The Tell-Tale “Heart”: Determining “Fair” Use of Unpublished Texts

Copyright laws require that courts consider at least four factors in determining whether a quotation or close paraphrase of another\u27s unpublished work without permission falls under fair use. Several cases involving fairuse are discussed

Data Privacy and Dignitary Privacy: Google Spain, the Right To Be Forgotten, and the Construction of the Public Sphere

The 2014 decision of the European Court of Justice in Google Spain controversially held that the fair information practices set forth in European Union (EU) Directive 95/46/EC (Directive) require that Google remove from search results links to websites that contain true information. Google Spain held that the Directive gives persons a “right to be forgotten.” At stake in Google Spain are values that involve both privacy and freedom of expression. Google Spain badly analyzes both. With regard to the latter, Google Spain fails to recognize that the circulation of texts of common interest among strangers makes possible the emergence of a “public” capable of forming the “public opinion” that is essential for democratic self-governance. As the rise of American newspapers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries demonstrates, the press underwrites the public sphere by creating a structure of communication both responsive to public curiosity and independent of the content of any particular news story. Google, even though it is not itself an author, sustains the contemporary virtual public sphere by creating an analogous structure of communication. With regard to privacy values, EU law, like the laws of many nations, recognizes two distinct forms of privacy. The first is data privacy, which is protected by the fair information practices contained in the Directive. These practices regulate the processing of personal information to ensure (among other things) that such information is used only for the specified purposes for which it has been legally gathered. Data privacy operates according to an instrumental logic, and it seeks to endow persons with “control” over their personal data. Data subjects need not demonstrate harm in order to establish violations of data privacy. The second form of privacy recognized by EU law is dignitary privacy. Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union protects the dignity of persons by regulating inappropriate communications that threaten to degrade, humiliate, or mortify them. Dignitary privacy follows a normative logic designed to prevent harm to personality caused by the violation of civility rules. There are the same privacy values as those safeguarded by the American tort of public disclosure of private facts. Throughout the world, courts protect dignitary privacy by balancing the harm that a communication may cause to personality against legitimate public interests in the communication. The instrumental logic of data privacy is inapplicable to public discourse, which is why the Directive contains derogations for journalistic activities. The communicative action characteristic of the public sphere is made up of intersubjective dialogue, which is antithetical both to the instrumental rationality of data privacy and to its aspiration to ensure individual control of personal information. Because the Google search engine underwrites the public sphere in which public discourse takes place, Google Spain should not have applied fair information practices to Google searches. But the Google Spain opinion also invokes Article 7, and in the end the decision creates doctrinal rules that are roughly approximate to those used to protect dignitary privacy. The Google Spain opinion is thus deeply confused about the kind of privacy it wishes to protect. It is impossible to ascertain whether the decision seeks to protect data privacy or dignitary privacy. Google Spain is ultimately pushed in the direction of dignitary privacy because data privacy is incompatible with public discourse, whereas dignitary privacy may be reconciled with the requirements of public discourse. Insofar as freedom of expression is valued because it fosters democratic self-government, public discourse cannot serve as an effective instrument of self-determination without a modicum of civility. Yet the Google Spain decision recognizes dignitary privacy only in a rudimentary and unsatisfactory way. If it had more clearly focused on the requirements of dignitary privacy, Google Spain would not so sharply have distinguished Google links from the underlying websites to which they refer. Google Spain would not have blithely outsourced the enforcement of the right to be forgotten to a private corporation like Google

Information Outlook, October 2000

Volume 4, Issue 10https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/sla_io_2000/1009/thumbnail.jp

Information Outlook, November 2001

Volume 5, Issue 11https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/sla_io_2001/1010/thumbnail.jp

Special Libraries, November 1932

Volume 23, Issue 8https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/sla_sl_1932/1007/thumbnail.jp

Special Libraries, September 1938

Volume 29, Issue 7https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/sla_sl_1938/1006/thumbnail.jp

Reflecting on the methodological challenges of recruiting to a United Kingdom-wide, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial in gynaecology outpatient settings

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Academic Primer Series: Five Key Papers for Consulting Clinician Educators.

INTRODUCTION: Clinician educators are often asked to perform consultations for colleagues. Invitations to consult and advise others on local problems can help foster great collaborations between centers, and allows for an exchange of ideas between programs. In this article, the authors identify and summarize several key papers to assist emerging clinician educators with the consultation process. METHODS: A consensus-building process was used to generate a list of key papers that describe the importance and significance of educational consulting, informed by social media sources. A three-round voting methodology, akin to a Delphi study, determined the most impactful papers from the larger list. RESULTS: Summaries of the five most highly rated papers on education consultation are presented in this paper. These papers were determined by a mixed group of junior and senior faculty members, who have summarized these papers with respect to their relevance for their peer groups. CONCLUSION: Five key papers on the educational consultation process are presented in this paper. These papers offer background and perspective to help junior faculty gain a grasp of consultation processes

The Promise of Priority Review Vouchers as a Legislative Tool to Encourage Drugs for Neglected Diseases

Despite the intellectual property system’s success in promoting the economic well-being of the United States, this system has not achieved all socially valuable ends. Insufficient treatments are applied both to diseases endemic in developing countries, such as malaria, and rare diseases, such as rare childhood cancers. Several legislative tools aim to promote socially valuable drugs and biologics through market incentives. The priority review voucher (PRV) program is the latest and most unique of these legislative tools aimed at encouraging the development of drugs for neglected diseases without burdening taxpayers. The Creating Hope Act—recently signed into law as part of the Food & Drug Administration Safety & Innovation Act—extends the PRV program to rare pediatric diseases. This Issue Brief argues that some provisions in this new legislation may result in undesirable collateral effects that could prevent the legislation from fulfilling its objective of encouraging investment in treatments for rare pediatric diseases