By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for civil rights icon Rosa Parks to proceed with her lawsuit against OutKast and others over the rap music duo's hit song with her name as its title.

The justices let stand a U.S. appeals court ruling that reinstated Parks' false advertising and publicity claims against OutKast and three Bertelsmann AG (news - web sites) units -- LaFace Records, the record producer, and Arista Records and BMG Entertainment, the distributors.

Parks made history in 1955 when she refused to give up her seat to a white man and move to the back of a city bus in Montgomery, Alabama.

Her arrest, which became a defining moment in the civil rights movement, led to a 381-day boycott of the bus system by blacks. It resulted in the end of segregation on public transportation and became a catalyst for organized boycotts, sit-ins and demonstrations across the South.

The song, "Rosa Parks," released as part of the 1998 album "Aquemini," was nominated for a Grammy award. The lyrics do not mention her by name, but the chorus says, "Ah, ha, hush that fuss. Everybody move to the back of the bus."

The album by rap recording artists Andre Benjamin and Antwan Patton has sold more than two million copies and the song enjoyed long-lasting success on the Billboard charts.

Parks, a Detroit resident, sued in 1999, claiming use of her name without permission constituted false advertising and infringed on her right to publicity. She also claimed it defamed her character and interfered with a business relationship.

She had approved a collection of gospel recordings by various artists, released in 1995 and entitled "A Tribute to Mrs. Rosa Parks."

A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in 1999, ruling constitutional free-speech rights under the First Amendment covered the use of Parks' name.

The appeals court upheld the dismissal of the claims of defamation and interference with a business relationship, but reinstated the rest of the lawsuit.

It said the defendants needed to show some artistic reason for calling the song "Rosa Parks." The appeals court sent the case back for more hearings to determine whether use of her name was symbolic, as the defendants argued, or disguised commercial advertisement.

Attorneys for OutKast and the other defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to hear the case. They said the appeals court unconstitutionally allowed public figures to use trademark and right-of-publicity laws to censor speech.

But the high court rejected the appeal without comment.

Complete Story

Who better to personify Rosa Parks with a song than Outkast?

My respect for Mrs. Rosa just dropped down a notch.

Same here, Tasadar.

I think, out of all the rappers out there, even on the damn RIAA labels, (and trust me, I listen to none), I think Outkast is quite alright. I actually do enjoy their beats and lyrics. I especially loved "Rosa Parks". But still... why the hell sue?

What if you guys were well known public figures for a reason other than being anti-RIAA and I decided to try and sell records by titling my song with your name. Let's say my song was about how great the RIAA is and how much I love the RIAA and the title of the song was your name. Would you like that?

This lawsuit is a waste of time. I would think that Rosa would have better things to do with her time.

What if, for example, there happened to be a famous person by the name of Penny Lane back in the 60's. Would this person have been able to sue the Beattles?

As long as your song about the RIAA had no misleading or blantly false information, there is nothing that can be done about it. This is another attempt to stifle creative thought in the pursuit of wealth, and Mrs. Parks does lose my respect. The song gives no misinformation, nor does it even mention her name in the piece. A person does not hold a copyright on their name unless the art itself is about them. (such as a biography). So, in response to mroop90, people may not like what you say in your song, but since the song has nothing to do with the lives of the specific name used, you are constitutionally protected.

"but since the song has nothing to do with the lives of the specific name used, you are constitutionally protected."

Juan Valdez - please stop giving out bad advice. The problem with this song is specifically BECAUSE it has nothing to do with the lives of the specific name used. (Rosa Parks)

Read the Yahoo article. It says:

"The appeals court upheld the dismissal of the claims of defamation and interference with a business relationship, but reinstated the rest of the lawsuit.

It said the defendants needed to show some artistic reason for calling the song "Rosa Parks." The appeals court sent the case back for more hearings to determine whether use of her name was symbolic, as the defendants argued, or disguised commercial advertisement. "

Here is a good summary of the decision that is easy to understand that I read today:

"its confusing. but here's what happened. the appeals court affirmed dismissal of the defamation claim, but reversed dismissal of trademark claims, because it found that a reasonable jury COULD find that the song really WASN'T about her at all, but was just trading on her name for the value of it in marketing the music. you can write any song you want, under this reasoning, about your neighber or even about rosa parks and call it rosa parks, and, as long as its not disparaging, they dont' have a gripe with you. what you better watch out for, according to this opinion, is using a famous name to sell a song that has nothing to do with that name. like calling your song Magic Johnson or Michael Eisner or Pee Wee Herman, but the song has nothing really to do with them. the disparagement issue is not part of it at all, because the appeals court didn't find any disparagement of rosa parks, per se."

Penny Lane was not a person but a street in Liverpool. Maybe a class action suit by all the buisnesses named in the song.

So what, did Rosa Parks have her NAME copyrighted? So, I suppose that, unless we pay a fee, we can't EVER use that name without permission?? This whole idea stinks. I fail to see what, if any, damages Rosa Parks would have incurred from this song. If anything, this situation has put her in the limelight again.

If the words defamed her character, or were lies, then I think she would have a point. Otherwise, its free speech and she's wasteing her time, the courts time, our time, and our tax dollars.

To make that sort of final ruling on this case would be a travesty to free speech. It is just another way to limit what people can and can't say. Music is an expressive art form, and should not be limited, especially not in using a name. If the current ruling becomes the final one, it means that everyone, from birth holds in inherrent copyright on their name, and that their name has a street value which is dependent on their fame. Artists won't write about real people for fear of having to pay royalties for use of a name.

