This is absolutely crazy. I love bats, and I’ve considered building a bat house or two. But I wouldn’t want them living in my roof.
Archive for the Uncategorized Category
Judge Posner takes broad view of “fair use” doctrine
Posted in Uncategorized on January 22, 2012 by siouxsielawAll bloggers (and even some blawgers) struggle with what one can post on their blog without fear of violating copyright law. What is fair use? The always awesome Marc Randazza of the Legal Satyricon breaks it down:
The bargain we make with copyright owners is this: Creators of content get a monopoly over the commercial exploitation of their works. In exchange, we all get to engage in creative or transformative expression using those works, as long as we don’t go too far.
Got it. You may wonder what exactly is a creative or transformative expression? Or, how far is too far? As of now, it looks like judges can lift copyrighted images for use in their opinions.
This week, Professor Althouse reports that Judge Posner used a copyrighted photograph of Bob Marley without giving credit or getting permission in a judicial opinion and that Judge Posner reasons that his use of the photo falls within the parameters of the “fair use” doctrine. Judge Posner explained to a reporter, “[i]t’s not as if we’re selling our opinions in competition with a photographer . . . .Using the photo in a judicial opinion couldn’t conceivably be hurting the copyright holder.” [source]
The case, by the way, involved an Illinois inmate who claimed that prison officials violated his free exercise rights by requiring him to cut his dreadlocks. The prisoner complained that officials allowed Rastafarians to wear long hair, but not members of the his religion, the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem. The appellate court ruled that the prison could not favor one religion over another in its grooming policy.
I was a drum major for narcissism, online activism, and goth
Posted in Uncategorized with tags drum majors, Jr., Martin Luther King, MLK on January 14, 2012 by siouxsielaw
No offense to drum majors, but I don’t want this on my epitaph. I’ve never said such a thing.
Just like Martin Luther King, Jr. never said “I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness.” Those who knew and worked with Dr. King, i.e. Maya Angelou, say that the shortened quote makes him seem like “an arrogant twit.” To me, it makes it sound like he had an obsession with marching bands.
I simply can’t comprehend the thought process behind misquoting Dr. King on his long-overdue monument. Even worse, the misquote misses the entire point of Dr. King’s Drum Major sermon. The “Drum Major Instinct” speech, given just two months before his assassination, warns us of the impulse to want to be the drum major — the leader of the parade, greater than everyone else. In his sermon, Dr. King encourages us to embrace this instinct but to do so through service and love to others. The most poignant part of the sermon is at the end when he describes his own funeral:
I’d like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody.
I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question. (Amen)
I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. (Yes)
I want you to say on that day that I did try in my life to visit those who were in prison. (Lord)
I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity. (Yes)
This whole incident makes me want to print out the entire “Drum Major Instinct” sermon, drive to D.C. and tape it on the monument. Or at least use my online pulpit to encourage others to do this.
From Ghana — bizarre coffins
Posted in Uncategorized with tags coffins, Fluevogs, Ghana on January 9, 2012 by siouxsielawNothing in that paragraph prepared me for these photos.
I guess if I were going to say farewell in this manner, I would have to go with a giant purple Fluevog.
Flying Body Case
Posted in Uncategorized with tags flying body cases on December 31, 2011 by siouxsielaw
The collision killed Mr. Joho and sent a large portion of his body flying. The Chicago Tribune, reports that an appeals court recently reversed a lower court and ruled that the estate of Mr. Joho can be liable for the injuries caused by his flying body part.
Though the decision is from an intermediate appellate court, and though the facts don’t apply too many other situations, this case has been picked up everywhere, e.g. Gawker, MSNBC. It even has received international attention, i.e., The Austrailian. It is the kind of case that might even be the topic of conversation at a New Year’s Eve Party.
I’m not sure what this means. But, at the very least, it appears that people can’t get enough of gory, creepy and/or just plain bizarre stuff. And that is great news for this blog.
Photo Credit: Mike Knell
Here is a link to the opinion (via @loweringthebar)
Happy Solstice!
Posted in Uncategorized on December 21, 2011 by siouxsielawI’m trying not to let the holidays get the best of me. It can all be overwhelming. Plus, one of my high school friends started a mommy blog and it is bringing out the Krampus in me.
Luckily some dear readers have sent me some lovely tips. This has brightened my spirits and given me the will to blog.
Speaking of tips, check out these amazing nails via thelooksforless.com–
This is much cooler than the lace decals I have tried. To get this effect the blogger actually glued lace to her nails. Part of me wants to try this, but I might be too frightened to put glue on my nails. Maybe next year.
Coincidentally, another reader sent me this link to a McQueen “inspired” lace skull knuckle clutch.
Love this. It would look fantastic with the manicure. Too much lace? Never.
What does this mean? Will I glue lace to my nails? Buy a tiny purse? I’m not sure. But I am immediately going to paint my nails black, and blog on a more regular basis.
Happy Solstice!
Tiny top hat tips — Holly and Eperdu
Groundhog Day Husky SLAPP suit
Posted in Uncategorized with tags Groundhog's Day, huskies on November 24, 2011 by siouxsielaw
Okay campers, rise and shine!
Siouxsie’s First Legal Canon - The law abhors a Groundhog’s Day (see, e.g., double jeopardy, collateral estoppel, res judicata, and vexatious litigants’ statutes).
Simple Justice reports that Christopher Comins has sued blogger and University of Florida student Matthew VanVoorhis AGAIN. For those unfamiliar, in June 2008, Matthew Van Voorhis reported on a dog shooting — Mr. Comins shot two Siberian Huskies while onlookers begged him to stop.
