 |
1 | |
In studying privacy law it is important to remember that: |
| | A) | There are uniform privacy statutes in each of the 50 states. |
| | B) | The common law is uniform across the 50 states. |
| | C) | Federal privacy statutes make the law predictable in all 50 states. |
| | D) | Privacy law varies a great deal from state to state. |
|
|
2 | |
In McFarland v. Miller (1994), the court said the right of publicity protected George McFarland's: |
| | A) | Name. |
| | B) | Personal nickname. |
| | C) | Character's name. |
| | D) | Family name. |
|
|
3 | |
In Ali v. Playgirl (1978), the courts said the plaintiffs were sufficiently identified by: |
| | A) | Their nicknames. |
| | B) | Photographs. |
| | C) | Sketches that showed distinguishing facial features. |
| | D) | Sketches that didn't necessarily show their faces. |
|
|
4 | |
In Onassis v. Christian Dior (1984), the court said it was appropriation for a woman who looked like Jackie Kennedy Onassis to: |
| | A) | Pose in advertisements as herself. |
| | B) | Pose in advertisements as Jackie Kennedy Onassis. |
| | C) | Pose in advertisements without the phrase "This is a celebrity look-alike." |
| | D) | All of the above. |
|
|
5 | |
In Cardtoons v. Major League Baseball Players Association (1996), the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals said celebrity parodies were: |
| | A) | Appropriation. |
| | B) | Appropriation unless they fell under the news exception. |
| | C) | Not covered by appropriation but possibly covered by libel. |
| | D) | Social commentary on popular Americans and protected by the First Amendment. |
|
|
6 | |
If a newspaper runs a front-page picture of a famous individual at the beach in a bathing suit to illustrate the arrival of summer, that individual would: |
| | A) | Not win an appropriation suit because this is not a commercial use. |
| | B) | Not win an appropriation suit because this is incidental use. |
| | C) | Win an appropriation suit if the incidental intent of using the picture on page one is to increase sales. |
| | D) | Win an appropriation suit unless there was written consent. |
|
|
7 | |
The decisions in Stephano v. News Group W Publications (1984) and Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC Inc. (1999) show that fashion spreads: |
| | A) | Will be considered newsworthy. |
| | B) | Will not be considered newsworthy. |
| | C) | Will be considered newsworthy by some judges but not others. |
| | D) | Will be considered newsworthy as long as no brand names or prices are mentioned. |
|
|
8 | |
In Preston v. Martin Bregman Productions Inc. (1996), the court said the use of film of a woman walking on the street was: |
| | A) | Covered by the appropriation exception of incidental use. |
| | B) | Covered by the appropriation exception of unimportant use. |
| | C) | Not covered by appropriation since the clip appeared under the credits and not as part of the film. |
| | D) | Not covered by appropriation since the woman was not a celebrity and had no right of publicity. |
|
|
9 | |
In Booth v. Curtis Publishing Co. (1962), the court said: |
| | A) | All media must get permission to use photographs in advertisements. |
| | B) | All media except news media must get permission to use photographs in advertisements. |
| | C) | News media may use previously published material in advertisements. |
| | D) | News media may use previously published material in advertisements to promote themselves. |
|
|
10 | |
In Bowling v. The Missionary Servants of the Most Holy Trinity (1992) and Vinales v. Community Service Society of New York (1995), courts found the use of people's pictures in advertisements for nonprofit groups: |
| | A) | Was appropriation. |
| | B) | Was not appropriation. |
| | C) | Could be appropriation if the people pictured did not benefit from the group's charity work. |
| | D) | Could be appropriation if others had been paid to appear in ads for the group. |
|
|
11 | |
An intrusion suit is based on: |
| | A) | The publication of private material. |
| | B) | The publication of embarrassing material. |
| | C) | The publication of false material. |
| | D) | None of the above is correct. |
|
|
12 | |
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act: |
| | A) | Makes it illegal to read or disclose another person's e-mail messages. |
| | B) | Specifically allows the reading of anyone's e-mail on the theory that the Internet is "an open marketplace of ideas." |
| | C) | Fails to outlaw keystroke monitoring. |
| | D) | Is intended primarily only as a bar to "hacking." |
|
|
13 | |
Which of the following situations would be considered intrusion by a court of law? |
| | A) | A reporter hides in a closet to eavesdrop on a conversation taking place in an office. |
| | B) | A reporter logs into an OSP to observe a conversation taking place in a chat room. |
| | C) | A reporter in a restaurant eavesdrops on the conversation taking place at a nearby table. |
| | D) | All of the above are examples of intrusion. |
|
|
14 | |
Based on Dieteman v. Time Inc. (1971): |
| | A) | The use of a hidden recording device always constitutes intrusion. |
| | B) | The media use of photocopies of documents obtained illegally by nonmedia personnel constitutes intrusion. |
| | C) | Both A and B are correct. |
| | D) | None of the above are correct. |
|
|
15 | |
In Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001), the Supreme Court ruled: |
| | A) | A newspaper, broadcaster or Web-site operator cannot be sued for knowingly publishing or broadcasting material obtained via an illegal intrusion. |
| | B) | A newspaper, broadcaster or Web-site operator can be sued for publishing or broadcasting material obtained via an illegal intrusion by a third party. |
| | C) | A newspaper, broadcaster or Web-site operator cannot be sued for publishing or broadcasting material obtained via an illegal intrusion by a third party. |
| | D) | Both A and C are correct. |
|
2003 McGraw-Hill Higher Education