The BBC reports that an American court has dismissed a breach of privacy claim against the rapper Snoop Doggy Dogg. The claimant, identified only as “Jim Bob”, left a message on Mr Dogg’s answerphone supporting the rapper during his contretemps with Marion “Suge” Knight. He was surprised though when he found that his message had found his way on to a song in Snoop Doggy Dogg’s 2002 albumn Paid the Cost to be Tha Boss. The court was not persuaded by “Jim Bob’s” argument that his safety had been endangered by the inclusion of the message, finding that he had no expectation of privacy.
The IPKat thinks that normally people should be entitled to expect that messages left on private answerphones will remain private. However, this expectation is less justified when a person makes unsolicited contact with a public figure and, without being asked for it, offers his or her support.
Snoop Doggy Dogg here
Snoopy Doggy Dogg here
More rapping dogs here
Threaten Jim Bob’s safety here
Equipment to make your next record with here
The IPKat thinks that normally people should be entitled to expect that messages left on private answerphones will remain private. However, this expectation is less justified when a person makes unsolicited contact with a public figure and, without being asked for it, offers his or her support.
Snoop Doggy Dogg here
Snoopy Doggy Dogg here
More rapping dogs here
Threaten Jim Bob’s safety here
Equipment to make your next record with here
RAP STAR DOGGED BY PRIVACY CLAIM
![RAP STAR DOGGED BY PRIVACY CLAIM]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html