DOCSLIB.ORG

Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: Examining Moral Rights in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: Examining Moral Rights in the United States united states copyright office authors, attribution, and integrity: examining moral rights in the united states A REPORT Of ThE REgister Of cOPyRighTs APRiL 2019 united states copyright office authors, attribution, and integrity: examining moral rights in the united states A report Of ThE REgister Of cOPyRighTs APRiL 2019 U.S. Copyright Office Authors, Attribution, and Integrity ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is my pleasure to deliver this report focusing on the personal rights of individual authors and artists, who have often been excluded in broader conversations about copyright legal reforms. The report represents a comprehensive review of this important topic by many people within the U.S. Copyright Office, and in particular, in the Office of Policy and International Affairs. Senior Counsels for Policy and International Affairs Kimberley Isbell and Chris Weston served as principal authors. Without their efforts in managing the complex research and writing needed to tacKle this difficult subject, and their Keen insight in identifying policy paths forward, this Report would not have been possible. I am also grateful to Katie Alvarez, Brad A. Greenberg, Emily Lanza, and Aurelia J. Schultz, Counsels for Policy and International Affairs, for their significant research and drafting contributions. Deputy Director of Policy and International Affairs Maria Strong shepherded the public symposium on moral rights and played a leadership role in completing this project. The entire team worKed diligently and creatively to address the numerous domestic and international issues raised. General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights Regan A. Smith contributed valuable insights and advice, as did Deputy General Counsel Kevin Amer. Barbara A. Ringer Copyright Honors Program Fellow Sarah Gersten provided drafting assistance; Law ClerKs Mitisha Chheda, Caitlin Costello, Tiffany Hightower, Ryan KwocK, and Zhao Zhao delivered research support; and Policy and International Affairs Assistant Ashleigh Mayo provided production support. Finally, I would liKe to thanK the many individuals and organizations who participated in our symposium and provided comments in this docKet. Karyn A. Temple Register of Copyrights and Director, U.S. Copyright Office U.S. Copyright Office Authors, Attribution, and Integrity EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 3 I. INTRODUCTION AND STUDY HISTORY................................................................................... 6 II. DEVELOPMENT OF MORAL RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD ................ 9 A. International Development of the Concept of Moral Rights............................................... 10 B. Variability in the Protection of Moral Rights Internationally ............................................. 13 C. U.S. Accession to the Berne Convention .............................................................................. 18 1. Efforts to Join the Berne Convention .............................................................................. 19 2. The Moral Rights PatchworK .......................................................................................... 24 D. Post-Berne Developments: New WIPO Treaties ................................................................. 25 III. GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR REVIEW OF MORAL RIGHTS REGIME ................................... 27 A. Respect for Foundational Principles of U.S. Law ................................................................ 28 1. Moral Rights and the First Amendment ........................................................................ 28 2. Moral Rights and Fair Use............................................................................................... 30 3. Moral Rights and Copyright Term Limits ..................................................................... 33 B. Importance of Attribution and Integrity to Creators ........................................................... 34 C. Recognize and Respect Diversity Among Creative Industries and Types of WorKs ........ 36 IV. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 37 A. Federal Law ............................................................................................................................ 40 1. Misappropriation and Unfair Competition: The Lanham Act .................................... 40 a) Pre-BCIA Case Law ................................................................................................... 40 b) The Supreme Court’s decision in Dastar .................................................................. 42 c) Post-Dastar Case Law ................................................................................................ 44 d) The Implication of Dastar for the Moral Rights PatchworK .................................... 