Here are some media stories of note for Wednesday, June 19, 2013:
Google is attempting to clear its name in its involvement in the controversial domestic surveillance efforts by the U.S. Justice Department. It has asked the court to permit it to publish summary statistics about what it was asked to provide. CNET reports that Google argues that a gag order on such publication violates its First Amendment rights under the Constitution.
An interesting court case in the United States involves a suit brought by a photographer against BuzzFeed. He is seeking $3.6 million in damages for not only what BuzzFeed carried but for the viral carriage of the image he shot, paidContent reports. Kai Eiselein wants BuzzFeed, which used the photo in a montage of soccer pictures, to bear the copyright fees of 64 other sites that used the photo.
VICE Magazine has withdrawn an online feature that reenacted the suicides of famous female writers. It has apologized for offending anyone and taken the feature down, but it will appear in its upcoming print edition because it had already been published. Salon writes that VICE did not indicate it had made an error in judgment.
Google is attempting to clear its name in its involvement in the controversial domestic surveillance efforts by the U.S. Justice Department. It has asked the court to permit it to publish summary statistics about what it was asked to provide. CNET reports that Google argues that a gag order on such publication violates its First Amendment rights under the Constitution.
An interesting court case in the United States involves a suit brought by a photographer against BuzzFeed. He is seeking $3.6 million in damages for not only what BuzzFeed carried but for the viral carriage of the image he shot, paidContent reports. Kai Eiselein wants BuzzFeed, which used the photo in a montage of soccer pictures, to bear the copyright fees of 64 other sites that used the photo.
VICE Magazine has withdrawn an online feature that reenacted the suicides of famous female writers. It has apologized for offending anyone and taken the feature down, but it will appear in its upcoming print edition because it had already been published. Salon writes that VICE did not indicate it had made an error in judgment.
