The document summarizes several important court cases related to media law and ethics in the United States. It discusses landmark Supreme Court cases like Times v. Sullivan that established protections for editorial content and requirements to prove actual malice in libel cases against public officials. It also summarizes cases involving privacy, copyright, and obscenity issues.

1. Media Law & Ethics
Major Court Cases

2. Times v. Sullivan
• 1964: Alabama Police
Commissioner L.B. Sullivan sues
the New York Times for libel,
regarding an advertisement for a
civil rights group that was critical
of the police’s handling of
protestors.
• Some statements in the ad were
false
• An Alabama court rules in favor
of Sullivan, awards him $500,000
in damages
• NYT appealed the case to the
Supreme Court where it was
ruled in their favor

3. Times v. Sullivan
• The Supreme Court gave three
principles concerning defamation:
1. Editorial advertising is protected by the
First Amendment
2. Even statements that are false might
qualify for First Amendment protection
if they concern the public conduct of
public officials
(Video) 3. To win a libel suit, public officials must
prove that false and defamatory
statements were made with actual
malice

4. Woody Allen v. American Apparel
• (2007) American Apparel put up
billboards featuring an image of
Woody Allen from his film Annie
Hall, with the phrase “The High
Rabbi” in Hebrew
• Used the image without
permission, Allen sued for $10M,
claiming they appropriated his
likeness without permission
• American Apparel argued fair use,
claiming the ads were meant to be
social satire and foster discussion
• Settled out of court, American
Apparel paid Woody Allen $5M
• (Video)

5. Food Lion v. ABC
• (1996) Reporters for Prime Time Live
faked resumes to get jobs at a Food Lion
Supermarket
• Used hidden cameras to take video of
unsanitary practices
• Sued ABC for fraud, claiming that the ABC
employees misrepresented themselves
• Sued for trespassing, because the ABC
employees came on to Food Lion
property without permission; and for
breach of loyalty, the ABC employees
videotaped non-public areas of the store
and revealed internal company
information.

6. Food Lion v. ABC
• The footage showed two undercover
producers seen trying to encourage
violations of company policy; however,
employees resisted and correctly followed
sanitary practices
• Food Lion was awarded $5.5 million by a
jury in 1997
• The verdict was then overturned by the
U.S. Court of Appeals
• According to the court, even though ABC
was wrong to do what they had done, Food
Lion was unable to show that they had
been directly injured by ABC's actions -
essentially that it was the actions of Food
Lion that caused the damages, not the
publication of those actions.

7. Sanders v. ABC
• ABC had an undercover reporter
conducting a hidden camera
investigation at a psychic hotline
operation
• Greg Sanders, an employee, sued
ABC for invasion of privacy;
intrusion upon solitude
• Ruled in Sanders’ favor – if a
business has limited access to
the public, then there is a
reasonable expectation of
privacy among coworkers

8. Sony v. Universal Studios
(The Betamax Case)
• 1984: Supreme Court of the US rules
that the making of individual copies
of complete television shows for
time-shifted viewing is not copyright
infringement, instead it is fair use
• Manufacturers of home video
recording devices cannot be held
liable for copyright infringement
• Precedent for modern file-sharing
legal battles

9. A&M Music v. Napster
• (2000) A&M Records and several other
recording companies, via the RIAA, sued
Napster for contributory and vicarious
copyright infringement under the US Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
• The music industry made the following
claims against Napster:
1. That its users were directly infringing the
plaintiffs' copyrights.
2. That Napster was liable for contributory
infringement of the plaintiffs' copyrights. (video)
3. That Napster was liable for vicarious
infringement of the plaintiffs' copyrights.

10. A&M Music v. Napster
• Napster lost the case in the District Court;
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals --
found that Napster was capable of
commercially significant non-infringing
uses
• District Court ordered Napster to monitor
the activities of its network and to block
access to infringing material when notified
of that material's location
• Napster was unable to do this, and so shut
down its service in July 2001
• Now a pay service, not a P2P application.
• Also sued by Metallica and Madonna

11. MGM v. Grokster
• 2005: Often characterized as a
continuation of the Betamax Case
• MGM alleged Grokster, a P2P file-
sharing service infringed copyrights
on movies and music being
distributed on the site
• Courts rule: Producers of
technology who promote the ease
of infringing on copyrights can be
sued for inducing copyright
infringement committed by their
users.

12. Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
• In 1991, Janet Mangini, a San Francisco-based attorney, brought a suit against R. J.
Reynolds, challenging the company for targeting minors with its "Joe Camel" advertising
campaign.
• Journal of the American Medical Association published a study showing that more
children 5 and 6 years old could recognize Joe Camel than could recognize Mickey
Mouse or Fred Flintstone, and alleged that the "Joe Camel" campaign was targeting
children
• July 1997, under pressure from the impending Mangini trial, Congress, and other
groups, RJR settled out of court and voluntarily ended its Joe Camel campaign

13. Miller v. California
• 1973: Marvin Miller, the owner of a mail-order catalog
business that advertised “adult material” – was found guilty of
knowingly distributing obscene material
• Attempted to define obscenity; ruled obscenity is not
protected speech; creation of the Miller Test:
1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary
community standards, would find that the work, taken as a
whole, appeals to the prurient interest
2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive
way certain sexual acts specifically defined by state law
3. Whether the work as a whole lacks serious literary, political,
artistic or scientific value

14. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
• Hustler published an ad parody that featured a fake
interview with, and picture of the Rev. Jerry Falwell
• Falwell sued Larry Flynt for libel, invasion of privacy
and intentional infliction of emotional distress
• Court ruled in favor of Hustler; saying the
magazine’s parody was within the law, because
reasonable people would not have interpreted the
parody as fact
• Court prohibits public figures from suing for
compensation for intentional emotional distress
• Upheld First Amendment rights
• Larry Flynt on the First Amendment (Video)
• Larry Flynt deposition footage (Video)
• Flynt reflects about Fallwell, Larry King Live (Video)