54 e) Potential Lanham Act Changes ................................................................................ 58 2. Visual Artists Rights Act (“VARA”) ............................................................................... 59 a) Limitations of VARA ................................................................................................. 60 (1) VARA Applies Only to “Visual” WorKs ............................................................ 61 (2) Not All Visual Art WorKs are Covered by VARA ............................................ 63 (a) WorKs Made for Hire................................................................................... 64 (b) Commercial Art ........................................................................................... 66 (c) Applied Art .................................................................................................. 68 (d) Non-copyrightable Art ................................................................................ 70 (e) Preparatory WorKs ...................................................................................... 71 (f) Site-specific Art ............................................................................................ 72 b) Actionable Conduct: VARA Rights of Attribution & Integrity .............................. 74 (1) Right of Attribution ............................................................................................. 74 U.S. Copyright Office Authors, Attribution, and Integrity (2) Right of Integrity ................................................................................................. 76 (a) Prejudicial to Artist’s Reputation ............................................................... 76 (b) Definition of ”WorK of Recognized Stature” ............................................. 77 c) Duration ..................................................................................................................... 81 d) Waiver ........................................................................................................................ 82 3. Section 1202 of Title 17 .................................................................................................... 83 a) Section 1202 Protections vis-à-vis the Right of Attribution ..................................... 86 b) Applicability to Analog as Well as Digital CMI ...................................................... 87 c) Challenges Applying Section 1202 to Moral Rights Protections ............................ 90 (1) No Right to Be Credited ...................................................................................... 90 (2) Difficult to Prove Knowledge Requirement ...................................................... 93 (3) Difficulties for Non-Rightsholder Authors ....................................................... 99 4. Other Title 17 Provisions ............................................................................................... 100 a) Derivative Works — Section 106(2) ........................................................................ 100 b) Compulsory Licenses for Nondramatic Musical WorKs — Section 115(a)(2) ..... 103 c) Termination of Transfers — Section 203 ................................................................ 105 B. State Law ............................................................................................................................... 107 1. Defamation ..................................................................................................................... 107 2. Privacy and Publicity ..................................................................................................... 110 a) Post-BCIA Case Law ............................................................................................... 112 b) Considering a Federal Right of Publicity ............................................................... 117 3. Misrepresentation and Unfair Competition................................................................. 119 4. State Moral Rights Laws ................................................................................................ 120 5. Contracts and Licenses .................................................................................................. 127 a) The Role of Contracts in Moral Rights ................................................................... 129 b) Concerns about Protecting Moral Rights Through Contract................................ 133 (1) Privity ................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 8. Putting Artists and Guardians of Indigenous Works First
