Richmond Journal of Law and Technology

By: Nicole Desbois,

When everyone first unwraps their new smart phones and turns them on, they expect to see certain pre-installed apps. With the iPhone there is iMaps, iTunes, News, iBooks and plenty more. The same goes for Android software smart phones. Google maps, Google search, and nine other Google apps are pre-downloaded. Unfortunately, for Google the European Union is particularly troubled by the pre-installment of their products across various smart phone manufactures such as HTC and Samsung.

Google is currently being charge by the European Union with “unfairly using Android to promote its own services – like mobile search over those of its rivals”[1]

The issue here is Google has signed contracts with popular phone manufactures like HTC and Samsung which provide financial incentives to exclusively pre-install Google applications, such as Google Maps, Google Search, and “links to the company’s app store, from which Google takes a cut of each application sold.” In these licensing agreements with Android, Google requires smartphone makers to load 11 core Google apps onto the phone before a customer buys it. The apps need to be at least one swipe away from the home screen, and customers cannot delete those apps.”[2]

On top of this stringent licensing agreement, Google is also making money off the advertising revenue from the use of its search engine. Although manufactures are free to include their own applications as part of the mobile software, the chances of consumers choosing relatively unknown brands in favor of Google is slim.[3]

Not only does Google have the financial incentives to strong arm smart phone manufacturers into these deals, but device makers are continually struggling against one competitor in particular, Apple. Which raises questions over Apple’s own software system. When a consumer purchases an iPhone certain apps are packaged with the phone. Additionally, consumers again are not given the option to delete those pre-downloaded applications. The main different in Apple’s case is their software works exclusively with the iPhone as opposed to be utilized across brands like Android with manufactures like HTC and Samsung.

In response to these accusations, “Google says its relationships with cellphone manufacturers are voluntary and that rival mobile services, including those from the likes of Amazon and Facebook, are readily available on its Android software, which does not restrict people from downloading competitors’ applications.”[4]

However, no one is going to delete Google apps, like Maps, in exchange for a download of an unknown operating company. Additionally, consumers with pre-downloaded apps are more likely to be subconsciously persuaded that perhaps googles apps run better with a google software system. Advertising for alternative software systems is unlikely fruitful when the search engine pulling up these advertisers is the competition itself. Again, even if competitors are allowed to include their own applications, users are still more likely to gravitate towards the familiar.

Margrethe Vestager, Europe’s antitrust chief, has voiced her concern “that, by requiring phone makers and operators to preload a set of Google apps, rather than letting them decide for themselves which apps to load, Google might have cut off one of the main ways that new apps can reach customers.”[5]

Right now Google’s version of Android powers more than “98 percent of the Android-based smartphones in Europe and the United States.” [6] Additionally, Android based smartphones accounted for 76.5% of the smartphones sold from March to May of this year in the European Union.[7]

Google continually makes the argument that the deals they make with phone manufactures, and consumer choice over app preference, is all voluntarily. However, is any of it actually voluntary or is it necessary? There are no large scale competitors, and further funding to build a platform to compete with Google seems fruitless. Who would invest in a product that does the same thing as Google, when Google is already trusted, and has a software system that currently powers over 75% of the smartphones sold in Europe? The funding isn’t there, nor is the incentive.

The EU executive body has given the Silicon Valley-based company an October 31st deadline to provide evidence whether it may or may not have been abusing its power to block out competitors.[8] Google could face a fine of around 10% of the company’s annual revenue worldwide, which is about 7 billion dollars.[9]

 

 

[1] Mark Scott, E.U. Charges Dispute Google’s Claims That Android Is Open to All, New York Times (Apr. 20, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/technology/google-europe-antitrust.html.

[2] David Goldman, Google Charged by EU in Android Monopoly Lawsuit, C.N.N. (Apr. 20, 2016), http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/technology/google-android-lawsuit-europe/.

[3] Mark Scott, E.U. Charges Dispute Google’s Claims That Android Is Open to All, New York Times (Apr. 20, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/technology/google-europe-antitrust.html.

[4] Mark Scott, E.U. Charges Dispute Google’s Claims That Android Is Open to All, New York Times (Apr. 20, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/technology/google-europe-antitrust.html.

[5] Mark Scott, Google’s Antitrust Woes in Europe Are Likely to Grow, New York Times (Apr. 19, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/technology/google-android-eu-antitrust.html?_r=0.

[6] Mark Scott, E.U. Charges Dispute Google’s Claims That Android Is Open to All, New York Times (Apr. 20, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/technology/google-europe-antitrust.html.

[7] Android Share Tops 75% in Europe’s Largest Markets, Market Wired (Jul. 13, 2016), http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/android-share-tops-75-in-europes-largest-markets-2142004.htm.

[8] C. See, Google-Parent, Alphabet Inc. Forced to Respond to Changes Suggested by the EU or Get Fined for Violating Antitrust Rules, News Everyday (Oct. 16, 2016), http://www.newseveryday.com/articles/48623/20161006/google-parent-alphabet-inc-forced-to-respond-to-changes-suggested-by-the-eu-or-get-fined-for-violating-antitrust-rules.htm.

[9] Marty Baes, How the EU Plans to End Google’s Dominance in Europe, Tech Times (Oct. 5, 2016), http://www.techtimes.com/articles/180668/20161005/google-anti-trust-cases-european-union-punishing-google-google-anti-trust-issues.htm.

