Current Issue

GEMA Law Review Volume 2 Issue II Cover
Click on the image for a full PDF of Vol­ume 2, Issue 2

No Means No: Possible Reforms to Remedy the Way Universities Handle Sexual Assault Allegations in College Athletics

Ais­linn Toohey

Georgetown University Law Center

Excerpt

This note explores how uni­ver­si­ties mis­han­dle sex­u­al assault alle­ga­tions against stu­dent- ath­letes, the rea­sons why uni­ver­si­ties have failed to ade­quate­ly address this issue, what steps can be tak­en to rem­e­dy this prob­lem, and the like­li­hood that much-need­ed reforms will occur. While sex­u­al assault is gen­er­al­ly a prob­lem across all col­lege sports at every lev­el, this note focus­es on “Big Time” Divi­sion I ath­let­ic pro­grams with a par­tic­u­lar empha­sis on men’s bas­ket­ball and football—the two major rev­enue-gen­er­at­ing sports in NCAA ath­let­ics.

Download Article Button

 

How to Save the Future Picasso?: A Comparative Study of the French and American Legal Frameworks of Transformative Works

Nina Saas

Chicago-Kent College of Law

Excerpt

A 2009 sur­vey found that 90% of the online videos post­ed on the French video shar­ing web­site Dai­ly­mo­tion were trans­for­ma­tive works. “Trans­for­ma­tive works” is a term that came into the French legal vocab­u­lary through the inter­pre­ta­tion of the fair use doc­trine…

Trans­for­ma­tive works” in France refers to works pro­duced through new tech­niques such as mashups, cut-ups, sam­plings of orig­i­nal work, and, in the spec­trum of visu­al art, appro­pri­a­tion art. In appro­pri­a­tion art, changes to the orig­i­nal work are min­i­mal, as can be seen in Car­i­ou v. Prince, where the artist Richard Prince used pho­tog­ra­phy from Patrick Car­i­ou that he assem­bled and cov­ered with brush paints.

This recent case brought to light the frame­work for trans­for­ma­tive works in France, in com­par­i­son to the Unit­ed States. The Amer­i­can sys­tem relies on an eco­nom­ic approach that allows infringe­ment to be jus­ti­fied by the fair use sys­tem if there is a jus­ti­fi­able soci­etal inter­est. Fair use is still crit­i­cized by schol­ars as being “so ambu­la­to­ry that no one can give a gen­er­al answer,” but the Amer­i­can sys­tem remains less lim­it­ed for appro­pri­a­tion art than the French sys­tem. Indeed, the lat­ter approach­es works of art as the ema­na­tion of the author’s per­son­al­i­ty and there­fore delin­eates a lim­it­ed set of excep­tions for unau­tho­rized use, inter­pret­ed strict­ly by the judge. A com­par­i­son of both sys­tems reveals how the stan­dards of French law cur­rent­ly do not wel­come trans­for­ma­tive cre­ations and even less so, appro­pri­a­tion art…

This arti­cle will pro­pose the imple­men­ta­tion of an added excep­tion to infringe­ment, the scope of which would encom­pass visu­al arts such as appro­pri­a­tion art. This excep­tion con­sists of reduc­ing the moral right to avoid an abuse of the right to pro­tect the integri­ty of one’s work. It will still be based on a trans­for­ma­tive test, but the test will be tai­lored to be bet­ter inte­grat­ed into the French sys­tem. Remu­ner­a­tion will also be con­sid­ered for the orig­i­nal author.

 

Download Article Button

 

 

The Trade-Off Between Citizens United and Section 317 of the Communications Act: Strengthening the Sponsor Identity Requirements in Political Advertisements

Char­lene Col­la­zo

American University Washington College of Law

Excerpt

Even with its sim­plic­i­ty, the First Amend­ment has been dis­sect­ed into a com­plex the­o­ry, espe­cial­ly in the area of cam­paign finance law. The evo­lu­tion of polit­i­cal speech, which was first intro­duced in the Buck­ley v. Valeo deci­sion, is one such exam­ple. After Buck­ley, many oth­er impor­tant cam­paign finance cas­es came down the pipeline, such as Cit­i­zens Unit­ed v. Fed. Elec­tions Comm’n. The Cit­i­zens Unit­ed deci­sion rein­forced the con­cept of polit­i­cal speech and barred Con­gress from impos­ing restric­tions on dona­tions made by for-prof­it cor­po­ra­tions. Cit­i­zens Unit­ed cre­at­ed a domi­no effect of less reg­u­la­tions in the cam­paign finance sphere, and inde­pen­dent polit­i­cal adver­tise­ments became the norm…

This note focus­es on broad­cast­ers and the duty they have to dis­close more infor­ma­tion relat­ed to the polit­i­cal adver­tise­ments that they air. First, broad­cast­ers are not enti­tled to the spec­trum they cur­rent­ly use. They are held to a pub­lic inter­est stan­dard under § 303 of the Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Act, through which the Fed­er­al Com­mu­ni­ca­tion Com­mis­sion (FCC) can award licens­es, as “pub­lic con­ve­nience, inter­est or neces­si­ty” requires. Prop­er dis­clo­sure of polit­i­cal adver­tise­ments def­i­nite­ly falls into this cat­e­go­ry. Sec­ond, the First Amend­ment dichoto­my of Cit­i­zens Unit­ed did not fore­close the need for dis­clo­sure of polit­i­cal adver­tise­ments. Instead, it pro­vid­ed that prop­er dis­clo­sures “insure that the vot­ers are ful­ly informed about the per­son or group who is speak­ing.” Last­ly, the cur­rent statu­to­ry con­struc­tions of §§ 317 and 73.1212(a) are clear—proper dis­clo­sure requires iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of the donor’s “true iden­ti­ty” and a broadcaster’s “rea­son­able dili­gence.”

Download Article Button

 

 

 

NCAA Head Games: A Pragmatic Solution to Ensure Student-Athletes Do Not Have to Choose Between Protecting Their Scholarships or Protecting Their Health

Bri­an M. Dixon

SUNY Buffalo Law School

Abstract

Col­lege ath­letes are pay­ing for their edu­ca­tion with their health. The NCAA offers these ath­letes a devil’s bar­gain: choos­ing between los­ing their schol­ar­ships or los­ing their health. The NCAA has repeat­ed­ly ignored its duty to ath­letes, despite its own “rules” to the con­trary. As a result, stu­dent ath­letes fear the reper­cus­sions of report­ing a con­cus­sion and elect to hide these injuries. This arti­cle prof­fers a prag­mat­ic and legal­ly enforce­able solu­tion to pro­tect stu­dent-ath­letes. Imple­ment­ing a “schol­ar­ship plus” sys­tem will incen­tivize coach­es to view stu­dents as a long-term investments—not one-year rentals. In enforc­ing com­pli­ance by its mem­bers, the NCAA can ful­fill its con­sti­tu­tion and stat­ed goals.

Download Article Button