first amendment

Painting by Daniel Moore

Painting by Daniel Moore

Way back in 2005, the University of Alabama filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against artist Daniel Moore, who created paintings of Alabama football scenes.

These paintings (like the one shown above) included many of the University of Alabama’s properly registered trademarks. Alabama demanded that Moore pay a licensing fee for using the trademarks in his paintings. Moore contended that he was creating artistic portrayals of historical events and, therefore, his works were protected by the First Amendment. [click to continue…]

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Arne Svenson - The Neighbors

Photograph from Arne Svenson’s “The Neighbors”

Photographer Arne Svenson photographed people in a residential building across from his second-floor apartment in New York City. The images ended up in the Julie Saul Gallery in a show, “The Neighbors,” with prints for sale at up to $7500.

The images in the show drew a huge response by the residents appearing the in photos and, ultimately, led to a lawsuit against Svenson for invasion of privacy.

Last week, that case was dismissed in New York State court by Judge Eileen A. Rakower, who ruled that the images were protected by the First Amendment and that they did not violate New York State civil rights laws barring the use of photos for commercial purposes without a person’s consent. The court order specifically noted that “[a]n artist may create and sell a work of art that resembles an individual without his or her written consent.” [click to continue…]

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Not only does this video win the cheesy award, but the advice it gives to the target audience (apparently those with drastically reduced IQs) flags warning signs for things both pro and amateur photographers do on a daily basis.

Not really what we need the government telling us right now given the current attitude of law enforcement to photographers in public spaces.

[via Chase Jarvis]

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Just, wow.

I’m all for catching the bad guys out there, but this goes too far. As you can see in the above video, the guy who recorded police in public was charged with eavesdropping and faced up to 75 years in jail.  He won the initial case – the local judge dismissed it, citing that the Illinois law was unconstitutional (this should be a complete no-brainer here).

The Illinois legislature and attorney general are apparently idiots though, because the case is being appealed in an effort overturn the lower court’s dismissal.  [click to continue…]

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Glik First Amendment Rights Case

Glik Civil Rights Case Holding

 

A federal appellate court recent held that Maryland’s wiretapping statute could not be used to prevent citizens from recording police activity. [click to continue…]

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

This video is an interesting look into how modern technology, specifically cell phones, has given average citizens a powerful tool to combat police misconduct.  The examples shown in this video demonstrate why the right to photograph or record video in public is so important.

[via PetaPixel]

{ Comments on this entry are closed }