Photo Source:

https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/gettyimages-482411460.jpg?w=840&h=485&crop=1

By: Ellie Faust,

When a random person approaches you on the street or at a bar, you are able to decide if you want to talk to them and maybe give them your number, right? Well, not according to a couple of Russian app developers who founded FindFace, an app that can provide you with a passerby’s identity within seconds.[1] The app works by comparing uploaded photos to profile pictures on Vkontakte, a popular social network in Russia with over 200 million user accounts.[2] After the photo is uploaded, the app searches through a billion photos in seconds and provides the user with the identity of the person in the photo as well as ten similar looking people.[3] This app currently boasts a 70% reliability rate and the founders, Artem Kukharenko and Alexander Kabakov have marketed the app as a way for men to meet women.[4] One of the apps creators, Kabakov stated, “If you see someone you like, you can photograph them, find their identity, and then send them a friend request.”[5] Within the first two months of the app’s launch, FindFace gathered upwards of 500,000 users and have processed over three million searches.[6]

So how exactly does this technology work? In the same way that a person’s fingerprint may be collected for future reference, identifying a person’s face requires building a faceprint to compare it to.[7] Since our faceprints are left everywhere that we go, our movements can be tracked and stored on a larger scale than ever before.[8] Such facial recognition is effectuated without your permission and you do not have the ability to opt out.[9]

While Canada and many other countries in Europe have placed restrictions on how facial recognition technology may be used, the United States has left the field largely unregulated.[10] Currently, only Texas and Illinois have implemented state level laws to protect biometric information.[11] One such law is the Biometric Information Privacy Act, which regulates how a person’s biometric identifiers, including “a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry” may be collected, stored, and used.[12] Under the Act, a person must provide written permission before a private entity may obtain any biometric identifiers.[13] The Illinois law has generated a number of lawsuits in which it is alleged that companies have failed to obtain consent before images of people’s faces are scanned and stored.[14]

The same technology that allows users to automatically tag friends in photos and that lets us filter ourselves into dogs has landed tech companies in hot water.

Facebook, Google, and Snapchat are all facing lawsuits for allegedly violating the Illinois law by producing biometric face prints without first notifying the citizens of Illinois.[15] According to plaintiffs in the current lawsuits, the companies’ actions amount to collecting biometric information. Collecting such information requires more notice and consent that what the companies are currently providing.[16] Recently, Senator Terry Link proposed a revision to the Act which would limit the bill to “data resulting from an in person process whereby a part of the body is traversed by a detector or an electronic beam”.[17] This would rule out scans from preexisting photography and, if the revisions become law, the lawsuits would come to an end.[18] However, when fingerprints and iris prints can be obtained from simply a high-resolution photograph, the proposed separation between photographs and biometric scans does not fit with modern technology.[19] While we cannot stop the advancement of facial recognition technology, we do need more regulation in the area to ensure that our privacy is being properly protected.

 

 

[1] See Shaun Walker, Face recognition app taking Russia by storm may bring end to public anonymity, Guardian (May 17, 2016, 4:39 PM), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/17/findface-face-recognition-app-end-public-anonymity-vkontakte.

[2] See id.

[3] See id.

[4] See Jeff John Roberts, Facebook and Google Really Want to Kill This Face-Scanning Law, Fortune (Jun. 30, 2016, 10:17 AM), http://fortune.com/2016/06/30/facebook-google-facial-recognition-lawsuits/.

[5] See Walker, supra note 1.

[6] See Tarun Wadhwa, Facial Recognition Will Soon End Your Anonymity in Public, Huffington Post (Jun. 6, 2016, 1:26 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tarun-wadhwa/facial-recognition-will-s_b_10321972.html?.

[7] See Russell Brandom, Apple’s new facial recognition feature could spur legal issues, Verge (Jun. 16, 2016, 8:11 AM), http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/16/11934456/apple-google-facial-recognition-photos-privacy-faceprint.

[8] See Wadhwa, supra note 6.

[9] See id.

[10] See Roberts, supra note 4.

[11] See Stephanie Grimoldby, Illinois Facial Recognition Law Leads To Wave Of Class Actions Against Facebook, Others, Forbes (Jul. 5, 2016, 6:00 AM), http://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2016/07/05/il-facial-recognition-law-leads-to-wave-of-class-actions-against-facebook-others/#75375ced4e56.

[12] See id.

[13] See id.

[14] See Roberts, supra note 4.

[15] See Russell Brandom, Someone’s trying to gut America’s strongest biometric privacy law, Verge (May 27, 2016, 8:27 AM), http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/27/11794512/facial-recognition-law-illinois-facebook-google-snapchat.

[16] See Brandom, supra note 7.

[17] See Brandom, supra note 15.

[18] See id.

[19] See id.

Photo Source:

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/e403681186619d30c6b5bcd213196cd39fedd20d/0_173_5197_3119/master/5197.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=2bc9cd481f1f9ca8423200856082859f

By: Brad Stringfellow,

Superstar Justin Timberlake caused a bit of a stir this week when sharing a selfie at a Tennessee polling station to encourage his thirty-seven million Instagram followers to vote. His actions bring to light the vast array of differences between states in regards to ballot selfies. Under Tennessee law, it is illegal to take photos or video at a polling location.¹ If prosecuted, it is a Class C misdemeanor, which can lead to up to thirty days in jail and/or a fine up to fifty dollars.²

Fortunately, the Shelby County District Attorney General Amy Weirich responded to questions of prosecution of Mr. Timberlake by saying, “No one in our office is currently investigating this matter nor will we be using our limited resources to do so.”³

Mr. Timberlake flew from California to Memphis, Tennessee, in order to vote early and help promote this civic opportunity before the American people. His now-deleted Instagram message read,

“Hey! You! Yeah, YOU! I just flew from LA to Memphis to #rockthevote !!! No excuses, my good people! There could be early voting in your town too. If not, November 8th! Choose to have a voice! If you don’t, then we can’t HEAR YOU! Get out and VOTE! #excerciseyourrighttovote.”⁴

His non-partisan encouragement and enthusiasm for voting was endorsed with a slight rebuke in a statement by Secretary of State spokesman Adam Ghassemi, “We’re thrilled Justin can’t stop the feeling when it comes to voting … We hope this encourages more people than ever to vote, but Tennesseans should only use their phones inside polling locations for informational purposes to assist while voting.”⁵

Mr. Timberlake’s small gaffe brings a timely reminder of the difference between states in regulating voter behavior at the polls. Had his selfie taken place in Illinois, consequences could have been much worse with a punishment ranging between one and three years in prison.⁶ The policy reasons to discourage pictures at voting sites include privacy of other voters, influencing others, and a fear that photographic proof of voted ballots could lead to bought votes.⁷

Eighteen states currently have bright-line rules banning photos or public display of a vote at polling stations and/or of ballots, including absentee ballots.⁸ Punishments range from no enforcement action to felony prosecution for violating the respective statute.⁹

Thirteen states are currently unclear or sending a mixed message as to the right to photograph a personal ballot.¹⁰ Ohio and Missouri state officials, for example, have left ballot selfies to local election boards to deal with.¹¹ Iowa, Maryland, Texas, and West Virginia do not allow photos at polling stations, but do allow photos of absentee ballots.¹² Arizona does not allow photos within seventy-five feet of polling stations, but paradoxically, allows photos of completed ballots.¹³

