Re: Tiger Woods Suit

On 2/24/99, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
>
> I think most courts would be inclined to view the limited edition work
> exactly the same as mugs or t-shirts from a right of publicity point of
> view. If it were a single original painting in a museum, they might
> take the broader point of view that you advocate. I agree with you that
> the First Amendment argument SHOULD be taken more seriously; I am just
> skeptical that it WILL be.

Given the Court's pronouncements in *44 Liquormart* and *Central Hudson* it should be no surprise that the more commercial a work becomes, aside from print media, the more the First Amendment gets short shrift. Based on some reading I did for a presentation several years ago, I discovered that the Court gives great respect to print and other traditional media. As the Court has moved through the years, (not just the present Court) the less a communicative means looks like the Founders' media the more likely they are to regulate and give the First Amendment less import. If my impression is true, any thoughts as to what this means for Web produced works?

Stan Morris

   While the First Amendment protects your right to make an ass of    yourself, it does not actually require you to do so.      Raymond S. Rodgers

Stan Morris, Atty
P.O.Box 879
Cortez, CO 81321
(voice) 970-565-3771
(fax) 970-565-2739
<smmorris[_at_]rmii.com> Received on Fri Feb 26 1999 - 03:14:01 GMT