Hmmm. So, if my name is John Doe, can I sue every instance of any song or show that uses my name without my permission? If not, then why? Is it because I'm a small fish and so I'm not worthy of protecting my good name or my small image??

Aren't lyrics like poetry? The name is symbolic. But she objects to it because they are trying to make money from it?

So much for creative expression.

I have officially lost ALL respect for Rosa Parks. May the fleas of 1000 camels infest her armpits.

"Aren't lyrics like poetry? The name is symbolic. But she objects to it because they are trying to make money from it? "

Think of it like this - I can't put your face on a box of cornflakes to sell more cornflakes without your permission. That is taking commercial advantage and is not permitted by law and rightfully so. The surviving claim here says the same thing - they used her name for the marketing value when the song has nothing to do with her.

mroop said :
"What if you guys were well known public figures for a reason other than being anti-RIAA and I decided to try and sell records by titling my song with your name. Let's say my song was about how great the RIAA is and how much I love the RIAA and the title of the song was your name. Would you like that?"

Wasn't it one of the Who that sued some poor working slob trying to keep him from using his own legal name>?

It's apples and oranges since names are generally a trademark issue (and "dilution of trademark" is often a charge used against someone using a TM in an unauthorized manner) and not a copyright issue.

lol...putting my picture on a box of cornflakes would bankrupt Kellogg and maybe the town of Battlecreek MI as well..no one would buy it ...

but wait..hmmm..CodeWarrior Cornflakes ...kinda has a nice ring at that lol

"She also claimed it defamed her character and interfered with a business relationship. "

So...she's even throwing in some tortious business interference hmmm..
throwing everything in but the kitchen sink...

You lose respect for an elderly who shook up the segregation era just because she doesnt like someone just using her name on a song without HER permission?

There is something wrong with this picture. No one is impeding free speech...they did it anyway and disrespectfully used her name and she responded by filing a lawsuit. One of the consequences of free speech...speak but dont bitch about the consequences.

Same for racists...they can say whatever they want but if someone threatens them...its their consequence of being a hateful prick excercising free speech.

I dont like the idea of anyone using my full name in a song without my permission. Try to be empathetic.

Instead of thinking about just our issues with the RIAA...lets try to be respectful to someone who has lived more than a lifetime than us who witnessed worst doings of American history.

"Wasn't it one of the Who that sued some poor working slob trying to keep him from using his own legal name>?"

I believe you are referring to the reporter named Bill Wyman who was sued by Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones. That was funny. : )

"but wait..hmmm..CodeWarrior Cornflakes ...kinda has a nice ring at that lol"

I think I'll stick with my Corn Chex. : )

"I dont like the idea of anyone using my full name in a song without my permission. Try to be empathetic."

So you are saying that there is only one Rosa Parks in the entire world, heck in the entire history of the entire world? She has no middle name or any other form of targeting down to her?

Wow, I just did a search on http://whitepages.com on all the states for the first name rosa and last name parks. I got quite a few hits. Can all those people come together to get in on this free money deal? Or does the more popular person with this name have to sue all the little people??

mropp:
you're right 100 % it was Bill Wyman

mroop..sorry..can't write right

Zheldon

Dude..it doesnt take a genious to figure out WHICH Rosa Parks its being referred to. Do you honestly think it was MERE coincidence that name was used out of random?

Im not accusing the rap group of defaming her since I never heard the song. My point being is that its ethically irresponsible to use someone's name and credibility *without* their permission.

Its disrespectful, tacky, and impolite. Can we be possibly be SO selfish that we forgotten our manners?

The people who are being sued by the RIAA didnt want THEIR names revealed but they were anyway out of the bullying of the RIAA. Are we so self-involved that we do not see the hypocracy that we're doing essentially the same thing?

Like I said...no freedom of speech was impeded. She simply didnt like it and reacted by filing a lawsuit which she is entitled to. You cant argue freedom of speech was impeded simply because you dont like the consequences of excercising that right. Welcome to America

Carla

If I showed your picture in my cover art CD with your FULL NAME ... sang what a rotten this and that..blah blah..and you objected...would you REALLY consider not being a tad bit miffed?

Point being...the dirty lyrics of you is expressive to me out of your expense of unwanted publicity.

Think about it.

They may not have defamed her but her rights WERE violated regardless of whether we think so or not...its HER name...HER credibility. Maybe she hates rap and doesnt want to be associated with that kind of music.

So far I read posts of how they lost respect for her for sticking to her guns.

Honestly..the irony and the hypocracy is pretty sickening.

indieWarriors you seem to miss my point entirely. It is just a name. Many people have that name. Can connect the dots to what I'm getting at.

I guess in the end none of it matters anyway.

mroops keep cloning themselves like that Agent Smith(?) in the Matrix movies. We're up to 90 now? What's up with that? Where's our Neo to battle off the attack of the mroops?

"What if you guys were well known public figures for a reason other than being anti-RIAA and I decided to try and sell records by titling my song with your name. Let's say my song was about how great the RIAA is and how much I love the RIAA and the title of the song was your name."

Then we would conclude you were a few cylinders short of an engine.

"Would you like that?"

I didn't think the Constitutional right of freedom of speech had anything to do with what people LIKE to hear. There is still a right to say it, if it does not defame, or if it does not mean the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater. If people only wrote what others like to hear, there would be no need for a Constitutional provision protecting speech. The protection is implicitly designed to preserve the discourse that people DON'T like.

Axiomatic.

Another thought. Art is not made to make sense, necessarily. If a modern artist makes a painting with some ugly blobs and splotches on a canvas, and titles it "Paris in Springtime," should Paris have the right to sue???