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia accept ballot selfies ranging from begrudging acceptance to solid endorsement.¹⁴ Utah, Rhode Island, North Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Louisiana, and Hawaii all have passed laws expressly allowing ballot selfies; like Justin Timberlake, some of these states see it as a means of encouraging more voter participation .¹⁵ The majority of other states allowing photos have done so either because they have no rule forbidding it, or have had a law forbidding photos repealed (Indiana and New Hampshire).¹⁶

More states may soon be allowing ballot selfies as the First Circuit Court of Appeals has found ballot selfies to be a valid form of free speech under the First Amendment.¹⁷ The court found New Hampshire’s purpose in preventing the ballot selfies as too broad to serve a specific governmental purpose worthy of infringing on first Amendment rights. ¹⁸

While Mr. Timberlake was able to share a photo of his ballot with no consequence, it would be wise to check state rules before following likewise. Perhaps in the future, all ballot selfies will be seen as a form of free speech. In the meantime, don’t cry a river if you can’t share a selfie.

 

Photo Source: http://media.phillyvoice.com/media/images/tmp4Qyhzc.width-800.jpg

1. See Code Ann. § 2-7-142(b) (2016).
2. See Code Ann. § 40-35-11(e)(3) (2016).
3. Lisa R. France, Justin Timberlake Not in Trouble for Voting Selfie, CNN (Oct. 26, 2016, 2:07 PM), http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/entertainment/justin-timberlake-selfie/.
4. Kenzie Bryant, A Gentle Reminder Not to Make Justin Timberlake’s Voting Mistake, Vanity fair (O 26, 2016, 12:44 PM), http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2016/10/justin-timberlake-voting-selfie.
5. Katie Fretland & Linda A. Moore, Timberlake’s Voting Selfie Not Under Review by D.A., The Tennessean (Oct. 25, 2016, 8:14 PM), http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/2016/10/25/justin-timberlake-selfie-under-review/92730796/
6. See Ballot Selfies: A Look at Where They Are Allowed or Not, The Associated Press (Oct. 23, 2016, 10:03 PM), http://bigstory.ap.org/article/04c313da0672422ba28bb57c4e4a7ca0/ballot-selfies-look-where-they-are-allowed-or-not.
7. See France, supra note 3; id.
8. See The Associated Press, supra note 6.
9. See id.
10. See id.
11. See id.
12. See id.
13. See The Associated Press, supra note 6.
14. See id.
15. See id.
16. See id.
17. Rideout v. Gardner, No. 15-2021, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17622, 12-14, 21 (1st Cir. Sep. 28, 2016).
18. See id. 

Photo Source:

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/784E/production/_92089703_capfture.jpg

By: Victoria Linney,

As the election on November 8th draws near, there is something aside from the candidates that you might consider when casting your vote – whether or not you are risking a fine when taking a ballot selfie. A ballot selfie is a photo of a completed ballot, and it is particularly popular among millennials.[1] Ballot selfies became especially prominent with the introduction of smartphones into our daily lives, as well as the ability to post photos on social media in seconds. These selfies are more likely than ever to occur this election cycle because in 2015, sixty-eight percent of American adults owned a smartphone, while eighty-six percent of people ages 18 to 29 owned a smartphone.[2]

However, many states have laws prohibiting sharing ballot images and information, hoping to protect voter privacy and prevent vote buying schemes.[3] In fact, some state legislatures chose to extend their existing bans on voting booth photography to ballot selfies,[4] but, these laws have clashed with the emergence of social media.[5]

Social media has provided Americans, especially millennials, with a method of showing election enthusiasm and, in essence, a way to provide positive peer pressure to get out and vote.[6] As such, some states have begun to hold such restrictions on ballot selfies unconstitutional. For example, recently the First Circuit found New Hampshire’s ban on ballot selfies to be unconstitutional.[7] The Court found that New Hampshire’s statute failed to meet the test for intermediate scrutiny, and that the purposes of the statute could not justify the restrictions it placed on speech.[8]

New Hampshire’s statute had been amended in 2014 to prohibit voters from displaying their ballots to others in order to show how they have voted through “taking a digital image or photograph of his or her marked ballot and distributing or sharing the image via social media or by any other means.”[9] Violation of this statute carried a fine of up to $1,000.[10]

In order for the statute to survive intermediate scrutiny, it must be “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.”[11] The Court found that even if the premise that ballot selfies make voter coercion and vote buying easier was accepted that the statute would still fail for lack of narrow tailoring.[12] This failure is for two reasons: first, because the prohibition on ballot selfies impedes the speech rights of all voters, not just those who are casting a vote illegally, and second, because New Hampshire did not demonstrate that other laws aimed at prohibiting vote corruption were inadequate.[13] Therefore, the Court held that New Hampshire’s restriction on ballot selfies was unconstitutional.[14]

Nevertheless, some states are lifting their restrictions on ballot selfies. The Governor of California signed into law a new exemption that allows voters to disclose how they have voted if doing so does not violate any other law.[15] But, it is important to note that even though the law was signed this past September, it does not go into effect until January of 2017, and therefore Californians will not be able to take ballot selfies on this upcoming Election Day.[16]

However, if you live in Virginia, you are free to take ballot selfies this Election Day.[17] Previously the rules surrounding the use of electronic devices at polls in Virginia were unclear.[18] Then, in June, the State Board of Elections approved new regulatory language that loosened restrictions on electronic devices.[19] This led Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring to issue an opinion stating that Virginia voters were allowed to take ballot selfies as long as it does not disrupt other voters or the election.[20] So, Virginians, do not forget to vote on November 8th, and feel free to take a selfie with your ballot!

 

 

[1] See Mark Joseph Stern, Bring on the Ballot Selfies!, Slate (Sept. 23, 2016, 11:45 AM), http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/09/voting_booth_ballot_selfie_bans_violate_the_first_amendment.html.

[2] See Monica Anderson, Technology Device Ownership: 2015, Pew Res. Ctr. (Oct. 29, 2015), http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-ownership-2015/.

[3] See Joseph Weber, States, Courts Wrestle With Allowing “Ballot Selfies,” Fox News (Aug. 15, 2016), http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/15/states-courts-wrestle-with-allowing-ballot-selfies.html.

