for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
help
  Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1232 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (37 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (44 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (81 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (19 journals)
    - CRIMINOLOGY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (138 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (21 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (163 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (22 journals)
    - LAW (700 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (7 journals)

LAW (700 journals)                  1 2 3 4 | Last

Showing 1 - 200 of 354 Journals sorted alphabetically
ABA Journal Magazine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
Acta Juridica     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Acta Politica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Acta Universitatis Danubius. Juridica     Open Access  
Actualidad Jurídica Ambiental     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Adelaide Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
Administrative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 38)
Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
African Journal of Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
African Journal on Conflict Resolution     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
Afrilex     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Air and Space Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
Akron Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Alaska Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Albany Law Review     Free   (Followers: 6)
Alberta Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Alternative Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Alternatives : Global, Local, Political     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Amazon's Research and Environmental Law     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
American Journal of Comparative Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 53)
American Journal of Jurisprudence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
American Journal of Law & Medicine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
American Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
American Journal of Trial Advocacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
American University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
American University National Security Law Brief     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Amicus Curiae     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Amsterdam Law Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Annales Canonici     Open Access  
Annual Survey of South African Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Anuario de Psicología Jurídica     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ANZSLA Commentator, The     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Appeal : Review of Current Law and Law Reform     Open Access  
Arbitration Law Monthly     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Arbitration Law Reports and Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Arctic Review on Law and Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arena Hukum     Open Access  
Argumenta Journal Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arizona Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Arizona State Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 2)
Arkansas Law Review     Free   (Followers: 5)
Ars Aequi Maandblad     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Art + Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11)
Article 40     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Artificial Intelligence and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Asian American Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Asian Journal of Legal Education     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
Asian Pacific American Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Asy-Syir'ah : Jurnal Ilmu Syari'ah dan Hukum     Open Access  
Australasian Law Management Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Australian Feminist Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Australian Indigenous Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
Australian Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
Ave Maria Law Review     Free   (Followers: 2)
Badamai Law Journal     Open Access  
Ballot     Open Access  
Baltic Journal of Law & Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Bar News: The Journal of the NSW Bar Association     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Behavioral Sciences & the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23)
Beijing Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Berkeley Journal of Entertainment and Sports Law     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 11)
Bioethics Research Notes     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Bond Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 17)
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Boston College Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 17)
Boston University Law Review     Free   (Followers: 10)
BRICS Law Journal     Open Access  
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Brigham Young University Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
British Journal of American Legal Studies     Open Access  
Brooklyn Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
C@hiers du CRHIDI     Open Access  
Cadernos de Dereito Actual     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Cadernos do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito - PPGDir./UFRGS     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário     Open Access  
Cahiers, Droit, Sciences et Technologies     Open Access  
California Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 19)
California Lawyer     Free  
California Western Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Cambridge Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 138)
Campbell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Campus Legal Advisor     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Case Western Reserve Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi     Open Access  
Časopis zdravotnického práva a bioetiky     Open Access  
Catalyst : A Social Justice Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Catholic University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Chicago-Kent Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Chicana/o-Latina/o Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
China : An International Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
China-EU Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Chinese Journal of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Chinese Law & Government     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
Cleveland State Law Review     Free   (Followers: 1)
College Athletics and The Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Colombia Forense     Open Access  
Columbia Journal of Environmental Law     Free   (Followers: 10)
Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Columbia Law Review (Sidebar)     Open Access   (Followers: 14)
Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Comparative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 39)
Comparative Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Con-texto     Open Access  
Conflict Resolution Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20)
Conflict Trends     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Cornell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Criterio Jurídico     Open Access  
Critical Analysis of Law : An International & Interdisciplinary Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Cuadernos de Historia del Derecho     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Cuestiones Juridicas     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Current Legal Problems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Danube : The Journal of European Association Comenius - EACO     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
De Jure     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
De Rebus     Full-text available via subscription  
Deakin Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Defense Counsel Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Democrazia e diritto     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Denning Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
DePaul Journal of Women, Gender and the Law     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
DePaul Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Der Staat     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 13)
Derecho PUCP     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Derecho y Ciencias Sociales     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Die Verwaltung     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 10)
Dikaion     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Dike     Open Access  
Direito e Desenvolvimento     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Direito e Liberdade     Open Access  
Diritto penale contemporaneo     Free   (Followers: 2)
Diritto, immigrazione e cittadinanza     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Dixi     Open Access  
Droit et Cultures     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Droit et Médecine Bucco-Dentaire     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Droit, Déontologie & Soin     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Drug Science, Policy and Law     Full-text available via subscription  
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Duke Forum for Law & Social Change     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
Duke Law & Technology Review     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Duke Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 25)
DULR Online     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
East Asia Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ECI Interdisciplinary Journal for Legal and Social Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Ecology Law Quarterly     Free   (Followers: 3)
Edinburgh Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20)
Education and the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
El Cotidiano     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Election Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
Energy Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Environmental Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Environmental Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 23)
Environmental Policy and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
ERA-Forum     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Espaço Jurídico : Journal of Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ESR Review : Economic and Social Rights in South Africa     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Ethnopolitics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Ethos: Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
EU agrarian Law     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Europaisches Journal fur Minderheitenfragen     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
European Energy and Environmental Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
European Journal for Education Law and Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
European Journal of Law and Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
European Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 126)
European Public Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 33)
European Review of Contract Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21)
European Review of Private Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 29)
European Yearbook of Minority Issues Online     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Evaluation Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Evidence & Policy : A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Faulkner Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Federal Communication Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Federal Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
Federal Probation     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Feminist Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
feminists@law     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Fiat Justisia     Open Access  
First Amendment Studies     Hybrid Journal  
Florida Bar News     Free  
Florida Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Florida State University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Fordham Environmental Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 19)
Fordham Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 13)
FORO. Revista de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales, Nueva Época     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Fundamina : A Journal of Legal History     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Geoforum     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
George Washington Law Review     Free   (Followers: 7)
Georgia Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Georgia State University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Global Journal of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Global Labour Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Golden Gate University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)