    8 Putting Artists and Guardians of Indigenous Works First: Towards a Restricted Scope of Freedom of Panorama in the Asian Pacific Region Jonathan Barrett1 1 Introduction ‘Freedom of panorama’2 permits use of certain copyright-protected works on public display; for example, anyone may publish and sell postcards of a public sculpture.3 The British heritage version of freedom of panorama, which is followed by many jurisdictions in the Asian Pacific region,4 applies 1 Copyright © 2018 Jonathan Barrett. Senior Lecturer, School of Accounting and Commercial Law, Victoria University of Wellington. 2 The term ‘freedom of panorama’ recently came into common usage in English. It appears to be derived from the Swiss German ‘Panoramafreiheit’, which itself has only been used since the 1990s, despite the exemption existing in German law for 170 years. See Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay and Pierre-Carl Langlais ‘Public artworks and the freedom of panorama controversy: a case of Wikimedia influence’ (2017) 6(1) Internet Policy Review. 3 Incidental copying of copyright works is not considered to be a feature of freedom of panorama. See Copyright Act 1994 (NZ), s 41. 4 Asian Pacific countries are those west of the International Date Line (IDL), as defined for the purposes of the Asian Pacific Copyright Association (APCA) in Brian Fitzgerald and Benedict Atkinson (eds) Copyright Future Copyright Freedom: Marking the 40 Year Anniversary of the Commencement of Australia’s Copyright Act 1968 (Sydney University Press, Sydney, 2011) at 236. 229 MAkING COPyRIGHT WORk FOR THE ASIAN PACIFIC? to buildings, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship on permanent display in a public place or premises open to the public.5 These objects may be copied in two dimensions, such as photographs.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Use of Sound Recordings Under Statutory License
    Notice of Use of Sound Recordings 5 under Statutory License United States Copyright Office In accordance with 37 CFR 370.2, the transmission service named below hereby files with the Library of Congress, United States Copyright Office, a notice stating the service’s intention to use the statutory license under sections 112(e) or 114(d)(2), or both, of title 17 of the United States Code, as amended by Public Law 104-39, 109 Stat. 336, and Public Law 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860. Please enclose a check or money order for the nonrefundable filing fee of $40.00, payable to Register of Copyrights. Mail to: Check, if applicable: Copyright Royalty Board Amended filing ATTN: Licensing Division PO Box 70977 Washington, DC 20024-0977 Please type or print the requested information for each item. If this is an amended filing, please indicate which item contains new information by checking the “New Information” box to the left of that item. New Information 1 Name of service 2 Mailing address NOTE: A post office box is acceptable if it is the only address that can be used in that geographic location. 3 Telephone no. 4 Fax no. 5 Website address of service http:// NOTE: Information must be provided on how to gain access to the online website or home page of the service, or where information may be posted under the regulations concerning the use of sound recordings. 6 Nature of license and category of service: (Check all that apply) a Statutory license for digital transmissions, 17 USC §114(d)(2) Preexisting subscription service Eligible nonsubscription transmission
    [Show full text]
  • The Music Modernization Act of 2018 and Its Burgeoning Impact Jeffrey G
    The Music Modernization Act of 2018 and its Burgeoning Impact Jeffrey G. Knowles, Partner, Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP Lisa M. Schreihart, Attorney Abstract The Music Modernization Act of 2018 (“MMA”), enacted October 11, 2018, is the most significant reform of music copyright law in decades. As the first major legislation since the Copyright Act of 1976 to affect music royalties, the MMA has made major strides in improving compensation and to level the playing field for all music creators, including songwriters, legacy artists, and music producers. The MMA modernizes the musical works licensing scheme for today’s digital music environment, provides federal copyright protection for pre-1972 sound recordings, and ensures that music producers can get a piece of the royalty pie. The MMA may also have some shortcomings that allow room for legislative growth in the modern music era. This paper describes the key parts of the MMA and eXamines the benefits and criticisms of the Act that have surfaced in the Act’s first year as law. An Overview of the Music Modernization Act The Music Modernization Act (MMA), proposed as H.R. 1551 by Representatives Orrin G. Hatch and Bob Goodlatte, combined the Music Modernization Act of 2018 (S. 2334), the Classics Protection and Access Act (S. 2393), and the Allocation for Music Producers Act (S. 2625). The MMA, an amended version of S. 2823, passed unanimously both in the House as H.R. 5447 on April 25, 2018 and in the Senate on September 18, 2018. The MMA was enacted October 11, 2018. The MMA is intended to: 1) increase compensation to songwriters and streamline licensing of their music; 2) enable artists who recorded music before 1972 to be paid royalties when their music is played on digital services; and 3) enable music producers (e.g., record producers, sound engineers, and other studio professionals) to receive royalties for their creative contributions to recorded music.
