Trouble Man: Robin Thicke’s Copyright Feud with Marvin Gaye’s Heirs Implicates Trusts Law

thickevgaye

Photo Cred: FilmMagic/AP

By Jeffrey Echert

Call it one more heartache for Robin Thicke. He’s at the center of another controversy—this time, a copyright infringement suit with Marvin Gaye’s heirs over Thicke’s summer hit, “Blurred Lines.” While allegations of plagiarism and copyright infringement in the musical world aren’t new by any means (in fact, it seems to be an industry pride and joy), this suit presents a different, potentially precedential angle: the Gaye family alleges not only copyright infringement but a breach of fiduciary duty by EMI (the music publisher that holds the rights to distribute Gaye’s works and supposedly co-owns “Blurred Lines”)  for refusing to bring suit against Thicke.  In so alleging, they add to their fairly interesting copyright claims an unexpected legal question: is an exclusive agent representing a copyright holder’s interests required to bring suit over infringing works that the agent also owns?

Continue reading

Autonomous Vehicles: Are We Ready for the World of Tomorrow?

volvo_road_train-660By Eric Siebert

Autonomous vehicles—that is, cars that can operate themselves with little to no human interaction— once existed only in the world of science fiction. But they may soon be making an appearance on America’s roads. Manufacturers such as Google, pursuant to enacted legislation, are now allowed to test autonomous vehicles on the roads of Nevada, California and Florida. Many other states have similar pending or proposed legislation.

Public use of autonomous vehicles may have many benefits, from safer and more efficient driving to increased mobility for those that would otherwise be unable to operate a vehicle. However, the autonomous vehicle’s electronic nature and need to constantly connect with its surroundings suggest privacy and security concerns that are not immediately obvious.

Continue reading

To Burden Fabulous: Intellectual Property and Censorship Laws May Limit Drag Expression

Blog Photo 2By Matthew Fredrickson

With the musical Priscilla Queen of the Desert’s 2013 national tour, Kinky Boots winning six Tony awards this past June, and the sixth season of RuPaul’s Drag Race scheduled for early 2014, the art of drag and, most notably, drag queens are becoming a fixture in popular culture. The San Francisco Chronicle quoted one drag performer as saying, “drag has never been more mainstream.” But what legal obstacles can this unique art form expect? Copyright and personality laws may present issues. And, as one gallery in Atlanta recently demonstrated, drag queens might also encounter censorship.

Merriam-Webster defines drag queens as simply men who dress as women to entertain others. But a drag queen is so much more—a drag queen is an artist. First, as Emily Moorhouse says in a recent Sun Sentinel article, “impersonating a female involves serious cosmetic stunts that are…not only practical but fabulous tricks and techniques.” She goes on to detail the challenges “of turning a male face into something fabulously female” and concludes, “[C]oating and manipulating your God-given mug into something more fabulous becomes an art.” However, the artist’s job is not finished when the illusion is created—he has to put together a performance. As drag performer Stevie Zar told Posture, to “stay visible” on the drag art scene requires constant inspiration, experimentation, and collaboration with others to construct a show. With the facial hair masked and the newest dance steps memorized, a drag queen is not just a man dressed as a woman but an artist who has created a work for stage or screen.

Continue reading

Freedom to “Like”: Fourth Circuit Finds Facebook “Likes” are Protected Speech

Facebook-Like-ButtonBy Peter Montine

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found this past September that using the “like” feature on Facebook is a form of protected speech that is guarded by the First Amendment. While running for reelection in 2009, the sheriff of Hampton, Virginia expected his employees to give him political support. He also told them that people who showed support for his opponent would not be reappointed to their positions and specifically warned his employees not to support his opponent on Facebook.

After the sheriff was reelected, eleven of his employees were not reappointed to their old jobs. Six of these employees claimed they were let go because they did not provide adequate political support for the sheriff during his reelection campaign; two of those six had even shown their support for the sheriff’s opponent on Facebook, despite the sheriff’s warnings. One of these employees had “liked” the opponent’s campaign page and wrote an encouraging message on the page. The other just posted a message on the campaign page showing his support for his boss’s opponent. When they were not rehired, the six employees brought suit against the sheriff for wrongful termination.

Continue reading

Can an artist’s “moral rights” save the “United Nations of Graffiti”?

Chelsey Post

Photo credit: Greg Naeseth

By Chelsey Heindel

Amid dilapidated warehouses and bustling loading docks in Long Island City, Queens, stands an iconic, unabashedly informal graffiti museum called 5 Pointz. 5 Pointz, named in homage to New York City’s five boroughs, hosts over 350 individual works produced by artists willing to make the metropolitan pilgrimage from places like Kazakhstan, Japan, and Brazil. But 5 Pointz will soon become one of two 47-story luxury apartment towers, unless a rarely invoked federal law can preserve the street art landmark.

On October 9, 2013, the New York City Council unanimously approved a demolition plan that would eliminate the “Mecca of the Aerosol Art World,” thus jeopardizing the graffiti haven’s existence. Desperate for legal relief, 5 Pointz curator and director Jonathan Cohen responded to the Council’s decision by filing for a permanent injunction against G & M Realty LP, the private company that owns the abandoned 5 Pointz site.

Continue reading