By: Joshua Sinclair Panama’s former dictator, Manuel Noriega, recently sued Activision Blizzard in the California Superior Court for using his likeness and image in the popular video game “Call of Duty: Black Ops II.” In his complaint, Noriega alleged that the use of his likeness violated his right of publicity. Former New York Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, came to Activision’s defense, and filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted. In granting Activision’s motion, the court held that Activision’s use of Noriega’s likeness was transformative and did not violate his right of publicity. This Issue Brief argues that the California Superior Court should not have applied the transformative use test but should have held that Manuel Noriega did not have a right of publicity for his place in Panama’s history. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 14 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 69
Day: November 17, 2015
The Evolution of Giving: Considerations for Regulation of Cryptocurrency Donation Deductions
By: Ashley Pittman This Issue Brief looks at the rapidly growing area of cryptocurrency donations to nonprofit organizations. Given the recent IRS guidance issued on taxation of Bitcoin, specifically its decision to treat cryptocurrencies as property, questions now arise as to how charitable contributions of the coins will be valued for tax deductions. Though Bitcoin resembles most other capital gain property, its volatility, general decline in value, anonymity, and potential for abuse require specific guidance on valuation and substantiation so as to handle its unique nature and prevent larger deductions for charitable contributions than those to which taxpayers are entitled. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 14 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 48
Authenticity and Admissibility of Social Media Website Printouts
By: Wendy Angus-Anderson Social media posts and photographs are increasingly denied admission as evidence in criminal trials. Courts often cite issues with authentication when refusing to admit social media evidence. Cases and academic writings separate recent case law into two approaches: The Maryland Approach and the Texas Approach. The first method is often seen as overly skeptical of social media evidence, setting the bar too high for admissibility. The second approach is viewed as more lenient, declaring that any reasonable evidence should be admitted in order for a jury to weigh its sufficiency. This Brief addresses the supposed differences between the two sets of cases and suggests that courts are not actually employing two distinct approaches. The Maryland Approach courts are not holding social media content to a higher standard than the Texas Approach courts, but are merely responding to a lack of evidence connecting the proffered content to the purported author. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 14 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 33