I think this whole suit is absurd on the face of it. Whatever association the song has with Rosa Parks is in the minds of the listener - and the association could be a million different things in a million different ways.

Further, does anybody seriously think someone will buy an album simply because it has a song titled "Rosa Parks" on it? Only a moron...

Trading off her good name? LOL

Zheldon
Date: December 9, 2003 @ 11:45 AM
indieWarriors you seem to miss my point entirely. It is just a name. Many people have that name. Can connect the dots to what I'm getting at.

I guess in the end none of it matters anyway
-------------------

You seem to be missing MY point.
How many people in this country do NOT know who Rosa Park is?

"The song, "Rosa Parks," released as part of the 1998 album "Aquemini," was nominated for a Grammy award. The lyrics do not mention her by name, but the chorus says, "Ah, ha, hush that fuss. Everybody move to the back of the bus.""


Mere coincidence it was JUST a name?
Yea ok.

I guess its easy to call on the technicality that is "just happens to be ANY Rosa Parks". The RIAA is pretty good at doing that. I guess that rotten apple hasnt fallen too far from the tree.

But I'm not a public figure -- Rosa Parks is. And unless they defamed her... using her name in a song, a vehicle of creative expression, seems permissible to me.

I haven't seen the song lyrics (although I recently downloaded the song).

Auto

It has nothing to do with art or what the listener thinks.

Im just pointing out the hypocracy of people who are arguing that the RIAA has been violating our rights by singling out p2p users..revealing their identity..etc. While we turn around and say its ok to violate someone else's right to use their name without permission to make revenue. Im not an advocate of Rosa Parks or anything..Im just pointing out how sh*tty it is to turn the other the cheek and say it's no big deal just because we feel so. To me, that person loses all credibility to argue against the RIAA personally.

And so far the argument to my position is that "it could be a different rosa parks"
Oh please. That sort of BS tactic is what the RIAA and their cronies have been doing. I find it disturbing that same counter-argument is used by us.

Carla

Exactly. Just like the RIAA feels its permissible to them to reveal who they think is infringing their rights.

Indie, you can write a poem about me and use my name. You have a right to free speech, my privacy notwithstanding. If you publish your poem and it's defamatory, then I have a cause of action against you.

What the RIAA is doing by uncovering names through subpoena power is part of legal proceedings and not creative expression. There privacy rights are a valid concern because they are attempting to accuse someone of a crime without proof.

I know moop can explain this better, but I don't think he agrees with me.

I used the correct "there," just put a comma after it.

"But I'm not a public figure -- Rosa Parks is. And unless they defamed her... using her name in a song, a vehicle of creative expression, seems permissible to me."

Nope. You cannot use someone's name for commercial advantage without consent - see my cereal box example.

"There is still a right to say it, if it does not defame, or if it does not mean the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater."

Nope. Again, you cannot use someone's name for commercial gain without consent - see my cereal box example.

but moop, is any artistic expression devoid of commercial gain? Poetry, music, art? Is it display only?

"Indie, you can write a poem about me and use my name. You have a right to free speech, my privacy notwithstanding. If you publish your poem and it's defamatory, then I have a cause of action against you. "

Carla...you just implicity consented to me that is okay to use your name. BUT you mentioned litigation if I defamed you. Its subjective. See?

Rosa may find rap in general offensive to her even if WE dont think and obviously she doesnt like her name being used by them and she has EVERY right to bitch about it.

My entire point is that its hypocritical of us to point out what is okay and not okay based on subjective analysis.

If I "artistically and expressively" wrote what a whore you are and in your personal life every guy kept harassing you...youre REALLY not going to blame me?

Come on.

I didn't consent to your writing a poem about me, I said you had a free speech right to do it. If you publish that I am a whore (and I can prove otherwise) than I have a cause of action against you. If you make money off of my using my name and likeness I may have a cause of action against you.

Harrassment is a different subject altogether and is against the law in many jurisidictions.

Carla

And you think music isnt published? And the rap group is not making money?

Harassment was example of possible events due to me publishing your "slutty" ways and every creep wouldnt leave you alone. It couldve possibly be my fault

But hey..it couldve been "any" Carla ____ with your picture on it that looks like you by mere coincidence.

If you publish that I am a whore, and you can prove I am a whore, you have an absolute right to publish that information. I may not like it, but if it's true, you can publish it. If other people harrass me, it's not your problem (legally).

You still have a freedom of expression right to create art using anyone's likeness, name, etc. Commercial gain seems to be the line drawn.

I wanted some clarification from moopie about artistic expression vs. commerical gain. Think of Andy Warhol and the Campbell Soup art he created. Could Campbell's have sued him? Only if he got commercial gain from it?

"If you publish that I am a whore, and you can prove I am a whore, you have an absolute right to publish that information. I may not like it, but if it's true, you can publish it. If other people harrass me, it's not your problem (legally). You still have a freedom of expression right to create art using anyone's likeness, name, etc. Commercial gain seems to be the line drawn."

-----------------------------
As I stated earlier on...no one's right was impeded. They used her name and she has the right to sue them for using her name without her permission.

You said you may not like it..hence..."irresponsible and ethically wrong" way in my earlier post.

I merely stated that its pretty sh*tty for any of us to say it's wrong for the RIAA to violate our rights but we think its okay for someone to use someone's credit and name to gain commercial revenue.

The reaction that some posters said they lost respect for her because of that failed to realize the hypocracy in their belief. Therefore those people lost credibility to argue anything regarding rights to me.