        1 2 3 4 | Last

Journal Cover Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal
  [19 followers]  Follow
    
  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
   ISSN (Print) 1079-9699
   Published by Fordham University Homepage  [6 journals]
  • Gimme Shelter: Why the Courts Can't Save Online Guitar Tablature but
           the Music Publishing Industry Can (and Should)

    • Authors: Tara Lynn Waters
      PubDate: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 10:15:43 PDT
       
  • Big Shop of Horrors: Ownership in Theatrical Design

    • Authors: Jennifer Womack
      PubDate: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 10:15:38 PDT
       
  • The Continuing Controversy over Business Methods

    • Authors: Lois Matelan
      PubDate: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 10:15:34 PDT
       
  • Protecting Public Health from Outside the Physician's Office: A
           Century of FDA Regulation from Drug Safety Labeling to Off-Label Drug
           Promotion

    • Authors: Katherine A. Helm
      PubDate: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 10:15:31 PDT
       
  • Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Software Products and How to
           Accomplish a Technology Transfer Transaction in China

    • Authors: Felix Miao
      PubDate: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 10:15:28 PDT
       
  • The Next Ten Years in E.U. Copyright: Making Markets Work

    • Authors: Dr. Tilman Liider
      PubDate: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 10:15:24 PDT
       
  • The Clean Water Rule- A Clarification of the Definition of 'Waters of
           the United States' or Agency Overreach

    • Authors: April Collaku
      PubDate: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 15:56:18 PDT
       
  • Wildlife Crime and Degradation in Africa: An Analysis of the Current
           Crisis and Prospects for a Secure Future

    • Authors: Kofi Ernest Abotsi et al.
      PubDate: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 15:56:14 PDT
       
  • Human Survival, Risk, and Law: Considering Risk Filters to Replace
           Cost-Benefit Analysis

    • Authors: John William Draper
      PubDate: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 15:56:11 PDT
       
  • Nonconsensual Pornography: An Old Crime Updates Its Software

    • Authors: Jillian Roffer
      Abstract: This Note proposes a statute that considers social media and the Internet. The proposed statute is advantageous because it understands how perpetrators abuse social media and the Internet and implements the protections that victims deserve from the legal system. When society understands the harms and “[w]hen there is no outlet for these images, no audience for these images, and no desire to post these images, that is when the images will cease to cause harm to victims.” The lessons from the criminalization of other forms of gender abuse indicate that society needs to change its attitude toward crimes that predominately harm women by accepting the harms as legitimate. Therefore, in addition to proposing a model statute, this Note suggests that other solutions, such as education and the positive use of social media, should be used in conjunction with the statute. Part I discusses the history of nonconsensual pornography and how the Internet has created obstacles for victims. Part II discusses the current legal state and how states have approached the problem inconsistently. Part III proposes a statute and other solutions to be used in conjunction.
      PubDate: Tue, 16 May 2017 12:16:22 PDT
       
  • The Billionaire’s Treasure Trove: A Call to Reform Private Art Museums
           and the Private Benefit Doctrine

