/2015);
•	So Chun Chau, a busking acrobat, was charged by the police under section 4(28) and appeared in the Magistrate's Court in 2010. The magistrate held that So's act of tossing a diabolo high up in the air was reasonable when considered in light of Article 34 and did not constitute obstruction under §4(28) (ESS19669/2010);
•	In Yeung May Wan, the Court of Appeal doubted whether the police officers, prosecution and magistrate appreciated that unreasonable impediment must be shown before conviction of the obstruction charge under §4(28). The Court of Appeal endorsed such view and quashed the convictions of the defendants. (This was not a busker case, but was about a Falun Gong demonstration.)
Place of Public Entertainment Licence
Section 4 of the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance (Cap 172) (PPEO) sets out that it is an offence for a person to keep or use any place of public entertainment without a licence granted under the PPEO. Under §2 of the PPEO, a "place of public entertainment" is defined as "any place...capable of accommodating the public...in or on which a public entertainment is presented or carried on", and "public entertainment" is defined as any entertainment to which the general public is admitted with or without payment.
The case of T v Commissioner of Police(CACV 244/2012) involved a participant in the International Day Against Homophobia Demonstration (IDAHO) performance, which included recital and chanting of slogans and dance to pre-recorded music. The performance took place on a temporary stage and the open space in front of it on a Causeway Bay street which was designated as a pedestrian precinct at the relevant time. The performance was stopped after police intervention on the basis that the performers were using a place of public entertainment without a licence. In the appeal to the judicial review sought by T, the Court of Appeal referred to the UK case of R v Bow Street Magistrates' Court ex p McDonald ((1996) 93(15) L.S.G. 30), which involved a busking guitarist in Leicester Square. In that case, the UK Court of Appeal held that a guitarist did not require a licence under the London Government Act 1963, as it was the City Council, instead of the busker, which had control over Leicester Square to which the public had free access. In T, the Court of Appeal found that as the IDAHO organizers did not have the ability to control admission to the dance performance. Therefore, the location where the performance took place was not a "place of public entertainment", and T was not required to apply for a PPEO licence.
It would appear that a busker does not require a PPEO licence to perform in public unless the busker undertakes control and admission to the area of his or her performance, which is unlikely and probably impossible in most circumstances.
Section 26A of the SOO makes it an offence for a person to beg or gather alms in any public place or street. There are other laws against begging in relation to specific locations, for example section 14 of the Bathing Beaches Regulations (Cap 132E) and the §27 of the Pleasure Grounds Regulations (Cap 132BC).
The UK case of Gray v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester ([1983] Crim LR 45) held that a busking guitarist in a passageway who received tips from passersby was not guilty of the offence of begging under the Vagrancy Act 1824. This was because the busker gave value for money, and passersby were not forced to deal with the busker. This suggests that buskers should be safe from prosecution under laws against begging.
There are other laws which impact the right of a busker to perform. For example,
•	Section 5 of the Noise Control Ordinance (Cap 400) makes it an offence for a person in any public place to play any musical or other instrument or uses any loudspeaker or other instrument which produces noise which is a source of annoyance to any person.
•	Section 25 of the Pleasure Grounds Regulations (Cap132 BC) prohibits a person to play an instrument or sing in any public pleasure ground (as specified in the Fourth Schedule of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap 132) excluding bathing beaches) to the annoyance of others unless a written permit is obtained from the Director of Leisure and Cultural Services. No details on such a licence are available on the website of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. It is unclear as to how "annoyance" will be interpreted, but the protection given by Article 34 of the Basic Law should be taken into the assessment.
•	By-laws, such as §26 of the Mass Transit Railway By-laws (Cap 556B), §24 of the Mass Transit Railway (North-West Railway) Bylaw (Cap 556H), and §31 of the Tung Chung Cable Car Bylaw (Cap 577A) prohibit the singing, dancing and playing of musical instruments on any part of the premises of these transportations.
The introduction of a proper busker licensing scheme by the Government and public transit operators would bring Hong Kong into line with other international cities that promote this art form. Until then, buskers should tread carefully so that they do not end up on the wrong side of the law.
Posted by Elissa D. Hecker, EASL Blog Coordinator on September 30, 2015 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Defamation 2.0 - Defamation Liabilities for Internet Operators in Hong Kong
Unlike in the U.S. (with the Communications Decency Act, §230, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider") and the U.K. (with the Defamation Act 2013, § 5(2), "It is a defence for the [website] operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website"), internet operators in Hong Kong do not receive statutory protection from defamation. This blog reviews the findings in recent Hong Kong cases.
(1) Internet Forum Operator
An internet forum operator that actively encourages user postings is different from a notice board owner ambushed with a defamatory message in trespass. (For example, Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818) The operator, unlike a post office or a telephone company, is not a mere conduit or passive facilitator. However, the operator would not be deemed to have authorized defamatory posts if it lays down rules prohibiting offending contents, despite inefficient enforcement.
A forum operator is a publisher, as it provides the platform for the postings. However, as long as it does not know of the gist or substance of the postings and cannot prevent their publication, it would be considered a subordinate, rather than a primary publisher. As a subordinate publisher, the operator would qualify for the innocent dissemination defense if (a) it exercises reasonable care and is not aware of the defamatory content, and (b) upon notice promptly takes "all reasonable steps to remove the offending content from circulation as soon as reasonably practicable". (Oriental Press v Fevaworks [2013] HKCFA 47)
(2) Content Aggregator
Posting hyperlinks onto a website is not equivalent to publishing the defamatory content contained in the hyperlinks. The former act does not fall within the strict publication rule. Mere linking is content neutral and analogous to having a footnote bringing attention to readers that a source existed, without repeating the content.
However, the situation is different if there is a deliberate act to make defamatory information readily available to a third party in comprehensible form, i.e. by deep linking, with actual receipt by a third party. (Crookes v Newton [2011] 3 SCR 269 (Supreme Court of Canada), as cited in Fevaworks) Content aggregators reproducing excerpts from and hyperlinking to external sources may attract publisher liabilities if the excerpts contain defamatory wording.
(3) Search Engine Operator
(a) Basic search engine (Edmond Yeung v Google (Hong Kong) Limited DCCJ 4322 of 2013)
A search engine operator that displays snippets of information with hyperlinks generated from automatic algorithmic web-crawling is a facilitator and not a publisher, on the basis of authorship or acquiescence. This is so because there is no human input from the operator, no control over search terms typed in by future users, and no mental element for publishing on the part of the operator.
As long as the search engine has a notice and takedown procedure and makes reasonable efforts in complying with legitimate requests, "it is hardly possible to fix [the search engine operator] with liability on the basis of authorisation, approval or acquiescence". (Metropolitan International Schools v Designtechnica [2009] EWHC 1765 (QB), as cited in Edmond Yeung, at paragraph 58)
(b) Autocomplete and related searches
Although there is no human input, "autocomplete" and "related searches" functions go beyond mere crawling and automatic reproduction of snippets and hyperlinks. By aggregating prior user searches and generating predictive keywords, the search engine operator may have ventured from the territory of a mere conduit or a passive facilitator into that of a publisher. The matter will likely receive further judicial attention in the near future.
Posted by Elissa D. Hecker, EASL Blog Coordinator on September 30, 2015 12:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
This page contains all entries posted to The Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Blog in September 2015. They are listed from oldest to newest.