Im not an advocate for Ms. Park but I think any woman personally at her age who lived in a terrible era of segregation and dehumanizing culture deserves a little better than some spoiled little brat who doesnt have a clue about what REAL civil rights violation is about.

Correction in my last post:

"As I stated earlier on...no one's right was impeded. They used her name and she has the right to sue them for using her name without her permission."


I meant to say 'no freedom of speech was impeded'

I found this old newspaper article at http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/05/05/loc_rosa_parks_argues_vs.html:

Rosa Parks argues vs. rap
________
Court told name was wrongly used


By Dan Horn
The Cincinnati Enquirer
The rap group Outkast claims it wanted to honor civil rights icon Rosa Parks with a song bearing her name.

Ms. Parks says the group just wanted to make money.

Her lawyers told a panel of federal judges Friday in Cincinnati that the profanity-laced song, “Rosa Parks,” is exploitive and offensive.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit must now decide whether the song exploits Ms. Parks' name for commercial gain, or whether it is an artistic statement protected by the First Amendment.

Attorney Johnnie Cochran, known for defending O.J. Simpson, argued that Ms. Parks' name was used only because it would draw attention to the group and help sell albums.

“This case is about commercial exploitation,” Mr. Cochran said. “It's about money.”

But the attorney for Outkast and Arista Records, which produced the album, said the case is about freedom of speech. The lawyer, Joe Beck, said Ms. Parks is a well-known public figure and the song bearing her name is a form of artistic expression.

He said forcing Outkast to remove Ms. Parks' name from the album, as she has requested, would set a dangerous precedent for artists everywhere and would have a chilling effect on free speech.

The song appears on the group's 1999 album Aquemini, which sold more than 2 million copies. Despite the title, Ms. Parks is not mentioned in the song.

But the song repeatedly uses the phrase “back of the bus,” a term the group contends is synonymous with Ms. Parks because of her refusal in 1956 to sit at the back of a bus in Montgomery, Ala.

Ms. Parks' refusal to give up her seat to a white man became an enduring symbol of the civil rights movement. But Mr. Cochran said Outkast taints Ms. Parks' legacy by linking her to a song she considers profane.

In the song's chorus, Outkast uses the phrase “back of the bus” to show disrespect to rival rap groups, suggesting those groups should go to the back of the bus to make room for Outkast: “Ah ha, hush that fuss. Everybody move to the back of the bus.” The lyrics include profanity and a racial slur.

Mr. Cochran said the decision to attach Ms. Parks' name to the song had more to do with making money than making art. He said the record company made “Rosa Parks” the focal point of a national ad campaign and gave consumers the impression that the civil rights legend endorsed the album.

“Rosa Parks stands for the proposition that everyone has the right to sit in the front of the bus,” Mr. Cochran said. “This is demeaning to her. ... This lady was deeply wounded by this song.”

Mr. Beck said the names of public figures routinely appear in works of art without permission. Unauthorized biographies, movies and songs such as “Bette Davis Eyes” are common in the entertainment business.

One of the three judges asked Mr. Beck if it would be appropriate to attach Martin Luther King Jr.'s name to a song about bombing and killing law enforcement officers. Mr. Beck said it might be offensive, but it would be legal. “There are many uses of Martin Luther King in titles, and some are very offensive,” Mr. Beck said.

He said the First Amendment allows Outkast to name the song “Rosa Parks,” even if Rosa Parks objects to it.

The three-judge panel will decide the case later this year. The case began in Detroit and was appealed to the 6th Circuit after a federal judge in Michigan threw out Ms. Parks' lawsuit.

Ms. Parks wants her lawsuit reinstated. She is seeking damages in excess of $25,000.

See the way that they could have cover ed themselves in such a case would have added a disclaimer saying that any likeness to anyone alive or dead is purely coindental and than they could have said it was a name they came up with and had no meaning what-so-ever with the person dead or alive. But they didnt do this and everyone who knows the song and the person or knows the song or just the person assumes she is part of their belief of what is contained in the song regardless if she is or isnt. I think she makes a good point, because what happens next when your name is used in the Patriot II bill, I wonder how it would look if they called it the CodeWarrior bill.

Carla

Again...no freedom of speech was impeded. They spoke, made money off of it and now theyre getting their ass sued. And Ms Parks was wrong in this because of why exactly?

James
Thats probably true. But nonetheless, 2 wrongs dont make a right. I personally think it bad taste to use someone's name that America knows without their permission and make money off it.

Indie, commercial speech is different from regular speech and can be regulated. Rosa Parks has the right to sue (if she thinks money was made from the use of her name, rather than artistic expression) and it would be up to a trial court/jury to decide if that was true and what the damages would be, if any.

I was NEVER talking about regular speech. We're talking about her RIGHT now.

You are confusing 2 different things.

But Im glad you finally agree with me.

I agree she has a right to sue, but I don't think her case has merit. I think Outkast's song is an example of artistic expression and not just for commerical gain. The fact that she's only asking for $25,000 is damages shows that it isn't worth much.

carla60626
Date: December 9, 2003 @ 1:36 PM
I agree she has a right to sue, but I don't think her case has merit. I think Outkast's song is an example of artistic expression and not just for commerical gain. The fact that she's only asking for $25,000 is damages shows that it isn't worth much.

-----------------------------------------

How do you figure that it was for artistic expression and not just commercial gain?
ANYTHING published is art...sort of speak. So I do question where you base your opinion about merit.

Perhaps $25,000 isnt that much...but that isnt the point.

From what I gathered in the newspaper article I posted above, it's a question of fact (to be decided at trial) whether the expression is artistic or commercial. I'm under the impression that there must be a showing of more than just some monetary gain.