Mr. Van Voorhis like many others reporting on the incident included a YouTube video of the shooting.
Even though the video of the shooting had already gone viral and even though Fox and NBC had already covered the story, Comins decided to sue Van Voorhis for criticizing the shooting of the dogs on Van Voorhis’s blog.
Back in July, a Florida court granted summary judgment in favor of blogger Van Voorhis. The Florida court held that because Comins failed to comply with Florida law governing libel and slander actions, the lawsuit was barred. The relevant Florida statute states:
Before any civil action is brought for publication or broadcast, in a newspaper, periodical, or other medium, of a libel or slander, the plaintiff shall, at least 5 days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory.
The purpose for the statutory-required pre-suit notice is so that the defendant has a chance to correct or retract statements and to provide an opportunity to settle the case without going through expensive litigation.
But Comins didn’t bother do this, and so the case was tossed out.
Now Comins is trying to do an end-run around the pre-suit notice requirement by serving notice on Van Voorhis more than three years after the blog post first went up. Comins can no longer sue on the first set of allegedly defamatory statements. So to try to get around this problem, Comins has simply picked more recent statements made by Van Voorhis. Comins now sues VanVoohis mostly for statements made by Van Voorhis in response to and after being sued for defamation the first time.
Something seems seriously wrong with this. For starters, Comins’ tactic totally guts the whole purpose and spirit of the pre-notice statute. Not to mention, there seems something manifestly unfair about whole thing – A plaintiff who was not able to prevail on the original defamation action, now trying to bring a second defamation action against the same person based on the person’s response to being sued in the first defamation lawsuit.
This video is what Huskies sound like when they are annoyed. I’d like to echo them.
If you are going to sue someone, follow the proper procedures and do it once. If you don’t believe you need to follow those procedures, then file the proper appeal or motion. The approach taken here is waste of everyone’s time and most importantly of judicial resources.
Justice says, "If you don't appeal -- you get what you get and you don't get upset."
A copy of the complaint is here (via Simple Justice).
Because sometimes you need to read what you sign
Posted in Uncategorized with tags Boston Beer Company, Judd Hausner, non-competesSam Adams on October 14, 2011 by siouxsielawJudd Hausner, a 26-year-old beer salesman, quit his job of four years with the Boston Beer Company aka Sam Adams. Mr. Hausner left his position with the Boston Beer Company to work in sales for Anchor Brewing Company in San Francisco.
Mr. Hausner is now at the center of a lawsuit. The cause of his misfortune is a non-compete agreement he signed with the Boston Beer Company. That agreement, can be found at this link. The agreement stipulates that unless Mr. Hausner received consent, Mr. Hausner could not engage in the marketing, sale or distribution of malt beverages for a period of one year after he left the Boston Beer Company.
Mr. Hausner has taken his plight to his facebook page. In his plea he describes himself as a “26-year-old kid” who could never imagine there would be an issue. He complains that “[i]t is simply ridiculous to think that in [his] role with Anchor, a company 20 times smaller than Sam Adams, that [he] could have some ‘special trade secrets’ that could negatively affect Sam Adams.” He continues that he “find[s] it somewhat absurd that Boston Beer claims that [he] ha[s] any information that could negatively harm them.”
I am sympathetic to Mr. Hausner’s plight. It does not make sense to prohibit willing and able job seekers from obtaining better or different employment. But non-competes can be a legitimate way for an employer to protect its interests. And if you sign one, you can’t just expect your former employer to ignore it because you think it is silly or because you are just some 26-year-old kid (whatever that means).
It will be interesting to follow this case. California bans non-competes. But Mr. Hausner’s former employer is located in Massachusetts, a state that still enforces them. Moreover, the agreement specifically states that it is governed by Massachusetts law. Massachusetts, by the way, is on the verge of a non-compete revolution — there is a growing movement to ban these agreements in that state too.
So who knows how this will play out. A copy of the complaint can be found at this link.
Good beer. Great packaging.
I suggest ignoring this whole controversy and trying Magic Hat’s Night of the Living Dead Sampler.
New Siouxsie Law twitter account
Posted in Uncategorized on October 4, 2011 by siouxsielaw
I have new twitter account. Follow me on twitter at siouxsieatlaw, and I will follow back. I will be deleting my old account. That is all.
Goth Attorneys ♥ Brooke Shields
Posted in Uncategorized on October 4, 2011 by siouxsielaw
Brooke Shields is haunting me. Ms. Shields currently is playing the role of Morticia in the Addams Family Musical on Broadway. Ms. Sheilds looks great. It is about time she darkened up her sunny image. Though I’m not typically a big fan of Broadway, I would love to see Ms. Shields in the role before the show ends its run on December 31, 2011.
And this weekend, I happened to watch much more of a movie called, “The Boy Who Cried Werewolf,” than anyone ever should. Though the film was not my cup of tea, it should be noted that Ms. Shields makes an amazing looking East European goth housekeeper in this film (as pictured above).
But who Ms. Shields is playing for an upcoming film, makes my little goth attorney heart do cartwheels. Ms. Shields is producing and staring in a Lifetime network movie about the 2005 Supreme Court eminent domain case Kelo v. New London. For those not familiar, Kelo v. New London is the case in which the Supreme Court ruled it was okay to take homes away from people and give them to private developers. The decision caused outrage and led to eminent domain law reform. It should be noted, that more than six years after the decision—the redevelopment plan has failed and the land on which the homes once stood are now a dump.
Ms. Shields will play the role of Susette Kelo, the woman who lost her little pink house when the Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain could be used to take homes for private development projects.
