Week 4 EOC: Copyrights

The definition of a copyright from Merriam-Webster says, “The exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work).” People use copyrights to protect their intellectual property from being stolen and used by others. Upon copyright infringement, the entity holding the copyright can take action against the offending party. These actions include (as listed on www.copyright.gov website): Impounding and disposition of infringing articles, which means they will take away the molds, pictures, or any method that is being used to in violation of the copyright owner. They are also allowed to collect any damages and profits from the infringer. These include the legal costs and fees. 

According to Regina Paul on Yahoo Voices (http://voices.yahoo.com/how-protect-digital-art-online-thieves-253355.html), there are a few things to add to your property to protect it. You must put a watermark on it. She says, “A watermark is a transparent mark that you can put across your images.” Also, you can create a logo. “While anyone can create a logo, and it is not a guarantee this will deter an online art thief, the thief might think twice about stealing an image with a logo if they think that as a business you may the resources to pursue a(n)… (sic) thief.” You need to add a copyright signature. “An example would be: © 2007 by Regina Paul. Adding this to your pictures is one way to let the art thieves of the online world know your work is copyrighted.” You can add the words “All Rights Reserved.” "Adding the words All Rights Reserved to your copyright signature is letting the world know that only you have the right to post or use your artwork unless you give someone permission in writing.”

A recent lawsuit found online at the Salt Lake City Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57034653-78/video-goblin-hall-rock.html.csp) details a case of a video that the newspaper posted to YouTube of two men pushing over a rock formation at the Goblin Valley State Park was taken down by one of the men in the video using the copyright law. Apparently, YouTube told the newspaper that they can file a counter claim. “YouTube sent The Salt Lake Tribune a message Wednesday about the copyright claim and offering tips on filing a counter claim. Both claims and counter claims go through the site’s copyright page.”

Week 3 EOC: Erin Brockovich

The story of Erin Brockovich suing PG&E ends with a settlement of $333 million dollars. According to Michael Asimow on http://usf.usfca.edu/pj//brockovich-asimow.htm, “The killer document implicated the top management of PG&E in the Hinkley cover-up. Under Calif. Civil Code §3294, in order to support a claim for punitive damages against a corporation, it is necessary to show that an officer, director or managing agent of the corporation ratified the wrongful conduct. The document was clearly the key to the arbitrators' huge punitive damage awards.”

David Pierson and Hemmy So from the Los Angeles Times state that the settlement included an apology. “Clearly, this situation should never have happened, and we are sorry that it did. It is not the way we do business, and we believe it would not happen in our company today," the company said.

The lawsuit settlement is certainly not the end to this story. Event today, there is still a negative cloud lingering over the town of Hinkley, California. According to a story on Nightline by Alyssa Litoff, “It turns out despite the settlement and the lawsuit, Hinkley's water problem never got fixed. In fact, according to the Lahontan Water Board, the area of chromium-6 contamination has grown in recent years.”

My personal opinion is that the settlement was supposedly split between 1, 100 people. $295 million was divided between those people. My calculations revealed that is only $268,181 per family. In my humble opinion, that is certainly not enough money. It is good that Erin fought the case and at least got them something to compensate, but that is just not enough money. Even with proper medical care, these people are going to suffer for the rest of their lives with health complications. Does that amount of money seem fair, or enough? My guess is no.

Week 2 EOC: Supreme Court

Definition: The Supreme Court of the United States (abbreviated Scotus since 1879)[1] is the highest federal court in the United States. It has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases.

This week, with the rest of the government shut down in a political deep freeze, the high court, being deemed essential, is open for business. It is the opening of the new term for the Supreme Court Justices.

Docket Case #1- Campaign Finance

At the top of the list is a case to be argued this week is challenging aggregate limits on campaign contributions. In the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, the court upheld an earlier version of these contribution limits. In the case, the court drew a line between contributions to candidates and parties, on the one hand, and expenditures by independent groups, on the other.

Since 1976, the court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of limits on contributions, stating that unlimited contributions create the potential for corruption or the appearance of corruption. Challengers to campaign finance restrictions are now seeking to obliterate that line, and there is reason to believe that the conservative majority may agree.

Docket Case #2- Abortion

While there is no direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, there are cases that would allow the court to chip away at the right to abortion.

The first case is a review of Massachusetts’ so-called buffer zone law, which prohibits protests within 35 feet of abortion clinics, and could have implications for similar laws in Colorado and Montana. As Rosanna Cavallaro, a law professor at Suffolk University, recently told the Associated Press, the case will weigh the free speech rights of antiabortion protesters against a woman’s right to seek abortion services free from obstruction, threats and physical harm.

The second case involving medical abortion, while receiving less public attention than recent high-profile antiabortion laws like North Dakota’s ban on abortion at six weeks and Texas’ omnibus law, could have major implications for non-surgical abortion and may determine the new fault lines of abortion access in the United States.

Docket Case #3- Civil Rights

After last term's shrug on affirmative action, it's back — in a way. This term, the court is not being asked to decide whether affirmative action policies are permissible in higher education. Instead, in a case from Michigan, the question is whether voters can use a referendum to ban affirmative action in higher education.

The Fair Housing Act faces a challenge in another civil rights case. The federal appeals courts have, for decades, uniformly approved the use of statistics to prove that minorities are being treated differently. Because proving discriminatory intent is difficult, statistics have been used to enforce civil rights statutes by proving that a particular action has a discriminatory effect on minorities. In a Fair Housing Act case before the court, the challengers are contending that statistics are not enough to prove discrimination.

The issue I have chosen to state my opinion on is the “buffer zone law.” The decision to get rid of this law would be a bad one. I agree that abortion protesters need to be kept at a certain distance from someone who is entering a clinic. They are already in a state of distress, and do not deserve to be verbally assaulted by protesters. This crosses into the boundaries of assault.

At the end of her article titles “Abortion’s Back on the Supreme Court Docket,”  Natasha Hakimi states, “Let’s hope this new term that started Monday won’t be remembered for limiting women’s rights nationwide.”

Week 1 EOC: My Voice

First, I have to start off by stating how much I like the title of this assignment. “VOICE.” I truly believe that everyone, no matter your profession, socioeconomic status, gender or sexual orientation, you have a voice. We don't use our voices to create positive changes anymore, and that is sometimes a tough realization. But I am here because I still want to try to be heard, making an impact and creating a better standard of living for myself through the avenue of the Fashion Business. Now, I am no designer. But what I may lack in raw creativity, I make up for in drive and ambition in the business world. I have a keen business mentality. That is where I feel like I can truly shine. 

It almost runs in my blood, considering many other family members on my father's side, including my father himself, own their own businesses. It gives me a great sense of pride to know that as a business and fashion professional, I can carry on that legacy, and hopefully inspire my future children and my cousins children as well. I realize that the goals I have set for myself seem quite lofty, but you can't make it in the cutthroat business of fashion by setting the bar too low. At the age of 31, after all my experiences thus far and for the first time in my life, I truly and genuinely believe in my capabilities and potential.