[4] See Stern, supra note 1.

[5] See Weber, supra note 3.

[6] See Stern, supra note 1.

[7] See Katie Rogers, Court Overturns New Hampshire Ban on Selfies (and Snapchat) in Voting Booths, N.Y. Times (Sept. 28, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/voting-booth-selfie-snapchat.html?_r=0.

[8] See Rideout v. Gardner, No. 15-2021, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17622, at note 2 (1st Cir. Sept. 28, 2016).

[9] Id. at note 4.

[10] See id.

[11] See id. at note 14.

[12] See id. at note 18.

[13] See Rideout, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17622, at note 19.

[14] See id. at note 21.

[15] See John Myers, Sorry, Californians, You Still Can’t Take Ballot Selfies on Nov. 8, L.A. Times (Oct. 13, 2016), http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-state-elections-officials-are-still-1476379986-htmlstory.html.

[16] See id.

[17] See Virginia AG: “Ballot Selfies” Not Illegal in Virginia, Wash. Post (Oct. 6, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-ag-ballot-selfies-not-illegal-in-virginia/2016/10/06/2a89c9ba-8b86-11e6-8cdc-4fbb1973b506_story.html.

[18] See Graham Moomaw, Ballot Selfies Are Legal in Virginia, Attorney General Says, Rich. Times Dispatch (Oct. 5, 2016, 9:30 AM), http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/article_54c016c3-71d5-51e9-9745-974e63d68137.html.

[19] See id.

[20] See id.

Photo Source:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/160422144121-ballot-selfie-voting-polls-780×439.jpg

By: Joe Strafaci,

Over the last twenty years, virtual reality (VR) has grown from a budding concept to a major industry. The VR hardware and software markets are expected to be worth $2.7 billion and $4.7 billion by the end of 2016 and 2018, respectively.[1] The virtual world known as “Second Life” software, created by Linden Research, is estimated to have 171 million active VR users by 2018.[2] But this expansion creates serious legal issues that earlier forms of VR did not present. New and expanding forms of VR enable users to buy property, and more importantly, create their own unique products using the underlying coding of a VR provider.[3] As a result, lawmakers and judges have been confronted with how our legal system treats user-created product while using the underlying IP provided by a virtual reality provider.[4]

User-created and designed content presents unique legal issues for a couple of reasons. First, some debate still exists as to who owns such content. In the VR industry, companies provide the underlying code, but individuals are often responsible for the direct creation of certain content.[5] This issue is the equivalent of asking yourself whether a farmer or a chef is responsible for your meal in a restaurant. Second, courts have not given clear answers on the treatment of virtual property in the event that a company believes it has grounds to discontinue service to an individual. Traditionally, terms of service (TOS) contracts have successfully sorted out legal issues in the technology industry. However, VR companies have encountered specific legal issues with the enforcement of their TOS contracts.[6]

While the debate over the ownership of user-created content is likely not over, the legal field has generally come to the conclusion that ownership rests in the hands of the user and not the writer of the underlying IP.[7] Most prominent VR platform providers have publicly stated that they will recognize the full intellectual property protection of the digital creations of their users and courts have provided rulings consistent with that concept.[8] The U.S. government has recognized commercial entities that solely reside in virtual worlds. In the VR world known as Second Life, Eroc LLC has registered its brand with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for “providing temporary use of non-downloadable software for animating three-dimensional characters.”[9]

Despite the apparent clarity that property rights reside with a user, companies have routinely attempted to craft TOS agreements to do damage to the legal rights of users.[10] In the farmer and chef example, the routine issue is that everyone agrees that the chef (user) gets to fashion the dish (user-created content) and the dish is his own piece of art. However, the farmer (VR platform) often attempts to watch the chef while he makes the dish and the farmer can throw it in the garbage at any time he finds fitting.

A serious problem still exists as to how to properly deal with user-created property when conflict arises between the user and the VR platform as described above. There are many reasons why a VR platform may fairly discontinue service to a user. However, the issue is that the user may have a considerable amount of value invested in the game, not only in purchases, but also in the underlying value of creations manufactured inside the platform. In the real world, a large legal framework exists to protect individuals and their property from creditors, the government, or any other entities that may attempt to encumber it. However, many of these protections are not extended to individuals whose property resides in a virtual world.

In recent years, some courts have attempted to break ground in establishing rights of users who are deprived of their user-created content. In Bragg v. Linden Research, a user sued a VR platform provider for seizing property they owned in Second Life.[11] Bragg had invested $300 in the game to purchase virtual property and had created products to sell to other individuals in the game.[12] The Court ultimately ruled that Linden’s TOS agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.[13] A group of Second Life users also filed a class action suit against Linden when Linden changed their TOS agreement without their consent in an attempt to deprive of the property rights Linden had previously promised to grant.[14] The parties reached a settlement in 2013.[15] These two cases highlight the broader issue that while all parties may say that property rights reside in the user, much work needs to be done in affording proper consumer protections to individuals who hold and develop property in virtual worlds.

 

 

[1] See Paul Lamkin, Virtual Reality Devices: $4 Billion+ Business By 2018, Forbes (June 18, 2015), http://www.forbes.com/sites/paullamkin/2015/06/18/virtual-reality-devices-4-billion-business-by-2018/#1bfd6428fd92.

[2] See Jonathan M. Purow, Virtual Reality May Create Novel IP Issues in the Real World, Law360 (March 28, 2016), http://www.law360.com/articles/769479/virtual-reality-may-create-novel-ip-issues-in-the-real-world.

[3] See id.

[4] See id.

[5] See Krista M. Coons et al., Virtual Reality Creates Potentially Real Legal Issues, Mondaq (July, 15, 2015), http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/412502/Trademark/Virtual+Reality+Creates+Potentially+Real+Legal+Issues.

[6] See Purow, supra note 2.

[7] See Coons et al. supra note 5.

[8] See id.

[9] Id.

[10] See Purow, supra note 2.

[11] See Bragg v. Linden Research, 487 F. Supp. 2d 593, 595 (E.D. Pa. 2007).

[12] See id. at 597.

[13] See id. at 606-8.

[14] See Evans v. Linden Research, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16606.

