The Washington Post reportedly fired staffer Michael Tunison over profane blog posts on NFL humor blog Kissing Suzy Kolber. Tunison was a regular poster to the blog under the pseudonym "Christmas Ape," and the disciplinary action came soon after he decided to shed his anonymity.

According to Michael David Smith of AOL's "Fan House" sports blog, "Tunison says the Post told him he violated Post standards and discredited the paper by writing a blog post in which he identified himself as a Washington Post writer, linked to the paper three times, included a photo of himself drunk (above) and used profanity."

According to Editor & Publisher, the official Washington Post Stylebook states the policy that the newspaper must avoid any conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflict of interest. Staffers are expected not to work for anyone except The Post without permission, and to ensure that their private and professional behavior does not bring discredit to their profession or to The Post.

Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. confirmed to Editor & Publisher that Tunison no longer worked at the paper and had left his job.  He did not specify if Tunison resigned or was fired.

In January 2008, literary agent Barbara Bauer and her company Barbara Bauer Literary Agency, Inc. filed a lawsuit in New Jersey State court against twenty-two defendants, including the Wikimedia Foundation. The complaint includes claims for defamation, tortious interference with prospective business advantage, and conspiracy. According to court documents, the dispute revolves around statements made on a large number of websites and blogs describing Bauer as being among the "20 Worst Literary Agents" and claiming that she has "no . . . significant track record of sales to commercial (advance paying) publishers." The complaint also alleges that various defendants posted altered photographs of Bauer on the Internet and created YouTube videos, including "Crouching Snark, Hidden Draggon" and "Miss Snark's Happy Hooker Crapstravaganza," that allegedly defamed and belittle her.

With regard to Wikimedia, the complaint alleges that Wikipedia published false statements indicating that Bauer was "The Dumbest of the Twenty Worst" literary agents and that she has "no documented sales at all." It further alleges that Bauer informed Wikimedia about the allegedly false statements, and that the foundation "has refused to remove the statements from Wikipedia." Finally, it alleges that Wikimedia conspired with the other defendants to defame and interfere with her prospective economic advantage, without providing any details.

On May 1, 2008, Wikimedia moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230), the federal law that shields providers and users of "interactive computer service[s]" from liability for defamation and other torts for publishing the statements of third parties, bars Bauer's claims as a matter of law. Wikimedia's memorandum in support of its motion also argued that, even if CDA 230 did not bar Bauer's claim, the underlying statements are protected opinion under the New Jersey Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

On May 20, 2008, WritersNewsWeekly.com wrote that the court will hear Wikimedia's motion to be dismissed from the lawsuit on June 6, 2008.

Update:

7/1/08 - Court dismissed the case against Wikimedia Foundation, ruling that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred liability for publishing the statements of others. The court left open the possibility that Bauer could amend her complaint to state a claim against Wikimedia.

A lawyer for Denver Nuggets coach George Karl has threatened blogger Andrew Feinstein with legal action if he crosses "the boundaries of permissible speech." Feinstein, a frustrated Nuggets fan, created a blog called Fire George Karl, lamenting what he sees as a series of "blown games, losses against sub-.500 opponents, porous defensive performances and incoherent offensive schemes." On February 26, 2008, Karl's lawyer sent Feinstein an email:

Is your life really this boring and meaningless that you would spend the hours necessary to create such a website?

As Coach Karl’s counsel I am putting you on notice that I will sue you into bankruptcy should you cross the boundaries of permissible speech.

Feinstein posted the email on his blog.

Paris Hilton sued Bardia Persa, Nabil Haniss, Nabila Haniss, and a number of anonymous defendants in January 2007 for copyright infringement, publication of private facts, and misapproriation of her right of publicity. The case revolved around a website, Paris Exposed, which offered viewers the ability to view personal materials belonging to Hilton for a fee. According to the complaint, the website contained Hilton's medical records, bank account information, credit card information, contracts and other legal documents, diaries, home videos, and photographs, which she had stored in a storage unit in California. Hilton alleged that the storage facility foreclosed on her unit because of a billing mix-up and then sold the contents at a foreclosure auction. The complaint alleged further that Nabil and Nabila Haniss purchased the materials for $2,775 and then sold them to the operators of the Paris Exposed website for a large sum of money.

Hilton's complaint, filed in federal court in California, alleged copyright infringement based on the defendants' unauthorized distribution and display of three works (apparently poems) created by Hilton -- "Love Letter," "I Can't Take It," and "How Would You Know?". Additionally, it alleged that the defendants had violated her privacy by publishing information contained in Hilton's medical and financial records, private home videos, audio taped conversations, diaries, and photographs, among other things. Finally, it alleged that the defendants misappropriated Hilton's right of publicity by using her name in the name of the website and displaying videos and other material containing her likeness for commercial gain.

In February 2005, when only the Hanisses had appeared in the action, the federal district court granted Hilton a temporary restraining, which barred the defendants from infringing her copyrights, publishing her private materials, and using her name and likeness. In late February 2005, the court granted Hilton a temporary injunction barring Bardia Persa from infringing her copyrights, publishing her private materials, and using her name or likeness. (Prior to the ruling, Hilton had acknowledged that the Hanisses had no part in operating the website.) Persa, apparently a resident of St. Kitts, never appeared in the action.

