Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (4811)	6/25/2003 10:52:53 AM
From: David Lawrence	Respond to of 12465

It is interesting that the majority opinion commented on the "nature" in which the subject was portrayed: "A piece of art that portrays a historic sporting event communicates and celebrates the value our culture attaches to such events," Graham wrote. "It would be ironic indeed if the presence of the image of the victorious athlete would deny the work First Amendment protection." Yet, it seems that First Amendment pragmatism was at the heart of the ruling: "After balancing the societal and personal interests embodied in the First Amendment against Woods' property rights we conclude that the effect of limiting Woods' right of publicity in this case is negligible and significantly outweighed by society's interest in freedom of artistic expression," Graham wrote. You could be right about the possibility of an alternative outcome had the painting been a negative portrayal. It will probably take a case like that to test where the court ultimately stands on the issue.