From the Legal Hotline (1-877-NEWS-LAW)

Q. We received a classified ad for an apartment rental: “1 bed, 1 bath apt for rent. Rent based on income. Women and children only need apply.” Is there an exception for apartments owned by domestic violence shelters that would allow us to run this discriminatory language?

A. The Violence Against Women Act provides housing protections for survivors of domestic violence/abuse. Despite the name of the law, VAWA’s protections apply regardless of sex. I don’t see any exemption in the Fair Housing Act for housing ads that discriminate based on gender, as the ad does in this case.

Could the ad possibly say something like this–“Quiet, Secure 1-Bed, 1 bath apt. for rent. Rent based on income. Perfect for Someone Seeking Peace & Safety. For more info….”

Q. We would like to embed in one of our magazine stories a photo of a well-known personality used on another national magazine cover. (We reached out to the photographer about licensing the original image—always our first choice—but his fee is outside our budget.) Is this legal?

A. Embedding (physically storing) an image from another magazine inside your story is generally not allowed unless (as you know) you have express permission from the copyright owner (usually the photographer or original publisher) or if the use clearly qualifies under fair use. Courts have found that simply embedding code to display an image hosted on another platform still constitutes a copyright violation if the displaying site lacks the rights to the image. I think the photographer (or assignee) here would likely be aware of and defend its intellectual property as would the other magazine.

Instead of embedding, it is much safer to provide a direct text hyperlink to the webpage where the photo is hosted. When you provide a link, your website arguably isn’t hosting, copying, or displaying the image but simply directing readers to where the image already exists on the web, which is the foundational way the internet functions. There are some nuances and exceptions to this rule but generally it should apply.

Q. Recently, a question arose about the law allowing county websites to run legal notices. The law (s. 50.0311) defines a publicly accessible website as “the county’s official website or other private website designated by the county for the publication of legal notices.” Can a county designate, say, a city’s website as a “publicly accessible website”?

A. A “publicly accessible website,” as you note, is defined to mean the county’s website or “other private website designated by the county.” I don’t think the law was intended to allow a county to designate a city’s website–which is not a “private website”–as the “publicly accessible website.”

Q. We periodically get requests to remove information from our website. Recently, we were asked by a personal information removal company (which scans the internet to locate and remove private data) to remove “sensitive information” (home address) contained in a publicly available probate notice we published in 2022. The company claims home addresses must removed “where the accessibility of the content poses an ongoing danger to individuals and their families” as per a Pennsylvania right-to-know law it cites.

A. You are not legally required to take down truthful information that does not raise privacy issues like sensitive personal information.
In this case, you are being asked to remove the personal administrator’s address contained in a public record (notice to creditors) that was presumably required to probate the estate in 2022. There is no specific statutory “right to be forgotten” or expiration date that requires
removal of this information after a certain period of time. Further, I doubt the Pennsylvania law cited would apply.

While you always have the discretion to take down information that you feel (based on what is provided) poses a danger to the person, I don’t believe a general statement like the one above is enough.

Q. One of our editors has been playing a little with Canva and creating editorial cartoons with it. With that, I have a few questions: What is the best way to credit that they are AI-generated? Are we safe to use an AI-generated cartoon in our printed publication? If we are using a free version of an AI program, are we as safe legally as we should be, or should we have a subscribed service that we use … if it’s permissible to print?

Although I have sat in on some workshop sessions, this whole thing (AI) still makes me nervous.

A. AI models are trained on copyrighted works and may generate outputs that closely resemble existing art or characters. If the cartoon infringes on someone else’s IP, your business—not the AI company—is possibly liable. Courts typically do not accept “the AI did it” as a valid defense against copyright claims.

Here are some safety practices (which I picked up from an AI prompt of my own) that might be helpful)—

• Add Human Creativity: Substantially modify the AI output through human editing or arrangement. This “human-led” hybrid work may qualify for copyright protection.
• Review for “Look-alikes”: Ensure the cartoon does not mirror famous characters (e.g., a “Mickey Mouse-style” character) or specific artist styles, which increases litigation risk.
• Disclose and Label: Many ethical guidelines for publishers recommend clearly labeling AI-generated images as such to maintain transparency with readers.
• Choose Secure Tools: Use AI platforms that offer “Copyright Commitments” or those trained on licensed, structured data to reduce the risk of infringement.
• Maintain Records: Keep a log of your prompts and the manual edits you made to prove human involvement if a copyright dispute arises.

Also, Canva has some guidelines & restrictions—

• Mandatory Attribution: For any editorial purpose, you must include a specific credit adjacent to the content or in the credits: “©[Contributor’s Name] via Canva.com”.
• Prohibited “Bad Light” Depictions: You cannot use Canva content to place any depicted person in a “bad light” or in a way they may find offensive. This includes using their likeness in connection with political endorsements or in a defamatory, libelous, or “immoral” manner.
• “Editorial Use Only” Limitations: Content specifically marked as “Editorial Use Only” is restricted to newsworthy events or topics of general interest. It cannot be used for any commercial, promotional, or advertorial purposes, such as sections featuring brand names or content for which you receive a fee from an advertiser.
• Sensitive Subject Matter: You are prohibited from using content in ways that imply a person engages in illegal activities or suffers from mental or physical ailments.