Grand Canyon Bus340 module 2 assignment

| March 14, 2016

chapter 6 prob 11.
At the time of the events described below, California’s statute dealing with a deceased celebrity’s right of
publicity read as follows: “Any person who uses adeceased personality’s name, voice, signature, photograph,
and likeness, in any manner, on or in products,merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising
or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods, or services, without prior consent
from [the legal owner of the deceased personality’sright of publicity] shall be liable” to the right
of publicity owner. The statute also set forth exemptions from the consent requirement for uses in news,
public affairs, or sports broadcasts; in plays, books, magazines, newspapers, musical compositions, orfi lm, television, or radio programs; or in other works of political or news-related value. There was also an
exemption for “single and original works ofline art.”Comedy III Production, Inc., owns the rights of
publicity of the deceased celebrities who, throughtheir comedy act and fi lms, had become familiar to
the public as “The Three Stooges.” Relying on the statute quoted above, Comedy III brought a right
of publicity action against artist Gary Saderup and the corporation of which he was a principal. Without
Comedy III’s consent, the defendants (referred to here collectively as “Saderup”) had produced and
profi ted from the sale of lithographs and T-shirts bearing a depiction of The Three Stooges. The depiction
had been reproduced from Saderup’s charcoal drawing, which featured an accurate and easily
recognizable image of the Stooges. The trial court awarded damages to Comedy III after concluding
that Saderup had violated the right of publicity statute and that neither the exemptions set forth in
statute nor the First Amendment furnished a defense. When the California Court of Appeals affi rmed,
Saderup appealed to the Supreme Court of California. Were the lower courts correct in ruling in favor of
Comedy III?

chapter 5 prob 13 Garelli Wong & Associates, Inc. (GW), a providerof accounting and fi nancial personnel services, createda database containing confi dential client trackinginformation. The firm took steps to maintain the confidentiality of the information and thereby obtain the competitive advantage that the information provided.
GW and a corporation that had later acquired the fi rm sued William Nichols, a former employee of GW and
the successor corporation. The plaintiffs alleged thatNichols used some of the confi dential information in
the above-referred-to database after he had taken ajob with a competing fi rm. Nichols’ supposed use of
the information allegedly breached a contract he had entered into with GW when he was employed there.
In their complaint fi led in federal court, GW and the successor corporation contended that Nichols’ actions
violated the federal Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and constituted breach of contract in
violation of state common law. The CFAA section on which the plaintiffs relied, § 1030 (a)(5), states, inpertinent part:
Whoever-(5)(A)(i) knowingly causes the transmission of . . .information . . . and as a result of such conduct, intentionally
causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without
authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or (iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage . . .; and(5)(B)(i) by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii)of subparagraph (A), caused . . . loss to 1 or more personsduring any 1-year . . aggregating at least $5,000 in value.
A defi nition section of the CFAA defi nes damage as “impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a
program, a system, or information.” Nichols moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ CFAA § 1030 (a)(5) claim because of a supposed failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. He argued that even if he used information in the database, he did not impair the integrity or availability ofthe information or the database. How did the court
rule on Nichols’ motion regarding the § 1030 (a)(5) claim? Did that section of the CFAA apply to this
alleged instance of trade secret misappropriation?

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code: ESSAYHELP
Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code: ESSAYHELPOrder Now