COMPUTER LAW/ETHICS SITUATION
This paper summar
This is an excerpt from the paper...
This paper summarizes applicable research into federal and Virginia law concerning possible causes of action of Sally Snapshot against various third parties and analyzes the ethical aspects of her position under deontology and Act-based utilitarianism. Sally probably does not have a valid cause of action for copyright infringement arising out of the copying or posting of her original image. She has a strong case for invasion of privacy and, against certain defendants, a somewhat more tenuous cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Virginia tort law. She has solid grounds under both Act-based utilitarianism and under deontologically-based ethics for recovering against most defendants. Basic Scope of Copyright Protection Sec. 301(a) of the Federal Copyright Act, secs. 101 et seq., preempts state copyright law claims. The issue is whether the claim in question under state law is substantially similar to that presented under the Federal Copyright law. A copyright infringement claim need not be based on the fault of the defendant. Claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasions of privacy do require examination of the motives/intent of the defendant and are therefore not preempted. Copyright law generally protects expressions of artistic, literary, or other intellectual works. The author is granted a statutory monopoly for stated periods of time in publishing, copying and distributing such
. . .
se. He may be able to rely on the reverse engineering exception. Lacking notice of copyright, Sally's ability to obtain damages are nil (but she might be able to enjoin further infringements). On the other hand, defendant has not furthered any valid societal interest. Sally's rights of recovery under the Copyright Act are uncertain.
Intentional infliction of Emotional Harm
Even though they had no notice of copyright, the defendants who posted and those who copied her completely nude photograph certainly knew that Sally did not wish it to be published and that she would be outraged by its publication (posting). The intent to cause her emotional harm on the part of those who posted her photograph and those who sent her lewd mail were apparent. According to Prosser, in more than 30 states, "there is liability for conduct exceeding all bounds usually tolerated by decent society, of a nature which is especially calculated to cause, and does cause, mental distress of a very serious kind" (48). In note 2 to Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991), the Supreme Court said that the following elements comprise a cause of action in Virginia for intentional infliction of emotional suffering: 1. an intentional or reckless act which 2
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Nelson Cave, Altai Inc, Federal Copyright, Education Bar, Sally Snapshot, Kant Cicero, Bar California, Fisher Dees, Computer Corp, copyright law, intentional infliction emotional, intentional infliction, infliction emotional, notice copyright, invasion privacy, copyright infringement, cause action, virginia computer, emotional distress, defendants posted, infliction emotional distress, computer corp 714, corp 714 f2d, emotional distress virginia,
Approximate Word count = 1665
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