[15] See Ann Bucher, Judge Oks Second Life Virtual Money Class Action Settlement, Top Class Actions (November, 3, 2013), https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/5293-judge-oks-second-life-virtual-money-class-action-settlement/.

Photo Source:

http://random42.com/sites/default/files/work/casestudies/Random42-Oculus-GearVR-Headset.jpg

By: Courtney Gilmore,

Less than two months after its much-anticipated launch, Samsung Electronics Company has done away with its Galaxy Note7 Smartphone. On October 10, Samsung issued a statement asking all carrier and retail partners around the globe to discontinue sales and exchanges of the Galaxy Note7.[1] This statement comes after Samsung initially recalled 2.5 million Note7 devices in early September following various reports of the phones catching fire.[2] However, just as Samsung was under the impression that the defect was cured, incidents of the product catching fire continued despite the issuance of replacement devices.

Samsung’s product liability nightmare is widespread. Recently, a Kentucky resident awoke to his bedroom filled with smoke and soon discovered that the source of the smoke was his phone, which was on fire.[3] Samsung allegedly requested that the man hand over his phone for further inspection, but he skeptically refused to give it up as proof of his injury. Samsung apparently did pay for the phone to be examined for cause.[4] The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has been investigating another replacement Galaxy Note7 that caught fire on a Southwest airplane at the Louisville airport.[5] Moreover, a California resident is suing Samsung for second and third degree burns caused by the explosion of his Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge.[6] Though not a Note7, it is yet another Samsung product that has sparked the public’s concerns over product liability actions.

Samsung suspects the cause is defective batteries in the phones and has alleged the fault of one particular battery supplier.[7] The device contains a commonly used lithium-ion battery, which prompts potential issues such as the faulty combination of the “battery’s voltage control system and low-quality materials that go inside a battery cell.”[8] In light of the faulty battery concerns, questions have been raised regarding Samsung’s quality control practices.[9] When a supplier is aiming to mass-produce a product in a short amount of time, quality issues can certainly arise.[10] “Consumer demand drives smaller, thinner devices, and manufacturers are under a lot of pressure to meet those specs on a very tight timeline,” says Elliot Kaye, head of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.[11]

Notably, Samsung’s latest debacle is not the first product to experience difficulty with the lithium-ion battery. The hoverboard craze came to a screeching halt in 2015 as a result of the batteries in various devices catching fire.[12] Much like the Galaxy Note7, some hoverboards exploded while charging while others exploded while in operation.[13] Sony’s laptops experienced a similar fate in 2008 when the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled about 35,000 Sony laptop batteries after several reports of fires.[14] While other manufacturers have experienced battery-related recalls in the past, Samsung’s losses appear to significantly surpass those of Sony and the hoverboard.

Samsung is now asking consumers “with an original Galaxy Note7 or a replacement Galaxy Note7 to power it down and contact the carrier or retail outlet where [they] purchased [the] Galaxy Note7.”[15] This recall is estimated to cost Samsung nearly $17 billion.[16] With the holiday season rapidly approaching, Samsung’s production halt will likely prove to be significantly beneficial to Samsung’s primary competitors in the market.[17] Amid the legal battle between Samsung and Apple over Samsung’s alleged infringement upon Apple’s design patents, in addition to the release of Apple’s iPhone 7, Samsung’s recall woes could not come at a worse time.[18]

 

 

[1] See Samsung, Updated Consumer Guidance for the Galaxy Note7 (Oct. 10, 2016), http://www.samsung.com/us/note7recall/.

[2] See Se Young Lee, Samsung Scraps Galaxy Note 7 over Fire Concerns, Reuters (Oct. 11, 2016, 2:09 PM), http://www.reuters.com/article/us-samsung-elec-smartphones-idUSKCN12A2JH.

[3] See Monique Blair, Nicholasville Man Injured by Replacement Samsung Phone, WYKT (Oct. 8, 2016, 10:02 PM), http://www.wkyt.com/content/news/Nicholasville-mans-replacement-Samsung-Galaxy-Note-7-catches-fire-396431431.html.

[4] See id.

[5] See Emily Field, CPSC Probing Report of Samsung Galaxy Note Fire on Plane, Law360 (Oct. 6, 2016, 6:55 PM), http://www.law360.com/technology/articles/848988/cpsc-probing-report-of-samsung-galaxy-note-fire-on-plane?nl_pk=a6f0df19-c127-4444-8e8b-a4c34dfadf0b&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=technology.

[6] See Robert Donachie, These Pictures Show the Horrifying Result of Samsung’s Phone Explosions, Daily Caller (Sept. 12, 2016, 12:51 PM), http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/12/samsung-phone-explodes-in-mans-pocket-causes-3rd-degree-burns/.

[7] See Jonathan Cheng and Eun-Young Jeong, Samsung Faces New Questions Over Galaxy Note 7 Fires, Wall Street Journal (Oct. 10, 2016, 9:48 AM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-incidents-mount-samsung-faces-new-questions-about-galaxy-note-7-recall-cause-1476105325

[8] See id.

[9] See id.

[10] See id.

[11] See Field, supra note 5.

[12] See Sean Hollister, Here Are the Reasons Why So Many Hoverboards Are Catching Fire, CNET (July 9, 2016, 3:43 PM), https://www.cnet.com/news/why-are-hoverboards-exploding-and-catching-fire/.

[13] See id.

[14] See Brian X. Chen, Laptop Fires Prompt Sony Battery Recall – Again, Wired (Oct. 30, 2008, 6:10 PM), https://www.wired.com/2008/10/laptop-fires-pr/.

[15] See Samsung, supra note 1.

[16] See Samsung Halts Production of Troubled Galaxy Note 7, Al Jazeera (Oct. 11, 2016), http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/samsung-galaxy-note-7-phones-turned-161011060404586.html.

[17] See Lee, supra note 2 (Neil Mawston, analyst at Strategy Analytics, explaining that “the gap is likely to be filled by rivals including Apple and Google Pixel, although probably Oppo, Vivo, LG Electronics, and Sony stand to benefit the most.”).

[18] See Kat Greene, US to Argue in Samsung High Court Fight Over Apple Win, Law360 (Sept. 26, 2016, 9:54 PM), http://www.law360.com/technology/articles/844976/us-to-argue-in-samsung-high-court-fight-over-apple-win?nl_pk=a6f0df19-c127-4444-8e8b-a4c34dfadf0b&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=technology.