    • Authors: E. Alex Kirk
      Abstract: Thanks to the new generation of billionaire art collectors, and the recent boom in the art market, a growing number of high-net-worth patrons are creating their own tax-exempt private art museums. These “jewel-box” museums provide invaluable public benefits, lead to growth and innovation in the private museum sector, and encourage donors to pursue more avant-gardes collecting strategies. This advantageous tax-saving strategy appeals to wealthy individuals, who wish to maintain control over their art collection, and still receive generous charitable income tax deductions. However, several private museums have recently come under fire due to private benefit concerns. To qualify for federal tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, a private museum must serve public rather than private interests. Ambiguity in the regulatory scheme has allowed some high-net-worth individuals to exploit loopholes in the tax law, which is silent on how these private museums should comply with the public benefit requirement, and the types of activities that constitute substantial, and therefore, impermissible private benefits. The tax law is structured to incentivize charitable giving: Taxpayers can write off the cost of maintaining their art collections, subsidize the cost of newly purchased artworks, and leave behind a lasting philanthropic legacy. It is practically impossible for private museums to not provide some sort of private benefit. This Note proposes to reform the limitations on private benefit with flexible guidelines that allow for involvement during the donor’s lifetime, provide these organizations with enough autonomy to carry out their unique charitable vision, and encourage charitable giving. Private benefit should continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in consideration of the organization’s available resources, size, and funding. Any updates in the regulatory scheme should not foreclose on these charitable deductions altogether, and should be narrowly tailored to prevent only those activities with substantial enough private benefits to justify the revocation of their tax-exempt status. Private museums that encourage public engagement with the arts and provide meaningful public benefits should still be entitled to tax exemption, and benefit from insubstantial nonexempt activities that effectuate their overall charitable purposes.
      PubDate: Tue, 16 May 2017 12:16:20 PDT
       
  • Autonomy Challenges in the Age of Big Data

    • Authors: Sofia Grafanaki
      Abstract: This Article examines how technological advances in the field of “Big Data” challenge meaningful individual autonomy (and by extension democracy), are redefining the process of self-formation and the relationship between self and society, and can cause harm that cannot be addressed under current regulatory frameworks. Adopting a theory of autonomy that includes both the exploration process an individual goes through in order to develop authentic and independent desires that lead to his actions, as well as the independence of the actions and decisions themselves, this Article identifies three distinct categories of autonomy challenges that Big Data technologies present. The first is the increasing rise of lots of “little brothers,” putting individuals in a state of constant surveillance, the very knowledge of which undermines individual self-determination. In the governmental context, the idea of always being watched has long been established as a threat to freedom of expression, free speech, “intellectual privacy,” and associational freedoms. The discussion does not focus on government surveillance per se, but draws from the same reasoning to illustrate how similar dangers are present even when it is not the government or a single entity behind the surveillance. The second is an algorithmic self-reinforcing loop in every aspect of our lives, as in a world where everything is tracked, the “choices” one is given are based on assumptions about him, and these same “choices” are the ones that determine and become the new assumption, thereby creating a constantly fortified self-fulfilling prophecy. The very structure of the algorithms used is based on statistical models trained to ignore outliers, collect (im)perfect information about the past and use that to recreate the future. This is true both on an individual level and for society more generally. The third is the use of persuasive computing techniques, allowing companies to move beyond simply measuring customer behavior to creating products that are designed with the specific goal of forming new habits. Finally, this Article demonstrates the need for the development of a vocabulary to assess the ethical, political, and sociological values of these algorithms, and for a full set of ethical norms that can lay the foundations of democracy on the web.
      PubDate: Tue, 16 May 2017 12:16:17 PDT
       
  • A Paper Shield? Whether State Privilege Protections Apply to Student
           Journalists

    • Authors: Jonathan Peters et al.
      Abstract: Most states recognize a privilege for journalists to protect confidential sources from compelled disclosure. The privilege varies from state to state, and a major difference is how they define a journalist—i.e., a person qualified to claim the privilege. Some schemes are narrow and limit their coverage to employees of professional news organizations. Others are broad and cover freelancers, filmmakers, bloggers, and others who gather information for publication. But what about student journalists? Are they covered? In recent years, as traditional media have adapted to changing circumstances, student journalists have played a vital role in meeting their communities’ needs for news. This Article explores whether state reporter’s privilege protections cover student journalists by reviewing existing privilege schemes, ultimately finding that most exclude student journalists. This poses a unique problem because, as one commentator put it, “[i]f we’re going to ask students to fulfill the responsibility of being front-line newsgatherers, the least we can do is send them out into the field with the confidence of meaningful legal protection.” With that in mind, the Article offers solutions and calls for legislative action, arguing that student journalists need more than a paper shield to fulfill their editorial responsibilities. This is the first comprehensive scholarly analysis of these issues.
      PubDate: Tue, 16 May 2017 12:16:15 PDT
       