I think the use of Rosa Parks' name in the song constitutes a meaningful artistic expression of beliefs/values by the group/author. It's not like they just put her name on a tee shirt and tried to sell it. To me (if I were on the jury) it is legitimate artistic expression and not commercial speech.

carla60626
Date: December 9, 2003 @ 1:51 PM
From what I gathered in the newspaper article I posted above, it's a question of fact (to be decided at trial) whether the expression is artistic or commercial. I'm under the impression that there must be a showing of more than just some monetary gain.

---------------------

But you dont know that.

-------------------------
" think the use of Rosa Parks' name in the song constitutes a meaningful artistic expression of beliefs/values by the group/author. It's not like they just put her name on a tee shirt and tried to sell it. To me (if I were on the jury) it is legitimate artistic expression and not commercial speech."
--------------------------------

No..they put her name on a song title and sold it. If it was truly about artistic expression..why bother selling CD's? Y not just post it on the internet for everyone to see. When you mix art and commercial..its no longer just about art and whether the intent was truly for expression is EXTREMELY questionable and skeptical. But its not about art..its the commercial side she appears to have a problem with.

Carla - I think you got the idea pretty much. Rosa is saying that this song has nothing to do with her and that Outkast put her name on the song just to sell copies.

This is what I posted above and was written by a lawyer who read the opinion. I'll post it again:

"its confusing. but here's what happened. the appeals court affirmed dismissal of the defamation claim, but reversed dismissal of trademark claims, because it found that a reasonable jury COULD find that the song really WASN'T about her at all, but was just trading on her name for the value of it in marketing the music. you can write any song you want, under this reasoning, about your neighber or even about rosa parks and call it rosa parks, and, as long as its not disparaging, they dont' have a gripe with you. what you better watch out for, according to this opinion, is using a famous name to sell a song that has nothing to do with that name. like calling your song Magic Johnson or Michael Eisner or Pee Wee Herman, but the song has nothing really to do with them. the disparagement issue is not part of it at all, because the appeals court didn't find any disparagement of rosa parks, per se."

I believe that under the law, this is a question of fact for the court to determine. I'll try to do some research later on what the standard of proof is...unless moop knows.

carla60626
Date: December 9, 2003 @ 2:08 PM
I believe that under the law, this is a question of fact for the court to determine. I'll try to do some research later on what the standard of proof is...unless moop knows.
----------------------------

That has never been disputed here. It appeared that you were claiming that you know for a fact it is about artistic expression. But the fact is...her name was sold without her pemission. The lyrics also made reference to her part in history. This why I question where you based your merit on.

"I believe that under the law, this is a question of fact for the court to determine. I'll try to do some research later on what the standard of proof is...unless moop knows."

It is a question of fact for the jury to decide. The standard of proof, as in all civil cases is a "preponderance of the evidence". This means "more likely than not" or "51 percent".

mroop91 "Nope. You cannot use someone's name for commercial advantage without consent - see my cereal box example."

I am confused. How can tabloid papers print that crap about people and not get sued?

But indie, it is your opinion that this is not artistic expression and "her name was sold without her permision." I told you my opinion that I thought it was artistic expression.

However, these are questions of fact to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence (thank you moopie).

Accipiter

Tabloids always get sued and in most cases to my knowledge win. The tabloid industry is huge.

Carla.

It IS a fact that they sold a song with her name. How can you dispute that?
Im going based on facts..not my personal feeling whether it was artistic or not.

Although a song was written using her name, one is allowed to do that if it's artistic expression (whether or not the song is "sold"), but not if it's primarily for commercial gain. This decision is made by a preponderance of the evidence.

Carla

There WAS commercial gain..its not like they just recited the lyrics in a public forum. They sold a song with her name = Commercial Gain.

Whether their goal are purely artistic is irrelevant in the matter that she has merit to sue them for selling a song with her name.

That's not the law. Just because there is some commerical gain does not negate artistic expression. Rosa Parks can sue, and the judge/jury will/can decide.

Youre basing your entire merit on insisting you think you know for a fact they are doing it for artistic reasons only while ignoring the commercial end of it which is a fact. THATS what the lawsuit is.

Carla

Again..I never said freedom of speech was impeded. The excercised their right by using her name without her permission and now she's excercising her right to sue them for doing so for commercial gain.

Just because she sues them doesn't mean her case is valid.

If the work is an artistic expresession, merely selling the song does not constitute impermissible commercial gain. It is up to the judge/jury to decide whether it is commercial gain (or legitimate artistic expression).

I'm sorry I can't be clearer on this.

Carla
No youre very clear. I just disagree with it.

Her case is valid becasue the commercial gain with the unauthorized use of her name is a fact.

I never disputed how courts work. I know how courts work.

Im sorry you cant get it either.

"If the work is an artistic expresession, merely selling the song does not constitute impermissible commercial gain"

--------------------------------
Actually I take it back. THIS makes no sense whatsoever in 2 parts:

Commercial gain is impermissable?!
or
There was no commercial gain??!

Designer clothes can subjectively be called "artistic expression" but theyre still commercial.

Indie - I think Carla understands this case and you do not.

I can write a song called "Rosa Parks" if the song is about Rosa Parks.

I cannot write a song called "Rosa Parks" if it has nothing to do with Rosa Parks and I named the song "Rosa Parks" merely to trade off her name and make money by using her name.

This is what the case is about.

I understand that it's your opinion that mere use of her name in a work that is sold constitutes unprotected commercial speech. But that's an opinion, not a fact.

