Cheney protests whitehouse.org parody
|
December 12, 2002 | |
Sender Information:
Office of the Vice President
Sent by: David S. Addington
Counsel to the Vice President
Washington, DC, USA
|
Recipient Information:
John A. Wooden
Chickenhead Productions
Brooklyn, NY, 11217, USA
Sent via:
Re: Dear Mr. Wooden:
This is to request adjustments in the content of your website at www.whitehouse.org. On the webpage http://www.whitehouse.org/administration/lynne.asp appear photographs of the Honorable Lynne V. Cheney and a fictitious biographical statement about her. It is important to avoid using her name and picture for the purposes of trade without her written consent, see N.Y. Civil Rights Law ?? 50 and 51; Messenger ex rel. Messenger v. Gruner & Jahr Printing and Publishing, 706 N.Y.S. 2d 52 (N.Y. 2000) cert. denied 531 U.S. 878 (2000); Spahn v. Julian Messner, Inc., 286 N.Y.S. 2d 832 (1967); and Binns v. Vitagraph Co. of America, 210 N.Y. 51 (1913). It is also important to avoid portraying her in a false light, see Kitt v. Capital Concerts, Inc., 742 A.2d 856 (D.C. 1999). Accordingly, I request that you delete the photographs of her and the fictitious biographical statement about her from the website. The small-print "disclaimer & terms link" in the lower-right corner of the webpage lead, when mouse-clicked, to a disclaimer stating that, among other things, the website is "a digital parody of the Executive Branch of the United States Federal Government," that it "uses the names and images of public figures for purposes of satire," and that is "for mature audiences, and should not be accessed by persons under 18 years of age" -- even though an attractive-to-children "FOR KIDS ONLY!" button appears on the home page. In contrast to the notice of "ad parody -- not to be take seriously" that appeared on the very page complained of in Flynt v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), few people are likely to notice the disclaimer link on the webpage relating to Mrs. Cheney and even fewer are likely to click on the link and actually see your disclaimer, so the disclaimer is of little value in making visitors to the website aware of the fictitious nature of the webpage. In addition, the seal of the President appears on the web page relating to Mrs. Cheney, as well as on other webpages on the site. Please be aware that Section 713 of title 18 of the U.S. Code prohibits (1) knowing display of the seal of the President in connection with any publication for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or (2) knowing reproduction of any likeness of the seal of the President, except for the official use of the Government or as authorized in Presidential regulations (Executive Order 11649). Please send me written confirmation by fax (to [private]) that your company will delete all photographs of Mrs. Cheney and the fictitious biographical statement about her from your website. Nothing in this request should be construed as expressing any view concerning the lawfulness, wrongfulness, or inappropriateness, or not, of any other aspect of your website. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, David S. Addington Counsel to the Vice President image pages: 1 2
|
| FAQ: Questions and Answers | |
[back to notice text] Question: Does the First Amendment protect online speech?
Answer: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Under the First Amendment and cases interpreting it, the federal government (and states, under the Fourteenth Amendment) must meet a high level of scrutiny before restricting any kind of speech. In the first Supreme Court case dealing with the Internet, Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court affirmed that online speech deserves as much protection as off-line speech.
[back to notice text] Question: What is an "innocent fan fiction?"
Answer:
[back to notice text] Question: What is the right of publicity?
Answer: The right of publicity is a right to prevent the unauthorized commercial use of someone's identity, including name, image, or likeness. A natural person (and that person?s heirs) can sue under this right if the person's likeness is used to advertise products, for example. Since the right of publicity only prevents unauthorized commercial use, however, it does not block use of the identity for a statement of public or social interest, including news reporting, for a work of art or entertainment, and if the use is not for profit nor a threat to the commercial value of the identification.
[back to notice text] Question: What is false light invasion of privacy?
Answer: "False light" is a claim that publicity invades a person's (plaintiff's) privacy by a false statement or representation that "places the plaintiff in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."
[back to notice text] Question: What good is a disclaimer?
Answer: A disclaimer can help tell visitors what a website site is and isn't. Much of trademark law aims to prevent consumer confusion; a disclaimer of sponsorship or association with the trademark holder could help avoid confusion. In defamation law, statements of opinion are protected, but false statements of fact can be defamatory; a disclaimer could emphasize the opinion nature of a website. A disclaimer can help the humor-impaired to understand a parody site. A disclaimer won't tip the balance on a site that is blatantly violating the law, though, and one may not be necessary if the nature of the website is clear from its face. Think of it as a little special sauce.
[back to notice text] Question: How does the First Amendment to the Constitution affect defamation?
Answer: The free speech guarantees under the Constitution protect certain speech and commentary. The degree of protection generally depends on whether the person commented about is a private or public figure and whether the statement is regarding a private or public matter. According to the New York Times rule (from the case New York Times v. Sullivan), when the plaintiff is a public figure and the matter is one of public concern, the plaintiff must prove "malice" or "reckless disregard" on the part of the defendant. If both parties are private individuals, there is less protection for the speech because the plaintiff only needs to prove negligence.
[back to notice text] Question: What does the "reservation of rights" language mean? What are they "waiving" at me?
Answer: Many C&Ds will say something like, "This letter shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any rights or remedies, which are expressly reserved." This is just legalese for saying, "Even if you do what we ask in this letter, we can still sue you later." The language is standard; do not be alarmed. Litigation is extremely unpleasant, and unless your opponent is irrational (always a distinct possibility, of course), it will not bring litigation after it has obtained what it wants.
|
|
FAQ: Questions |
|
|
Related Links |
|
More Like This Notice |
|
|
Other Recent C&Ds |
|
|
|
Related News |
|
|
|
Related Resources |
|
|
|
Other Topics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|