    [Show full text]
  • General Info.Indd
    General Information • Landmarks Beyond the obvious crowd-pleasers, New York City landmarks Guggenheim (Map 17) is one of New York’s most unique are super-subjective. One person’s favorite cobblestoned and distinctive buildings (apparently there’s some art alley is some developer’s idea of prime real estate. Bits of old inside, too). The Cathedral of St. John the Divine (Map New York disappear to differing amounts of fanfare and 18) has a very medieval vibe and is the world’s largest make room for whatever it is we’ll be romanticizing in the unfinished cathedral—a much cooler destination than the future. Ain’t that the circle of life? The landmarks discussed eternally crowded St. Patrick’s Cathedral (Map 12). are highly idiosyncratic choices, and this list is by no means complete or even logical, but we’ve included an array of places, from world famous to little known, all worth visiting. Great Public Buildings Once upon a time, the city felt that public buildings should inspire civic pride through great architecture. Coolest Skyscrapers Head downtown to view City Hall (Map 3) (1812), Most visitors to New York go to the top of the Empire State Tweed Courthouse (Map 3) (1881), Jefferson Market Building (Map 9), but it’s far more familiar to New Yorkers Courthouse (Map 5) (1877—now a library), the Municipal from afar—as a directional guide, or as a tip-off to obscure Building (Map 3) (1914), and a host of other court- holidays (orange & white means it’s time to celebrate houses built in the early 20th century.
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Conservative Constructions of American Exceptionalism
    Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric, Vol. 1, No.2, 2011, pp. 40-54. Contemporary Conservative Constructions of American Exceptionalism Jason A. Edwards Ever since President Obama took office in 2009, there has been an underlying debate amongst politicians, pundits, and policymakers over America’s exceptionalist nature. American exceptionalism is one of the foundational myths of U.S. identity. While analyses of Barack Obama’s views on American exceptionalism are quite prominent, there has been little discussion of conservative rhetorical constructions of this impor- tant myth. In this essay, I seek to fill this gap by mapping prominent American conservatives’ rhetorical voice on American exceptionalism. Keywords: American exceptionalism, conservative rhetoric, jeremiad In April 2009, President Obama travelled to Europe to meet with European leaders in coordinating a strategy to deal with the global financial crisis and to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the NATO alliance. At a news conference in Strasbourg, France, Ed Luce of the Financial Times asked the president whether or not he believed in American ex- ceptionalism. Obama answered by stating, I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British ex- ceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I am enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world . we have a core set of values that are en- shrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality that, though imperfect, are exceptional. Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we‟ve got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries or recogniz- ing that we‟re not always going to be right, or that people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties, have to compromise, and that includes us.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Rights: the Anti-Rebellion Graffiti Heritage of 5Pointz Richard H
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Articles & Chapters 2018 Moral Rights: The Anti-Rebellion Graffiti Heritage of 5Pointz Richard H. Chused New York Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_articles_chapters Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, Land Use Law Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Chused, Richard H., "Moral Rights: The Anti-Rebellion Graffiti Heritage of 5Pointz" (2018). Articles & Chapters. 1172. https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_articles_chapters/1172 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. Moral Rights: The Anti-Rebellion Graffiti Heritage of 5Pointz Richard Chused* INTRODUCTION Graffiti has blossomed into far more than spray-painted tags and quickly vanishing pieces on abandoned buildings, trains, subway cars, and remote underpasses painted by rebellious urbanites. In some quarters, it has become high art. Works by acclaimed street artists Shepard Fairey, Jean-Michel Basquiat,2 and Banksy,3 among many others, are now highly prized. Though Banksy has consistently refused to sell his work and objected to others doing so, works of other * Professor of Law, New York Law School. I must give a heartfelt, special thank you to my artist wife and muse, Elizabeth Langer, for her careful reading and constructive critiques of various drafts of this essay. Her insights about art are deeply embedded in both this paper and my psyche. Familial thanks are also due to our son, Benjamin Chused, whose knowledge of the graffiti world was especially helpful in composing this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • NYC Graffiti Case Could Leave Its Mark on Legal Arena