Mere use, even if there is some commercial gain, is not necessarily unprotected commerical speech. It can be legal artistic expression (which is my opinon).

This is where both sides bring in evidence and someone else decides.

If you designed clothes with Rosa Parks' name all over it, it would be commercial speech (unprotected) if you did it PRIMARILY for commercial gain. But if you designed a dress to symbolize something she stood for and primarily intended it as artistic expression, you could do that without Rosa Parks' permission.

Mroop

Thats in question if the lyrics has a reference to her history in which it did.

It may be subtle but it warrants validity to have it tried out in court.

I dont think she understand that and apparently neither do you.

Anyone can write whatever they want..its the commercial gain of it that is in issue which validates litigation.

...even if you later sold the dress. Rosa Parks could sue, but it would be for a court to determine whether he claim was valid.

But what you don't understand, it's NOT just commercial gain. You have to take the work as a whole expression. It may or may not be artistic expression even if money is involved.

What I will agree (I think this is one of your points), Rosa Parks has a right to contest the use of her name (sue). But this is different from the issue actually being clearly settled. The preponderance of the evidence will determine whether Rosa was right or not.

"Mere use, even if there is some commercial gain, is not necessarily unprotected commerical speech. It can be legal artistic expression (which is my opinon)."
------------------------------------
If it was just the name..thats a different story. The lyrics contained reference to her history with the title of her name in use. Thats a fact.
------------------------------------
"If you designed clothes with Rosa Parks' name all over it, it would be commercial speech (unprotected) if you did it PRIMARILY for commercial gain. But if you designed a dress to symbolize something she stood for and primarily intended it as artistic expression, you could do that without Rosa Parks' permission."
---------------------------------
In the case of the song, both reference to her history and her name appeared in the song. Mere coincidence or just side stepping? Jury will decide.

Indie is just failing to grasp the concept and he won't get no matter how often it is explained. Time to give up. : )

"If it was just the name..thats a different story. The lyrics contained reference to her history with the title of her name in use. Thats a fact."

It's not a fact. If the song is found to be about the history of Rosa Parks then Outkast will win the case and be allowed to use her name as the song title. I don't think you understand this.

Now I give up. : )

carla60626
Date: December 9, 2003 @ 3:54 PM
But what you don't understand, it's NOT just commercial gain. You have to take the work as a whole expression. It may or may not be artistic expression even if money is involved.
---------------------------------------------
Thats my point. Money is involved involving the use of hername and a reference to her life. Expression is not the issue...the commercial gain is which gives her validity to contest. Sole expressionism doesnt fit the bill otherwise they couldve just recited the song in public or on the internet without sale involved.

"I cannot write a song called "Rosa Parks" if it has nothing to do with Rosa Parks and I named the song "Rosa Parks" merely to trade off her name and make money by using her name." and what happens when my friend at school is named rosa parks and i want to write a song about her? Should i get sued too?

mroop

You can grasp my ass and lick it clean.

The more the song is actually about Rosa Parks and expresses a point of view about her and her history, then the more the work can be considered artistic expression (and not just using her name for commercial gain).

Artistic expression is protected free speech and they don't need her permission to use her name for that.

carla60626
Date: December 9, 2003 @ 4:07 PM
The more the song is actually about Rosa Parks and expresses a point of view about her and her history, then the more the work can be considered artistic expression (and not just using her name for commercial gain).

Artistic expression is protected free speech and they don't need her permission to use her name for that.
---------------------------
I never disputed that.
The commercial gain of this "expression" without her permission is the issue

Exactly Carla.

"The commercial gain of this "expression" without her permission is the issue"

Exactly wrong, indie. : )

dave, it would depend on the facts -- if using your friend's name in a poem confused people that it was the famous Rosa Parks, and its use was primarily for commercial gain, then the famous Rosa Parks could sue, and could win. Depends on the facts.

mroop

Uhmm ok...thank for clarifying that with your supportive argument of lame sarcasms and ass kissing.

Let me get this straight, Rosa Parks stands up (or sits down) refuses to give up her seat on a bus, gets arrested, makes history, changes the US face of civil rights law forever. With me so far?

Her name and actions are part of public record. I don't think anyone can (or should) trademark or copyright information related to historical facts.

Decent civil people who respect others will regard her as a hero, racist bigots will villify her. Whether she likes it or not, her actions and name are part of the public domain.

If she wins, a dangerous precident is set. Songs like Allentown by Billy Joel, or Cake's "I want a girl with a short skirt" (it mentions Citibank), or I think it was Neil Young who sang about the events in the late 60s the shooting at Kent State "four dead in Ohio" these songs would cease to exist. No artist would dare mention or make reference to historical events for fear of being sued.

Neil Young sang Southern Man, Lynard Skynard got pissed off and wrote Sweet Home Alabama to retaliate. Well I heard Mr Young sing about her, I heard old Neil put nher down, I hope Neil Young....... Not subtle at all, used his name several times, not nicely. Having your taken for good and/or bad is the risk a public figure takes.

"If she wins, a dangerous precident is set. Songs like Allentown by Billy Joel, or Cake's "I want a girl with a short skirt" (it mentions Citibank), or I think it was Neil Young who sang about the events in the late 60s the shooting at Kent State "four dead in Ohio" these songs would cease to exist. No artist would dare mention or make reference to historical events for fear of being sued."

WRONG. The problem here according to Rosa Parks is that Outkast named their song Rosa Parks BUT THE SONG IS NOT ABOUT ROSA PARKS.

: )

I'll say this one more time -- SOME commercial gain does not mean that the entire work is ONLY for commercial gain. It can be artistic expression.