Image Source:

http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-remotely-deactivate-defective-galaxy-note-7-715862/

 

By: Abby Johansen,

The idea of three-dimensional printing is not brand new, but the impact of 3D printing’s recent boom and untapped potential presents plenty of new and complicated issues within the realm of intellectual property law.[1] 3D printing allows for the creation or replication of nearly any desired three-dimensional item by the instruction of a “Computer Aided Design” (CAD) file.[2] CAD files are “templates that can be utilized by a computer to print 3D-objects.”[3] It is the CAD files that give the 3D printer specific instructions regarding how to make the desired item. CAD files have unlimited potential as they can be based upon a new idea or they can be generated by scanning a 3D object already in existence.[4] Anyone can make or access CAD files, which has helped to propel the rapid dissemination of 3D printing to the general public.[5]

There are many benefits associated with the growing 3D printing industry, including the potential for the reduction of waste and energy consumption for manufacturers and a decrease in costs associated with labor and raw materials involved in the production process.[6] It is the potential for widespread use throughout any industry and the potential for personal use that makes 3D printing so unique and lucrative. 3D printing is already being used in some of the biggest manufacturing industries like the automotive, aerospace, architecture, fashion, food, and healthcare industries.[7] In a recent United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) blog post, it was reported that the number of 3D printing-related patents filed has increased by 23 times this year as compared with 2010 patent filings, and trademark filings relate to 3D printing have increased by over three times since 2010.[8] Just as 3D printing is working its way into a vast number of industries, 3D printing is already having an impact on intellectual property law.

Due to the reduction of costs associated with 3D printing, affordability of the actual printers and ease of access to their related software is on the rise.[9] The potential for widespread use of 3D printers is not limited to any particular industry, use by any particular type of person, or within any particular geographic area. It is predicted that the market will soon be ready to see 3D printers sold by the masses to the general public in retailers like Walmart or Costco.[10] The potential for widespread use and ease of access to 3D printing has created, and will continue to cause, substantial risks within intellectual property law regimes.

All types of intellectual property protection will likely be impacted by the rise of 3D printing in some crucial way. However, 3D printing allows for the potential to evade the patent system as a whole.[11] Every time a 3D printer creates a copy or a replica of a patented innovation, without permission from the patent holder, it is comparable to the loss of a potential sale for that patent owner.[12] Beyond the increased temptation for infringement, it may also be difficult for patent owners to seek a remedy from infringers. An individual patent owner cannot control every person across the globe with access to a 3D printer to ensure against infringement.[13]

Copyrights face similar risks resulting from 3D printing, as infringement can occur just as easily as with patents. Copyrights may be infringed upon if a 3D printer is used to create a print out of a work protected by a copyright.[14] On the other hand, it is uncertain as to whether 3D printing and the software associated with it can or should even receive copyright protection.[15] Copyright questions relate to both the CAD files and the actual printed item. Protection could potentially exists in blueprints, images, designs printed on the surface of an item, and in the software used to instruct the operation of the printer or in making the CAD design files.[16] Whether a CAD file should be considered as a derivative work of copyright depends on whether the CAD file is a direct copy of the underlying work or whether it was changed or modified.[17] It has been noted that in a 3D printing context, “third party printing services will need a license to use copyright-protected blueprints to print and distribute 3D objects, or to copy and make available to the public 3D objects that have copyrighted images or designs on them.”[18] So, those with copyright protection will need to evaluate and potentially adjust their licensing plains and fees as a result of 3D printing.

Trademark and trade secret protections do not escape effects of the expanding 3D printing industry either. Improperly scanning or printing an item with a trademark may also be considered as infringement.[19] 3D printings of trademarked objects with certain logos or designs could easily confuse consumers as to the actual source of the particular item, which is exactly what trademark protections aim to prevent.[20] Finally, there is a trend occurring where those looking to protect their 3D printed works or associated software are turning away from the more traditional patent or copyright protection and are looking towards trade secret protection instead.[21] Those involved within the software side of 3D printing may face less challenges when recovering damages for trade secret misappropriation and may receive less scrutiny when awarded damages than those litigating through other IP protection areas.[22]

3D printing brings to light the very real fact that the law is often behind the rapid growth and development of scientific and technological advancements.[23] Balancing intellectual property rights and 3D printing needs to stress the importance’s of “user’s rights in 3D printings” and its benefits to society as there is a “need for IP law and policy around 3D printing that views IP as an instrument serving social and cultural values in a balanced environment for consumers, manufacturers, and IP owners.”[24] As 3D printings continues to grow and further reach the public, those involved, at any step of the 3D printing process need to be conscious of how IP rights are created, enforces, and the risks associated with infringement, not only within their own country but on a global scale.[25] Those who recognize these rights and risks and have adapted their business models to permit others to 3D print their products through specific licensing fees are likely to see an increase in revenue.[26] Specifically in the U.S., Congress needs to take action, through new or updated statutes and regulations, to provide clear standards for the expanding 3D printing industry, in order to encourage the continued dissemination of 3D printing while maintaining intellectual property protections for past and future works.

 

[1] See Shira Perlmutter, Intellectual Property and the Challenge of 3D Printing, USPTO: Director’s Forum: A Blog From USPTO’s Leadership (July 15, 2016), https://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/intellectual_property_and_the_challenge.

[2] See Tabrez Y. Ebrahim, 3D Printing: Digital Infringement & Digital Regulation, 14 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 37, 39 (2016).

[3] See id. at 41.

[4] See id.

[5] See id.

[6] See Cerys W. Davies, Managing IP Issues is a Challenge for Manufacturers in the Age of 3D Printing, Says Expert (June 20, 2016), http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2016/june/managing-ip-issues-is-a-challenge-for-manufacturers-in-the-age-of-3d-printing-says-expert/.

[7] See Angela R. Vicari & David Soofian, 3D Printing: New Legal Issues Emerge with the Technology’s Revolutionary Potential, Mondaq (Oct. 3, 2016), http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/529188/Product+Liability+Safety/3D+Printing+New+Legal+Issues+Emerge+with+the+Technologys+Revolutionary+Potential.

[8] See Perlmutter, supra note 1.

[9] See Davies, supra note 6.