After the prelminary injunction issued, Paris Exposed shut down operations for a time, but then resurfaced at the same domain name. In June 2007, Hilton amended her complaint to drop Nabil Haniss from the lawsuit and to include claims against Green Brothers Limited, a St. Kitts company that allegedly was running the Paris Exposed website. The complaint also named three new individual defendants -- Karamooz, Thomas, and Green, who were alleged to be connected to the company.

In September 2007, Hilton settled with Nabila Haniss and dismissed the lawsuit against her. In October 2007, Hilton voluntarily withdrew her lawsuit against the remaining defendants, none of whom ever appeared in the action. The Paris Exposed website is still up and running.

Lawyers for the musician formerly known, and now currently known, as Prince have sent cease-and-desist letters and at least one DMCA takedown notice to the three largest Prince fansites, Prince.org, Princefams.com, and Housequake.com, demanding that they remove all photographs, images, lyrics, album covers, and anything linked to Prince's likeness.

The fan sites were also requested to provide Prince's lawyers with "substantive details of the means by which you propose to compensate our clients [Paisley Park Enterprises, NPG Records and Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG)] for damages."

The fansites formed a coalition, Prince Fans United (PFU), which has issued a press release saying that the letter campaign goes too far, effectively stifling critical commentary and impinging on freedom of speech. It does not appear that a lawsuit been initiated.

Update:

3/13/2008 - Prince Fans United reported that negotiations between the coalition and Prince were at a standstill for unknown reasons.

Christopher Fitzgerald, a freelance photographer who was working on assignment for the Boston Globe, photographed well-known mobster Stephen Flemmi on January 6, 1995 while Flemmi was being transferred shortly after his arrest. Fitzgerald was the only photographer at the scene, and thus his are the only known publicly-available photographs of Flemmi’s arrest. In June 2004, two CBS affiliate stations in Boston, CBS-4 and UPN-38, broadcast one of Fitzgerald's photographs without permission and CBS-4 put the photo on its website.

On October 12, 2004, Fitzgerald sued CBS for copyright infringement. Fitzgerald also filed a second, nearly identical copyright action (06-11302) against CBS based on the same set of facts, seeking to collect double statutory damages because the broadcast at issue went out over two of CBS’s Boston affiliate stations.

Several years prior to this action, Fitzgerald had sued CBS over the use of the same photographs in its show "60 Minutes." That lawsuit ended in a settlement, and CBS took steps to ensure that the photographs were not accidentally broadcast again. However, at least one copy of a photograph was not destroyed, and it was used in 2004 by the CBS affiliate stations.

On September 1 and 20, 2006, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, with CBS asserting that its use of the photograph constituted fair use under copyright law. The district court granted partial summary judgment for Fitzgerald as to CBS's liability, but denied Fitzgerald's claim for summary judgment as to willfullness. The court also consolidated the two lawsuits because they were based on the same set of facts.

Two final determinations are left to the jury: (1) whether CBS's use of the photograph was willful copyright infringment and (2) the extent of Fitzgerald's damages.

Update:

4/14/2008 - Judge dismissed the case after parties reached a settlement.

Todd Hollis objected to the information users posted about him on DontDateHimGirl.com, a website that allows women to post about men and warn other women about them. In May 2006, Mr. Hollis sued Tasha Joseph/Cunningham, the operator of the website, alleging defamation in Pennsylvania state court, after she refused to remove the posts.

The Pennsylvania court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over Joseph/Cunningham, a resident of Florida.

On November 29, 2007, Hollis filed a second lawsuit in federal court in Florida, alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false light invasion of privacy. According to the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, Tasha Joseph/Cunningham issued the following statement in response to the new lawsuit:

DontDateHimGirl.com's mission is to empower women with the informationand connections that help them make better life decisions. DDHG.com is fully protected [from defamation lawsuits] by the Communication Decency Act. ... Any attack or lawsuit put forth regarding DDHG.com will be dealt with strongly, swiftly and in a manner which will seek to end this type of erroneous, wasteful litigation.

03/31/2008: Cunningham answered Hollis' complaint and filed a counterclaim against Hollis for defamation. The defamation claim arose from an telecopier document allegedly sent by an organization related to Hollis that stated as fact that Cunningham had been convicted of grand theft by the State of Florida.

04/14/2008: Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The motion argued that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on several of plaintiff's claims because certain examples of the disputed content were true and certain examples were entitled to protection under CDA 230.

03/2008 through 05/2008: Plaintiff and defendants filed a series of motions disputing discovery issues. These primarily concern defendants' requests for information from plaintiff and plaintiffs requests to depose individuals regarding defendants' reputation.

05/15/2008: Court dismissed Cunningham's counterclaim at Cunningham's request and granted Cunningham's request for protective orders that would prevent plaintiff from deposing certain individuals on the issue of defendants' reputation.

06/20/2008: The case has been dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of both parties. Details of the settlement are not yet available.