“Almost, Maine is Almost at Ambrose”

You fall in love, fall out of love, sometimes in unexpected hilarious ways. Sound familiar? This is the general plot of the relatable play “Almost, Maine” which debuts in the Ambrose Studio Theatre soon.

The studio theatre is used by theatre students who want the opportunity to direct a show on their own.  It’s an intimate environment but gives the same experience as directing on a Broadway stage.  The phenomenal student director of this production is Molly Conrad ’14. 

“I applied to direct ‘Almost, Maine’, because it is funny and it is heartbreaking, but it isn't just funny and heartbreaking”, Conrad said. “There are magical moments that make each scene special, and bring all the stories throughout the show together.”

This production is the biggest cast in the history of the studio theatre. Featuring 17 students, many of which are non-theatre majors, Almost, Maine exemplifies what Ambrose is all about: involvement and stretching the creative mind.

“Everyone involved is doing an excellent job, and finding that they have true gifts,” Conrad said. “It's great to discover everyone's potential.” 

So why should you come see the show in the directors opinion?

“The show is just above an hour. It is hilarious, but also relatable. I predict audience members will have trouble not relating to at least one scene, or one character.”

Show runs:
Thursday Nov 1, @ 7:30p.m.
Friday Nov 2, @ 7:30p.m.
Saturday Nov 3, @ 2 & 7:30p.m.

 Tickets are on sale for $6, and seating is limited, so it's important to reserve your seats now! Contact the Galvin Box office at (563) 333-6251 to get your tickets. Everybody, even students, needs to purchase a ticket because of the small environment.

This is one show you do not want to miss! I’ve seen it 3 times and it still touches my heart in comical ways.

https://www.facebook.com/#!/events/434476933276355/?fref=tck

The Seuss Law Suit

The Seuss Law Suit

Hannah Wilke

March 28, 1997

In the U.S. 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Dr. Seuss and Penguin Books USA tried to settle a deal

The Cat NOT in the Hat, about O.J. Simpson’s murder trial

May be a copyright and trademark infringement on Seuss’s similar title

Penguin Books without Seuss’s permission strived to publish a satire

That mission shortly after really did backfire

Seuss owns the trademark rights to the words “Dr. Seuss” and “Cat in the Hat”
These are just a few of the things he has trademarked just like that

After seeing an advertisement, Seuss filed a complaint

Copyright and trademark infringement were the issues at stake

 The Cat in the Hat was the object of the parody

However this was not seen as a pleasing hilarity

Copyright Code 17 Seuss filed suit for enforcement provisions under

District court denied restraining order leaving a hearing date up to wonder

Seuss then enjoined 12,000 books from allocation

He withdrew an illustration from Horton out of this ban of replication

Under the Copyright Act of 1976 does the book infringe Seuss’s rights?
Lets look at that act and see if it might

Copyright Act of 1976 gives the exclusive rights saying

I can reproduce copyrighted works

I can prepare derivative works

Distribute copies to the public

Perform the work to the public

Display the work to the public

For Seuss to prove copyright infringement

He must prove both valid copyright and ownership

One of the five rights must be invaded

For him to win or he is not elated

The illustrations and lettering used in “The Cat NOT in the Hat” were inspired by “The Cat in the Hat”, Katz admitted

To find substantial similarity of expression, Seuss committed

If a reasonable person thinks it’s a taking of protected expression

Then the Krofft test may be an accurate reflection

A parody mimics an original piece

In this situation, not mimicking, but a new masterpiece

The general style was used in an offbeat way

Not keeping up with the original story, they say

The 9^th Circuit Court decided the fate of the case

Penguin couldn’t claim fair use of something of Dr. Seuss’s taste

By using the four statutory factors

The work was a satire not a parody matter

-30-

WDAY Law Case

Broadcasting speeches

Hannah Wilke

June 30, 1959

            North Dakota- Parents commonly instruct their children, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.  However, this holds true for all ages.  Politicians especially should keep that reminder in their heads as they refer to competition.  If saying something inappropriate becomes libel, politicians could be sued. 

In 1956, one legally qualified senatorial candidate, A.C. Townley, gave a speech over the WDAY, Inc airways.  This uncensored speech was publicized in addition to other candidates’ speeches.  Being uncensored, Townley stated something considered allegedly slanderous and defamatory about his opponents and The Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union of America. 

Censorship is any “examination of thought or expression in order to prevent publication of ‘objectionable’ material.”

            The Farmers Union sued WDAY for Townley’s speech.  The North Dakota State District Court found in favor of WDAY.  Section 315 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 explains radio stations broadcasting uncensored speeches by candidates running for public office are not held responsible for any libelous statements made by the candidates.  A 5-4 vote from the Supreme Court found the FCA section 315 protects WDAY from liability for the broadcasted material.