They can still make money off of Rosa Parks' name if their work is primarily artistic expression.

"Uhmm ok...thank for clarifying that with your supportive argument of lame sarcasms and ass kissing. "

Dude - if you would simply read my posts from the top and take some time to understand them, you would grasp what this case is all about. But you are more interested in posting your opinion on what this case is about, when you are completely incorrect. No offense intended. : )

darknight -- your examples don't deal with this issue (commercial speech), but more with free speech in general.

A closer example would be if someone wrote a song called Citibank and only called it that to make money.

I come here to read the articles and learn. I have found that most people come here to bitch about things they know nothing about and are not interested in learning. C'est la vie. LOL

mroop94
Date: December 9, 2003 @ 4:15 PM
"If she wins, a dangerous precident is set. Songs like Allentown by Billy Joel, or Cake's "I want a girl with a short skirt" (it mentions Citibank), or I think it was Neil Young who sang about the events in the late 60s the shooting at Kent State "four dead in Ohio" these songs would cease to exist. No artist would dare mention or make reference to historical events for fear of being sued."

WRONG. The problem here according to Rosa Parks is that Outkast named their song Rosa Parks BUT THE SONG IS NOT ABOUT ROSA PARKS.

: )
-------------------------
The song, "Rosa Parks," released as part of the 1998 album "Aquemini," was nominated for a Grammy award. The lyrics do not mention her by name, but the chorus says, "Ah, ha, hush that fuss. Everybody move to the back of the bus."
----------------------------
This remains to be seen

mroop94
Date: December 9, 2003 @ 4:21 PM

I come here to read the articles and learn. I have found that most people come here to bitch about things they know nothing about and are not interested in learning. C'est la vie. LOL
--------------------

Same for smartasses who cant argue and post garbage.

Dont let the doorknob hit you on your way out.

carla60626
Date: December 9, 2003 @ 4:15 PM
I'll say this one more time -- SOME commercial gain does not mean that the entire work is ONLY for commercial gain. It can be artistic expression.

They can still make money off of Rosa Parks' name if their work is primarily artistic expression.
---------------------------------------
ANYTHING can be called "artistic" and Ill say that one last time.

"This remains to be seen"

Agreed. Note that I said "the problem here according to Rosa Parks".

If you know the song then you know that the "back of the bus" line refers to other rappers.

"ANYTHING can be called "artistic" and Ill say that one last time."

If you are famous and I put your name on a cereal box to sell cereal then you can call it "artistic" but I guarantee you will lose the lawsuit.

mroop94
Date: December 9, 2003 @ 4:26 PM
"This remains to be seen"

Agreed. Note that I said "the problem here according to Rosa Parks".

If you know the song then you know that the "back of the bus" line refers to other rappers.
--------------------------------------
No I didnt know that and I wouldnt be the only one. Colloquials can easily be made up not that Im saying in this case it was.


------------------------------------------
"If you are famous and I put your name on a cereal box to sell cereal then you can call it "artistic" but I guarantee you will lose the lawsuit."
-----------------------------------------
And you know this by how?

People have sued similar cases like this and lost. If it was the case, there would be no need for celebrity endorsement of products.

Correction
People have sued similar cases like this and lost

Meant "Won"

Oy!

"And you know this by how?"

I'm an attorney and I know about this law.

"People have sued similar cases like this and lost. If it was the case, there would be no need for celebrity endorsement of products."

This is exactly why you need celebrity endorsements. You have to pay the celebrity to endorse the product. You can't use a celebrity to endorse your product without consent.

Yes, anyone can say what they did was artistic expression, and it would be up to a court to decide if it was primarily artistic expression (or made primarily for commercial gain).

If you put someone's face on a cereal box, even if you allege it's artistic expression, a court would most likely find, based on these facts, that you put the picture there to sell the cereal, that is, primarily for commercial gain.

You may be getting thrown off by the "primarily" part. Some commercial gain may be involved and it still can be considered artistic expression.

The song question is, did Outkast use Rosa Parks' name primarily for commercial gain? I don't think so; it looks like you do.

That's what the court has to decide.

"This is exactly why you need celebrity endorsements. You have to pay the celebrity to endorse the product. You can't use a celebrity to endorse your product without consent."
--------------
Why not? Artistically expressed I can use their name and bio for SOME commercial gain.

Carla:
"The song question is, did Outkast use Rosa Parks' name primarily for commercial gain? I don't think so; it looks like you do."
------------------------
I dont know what they're thinking. Im not them and I dont care to.

There was an argument earlier that she has no validity. Says who??? Based on what?? THATS what I was disputing all about.

It was my opinion that her case was not winnable, I didn't state all the arguments why I believe that. I'm a rather liberal construer of free speech and artistic expression.

I was trying to get across the point to you that just because there was some commercial gain did not negate artistic expression (meaning Outkast did not have to ask Rosa Park's permission to use her name).

Under the facts of the cereal box case, I think the court would find that the use of the picture was PRIMARILY for commercial gain. (not just some commercial gain)

"I was trying to get across the point to you that just because there was some commercial gain did not negate artistic expression (meaning Outkast did not have to ask Rosa Park's permission to use her name)."
---------------------------------
This is the statement I didnt agree with. I dont believe that this group chose her name with the seemingly hidden reference to her life out of coincidence..label it artistic or not.
---------------------------------
"I'm a rather liberal construer of free speech and artistic expression."
---------------------------------
I have no dispute with this at all. I am merely saying they have a right to say what they want...but the victim of the alleged name-user also has the right to dispute this and has just as much as validity as they do.