  • Toward a More Coherent Doctrine of Trademark Genericism and Functionality:
           Focusing on Fair Competition

    • Authors: Sandra L. Rierson
      Abstract: The doctrines of trademark genericism and functionality serve similar functions under the Lanham Act and the common law of unfair competition. Genericism, in the context of word marks, and functionality, for trade dress, bar trademark registration under the Lanham Act and, both under the Act and at common law, render a trademark unprotectable and invalid. In the word mark context, genericism stands for the proposition that certain parts of vocabulary cannot be cordoned off as trademarks; all competitors must be able to use words that consumers understand to identify the goods or services that they are selling. Functionality likewise demands that certain aspects of product design cannot be legally protected as trade dress, as to do so would potentially limit competitors’ ability to make products that work as well at the same price. The core concern, for both doctrines, is or should be the preservation of free and fair market competition. Part I of this Article explains the theoretical parallels between the doctrines of genericism and functionality, and examines the history and purpose of these doctrines. A finding that a word is or has become generic, or that a form of trade dress is functional, negates a mark’s registration and protection under the Lanham Act, as well as under state and common law. Even incontestable marks can be declared invalid, regardless of the passage of time, under either doctrine. The types of trademarks typically at issue when making genericism and functionality determinations—word marks that are, at best, descriptive, or product design functioning as trade dress—are correctly described as weak. The genericism and functionality doctrines therefore play a critical role in marking the boundaries of trademark law. To properly draw those lines, decision makers need to correctly define and understand the theory underlying both doctrines. In Part II, this Article argues that both genericism and functionality, in their practical interpretation and purpose, should more clearly reflect the core principle of protecting fair competition. In particular, the concept of viable, competitive alternatives—either in the form of words or alternative designs—should play an enhanced role in determining whether an erstwhile trademark is generic or functional. The various tests for genericism and functionality currently employed by the courts often attempt to draw formalistic distinctions among categories of words or product features that may confound business owners (and their lawyers) and divert the focus of the courts’ inquiry in such cases away from the core value at the heart of both doctrines: preserving fair competition.
      PubDate: Tue, 16 May 2017 12:16:11 PDT
       
  • The Riddle of the Mysterious Patent Dance Wrapped in an Enigma: Is the
           Patent Dance of the BPCIA Optional or Mandatory?

    • Authors: Dov Hirsch
      Abstract: Recently, the nature of one of the aspects of the Biosimilar, Price, Competition, and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”) has been called into question: Is the “patent dance,” the structured patent dispute resolution process of the BPCIA, mandatory or optional? A mandatory patent dance requires a biosimilar applicant to comply with all its requirements, while an optional patent dance allows the biosimilar applicant to opt out of the entire dance if it so chooses. This question is important because it has the potential to affect that delicate balance of the BPCIA. This Note focuses on some of the consequential implications of deciding whether the patent dance of the BPCIA is optional or mandatory. This Note ultimately argues that the patent dance of the BPCIA should be mandatory.
      PubDate: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:12:55 PDT
       
  • Locking Out Locke: A New Natural Copyright Law

    • Authors: Joseph A. Gerber
      Abstract: For decades lawyers, professors, philosophers, and law stu- dents have been trapped in an endless, two-sided debate regarding the justification for copyright law in the United States. On one side stand the utilitarians, who argue that modern American copyright law amounts to nothing more than positive law2 in the form of an economic incentive for authors to express themselves creatively. Natural law theorists, on the other hand, argue that there is some- thing more substantial behind the current copyright regime—that copyright is not merely a formulation of positive law, but a recogni- tion of philosophical principles of ownership inherent in the natural order of the world. Discourse on this subject has resolved little, all the while exposing flaws for anti-copyright proponents to exploit along their path toward a complete[ly destructive] public domain. For this reason, copyright advocates desperately need a new theory—one that replaces the questionable reliance on John Locke but also incorporates the economic incentives argued for by the uti- litarians. This Note attempts to start that process by rebuilding the understanding of copyright law from a teleological perspective. Part I outlines the arguments on both sides of the copyright law debate, including their weaknesses. Part II introduces an Aristote- lian natural law theory, and Part III applies these principles to the U.S. Constitution. Part III also explores the consequences of think- ing teleologically about the Copyright Clause of the Constitution. Finally, Part IV explains how this new perspective both aligns with current copyright jurisprudence and answers some of the field’s most vexing questions that are crucial amid a growing anti- copyright movement.
      PubDate: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:12:47 PDT
       
