Appropriation of name and likeness is the use of a person's name, reputation, or image without his or her consent. An early and well-known case is that of a young woman who found her image distributed throughout the city on bags of flour without consent or compensation. The makers of the flour thought she deserved no compensation for having a lovely countenance. The New York courts agreed. Despite this early failure, appropriation of name and likeness is now recognized across America.
Violations of privacy are most likely to be prohibited when the motivation is financial gain. D. Comparison of e-Commerce Legislation of Australia with USA E-commerce legislation of Australia and the United States has several key differences. In the United States’ e-commerce legislation, the consumer is given very importance. The U. S. law does not “require any person to agree to use or accept electronic records or electronic signatures other than a governmental agency with respect to a record other than a contract to which it is party.
” (E-signature Act, Sec101 (s) (2)). An Australian contract and a United States contract with respect to electronic writing and electronic signature are same if at the time of a contract, both the parties accept their binding to the contract. But the United States differs from Australia because the United States provides the contracts the opportunity to make selection from either paper or electronic transactions.
Australian e-commerce legislation is less flexible as compared to the United States’ e-commerce legislation because both state and federal law in the United States require the parties to accept and store the contracts thus encouraging the enforcement and formation of contracts more flexibly. Both the countries, that is, Australia and the United States differ from each other with regard to e-commerce legislation because the right to choose the technology to be used is different in both the countries. The person has the right to choose the technology against whom the contract has been enforced in the United States law.
UETA has allowed the attribution of signatures in the condition when an effective security procedure is used. This procedure needs not to be only electronic. Rather, this procedure can be a non-technical solution, an example for such as non-technical solution is notaries. The party being bound also receives the choice of technology by the U. S. Uniform Computer Internet Transaction Act (UCITA). So it can be said that individuals have full freedom to design their legal binding contracts with the help of the United States Acts.
The Australian system does not allow such type of freedom. The choice of the use of technology is given to those who require the signatures and who enforce the contract. The Australian Act states that “the person to whom the signature is required to be given, consents to this requirement being met by way of the use of the method mentioned in paragraph (a)…” A method is described in paragraph (a) that will help in the identification of the person and for indicating the approval of the person of the information communicated.
Australia should be prepared to keep pace with technological innovation and join the new global business environment if it is to remain competitive internationally. Australian Business Law in the current form cannot cope with the contemporary business operations. The technological change is revolutionary, but the change in the legal system is evolutionary. There should be a number of changes in Australian legal systems to accommodate electronic commerce. Under Australia law, if someone steals a credit card it is not an offence until the card is used.
But in the US it is against the law to misuse an identity with the intention of committing a crime. We have introduced debate concerning Internet regulation. The USA is the key player to bring about any effective change. There is a need to keep clean our online information environment through generally accepted international laws or other regulatory mechanisms. The Internet is global, multi-jurisdictional structure; national legal systems will not control the uses and abuses of Internet use.
The continuing growth of the Internet has seen a corresponding growth in concern about online ethical privacy and security.
Besserglik, B. (2000). Spot light turned on cyber crime. The Australian IT/Cutting Edge (The Australian) Tuesday, May 16, p. 3. Bishop, P. , J. Kane and H. Patapan. (2002). “E-Democracy: Challenges to Democratic Theory”, Australian Parliamentary Review, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 55-68. Cant, S. (2002). Cyber Crime a $3 trillion nightmare. The Sydney Morning Herald, Tuesday, March, 5, p. 5.