UCI IP, Arts & Tech Clinic

Intellectual Property, Arts, & Technology Clinic

Clinic files amicus brief in Drake v. UMG defamation case

by

Still from Kendrick Lamar's "Not Like Us" video showing Lamar hitting an owl-shaped piñata with the caption, DISCLAIMER: NO OVHOES WERE HARMED DURING THE MAKING OF THIS VIDEO.

Still from Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” video showing Lamar hitting an owl-shaped piñata. The logo for Drake’s label is an owl. Drake made an issue of this image in his complaint.

 

You may have heard that Drake sued his record label for defamation over the song “Not Like Us” arguing that it should be treated like factual allegations akin to a news report, and not like what it is: a rap diss track. Yesterday the IPAT Clinic filed an amicus brief on behalf of four scholars who are concerned about the disturbing implications of treating rap lyrics literally. Experts Charis Kubrin, Adam Dunbar, Kyle Winnen, and Clinic Director Jack Lerner argued that this practice of flattening art into a literal confession or statement of intent is a convenient way for prosecutors to let racial bias and prejudice into the courtroom. The brief also provides important background on the long history of diss tracks and rap battles, which draw on cultural traditions that predate rap by generations.

Today Billboard Magazine wrote about the brief, nicely explaining what’s at stake with this case and the assumptions at the heart of Drake’s claims.

Special acknowledgment should go to IPAT Clinic Certified Law Students Delara Abbasi, Madeleine Kavoossi, Andrew Pratt, Bonnie Wong, and especially Alex Avakian, and our wonderful (and gracious!) colleagues in the UCI Law clinical program, Debi Gloria and Czarina Ellingson, and Professor Sameer Ashar.

Click here to read the full brief and accompanying motion.

Association of Art Museum Directors lauds Fair Use Jurisprudence Project

by

 

The UCI Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic recently learned that The Association of Art Museum Directors made use of our Fair Use Jurisprudence Project database while preparing its Updated Guidelines for the Fair Use of Copyrighted Materials and Works of Art by Art Museums.

In response to contemporary judicial decisions on fair use with wide-ranging implications for the art world, such as Marano v. Metropolitan Museum of Art and Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, the AAMD recently updated its fair use guidelines, originally published in 2017. Lauryn Guttenplan, former Deputy General Counsel of the Smithsonian Institution and one of the update’s chief architects, reached out to the Clinic to let us know that the Fair Use Jurisprudence Project was credited by name in the Guidelines.  According to Ms. Guttenplan, “this database served as an invaluable resource in the preparation of this update to the Guidelines and would be equally beneficial for anyone who needs ready access to current fair use developments.”

Our team was thrilled to hear this news. Clinic Director Jack Lerner remarked, “This is why we do this work. Organizations like AAMD and the museums they represent need access to free, comprehensive resources—especially when it comes to fair use, which is more important than ever even while constantly changing as both technology and practice evolve.”

Our clinic will continue to update the Fair Use Jurisprudence Project as new cases come out, and we are optimistic that this resource will continue to be useful well into the future. Go here to access the full database.

UCI Fair Use Jurisprudence Project Database Update

by

 

The UCI Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic has completed the 2024 update to our Fair Use Jurisprudence Project, a searchable, sortable database featuring abstracts and analysis of every written judicial opinion that discusses fair use since January 1, 2019. This useful resource has been lauded from California to Washington as a go-to research tool for litigators, counselors, and scholars alike. The database now includes 225 entries documenting how courts have assessed fair use throughout the United States over the last five years. Each entry contains an abstract of the case and many contain editorial notes with commentary written by members of the Clinic. Going forward, we will be updating this resource on a weekly basis. Check back every Monday for updates!

Later this fall, we will be releasing analysis of this database, looking at trends, volume of opinions,  and the impact of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Google v. Oracle and Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith. Stay tuned to the Fair Use Jurisprudence Project home page for updates!

Go here to access the Fair Use Jurisprudence Project database.

Jake Bulf, Certified Law Student

Professor Jack Lerner

UCI Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic

Welcoming Mitra Ebadolahi to the IPAT Clinic

by

We are thrilled to announce that Mitra Ebadolahi has joined the UCI Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Law Clinic as a Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law. During the Fall 2024 semester, students under Professor Ebadolahi’s supervision will learn about a range of issues at the intersection of emerging technologies and civil rights. Clinic projects will evaluate how algorithms in various states impact residents’ access to home-based care services under Medicare/Medicaid; how the concept of “unfair discrimination” emerged and evolved in insurance law; and what a 21st century “digital workers’ bill of rights” must include to ensure dignity for all working people. Together with Professor Seager, Professor Ebadolahi will lead the IPAT Clinic’s companion seminar.

