Sue Scheff (TM)

[Anonymous]

Guest wrote:
What is IP law?

Intellectual Property (the antithesis of free speech, owned speech)

How is she using IP law - I don't get it.

[psy]

Guest wrote:
What is IP law?

Intellectual Property (the antithesis of free speech, owned speech)

How is she using IP law - I don't get it.

She is claiming trademark infringement on people who use her name in a way she doesn't approve of (which means pretty much everybody).

[Anonymous]

Because as we all know, putting (TM) after your name is a REALLY good way to let parents know how sane you are.

(SSSH! Maybe I shouldn't have told her! :rofl:)

BTW, anyone else lol'ing that she can't make the â„¢ symbol?

[Anonymous]

:rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

[Anonymous]

This is just ridiculous, IMO.

I'd like to know what a lawyer would have to say about Cheff and her Intellecutal Property Rights.  

This woman has been sued by a parent.   That is not private information, it is public.  

Several of the programs she refers children to have had problems (Whitmore, Red Rock Ranch Academy, Sorenson's, Harbor Oaks, Focal Point Academy).  

Who else besides Fornits has been the target of one of these letters?

[Anonymous]

Err .. didn't PURE refer to WWASPS programs originally?  I thought I saw a testimonial or reference from Randall Hinton that was posted on PURE in the documents thread on Fornits.

I have a feeling there are going to be books written about this industry and the referral side of it which needs to be exposed for what it is, IMO.

Critical mass is building.  No use crying about it.  What goes around comes around.

[Anonymous]

If a person trademarks their name, is that not further evidence that they are a public figure? Public figures have fewer privacy rights and a much more difficult burden of proof as plaintiffs in libel cases than regular citizens.

Do a quick search on the public figure doctrine in libel and slander law. Public figures do not have to be governement officials or celebrities. A person can be considered a "limited-purpose public figure" -- one who voluntarily injects himself or herself into a public controversy and becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues.

False statements about limited-purpose public figures that relate to the public controversies in which they are involved are not considered defamatory unless they meet the actual-malice test -- a more difficult burden of proof than is required of non-public figures.

One must wonder what kind of legal advice this woman is getting, if she's really that concerned about her reputation and suing people.

[Anonymous]

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/person ... ation.html

Public Figures
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

[Anonymous]

Libel, Slander and Defamation


Libelous statements, whether against persons or products, are published statements that are false and damaging. Slander is the same as libel in most states, but in spoken rather than written form.

The terms "libel" and "slander" are often subsumed under the broader term "defamation." It is a tort (a wrongful act) to harm another's reputation by defaming them.

There are three tests which the defamatory statement must meet in order for a plaintiff to prevail in a suit against you and your publisher:

Untrue. In order to be defamatory, the statement must be untrue. If the statement is true or substantially true, then it is not defamatory, and the case is over.

Damaging. In order for the plaintiff to prevail, the statement must have caused real and substantial harm to the person or business. The plaintiff must present evidence of the substantial harm done.

Knowingly false. The plaintiff must also show that the defendant knew the statement was untrue, but published or broadcast the statement despite that knowledge.

You can say or publish just about whatever you wish in our open society--so long as it is true.

Public Official vs Public Figure
The same liberal rule applies to both categories: To prevail in a libel case against you, in addition to showing that your statement is untrue and caused significant harm, a public official or a public figure must also prove "malice" -- that you acted in reckless disregard to the facts known to you and with intent to harm.

Obviously, because of this stipulation, you enjoy considerable protection when it comes to public personages, since proving malice (intent to harm) places a heavy burden on the prosecution.

Who are these public people? The status of "public official" is relatively easy to determine from public records.

The courts have determined that there are two types of public figures:
A "general purpose public figure" is someone who enjoys social prominence. Entertainers are in this category.

A "limited purpose public figure" -- someone who has intentionally placed themselves into prominence, such as a vocal activist on a given issue.
The reasoning is that the press has a First Amendment duty to report on such newsworthy people, and therefore published statements warrant such protection.

Who is a private person? None of the above. Now you see why lawyers get the big bucks.

[Anonymous]

non-commercial fair use purposes[/color]