HB Media Minute Haynes and Boone, LLP

Today we’re talking about Jack Daniels vs VIP Products or as it could and maybe should be called: Jack Daniels vs a company that makes a whiskey themed chew toy for dogs.
While it sounds like a joke, it’s actually a crucially important case that spans a decade where the Supreme Court reversed a 9th circuit decision. 
Today, Michael lambert who is an Austin-based member of the firm’s intellectual property group is talking to IP Partner Rich Rochford in our New York office. 

Today, the head of our Haynes Boone Media and Entertainment Practice Group, Laura Prather, will interview Susan Coughtrie, Co-Founder of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, about the developments in implementing protections against SLAPP suits in the U.K. and how we got here. Laura is an experienced trial and appellate lawyer who has litigated against SLAPPs in courts across the country and has advocated for and been instrumental in the passage of Anti-SLAPP laws throughout the U.S. recently returning from a stint as a Fulbright Scholar studying global freedom of expression issues. Susan serves as Director of the Foreign Policy Center and author of the report “Unsafe for Scrutiny: Examining the pressures faced by journalists uncovering financial crime and corruption around the World.” A former journalist, Susan has a strong background in human rights advocacy, and her report swayed public opinion by exposing how reporters face risks to their freedom and security, from vexatious lawsuits (SLAPPs) to violence for exposing wrongdoing. Susan was instrumental in establishing the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe and the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition and has helped to expose the devastating impact SLAPP suits can have on NGO’s, protestors, and others who speak truth to power. 

Today, the head of our Haynes Boone media and entertainment practice group, Laura Prather, will interview Charlie Holt, Founder and Co-Chair of the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe about the developments in implementing protections against SLAPP suits in Europe and how we got here. Laura is an experienced trial and appellate lawyer who has litigated against SLAPPs in courts across the country and has advocated for and been instrumental in the passage of Anti-SLAPP laws throughout the U.S., recently returning from a stint as a Fulbright Scholar studying global freedom of expression issues. Charlie serves as  Legal Counsel for Campaigns for Greenpeace International and UK Campaigns Manager for English PEN. He has a strong background in human rights advocacy and a thematic expertise in freedom of expression and the right to protest. Charlie was instrumental in establishing the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe and the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition and has personal experience through his work at Greenpeace in the devastating impact SLAPP suits can have on NGO’s, protestors, and others who speak to power.

In a copyright case closely watched by content creators, the U.S. Supreme Court held, 7-2, that the first fair use factor—“the purpose and character of the use” —weighed against Andy Warhol’s use of Lynn Goldsmith’s black-and-white photograph of Prince to create a colorful silk-screen illustration of the musician that was later licensed to Vanity Fair without Goldsmith’s consent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, first explained that courts analyzing the first fair use factor should balance “the degree to which the use has a further purpose or different character” against the “nature of the use,” whether commercial or nonprofit. Under that rubric, the Court next found that even though Warhol’s illustration “adds new expression to Goldsmith’s photograph,” the first fair use factor favored Goldsmith because the works shared “substantially the same commercial purpose”—Goldsmith’s photograph and Warhol’s illustration were both “portraits of Prince used to depict Prince in magazine stories about Prince.”

Following a brief hiatus, the HB Media Minute podcast is back, and we’ve got a fun one today. The topic: a review of an Arizona Supreme Court ruling in April that was a big win for free speech. The case had interesting facts — pitting a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate against the host of a radio show in Arizona called The Conservative Circus — and raises important Constitutional issues about the extent to which citizens are free to offer their views of political candidates. 

Best of all we have the winning Haynes Boone legal team with us today to break down the ruling and what it means for First Amendment law: Austin-based Partner Laura Prather, chair of the firm’s Media Law Practice, and Associate Michael Lambert.

In the latest HB Media Minute podcast, Associate Michael Lambert discusses laws in Texas and Florida that impose transparency requirements and limit the ability of social media platforms to moderate certain third-party content. The laws were enacted in response to decisions made to remove posts and de-platform some users, such as former President Donald Trump. Michael will summarize pending cases challenging the constitutionality of the Texas and Florida laws, and analyze how the U.S. Supreme Court might rule if called on to decide the cases.