    NEW YORK NYC Graffiti Case Could Leave Its Mark on Legal Arena A lawsuit concerning the destruction of former graffiti-art mecca 5Pointz could be a watershed moment in the interpretation of the Visual Artists Rights Act A mural by Maria Castillo, aka Toofly, at 5Pointz that was demolished in 2014 was submitted as evidence in a trial against developer Jerry Wolkoff in federal district court in Brooklyn. PHOTO: 5POINTZ By Thomas MacMillan Nov. 27, 2017 2:36 p.m. ET 21 COMMENTS The outcome of a federal civil lawsuit in Brooklyn concerning the destruction of former graffiti-art mecca 5Pointz could hold an important lesson for artists and landlords: Make your agreements in writing. Earlier his month, jurors issued an advisory ruling in favor of the plaintiffs—21 artists who sued real-estate developer Jerry Wolkoff after he whitewashed and demolished his warehouses in Long Island City, Queens. Until it came down in 2014, the complex, known as 5Pointz, had stood for more than a decade as an open-air museum of graffiti art by some of the medium’s most revered practitioners. The Brooklyn federal court judge presiding over the case will now decide whether the landlord is liable and the artists are entitled to damages. That decision is expected in December or January. The plaintiffs haven’t asked for a specific amount, but could win several million dollars in damages. But even before the case is resolved, legal observers are marking the jury ruling as a possible watershed moment in the interpretation of a seldom-used federal law called the Visual Artists Rights Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft of 7/26/2019 RECONCEPTUALIZING
    Draft of 7/26/2019 RECONCEPTUALIZING COMPULSORY COPYRIGHT LICENSES 72 Stanford Law Review (Forthcoming 2020) Jacob Victor* ABSTRACT United States copyright law generally assumes that by providing property entitlements in creative works, the free market will balance between two competing priorities: incentivizing creators to produce works and ensuring the public has adequate access to this content. But the Copyright Act also outlines several detailed compulsory licensing schemes requiring the owners of certain copyright interests, musical works in particular, to license to anyone at government-set prices. Consistent with broader property theory concepts, scholars tend to treat compulsory copyright licenses as liability rules used only to address market failures caused by transaction costs. This Article questions that account, arguing that compulsory licensing also plays an important and underexplored role in furthering copyright’s specific policy agenda. A close analysis of the music regulatory regime and its history shows that its primary function has been to recalibrate the balance between creators’ financial incentives and public access to expressive works in situations where free market licensing would yield problematic outcomes. Unlike liability rules designed only to address transaction costs, for which regulators generally try to mimic market rates using market proxies, the compulsory music licensing regime traditionally used copyright policy- oriented rate-setting criteria. Applying these criteria, regulators often chose below-market
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Rights and the Realistic Limits of Artistic Control Susan Rabin
    Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 14 | Issue 2 Article 9 January 1984 Moral Rights and the Realistic Limits of Artistic Control Susan Rabin Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Susan Rabin, Moral Rights and the Realistic Limits of Artistic Control, 14 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. (1984). http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol14/iss2/9 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Golden Gate University Law Review by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rabin: Moral Rights MORAL RIGHTS AND THE REALISTIC LIMITS OF ARTISTIC CONTROL Artists, musicians, and authors have a substantial need to protect their work from being presented to the public in a dis­ torted form. In addition to their insecurity in depending on the public for financial support, most artists are relatively unsophis­ ticated in the business, commercial, and legal aspects of their art. It is essential that artists understand the scope and limits of available protections - statutory, judicial, contractual, or otherwise. Protection of artistic works raises difficult issues, some of which do not lend themselves to legal analysis and solutions. Foremost is the question: When has an artistic work been al­ tered in such a way that the author/artist/composer may be damaged economically or personally?