Mitra Ebadolahi is the Senior Project Director for Economic Justice at Upturn. Prior to joining Upturn, Mitra spent more than a decade with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), where she co-created the Border Litigation Project and litigated civil rights cases at the intersection of immigrants’ rights, racial justice, and police practices. From 2015-2020, she was also a Lecturer-in-Law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.

Mitra completed her legal studies at New York University School of Law, earning her JD, cum laude, in 2008. At NYU Law, Mitra was a Root-Tilden-Kern Scholar and served as the Senior Notes Editor of the Law Review. After law school, Mitra clerked for Judge Margaret M. Morrow (C.D. Cal.) and for Judge Betty B. Fletcher (9th Cir.). She subsequently received her LL.M. in International Legal Studies, also from NYU Law, in 2012. She is admitted to practice in California and New York.

Mitra holds a MSc in Politics of the World Economy (with Distinction) from the London School of Economics, which she attended as a U.S.-UK Fulbright Scholar. She received a double BA, summa cum laude, in international development studies and history from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Press Freedom Project client publishes blockbuster story on decades of police misconduct

by

Today our client Katey Rusch has published a massive story about a decades-long practice of burying police misconduct in “clean record” agreements so that cops who have committed misconduct can conceal that when they go to get another job. This story was made possible after years of advocacy by our brilliant students in the UCI Press Freedom Project led by Professor Susan Seager. After years of back and forth with hundreds of agencies and dogged reporting, today the San Francisco Chronicle published the blockbuster story. “The reason our persistent UCI law students were able to get these supposedly secret agreements released is because the agreements are actually public records under California law,” Seager said. “Any contract that calls for the payment of taxpayer funds must be disclosed under the California Brown Act and Public Records Act – and it doesn’t matter if the parties say in the agreement that it is ‘confidential’ – it is not.”

The story exposes “a secret system of legal settlements that has whitewashed the corruption, criminality and other misconduct of law enforcement officers throughout California for decades, an investigation by the San Francisco Chronicle and UC Berkeley’s Investigative Reporting Program found.”

A sidebar titled “How we did this project” explains how our clinic helped this reporting:

“Reporters worked with media lawyer Susan Seager and the Press Freedom Project, a clinic run out of UC Irvine School of Law, to request clean record agreements and other records from 501 agencies across the state, including all city police and county sheriff’s departments as well as school and transit police forces…Reporters requested agreements executed from 2010 through 2023, though state retention laws only require agencies to keep such agreements for two years. In response, 224 agencies claimed to have no such agreements, while 168 refused to release any or some of the agreements, claiming the records were not subject to disclosure. Most of these agencies asserted that the agreements were peace officer personnel records exempt from disclosure under California Penal Code 832.7.

“However, 98 agencies said they would release all agreements, either because the records related to misconduct were now disclosable under changes made to California Penal Code 832.7 (Senate Bill 1421, passed in 2018, and SB16, passed in 2021) or because they agreed with reporters and attorneys’ arguments that case law made all separation and severance agreements disclosable, no matter the confidentiality provisions.”

The story itself is devastating.

“At least 163 California police agencies have executed separation agreements concealing misconduct allegations against at least 297 officers and deputies, records obtained by this investigation show. The actual numbers are likely much higher, because one-third of police agencies asked to release the agreements refused, citing privacy laws.

“Those whose conduct is hidden by these deals — also known as ‘clean-record agreements’ — include a deputy accused of groping a woman held in a county jail, an officer who investigators determined falsified a report to link a man to a crime, and a deputy who was found to have violated department policy when he fatally shot a teenager as he lay wounded.

“More than half of the officers who secured clean-record agreements uncovered by the investigation also received lump-sum payments as part of the deals, totaling $23.7 million. One officer got $3.1 million. At least five officers have secured multiple clean-record agreements.

“In many cases, police departments hid alleged misconduct even while maintaining it occurred. In every case where reporters could establish the outcome of a department’s internal investigation through documents or interviews, they found that clean-record agreements were given after police agencies had fired the officer, or had begun the process of doing so, based on what they saw as clear evidence of wrongdoing.”

The story is available here: This is the secret system that covers up police misconduct — and ensures problem officers can get hired again.

Today is a great day for press freedom and for holding government accountable to the people. Congratulations to reporters Katey Rusch and Casey Smith!