Your Own Argument and Opinions

1. Yes I do agree with the reasoning that Lawyer Todd Uglow gave. At first when I was coming up with questions to ask Todd I thought "Hey, interns should get the same protection as employees," but then when I interviewed Todd he made a great point. Interns shouldn't get the same protection, he wasn't saying that they shouldn't get any protection at all, but that they should have something separate that the state should pay for. Employers have to pay for the protection that they give to their employees so if they would also have to be responsible for paying for the interns protection, companies may not want to provide opportunities for internships anymore.

2. This subject is a bit grey for me, on one hand I agree that yes we can grab inspiration from anything, but then I don't feel that it is fair that people can just grab bits and pieces from someone else's work and it will be okay. In the Lapine v. Seinfeld case I did feel bad that Lapine who came up with the idea first didn't win. "In any event, the total concept and feel of the two books is different. Deceptively Delicious lacks an extensive discussion of child behavior, food philosophy, and parenting. Its recipes are simpler. And it uses brighter colors and more photographs than The Sneaky Chef. In short, Lapine cannot copyright the idea of the book. And because the books look so different, it is clear that Seinfeld has not stolen the expression of Lapine's idea." I think that this issue has just begun and we will eventually find better and more efficient ways to help people protect the ideas that they come up with or at least give them more credit. 

3. I agreed with Todd Uglow that Gwyneth Paltrow did not violate any kind of child abuse laws. I think that people's opinion on what is considered child exploitation is so wide that anything could be considered wrong. 

4. When it comes to under-age modeling and nudity I do agree that the modeling agency should have some fault because they are the ones that represent the model and should put the model in harms way, but I also think that some of the consequences should go to the photographer if he owns the rights to the photos or the company(brand) if they are the ones that own the rights, and to the parent. 

5. "UNFAIR PRACTICES The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices" I also agreed with the response that I got for this question as well. Saying that real fur is "faux" fur is false advertising because there are many people out there who are opposed to hurting or the harming of animals, and for them buying "faux" fur helps keep there conscious clear. But when retailers advertise the furs as "faux" when they aren't, it's unfair to their customers. It shows the customers that all the retailer cares about is making money and that is something retailers don't want their customers to think, that is why retailers try so hard to create a brand identity for themselves so that they can connect to their customers on a more personal level. So when retailers use false advertisements just to gain more money they are just throwing all of the money that they spend on branding and marketing away.  

6. I agree that yes companies do need to pay at least at the minimum wage of the state they are in or even higher, but a question that I forgot to ask was if a company could pay at the national minimum wage if they wanted to, or if they must pay at the wage addressed by the state. "In Washington, D.C., Congress is our national legislature. Congress passes the statutes that govern the nation. In addition, each state has a legislature, which passes statutes for that state only."

7. Todd says that all visa requests have to be approved, so what I think is strange is how was the outsourcing company Infosys able to get approved for thousands of B-1 visas that are only meant for short term stays, and why wasn't there anyone coming in to check if their visas were still valet, because they had many visas that had been expired for about three years. 

8. It makes sense that an America company conducting its business in a foreign country would face consequences in that country, but I think that they should face more serious consequences in the US instead of just bad publicity. My point of view on this situation is that if they are American citizens then they should comply with American standards in all countries that it does business in. I'm not saying that they shouldn't corporate with the laws of the foreign country. For example, the conduction of sweatshops are illegal in the US but in other countries its a way of living and surviving, so what I think is that a US company shouldn't be allowed to conduct its business in sweatshops around the world just because it's cheaper, and if they do that company should also get consequences within the US, this situation should be addressed as if it was committed in the States because they are a US citizen and know that its wrong.

9. I really never thought of a muse as an endorsement but it is. When a celebrity works with a designer as its "Muse" then its also like a celebrity endorser. But designers can also just get inspiration from these celebrities styles, personalities, and looks without them being an endorser, and the designer wouldn't be at fault. "It is a fundamental principle of our copyright doctrine that ideas, concepts, and processes are not protected from copying."

10. It does make sense that you would only be able to see if a company is paying their employees fairly if they are a publicly owned company, but when it comes to privately owned companies it will be a lot harder to find out because they don't have to provide the public with these documents if they do not want to. 

Citations:
Beatty, J. F., & Samuelson, S. S. (2012). Introduction to Business Law, 4th Ed. South-Western College Pub. Pages 6, 65, 129, 329, 330, 450, 460, 506