Reference no: EM133731685

Discussion Post: Imitation & Copyright Infringement

Question I: Imitation and Copyright Infringement

Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey is a low-budget horror movie released earlier this year by Jagged Edge Productions Lots of folks are very unhappy and the film has gotten terrible reviews. Winnie the Pooh and most of his friends, including Piglet and Eeyore, originally appeared in AA. Milne's 1926 children's book by the same name. His friend Tigger however did not tappear in Milne's books until 1928.

Disney's 1996 cartoon adaptation of Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree had the bear dressed in a red top. Jagged Edge producers said they deliberately but their bear in a sweatshirt to not look anything like Disney's version because they feared violating Fair Use.

1. Why was Disney able to produce a Winnie the Pooh movie in 1966, but Blood and Honey could not be made until now? Why could Tigger not be included in Blood and Honey? Identify and apply the relevant laws. Explain.

2. Explain the fourparts of the Fair Use Doctrine and Blood and Honey could have gotten in legal trouble for putting the bear in a red shirt.

Question II: Commercial speech.

The US Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have rules on what kinds of information should be included on food packaging. That has proven to be challenging for people with digestive disorders who struggle to process certain sugars called "FODMAP" (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols). Michelle Przybocki is one of those people with hardcore digestive concerns, and she has to spend an enormous amount of time figuring out what foods she can eat because her condition is severe and the wrong sugars could kill her. Up to 15 percent of the U.S. population have some kind of conditions that are triggered with FODMAP.

Entrepreneur Ketan Vakil has the same disorder and so he created a business to provide low FODMAP foods, certified by a number of international medical research groups. However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture told him he had to stop putting its "Low FODMAP" labels on foods because it isn't part of the preapproved nutrient content claims. Vakil says he is a small business owner, doesn't have the funding to jump through all the hoops needed to appeal federal regulations, and he just wants to put truthful information on his packaging. He filed suit two weeks ago.

Explain the facts and precedent in Central Hudson vs. Public Service Commission of New York. How will the four parts of the Central Hudson test apply to the USDA and FDA policies on food packaging?

Question III: Free Press Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield. Mass, asked a judge to order a Berkshire Eagle editor to turn over notes and communications in a civil suit related to sexual assault allegations. The Berkshire Eagle investigative team led by Larry Parnas broke the news story about the abuse cover-ups, particularly those involving the former bishop of the diocese. One of Parnas' sources is now filing a lawsuit against the church, alleging that while he was an altar boy in the 1960s, he was repeatedly raped by three clergy, including the former bishop. Parnas interviewed the unidentified source in the stories, along with other witnesses and unnamed victims. The judge ordered Parnas to testify in the case and provide his notes about those interviews with the deleted or redacted ones. But the editor said the notes would reveal their identities even if names were identified. The judge changed her order last fall: At this point, Parnas does not have to turn over notes or testify. However, she said she would be open to ordering Parnas to appear in court as the trial progresses. Explain the foregoing facts and dissent Branzberg v. Hayes. How might opposition apply to a diocese summons?

Question IV: Open Records

Right to Know, a nonprofit investigative public health group, has filed numerous lawsuits against federal agencies about Freedom of Information Act requests. In January, the organization requested documentation abot the U.S. Department of Defense's medical esearch contract with the EcoHealth Alliance. The group also wanted documentation as to whether the Alliance had been investigated for misconduct

EcoHealth Alliance funds the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was ground zero for Lidentifying the origins of the COVID outbreak.

To date, the Department of Defense has only acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request but as not responded otherwise. Last week, Right to Know filed suit in federal court.

1. Explain at least two possible exemptions the Department of Defense might claim to FOIA.

2. How may the fact the EcoHealth Alliance is a contract agency impact the FOIA request?

Here are the cases that selected:

Gray v. Perry
Scandvig v. Barr

It will have the same question that above the only way to answer this cases is if it apply to the question above or the worksheets only (no to Outside source)