Jon Hyman at Ohio Employment Law spots a potentially significant ruling, and has a followup.
P.S. The topic is also discussed on Thursday’s John Stossel show, with guests Katherine Mangu-Ward of Reason and Steve Lonegan of Americans for Prosperity.
Posts Tagged ‘Sixth Circuit’
Don’t you mention that tax
The state of Kentucky enacted a new sales tax on the services of telecommunications companies. It also forbade the companies from breaking the tax out as a line item on customer’s bills — that might get people mad at the legislators, after all. The Sixth Circuit, Sutton, J., ruled that under the intermediate level of First Amendment scrutiny applied to limitations on commercial speech, the “no-stating-the-tax” provision was unconstitutional. (BellSouth v. Farris, Sept. 9).
“Our Lawyer Made Us Change The Name Of This Song So We Wouldn’t Get Sued”
Peter Lattman reports about the band Fall Out Boy:
“Our Lawyer Made Us Change The Name Of This Song So We Wouldn’t Get Sued” was originally called, “My Name is David Ruffin and These Are the Temptations,” Wentz says. After Ruffin broke with the famed Motown group, he kept attending shows and would steal the microphones away from his former bandmembers, unable to wean himself from the limelight. Wentz says his original song title, “was a play on Ruffin’s egomania and general narcissism.” Here are the song’s lyrics.
Wentz’s father advised his son against using the song title, for fear that the group would be sued. Did the younger Wentz listen? “No, because he was my dad. He advised me against a lot of things that I do,” he said with a playful hint of mischief in his voice. According to Wentz the Younger, the band’s lawyers also told them they’d be slapped with a hefty lawsuit, and offered up a few options — they could sign a waiver; include a reference to Ruffin in the song (which somehow would shield against a lawsuit); or change the name of the song.
Lattman wonders why including Ruffin’s name in the song would shield against a lawsuit, and the answer comes from the Sixth Circuit’s deplorable decision in the Rosa Parks case, which we covered Apr. 15, 2005:
The Sixth Circuit held that the rappers did not have a first amendment right to name their song “Rosa Parks” because they could have called it “Back of the Bus” rather than use an allusive title. One looks forward to more federal court diktats over song titles. (Parks v. LaFace Records (6th Cir. 2003)).
Lattman reports that Wentz says the band is hit with a lawsuit a day and has to retain an attorney half-time.
Rosa Parks update
92-year-old Rosa Parks “has dementia and is only faintly aware of what is happening around her,” but that didn’t stop lawyers from filing a $5 billion lawsuit on her behalf against the music companies that permitted the music group OutKast to release a song with the title “Rosa Parks.” (Jan. 17). The case has settled with the promise of a CD and a television tribute to her, featuring her guardian, Dennis Archer, as host. No conflicts of interest there. I couldn’t find any press coverage indicating how much Parks’s current lawyer, Willie Gary (Oct. 14, Aug. 13, 2003, earlier links), was paid in the process; Archer refused to discuss financial terms. (Peter Slevin, “Settlement Commits Music Producers to Honor Rosa Parks”, Washington Post, Apr. 15). The Sixth Circuit held that the rappers did not have a first amendment right to name their song “Rosa Parks” because they could have called it “Back of the Bus” rather than use an allusive title. One looks forward to more federal court diktats over song titles. (Parks v. LaFace Records (6th Cir. 2003) (argued by the late Johnnie Cochran)). (And welcome Slate readers: check out the main page.)