In re Madden

Last updated

In re Madden
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Full case name In re: Mark Madden; Titan Sports, Inc., A Delaware Corporation v. Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc.; World Championship Wrestling, Inc.; Eric Bischoff; Titan Sports, Inc.
DecidedJuly 21, 1998
Citation151 F.3d 125 (3rd Cir. 1998)
Case history
Prior historyTitan Sports, Inc. v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 967 F. Supp. 142 (W.D. Pa. 1997).
Holding
An individual may be afforded a journalist's privilege if he can prove he is (1) engaged in investigative reporting, (2) is gathering news, and (3) possessed the intent at the inception of the news-gathering process to disseminate the news to the public.
Court membership
Judges sitting Richard Lowell Nygaard, Samuel Alito, Donald P. Lay (8th Cir.)
Case opinions
MajorityNygaard, joined by a unanimous court

In re Madden, 151 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1998), [1] is a decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that established the Madden test, a test used to determine whether an individual is entitled to claim a journalist's privilege.

Contents

In re Madden was an appeal by Titan Sports, now known as World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., in the case Titan Sports, Inc. v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. [2] Titan, the parent company of World Wrestling Entertainment, at the time known as the World Wrestling Federation, had sought to discover anonymous sources used by Mark Madden, an employee of World Championship Wrestling (WCW), which at the time had Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc. as its parent company. Madden, citing his journalist's privilege, refused to disclose the names of the sources during his deposition. The District Court upheld his right to the privilege under Pennsylvania's shield law. [2] Titan appealed the initial ruling, and the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Madden was an entertainer and not a journalist. [1]

Known as the Madden test, the Court said that an individuals claiming the protections of the journalist's privilege must demonstrate the concurrence of three elements, that they: (1) are engaged in investigative reporting; (2) are gathering news; and (3) possess the intent at the inception of the news-gathering process to disseminate the news to the public. [3]

The Court said:

It is clear from the record that Mr. Madden was not investigating “news,” even were we to apply a generous definition of the word. Madden admits in his deposition that his work for the WCW amounts to a mix of entertainment with reporting. He states that “with the WCW 900 number, I say things tongue [in] cheek. I say things for satire value, I say things to be funny, and sometimes I will take something like that and use it for humor value.” Furthermore, the record indicates that WCW executives told Madden to “be a little crazy, say off the wall stuff, entertain, use a lot of humor, sort of work-sort of be like the bad guy in the literal sense, not in terms of what I say is always going to be false, but in terms of what I say is going to get people excited.” Even if Madden's efforts could be considered as “newsgathering,” his claim of privilege would still fail because, as an author of entertaining fiction, he lacked the intent at the beginning of the research process to disseminate information to the public. He, like other creators of fictional works, intends at the beginning of the process to create a piece of art or entertainment. Fiction or entertainment writers are permitted to view facts selectively, change the emphasis or chronology of events or even fill in factual gaps with fictitious events-license a journalist does not have. Because Madden is not a journalist, it follows that he cannot conceal his information within the shadow of the journalist's privilege. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

Attorney–client privilege or lawyer–client privilege is the common law doctrine of legal professional privilege in the United States. Attorney–client privilege is "[a] client's right to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications between the client and the attorney."

Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court invalidating the use of the First Amendment as a defense for reporters summoned to testify before a grand jury. The case was argued February 23, 1972, and decided June 29 of the same year. The reporters lost their case by a vote of 5–4. This case is cited for the rule that in federal courts, a reporter may not generally avoid testifying in a criminal grand jury, and is one of a limited number of cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court has considered the use of reporters' privilege.

Neither software nor computer programs are explicitly mentioned in statutory United States patent law. Patent law has changed to address new technologies, and decisions of the United States Supreme Court and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) beginning in the latter part of the 20th century have sought to clarify the boundary between patent-eligible and patent-ineligible subject matter for a number of new technologies including computers and software. The first computer software case in the Supreme Court was Gottschalk v. Benson in 1972. Since then, the Supreme Court has decided about a half dozen cases touching on the patent eligibility of software-related inventions.