  • Obviousness as Fact: The Issue of Obviousness in Patent Law Should Be a
           Question of Fact Reviewed with Appropriate Deference

    • Authors: Ted L. Field
      Abstract: One of the most common defenses that an accused infringer raises in a patent infringement lawsuit is that the patent claims at issue are invalid for obviousness. The question of obviousness is based on several factual determinations, and the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should sensibly review these determinations with deference to the jury’s or trial court’s findings. But these courts instead treat the ultimate determination of obviousness as a question of law to be reviewed de novo. This Article challenges the correctness of this standard of review and argues that courts should treat the ultimate determination of obviousness as a question of fact reviewed with appropriate deference. The Article considers several theoretical and practical reasons that support this argument. The Article concludes: (1) based on general policy considerations concerning standards of review, obviousness should be a question of fact; (2) the precedent on which the courts have relied in determining the standard of review for obviousness does not support the conclusion that obviousness is a question of law; (3) the treatment of obviousness as a question of law is inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s treatment of analogous issues in patent law; and (4) based on an examination of recent case law, the Federal Circuit almost always treats obviousness as a de facto question of fact even though it is a de jure question of law. Thus, this Article concludes that the Supreme Court should hold that the ultimate issue of obviousness is properly a question of fact to be reviewed with appropriate deference.
      PubDate: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:12:43 PDT
       
  • Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Meet the Constitution

    • Authors: David S. Welkowitz
      Abstract: For many years, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has re-fused to address constitutional claims raised in the course of registration or cancellation proceedings. A recent example involves the Washington Redskins trademark, which is the subject of a cancellation proceeding now before a U.S. Court of Appeals. The Board’s refusal to address constitutional issues rests on the assumption that the Board lacks the authority to make constitutional decisions. That may seem odd, given the fact that the Board is an arm of the federal government, and its members are bound to uphold the Constitution. This Article examines the basis of the Board’s claim of incapacity. Although the Board’s claim is not with-out precedent, it is argued that the better reading of current law is that the Board does have the capacity to address constitutional claims and that it should do so. The Article further examines ways in which the Board can decide constitutional issues without overstepping its bounds as an administrative agency. In particular, the Article examines the possible use of a familiar constitutional principle of avoidance as a means of allowing the Board to incorporate constitutional principles into its decision-making without having to rule on the constitutionality of the provisions of the federal trademark statute.
      PubDate: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:12:35 PDT
       
  • Musicians, Politicians, and the Forgotten Tort

    • Authors: Arlen W. Langvardt
      Abstract: Election seasons regularly reveal uses of songs and recordings at campaign events and in campaign ads. Frequently, well-known performers who have recorded the songs object to the uses of the songs and recordings (and their recognizable voices). Often, the performers do not own the copyright to the songs or the recordings, so they have no copyright infringement claim to bring. Performers who seek legal relief against those responsible for the political uses have relied, thus far, on right of publicity claims or false endorsement claims under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. However, judicial concerns about the proper reach and application of those theories, and uncertainties about how to account for First Amendment interests, make the right of publicity and false endorsement less-than-reliable theories for performers to invoke against political users. This Article proposes the use of a different theory in this setting: the forgotten tort of false light publicity. It is well established that this theory—one that performers have yet to invoke and commentators have not addressed—may be employed in response to defendants’ noncommercial speech, assuming the relevant First Amendment requirements are met. The First Amendment aspects of false light publicity were set long ago by the Supreme Court. For courts, the false light publicity theory has the virtues of setting the governing rules relatively clearly and avoiding the uncertainties presented by the theories that performers have employed thus far against political users. Some performers’ claims should succeed under false light publicity principles, and others should not. At least, however, the false light publicity theory offers reasonable ways to balance the competing expressive interests of performers and political candidates.
      PubDate: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:12:28 PDT
       
  • Tort Vision for the New Millenium: Strengthening News Industry Standards
           as a Defense Tool in Lawsuits Over Newsgathering Techniques

