ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] not that interesting-- they simply didn't think it was that
] big of an issue to spend time on. still think she will lose
] at trial. disclaimer: outkast's lawyer for this case was my
] professor for copyright.

CNN's description of the case if vague, but it sounds ridiculous. Celebrities may have publicity rights because they are engaged in a business. I'll make the argument (irrespective of what the law says) that copyright and trademark law can damage public discourse by limiting references to public figures and popular works, as they are a part of our cultural environment. There is a difference between referencing the Simpsons or recontextualizing them, and competing with them or stealing them. The courts acknowledge this to an extent, but when we get down to specifics I think my position is more liberal then that of present U.S. law.

However, Rosa Parks was involved in a critical historical event, not a commercial activity. This goes even further. If you can't reference history because the people who participated in it own it, then there can be no disagreement that public discourse has been significantly harmed. We have to discuss these things in order to understand them, and it is absolutely critical that we understand these things. To what end do we limit such discussion? Are we supposed to be incenting people to get involved in critical historical events? Do people take important or notable political stands because they hope to get wealthy from the movie rights? Thats got to be the silliest abuse of the notion of intellectual property that I've heard yet! I would hope that she did what she did because of the impact that such a stand would have on the political situation, and not because she wanted to be famous.

(Something makes me wonder if she simply doesn't like what outcast said (which knowing them was probably more style then substance, and I don't mean that to be disparaging). She is simply trying to censor them, and this is the best she's come up with to do it. She clearly understands equality. Shame she doesn't also understand that the answer to bad speech is more speech.) (The double double paranoid version (which I've found is often the correct answer when the subject is PR) is that she knows she is wrong from a legal perspective, but suing is a way of getting her message out to a wider audience. Only trouble there is that she didn't seem to get a quote in the CNN story.)