Column: The Supreme Court debates the all-powerful F-word Nicholas Goldberg © Provided by The LA Times Fifty years ago, a 19-year-old L.A. man forced the Supreme Court to consider a provocative four-letter epithet. (Associated Press)
The F-word will soon be coming to the nation s most august courtroom again.
This time, it will get there courtesy of B.L., an anonymous young woman who wrote a profanity-filled Snapchat post after she was rejected for her high school s varsity cheerleading team. Her post and her school’s decision to punish her for it has ignited a free speech case that will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court next week.
Op-ed: The Supreme Court debates the all-powerful F-word
chicagotribune.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from chicagotribune.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Column: The Supreme Court debates the all-powerful F-word
msn.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from msn.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Mon, Apr 12th 2021 12:01pm
Cathy Gellis
This decision, Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith, came out only a few weeks ago, yet before the Supreme Court ruled in Google v. Oracle. In light of that latter decision it s not clear that this one is still good law. Then again, it s not clear it ever was.
The decision is the latest by a Court of Appeal eviscerating fair use. I recently wrote about the Ninth Circuit s ruling in Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. ComicMix, which also undermined fair use. To be fair, this latest one is perhaps a little less egregious. In this case, for instance, the copyright holder the court ruled in favor of is still alive while the defending party (referred in the decision as AWF) is the successor of someone who is dead. Whereas in the Dr. Seuss case it was the other way around, with the court going out of its way to let the successor to a dead person s copyrights stick it to a live creator trying to make new works the dead person was never g
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
Bitmanagement Software GmbH v. U.S. raises important
issues for any company licensing software to the U.S. government,
particularly those that utilize third-party resellers.
Under this decision, even when the government acquires a license
with express limits on the scope of the government s rights
(e.g., limiting installation to a set number of computers), the
parties conduct may give the government an implied license to
use the software beyond the scope of the express license (e.g.,
vast deployments across government networks). However, even