[10] See Tesh W. Dange, The Left Shark, Thrones, Sculptures and Unprintable Triable: 3D Printing and It’s Intersections with IP, 25 Alb. L. J. Sci. & Tech. 573, 576 (2015).

[11] See Timothy Holbrook, How 3-D Printing Threatens Our Patent System, Scientific American (Jan. 6, 2016), http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-3-d-printing-threatens-our-patent-system1/.

[12] See id.

[13] See Dange, supra note 10, at 580-81.

[14] See Melissa Koch & Brian Stansbury, 3-D Printing: Innovation, Opportunities, and Risk, Law360 (Feb. 24, 2016), http://www.law360.com/articles/757265/3-d-printing-innovation-opportunities-and-risk.

[15] See Ebrahim, supra note 2, at 44.

[16] See Davies, supra note 6.

[17] See Dange, supra note 13.

[18] See Davies, supra note 6.

[19] See id.

[20] See Ebrahim, supra note 2, at 43.

[21] See Bryan Vogel, Anticipating IP Trends in 3-D Printing, Law360 (July 1, 2015), http://www.law360.com/articles/663880/anticipating-ip-trends-in-3-d-printing?article_related_content=1.

[22] See id.

[23] See Viarci & Soofian, supra note 7.

[24] See Dange, supra note 10, at 591.

[25] See Davies, supra note 6.

[26] See id.

Photo Source:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/07/10/3d.printing.jpg

By: Chresanthe Staurulakis

In today’s world, phones are used more for “Snapchatting” than for making phone calls, and the craze only grows with every new feature Snapchat offers its users. In 2015, Snapchat released the “Lenses” feature, which is known by most as “filters.”[1] Its filters allow Snapchat users to “superimpose masks and characters” over their faces to transform their snaps into something more exciting.[2] There are filters that are unique to certain cities and holidays, and users can even pay a small fee to design their own filter for a special occasion. The feature has become wildly popular and new filter options are available every day.[3] However, a filter that may seem “new” to one user may appear all too familiar to another.

Since these filters have been released, multiple makeup artists have come forward and accused Snapchat of stealing their work to create its new filters.[4] Many of these artists rely on social media accounts to become noticed, land jobs and build their brands.[5] Some have thousands, even millions, of followers on their various Youtube, Twitter, and Instagram accounts.[6] As a result, they are constantly updating their accounts to showcase their latest artwork and designs.

Argenis Pinal, Alexander Khoklov and Mykie are makeup artists who have all developed a cult following on social media due to their unique designs.[7] One day, while scrolling through Snapchat, Pinal noticed that the new “joker” filter looked similar to a design he had recently posted on his Instagram account.[8] Upon noticing the similarities, he posted his original work next to the filter on his Instagram account.[9] The filter was taken down later that evening.[10]

Khoklov also accused Snapchat of taking a geometric design he had created for the cover of Scientific American Mind in 2014 and using it as a filter without his permission.[11] Finally, Mykie had the same issue when she came across a watercolor filter that strongly resembled a look she had created and posted on her Instagram.[12] After she filed a report through Snapchat, the app took the filter down but claimed that “they did not believe the filter infringed on her copyright.” [13] This raises the issue of what protection should an artist expect to have when he or she releases artwork through social media accounts.

Original artistic works are protected by copyright laws.[14] However, for makeup artists like Pinal, Khoklov and Mykie, protecting makeup design and body art design can oftentimes          seem more difficult than protecting paintings or literary works.[15] Makeup design is not formally listed as one of the mediums eligible for copyright.[16] Nevertheless, courts have previously ruled that makeup design can be copyrighted. In Carell v. Shubert Organization Inc., the court held that the makeup artist’s designs for the cast of the Broadway show Cats was protected under copyright law.[17] The band Kiss obtained a federal trademark registration for its signature face paint look in 1978.[18] In addition, one can file for a copyright up to three months after creating a design.[19] Unfortunately, filing for a copyright takes a lot more effort, time and money than most burgeoning artists can afford.[20] Therefore, most of the artwork uploaded on social media accounts is unprotected and Snapchat knows it.[21]

Even more disconcerting, Snapchat is no stranger to giving credit where credit is due. The app often works with large corporations to create filters that advertise various brands. For example, during the 2016 Super Bowl, Snapchat released a specific Gatorade filter.[22] This filter earned 160 million impressions and every user knew Gatorade was the brand behind the filter.[23] Artists are missing out on what could be a great opportunity to further their careers and make their brands known.[24]

It is all too easy to upload one’s latest painting, drawing or design onto one’s Instagram, Youtube, or Twitter account for millions to see. Social media can be a vital resource for up-and-coming artists. However, it is important to remember that this free publicity in fact does come at a price. Constantly posting one’s latest artistic achievements leaves one at risk for the public to see and potentially take without permission. For many, there are few options for recourse when something like this occurs. Thus, it is important that artists be mindful of this issue when posting original works of art onto social media.

 

[1]^. See Molly McHugh, Swiped: Is Snapchat stealing filters from makeup artists?, The Ringer (June 16, 2016), https://theringer.com/snapchat-stealing-filters-ae39a061c274#.gpiytin2b.

[2]^. See Ian Kar, Copycat: Artists are accusing Snapchat of stealing their work for its hugely popular filters, Quartz (June 16, 2016), http://qz.com/709638/artists-are-accusing-snapchat-of-stealing-their-work-for-its-hugely-popular-filters/.

[3]^. See McHugh, supra note 1.

[4]^. See Andrea Navarro, Snapchat Just Admitted Something Major About Their Filters, Teen Vogue (June 17, 2016), http://www.teenvogue.com/story/snapchat-copying-makeup-artists-filters.

[5]^. See McHugh, supra note 1.

[6]^. See id.

[7]^. See id.

[8]^. See id.

[9]^. See id.

[10]^. See id.

[11]^. See Trace William Cowen, Snapchat Is Being Accused of Stealing Filter Ideas From Makeup Artists, Complex (June 21, 2016), http://www.complex.com/life/2016/06/snapchat-accused-stealing-filter-ideas-makeup-artists.

 

[12]^. See Navarro, supra note 4.

[13]^. See McHugh, supra note 1.

[14]^. See U.S. Copyright Off., Library of Congress, Copyright Basics 1 (2012).

[15]^{. .} See McHugh, supra note 1.