<i>WCW Thunder</i> Professional wrestling television series

WCW Thunder, or simply Thunder, is an American professional wrestling show produced by World Championship Wrestling (WCW) which aired on TBS Superstation from January 8, 1998 to March 21, 2001.

The doctrine of assignor estoppel is a doctrine of United States patent law barring a patent's seller (assignor) from attacking the patent's validity in subsequent patent infringement litigation. The doctrine is based on the doctrine of legal estoppel, which prohibits a grantor from challenging the validity of his/her/its grant.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Steiner Brothers</span> Professional wrestling tag team

The Steiner Brothers are an American professional wrestling tag team consisting of brothers Rick Steiner and Scott Steiner.

<i>Frosty Treats, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc.</i>

Frosty Treats, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., 426 F.3d 1001, is a trademark case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the name of one of the largest ice cream truck franchise companies in the United States was neither distinctive nor famous enough to receive protection against being used in a violent video game.

Reporter's privilege in the United States, is a "reporter's protection under constitutional or statutory law, from being compelled to testify about confidential information or sources." It may be described in the US as the qualified (limited) First Amendment or statutory right many jurisdictions have given to journalists in protecting their confidential sources from discovery.

<i>Von Bulow v. Von Bulow</i> American legal case

Von Bulow v. Von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, was a case appealed from a contempt ruling after a United States District Court rejected the claim of a reporter's privilege by Claus von Bulow and Andrea Reynolds.

Dennis G. Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas L. Ambro</span> American judge (born 1949)

Thomas Lee Ambro is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Edwin Smith</span> American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Greenberg v. National Geographic was a copyright lawsuit regarding image use and republication rights of National Geographic Society to their magazine in electronic form.

<i>Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.</i> United States district court case

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. was a case in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington regarding the applicability of the first-sale doctrine to software sold under the terms of so-called "shrinkwrap licensing." The court held that when the transfer of software to the purchaser materially resembled a sale it was, in fact, a "sale with restrictions on use" giving rise to a right to resell the copy under the first-sale doctrine. As such, Autodesk could not pursue an action for copyright infringement against Vernor, who sought to resell used versions of its software on eBay. The decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which issued a decision on September 10, 2010, reversing the first-sale doctrine ruling and remanding for further proceedings on the misuse of copyright claim. The Ninth Circuit's decision asserted that its ruling was compelled by Ninth Circuit precedent, but observed that the policy considerations involved in the case might affect motion pictures and libraries as well as sales of used software.

<i>Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.</i> American legal case

Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding copyright infringement in the context of DVR systems operated by cable television service providers. It is notable for distinguishing the Ninth Circuit precedent MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., regarding whether a momentary data stream is a "copy" per copyright law.

Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case, in which the Court confirmed the application of and set out a test for contributory trademark liability under § 32 of the Lanham Act.

<i>Cariou v. Prince</i> 2013 copyright case in the United States

Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 is a copyright case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on the question of whether artist Richard Prince's appropriation art treatment of Patrick Cariou's photographs was copyright infringement or fair use. The Second Circuit held in 2013 that Prince's appropriation art could constitute fair use, and that a number of his works were transformative fair uses of Cariou's photographs. The Court remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for reconsideration of five of Prince's works. The Supreme Court denied Cariou's petition for a writ of certiorari, and the case settled in 2014.

Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), was a 1965 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held, for the first time, that enforcement of a fraudulently procured patent violated the antitrust laws and provided a basis for a claim of treble damages if it caused a substantial anticompetitive effect.

References

  1. 1 2 In re Madden, 151F.3d125 (3d Cir.1998).
  2. 1 2 Titan Sports, Inc. v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 967F. Supp.142 (W.D. Pa.1997).
  3. ↑ In re Madden, 151 F.3d at 131.
  4. ↑ "IN RE: Mark MADDEN. (1998)". Findlaw. Retrieved December 24, 2024.


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.