Ron Coleman on the law affecting brands, the Internet & free speech
Originally posted 2006-10-19 13:44:39. Republished by Blog Post Promoter Sounds like a reasonable assertion, right? The same thing will happen if you stick your hand […]
Appellate courts, we see, choose what interests them, and how much. Sometimes they surprise the parties and their counsel. We weren’t all that shocked about […]
Originally posted 2005-01-06 10:02:00. Republished by Blog Post Promoter One of the more interesting developments in media, law and culture — don’t worry, I left […]
First published April 12, 2010. Lee Gesmer reported last month on a pretty important decision in copyright law: A First Circuit ruling applying the Visual […]
One of my favorite ever topics here on LOC has been the litigation brought by the University of Alabama against painter Daniel Moore for unauthorized […]
Not a lot of time to blog these days but this Slate piece from Michael Kinsley is a must-read. Excerpt: [T]he Times believes that its […]
These are facts guaranteeing that future hilarity (i.e., litigation) will ensue — two in particular. First, you have the classic declined-request-for-permission time bomb, which almost never disappoints. Then you have use-the-thing-they-wouldn’t-license-outside the U.S. stragety, whose litigation half-life is also assuredly short.
That was the comment from pornographer Jim McAnally (careful how you type that), who told Wired mag that “more than half of hard-core websites, including […]
Eric Goldman reports on a California case that holds eBay not liable for bum feedback: This risk of liability is the dark side of the […]
Michelle Malkin is running with the story (which I saw first on Instapundit) about a political cartoonist’s depiction of an injured Iraq veteran that raised […]
It’s me, on the Michael Malice show, talking about censorship, social media and The Slants case.
The headline: “Canada to trademark [sic] ‘winter’ for 2010 Olympics.” The funny thing is I thought they already had a pretty good monopoly on winter! […]
Although the SPLC Hate Designations are not empirical statements of fact, and are frequently entirely counter-factual, the SPLC Hate Designations are nonetheless intended by SPLC and treated by the mainstream press, law enforcement, courts and social media organizations not as SPLC’s opinion but rather as objective, empirical factual determinations