[16]^. See 17 U.S.C. § 102 (2016).

[17]^. See Carell v. Schubert Org., Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 236, 247 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).

[18]^. See McHugh, supra note 1.

[19]^. See id.

[20]^. See id.

[21]^. See id.

[22]^. See Kar, supra note 2.

[23]^. See id.

[24]^. See id.

Photo Source:

https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/2-snapcode-to-special-discover-channel.png?w=320&h=320

By: Sophia Brasseux,

According The Guardian’s police killing database, at least 818 people have been killed by police officers since January 1, 2016.[1] Many of these deaths have made major waves in the media, like Freddie Gray and Alton Sterling; while countless others have gone largely unnoticed.[2] Although it is hard to say whether police brutality is actually on the rise or if media is just making such brutality more apparent, it has been clear that Americans are taking note of this unfortunate trend. Organizations such as Black Lives Matter have gained significant momentum within the past year in regards to drawing attention current issues with to police brutality.

State governments have taken notice to these movements and are responding in a variety of ways. One is an increased utilization of body-worn cameras. As of August 2016, forty-two of sixty-eight major cities have implemented body-worn camera programs.[3] In response to the outcry for increased use of body-worn cameras after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, President Obama has proposed $75 million for body-worn cameras to be disbursed in state-fund matching program, spanning over three years.[4]

One of the greatest proponents of the movement towards having more body cameras on the street has been the desire for transparency.[5] Logically, transparency would go hand in hand with accountability of police departments, but President Obama has stated that these cameras are “not a panacea” and that the current law enforcement and judicial structure may pose obstacles.[6] A major issue has been that just because police officers are wearing, or supposed to be wearing cameras, it does not necessarily mean the public has access to that footage.[7] But, is that really something the public should have access to?

Several states have been hesitant about giving the public even minimal amounts of access. In June, the California Assembly voted down a bill that would allow public access to police body-worn camera footage.[8] However, assemblyman Bill Quirk, who wrote the bill, stated, “to not release this is a great insult to the idea that body-worn cameras increase trust in police departments.”[9]

Several other states have followed suit by either denying legislation that would allow public access to this footage, or passing legislation to specifically keep this footage out of the hands of the public, such as recent legislation passed in North Carolina.[10] Rationale for the bill included efficiency concerns and uncertainty about the level of discretion police should have in regards to what footage gets released and to whom.[11] Officer Jeffrey Smyth of the Burlington Police Department noted several safeguards the bill offered, such as not allowing “nosy neighbors” to request footage when they notice officers entering homes their neighborhoods.[12]

Officer Smyth only lightly touched on what has actually been a significant factor behind states’ reservations about releasing body-worn camera footage to the public. While there has been a great push for transparency, there has also been an equally significant push for the protection of individuals’ privacy rights. Theoretically, police are supposed to have their cameras recording while on calls, which may include instances ranging from speaking with victims of sex crimes, entering personal residences, to even surveying the scene of suicides. [13]

Police are there for some of the most intimate and painful times in people’s lives, so when calling for complete police transparency and for public access to this type of footage, it is important to take a step back and consider where the right to privacy of victims, individuals, and third parties kicks in. Which, if any, police interactions are considered private? Can the Fourth Amendment right to privacy be extended to offenders as well as victims of crime?

Many states, such as California and New York, are still struggling with these issues in their attempts to pass body camera transparency legislation, but Washington D.C.’s newly proposed law might be a major national breakthrough.[14] Mauriel Bowser, the mayor of Washington D.C., has previously suggested keeping the footage from these cameras exempt from the Freedom of Information Act requests.[15] Her opinion was reflected in legislation she submitted in early September, which included a broad exemption to not release footage of any assaults as well as several other means of limiting the footage to which individuals would have access.[16] Bowser’s plan would allow private individuals to have access to footage from areas that courts have already held there is little expectation of privacy, such as the outdoors on street corners, but footage from within private residences would not be so readily available to the public.[17]

These limitations have been criticized for running counter to the goal of transparency.[18] Bowser’s deputy mayor for public safety, Kevin Donahue, has responded to these criticisms by emphasizing that the regulations are meant to prevent third parties from getting ahold of the footage and then putting it on YouTube or the news.[19] Donahue noted that victims of assaults have already have already been violated and Bowser is hesitant to put such victims at risk of being violated further by a third-party individual by giving the public access to their private matters. [20]

While these issues have not been entirely solved yet, it is important to note that there is going to have to be a trade-off somewhere. Yes, transparency and accountability of our police forces are important, especially in light of many recent tragic events, but what price are citizens willing to pay? Americans have tightly held the right to privacy and courts have resisted trammeling that right. How much of that right are we willing to let go to meet the objectives of police accountability? Can a piece of legislation, such as D.C.’s newly proposed law, strike a balance?

 

[1] See The Counted: People Killed by Police in the U.S. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database.

[2] See id.

[3] See Ray Sanchez, Police Shootings Highlight Concerns about Body Cameras (Aug. 4, 2016), http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/us/police-body-cams/.

[4] See id.

[5] See id.

[6] Id.

[7] See id.

[8] See Liam Dillon, Police Body Camera Transparency Bill Voted Down, LA Times (June 30, 2016), http://www.latimes.com/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-california-police-body-camera-legislature-htmlstory.html.

[9] See id.

[10] See Natalie A. Janicello, Body Camera Legislation in North Carolina Seen as a Blow to Transparency, Times-News (July 5, 2016), http://www.govtech.com/policy/Body-Camera-Legislation-in-North-Carolina-Seen-as-Blow-to-Transparency.html.

[11] See id.

[12] See id.

[13] Maggie Ybarra, Police Body Cameras Raise Privacy Concerns, The Washington Times (May 12, 2015), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/12/police-body-cameras-raise-privacy-concerns/.

[14] Aaron C. Davis, D.C. Mayor’s Plan Would Limit Access to Police Body Camera Footage, The Washington Post (Sep. 9, 2015), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-mayor-proposes-law-to-keep-police-body-cameras-from-creating-violence-voyeurism/2015/09/09/aecf363a-5728-11e5-b8c9-944725fcd3b9_story.html.

[15] See supra 12.

[16] See supra 13.

[17] See id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

Photo Source:

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2014/12/RTR4GL8W/lead_large.jpg