    • Authors: Michael W. Richards
      Abstract: “A Generation of Vipers,” proclaimed the cover story in The Columbia Journalism Review, as the nation’s most esteemed voice of media criticism evaluated the journalistic landscape of the mid- 1990s. The healthy skepticism that prompts journalism professors to instruct: “if your mother says she loves you, get a second source,” has been replaced by wholesale cynicism, suggests this critique. “It’s worth noting that, in several dozen interviews, no journalist reported becoming less cynical over a lifetime of reporting.” If cynicism has infected contemporary journalists, then it ap- pears the public has responded with cynicism of its own— apparently viewing the news media, as an institution, with a more jaundiced eye. Survey data from a leading media research think tank, The Pew Center for the People & The Press, in 1997, found the American public “more critical of press practices, less enthusiastic about the news product and less appreciative of the watchdog role played by the news media than it was a dozen years ago.” Empirically, The Pew Center survey found that in 1985, a solid majority polled believes news organizations were accurate. A dozen years later, a similar majority believed they did not “get the facts straight.” An even more solid majority believed the news media unnecessarily invaded people’s lives – even when it was not in the public interest to do so. The Supreme Court’s majority has paid homage to “the press as a watchdog of government activity,” insofar as “the basic assumption of our political system that the press will often serve as an important restraint on government” and a “check on government abuse.”8 But three decades since that judicial tribute, these survey data indicate that the public now sees the news media less as watchdog and, perhaps, more as attack dog. As the news media, institutionally, has no clearly enumerated constitutional role beyond the generally stated principle that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” journalists must depend on a combination of judicial interpretation, statutory immunities, and jury decisions to maintain their ability to gather editorial material as freely as possible. While the law of defamation is generally settled by New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny, the United States Supreme Court has never extended First Amendment press freedoms and protection to the gathering of editorial information. In fact, Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., suggests that the First Amendment does not protect the right to gather news. Newsgathering is governed by the same statutory and tort law principles that apply to the public generally – as long as these applications do no more than incidentally interfere with the ability to disseminate editorial material. The Supreme Court has not precisely defined “incidental” – leaving the definition to evolve through the common law. Given the difficulties of pursuing defamation cases as a result of New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny, plaintiffs alleging media mistreatment are increasingly bypassing slander and libel causes of action and, instead, entering Cohen’s open door to pursue newsgathering claims. The outcomes in these cases demonstrate that “incidental” is in the eye of the beholder: the increasingly jaundiced eye of public opinion. In Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., a North Carolina jury awarded just $1,402 dollars in actual damages but $5.5 million in punitive damages for ABC News’s use of hidden cameras to expose a supermarket chain’s unsanitary practices. Although the damage award was later reduced to just two dollars on appeal, the case remains illustrative: the truth of ABC’s report was not at issue, only the means used to gather information. In Food Lion, the entire jury award hinged on misrepresentations made by an ABC News journalist when applying for a supermarket job needed for the undercover access necessary to visually document Food Lion’s sanitary practices. Similar stealth led a jury in Maine to hold NBC News liable for $525,000 in damages after it falsely promised a trucker and his employer that, if given access during a transcontinental journey, the network would air a piece with a positive spin. After the trucker violated federal safety regulations, NBC aired the video documentation. Although the information was wholly true, the jury focused on the initial breach of promise to hold NBC liable. Even when news organizations successfully defeat law suits attacking newsgathering practices as violations of laws of general applicability, judges sometimes chide plaintiffs’ attorneys for failing to raise all possible claims such as fraud or trespass or breach of contract, that might have succeeded. With judicial interpretation more likely to assign newsgathering to an analytic box at the edges of First Amendment protection, juries can be expected to continue expressing the general public’s well-documented, growing distrust of American journalism. As a post-trial interview with a Food Lion juror, 64-year-old Marie Bozeman, illustrates: She is particularly concerned about the invasiveness of the hidden camera and its potential for exaggerating or misrepresenting events. She painted a scenario in which an employee unburdens himself about his employer to a fellow “employee” who is secretly videotaping. “The next day they may feel different about their company, but it’s on TV! Nobody should be made to share their innermost thoughts unless they want to. Because of such tactics, says Bozeman, “I don’t trust them to do an honest job – not all the way.” ‘People don’t see journalism as public service anymore,’ said former Washington Post ombudsman J...
      PubDate: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 15:39:24 PST
       
 
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
 
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Customise
APIs
Your IP address: 54.224.247.75
 
About JournalTOCs
API
Help
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-2016