-more-

Broadcasting speeches- -add 1

Broadcasters don’t have to have anything special to keep themselves covered ina  situation where a liability from defamation issue may arise.  Political candidates need a place to share their views and ideas.  “The Communications Commission considers the carrying of political broadcasts a public service criterion to be considered both in license renewal proceedings, and in comparative contests for a radio or television construction permit.”

“Recognizing radio's potential importance as a medium of communication of political ideas, Congress sought to foster its broadest possible utilization by encouraging broadcasting stations to make their facilities available to candidates for office without discrimination, and by insuring that these candidates when broadcasting were not to be hampered by censorship of the issues they could discuss,” Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said referring to the Radio Act of 1927.

The dissent, writtem by Justice Frankfurter, joined by Justices Harlan, Whittaker and Stewart, mostly agreed with Justice Black’s decision, but wanted to give states the opportunity to determine the liability of broadcasting stations in relation to third person parties.

The final decision of this case was based off Section 315 of the Federal Communication Act of 1934, which says political candidates may be held liable for any defamatory statements made on the air, but the station is not held liable.  This section has

-more-

Broadcasting speeches- -add 2

been implemented in other situations.  In Pennsylvania, a mayor’s speech was cut from a TV show.  The station, however, found Section 315 to employ an equal on air opportunity for all political candidates, giving them the same exposure time to work with and the same rights.

Communication professionals should study Farmers Union v. WDAY because its use of censorship and freedom of speech is always thought about by broadcasters specifically.  Stations hosting political candidates need to understand censoring a speech can remove some context and change the message.  They should also be reminded they will not be held liable for what the individuals they host say.  The candidates can be sued for what they say, but it isn’t the problem of the network.  When producing material with a political candidate, the speech should be carefully edited before recording.  This can save a lot of hassle and hardship in the long run.

-30-

The Devil Wears Prada

Hannah Wilke

The Devil Wears Prada Review

Illegal possession and duplication
            “If you don’t have that ‘Harry Potter’ book by then, don’t even bother coming back.”

No hint of sarcasm.  No laughter.  Spoken in a threatening tone, the most important figure in the fashion publication industry issues an unethical request to the girl who would rather be anywhere but there. 
            Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep star in “The Devil Wears Prada”, 2006, written by Aline Brosh McKenna.  The plot centers in on Andy Sachs (Hathaway), a hopeful journalist who lands a job in New York City working for Miranda Priestly (Streep), the cynical editor of Runway Magazine.  Sachs, unaware of what the job entails, goes into work each day feeling pressured to do everything right.  The responsibilities Sachs has are never ending and though unhappy with her position, she strives to be the best.  About to quit, Sachs suddenly fulfils one of Priestley’s’ many gruesome demands. The impression Sachs leaves on Priestly is memorable, giving her the opportunity of a lifetime. 

“It’s Miranda Priestly we’re talking about,” Sachs said.  “There’s no plan B, there’s only plan A.” 

When Priestly demands a manuscript of the unpublished “Harry Potter” book, Sachs realizes this is a next to impossible request.  Violating media law, Sachs uses her resources to undermine an individual working on the book art to score a copy of the text.  A law Sachs undoubtedly breaks, is the illegal duplication of an unpublished work without permission.  A

copyright is “the body of law that protects the works created by writers, painters, photographers, performing artists, inventors, and others who create intellectual property.”

“We know everyone in publishing, it shouldn’t be a problem right?” Priesetly asks. 

Taking advantage of people to get the unpublished manuscript is a matter of copyright because the author of the piece has the right to be the first to publish it.  I feel that Priestly knows she is being unreasonable in her many demands.  She is accustomed to getting what she wants and isn’t afraid to ask, she seems to not have a filter.  Sachs was about to quit over this ridiculous scenario, but when she gets the manuscript her adrenaline went into overdrive and she duplicated it.  I think the moment caught her up and she didn’t stop to think about her actions.  This is indubitably wrong and the normal person would realize that even being in possession of the manuscript is a big no-no.

            An example of copyright violation of an unpublished work was when Gerald Ford’s memoirs were published in an article using his quotes that were from the unpublished manuscript.  It was only 300 words out of 2,2500 and the Nation considered it to be fair use.  The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.  The 1976 law says, “The applicability of the fair use doctrine to unpublished works is narrowly limited since, although the work is unavailable, this is the result of a deliberate choice on the part of the copyright owner.  Under ordinary circumstances the copyright owner’s right of first publication would outweigh any needs of reproduction.”

Doing the right thing, and doing what is expected of you is a fine line to approach with caution. The tension in this film shows what type of people communicating with can be a strenuous and dangerous task.  “The Devil Wears Prada” should comfort those in professions with stable routines.  Its thrilling plot has the public relation officers on the edge of their seat thinking, “What would I do in this situation?” 

-30-

Flier for fundraising event