    [Show full text]
  • Page 243 TITLE 19—CUSTOMS DUTIES § 1592 Possible for Such
    Page 243 TITLE 19—CUSTOMS DUTIES § 1592 possible for such merchandise, or any part (4) The external display of false registration thereof, to be introduced into the United numbers, false country of registration, or, in States unlawfully. the case of a vessel, false vessel name. (c) Civil penalties (5) The presence on board of unmanifested merchandise, the importation of which is pro- Any person who violates any provision of this hibited or restricted. section is liable for a civil penalty equal to (6) The presence on board of controlled sub- twice the value of the merchandise involved in stances which are not manifested or which are the violation, but not less than $10,000. The not accompanied by the permits or licenses re- value of any controlled substance included in quired under Single Convention on Narcotic the merchandise shall be determined in accord- Drugs or other international treaty. ance with section 1497(b) of this title. (7) The presence of any compartment or (d) Criminal penalties equipment which is built or fitted out for smuggling. In addition to being liable for a civil penalty (8) The failure of a vessel to stop when under subsection (c) of this section, any person hailed by a customs officer or other govern- who intentionally commits a violation of any ment authority. provision of this section is, upon conviction— (1) liable for a fine of not more than $10,000 (June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, § 590, as added or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or Pub. L. 99–570, title III, § 3120, Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Torts in the Oil Patch
    Torts in the Oil Patch Prof. Tracy Hester September 11, 2017 Announcements • Field trip to Weatherford drilling rig: Friday, Sept. 29, 2017 • Guest speakers – – Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon, Wednesday, Sept. 13, at 6 pm in BLB 109 – Roger Martella, GE VP for EHS, Wednesday, Oct. 25, time and place TBA – Dr. Gavin Clarkson - November • IEL, AIPN, GCPA Review • Basics of Oilfield E&P • Types of contamination created by E&P work • Categories of likely tort actions • Reasons to pursue tort remedy rather than agency action Environmental Law of First Resort: Tort Claims • Nuisance • Negligence (including negligence per se) • Trespass • Unjust Enrichment • Emotional Distress • Strict Liability – Ultrahazardous Activity • Exotic claims (business torts, civil conspiracy) Likely Parties • Plaintiffs: – Surface estate owners – Neighbors – both surface and mineral estate owners – Agencies and governments – NGOs • Defendants: working interest owners, operators and contractors Duties Owed by Oil Company • Be a reasonably prudent operator • “Restore” the surface ? • plow depth • concrete pads and foundations? • oil, saltwater, etc. contamination? • What else does the lease (contract) say? Nuisance • Material or substantial injury to a person of ordinary health and sensibilities in that particular locale – private vs public nuisance • no statute of limitations if public nuisance • diminution in property value vs injunction or abatement (cost) • yesterday’s economic accommodation may become tomorrow’s nuisance (Texas: to persons of “ordinary” sensibilities) • Permit to discharge is usually not a defense • Permanent, temporary, and/or continuing • “Coming to the nuisance” doctrine may not be applicable if “temporary” and “continuing” Trespass • Conduct that leads to the invasion of a person’s interest in his or her rightful exclusive possession of property • La: unlawful physical invasion of property of another • Typically, intentional tort that requires a showing of fault • Often 2 or 3 year SOL.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 in the United States District Court for the District
    6:10-cv-01884-JMC Date Filed 07/20/10 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION TIM CLARK, JOHANNA CLOUGHERTY, CIVIL ACTION MICHAEL CLOUGHERTY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT GOLDLINE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Plaintiffs and proposed class representatives Tim Clark, Johanna Clougherty, and Michael Clougherty (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated against Defendant Goldline International, Inc. (“Goldline”) to recover damages arising from Goldline’s violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., unfair and deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment. 2. This action is brought as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of a Class, described more fully below, which includes all persons or entities domiciled or residing in any of the fifty states of the United States of America or in the District of Columbia who purchased at least one product from Goldline since July 20, 2006. 3. Goldline is a precious metal dealer that buys and sells numismatic coins and bullion to investors and collectors all across the nation via telemarketing and telephone sales. Goldline is an established business that has gained national prominence in recent years through its association with conservative talk show hosts it sponsors and paid celebrity spokespeople who 1 6:10-cv-01884-JMC Date Filed 07/20/10 Entry Number 1 Page 2 of 23 have agreed to promote Goldline products by playing off the fear of inflation to encourage people to purchase gold and other precious metals as an investment that will protect them from an out of control government.
    [Show full text]