"carla60626
Date: December 9, 2003 @ 4:59 PM
Under the facts of the cereal box case, I think the court would find that the use of the picture was PRIMARILY for commercial gain. (not just some commercial gain)"
---------------------------------------

Primary vs Some
Too subjective to even officially quantify me thinks.

Of course using Rosa Parks' name wasn't a coincidence. It was intentional and part of their artistic expression. They are allowed to use her name (without her permission) if it's primarily for artistic expression.

Courts decide "subjective" things all the time based on a preponderance of the evidence. (And if it's guilt or innocence in a criminal matter, beyond a reasonable doubt.)

Hey Carla, laws passed that limit commercial speech will be applied to free (non commercial) speech as well. Misuse of the intent of laws isn't exactly uncommon here in the US.

If "back of the bus" refers to other rappers rather than the historical act, I can't say. Taken literally it sure seems to support the historical event that Mrs Parks is known for.

If Outkast really did the song as a tribute to Mrs Parks, why don't they just say sorry you didn't like it, settle out of court (out of respect to her) and be done. Don't let the thing go to court and possibly get a judgment that could further errode our right to free speech

Outkast can do that. Or Rosa Parks can develop a thicker skin. Or Johnnie Cochran can make some money.

I believe in artistic expression and I don't think Rosa Parks will win. (my opinion)

"They are allowed to use her name (without her permission) if it's primarily for artistic expression. "
----------------------------------
There is no IF because commerce was involved. Artistic expression or not...commerce was involved and it gives her validity to challenge them.
Some or Primarily just doesnt hold water to me because its either a yes or no.

I dont have a problem with freedom of speech or artistic expression or really even for this case.

I just think its sh*tty for anyone to hide under the "artistic freedom" blanket when in fact making money off of it..allegedly in this case.

that's not the law though indie.

I guess my big question, were I a juror on this case, would be this:

Even assuming that Outkast did this wholly and unashamedly for commercial advantage alone, what's the difference between this and Elton John's crassly commercial remake of "Candle in the Wind"? Or the first version, for that matter, which discussed Marilyn Monroe?

Then there's Billy Joel's song, "Who's Going to Stop the Fire?" which names as many world figures and events as he can name in three minutes? Or the older song about Martin Luther King, John and Robert Kennedy?

Can the "Old Man" that Neil Young wrote a song about after buying his ranch sue Neil? Or Sweet Sweet Connie that Grand Funk immortalized as a groupie?

And what about Mustang Sally, Polyethylene Pam, Mean Mr. Mustard, Mr. Kite, Susie Q, Dizzy Miss Lizzy, Jack and Diane, the long cool woman with a black dress, the Wicked Witch, little Susie that the Everly Brother tried to wake up, Roxanne, Jane, Mr. Bojangles, Rhiannon and every other person who's ever been mentioned in a song?

If your name has been mentioned in a song, it's either a tribute or a parody.

A suit based on opposition to either is intrinsically indefensible.

I never said it was.

I defended that her case had validity and this "some" or "primary" artistic expression is just a lot of hooey.

And I do think that Outkast intentionally used her name to earn revenue and theyre hiding under this subtlety.
Do I have a personal problem with it?
No of course not. I just think its BS that it trying to hide under subtlety. Its tacky and definite misuse of good manners.

People who are not icons have the luxury to hide under a tree and shout "artistic expression". I am merely being the devils advocate with a little more empathy on her behalf.

"A suit based on opposition to either is intrinsically indefensible"
-------------------------------------
Possibly. The plaintiff on the other hand is the actual person who believes her name is misused without her permission. I believe she has validity to argue that if she feels violated.

I agree with the artistic expression argument. They just need a better lawyer!

Like I said...Its not that I dont believe in an artistic expressionism...the real question..is it a valid testimony when the fact remains that money has been involved.

Oy..Lawyers. I do commend Carla tho that she simply wants a simple form of freedom of expression...I do too...but Im more jaded than she is because too many people abuse it out of someone else's expense and I do have moral issues with it.

"I guess my big question, were I a juror on this case, would be this:

Even assuming that Outkast did this wholly and unashamedly for commercial advantage alone, what's the difference between this and Elton John's crassly commercial remake of "Candle in the Wind"? Or the first version, for that matter, which discussed Marilyn Monroe?"

The difference is that Candle in the Wind is about Marilyn Monroe. The court is saying simply that you can't write a song about how much you love cheese and title the song "Kobe Bryant" in order to sell copies.

Per the article above, "[The court] said the defendants needed to show some artistic reason for calling the song "Rosa Parks." The appeals court sent the case back for more hearings to determine whether use of her name was symbolic, as the defendants argued, or disguised commercial advertisement."

Quoting an attorney's review of the opinion:

"its confusing. but here's what happened. the appeals court affirmed dismissal of the defamation claim, but reversed dismissal of trademark claims, because it found that a reasonable jury COULD find that the song really WASN'T about her at all, but was just trading on her name for the value of it in marketing the music. you can write any song you want, under this reasoning, about your neighber or even about rosa parks and call it rosa parks, and, as long as its not disparaging, they dont' have a gripe with you. what you better watch out for, according to this opinion, is using a famous name to sell a song that has nothing to do with that name. like calling your song Magic Johnson or Michael Eisner or Pee Wee Herman, but the song has nothing really to do with them. the disparagement issue is not part of it at all, because the appeals court didn't find any disparagement of rosa parks, per se."

What if it's an instrumental?

haha, I still think it could be artistic expression.

"What if it's an instrumental?"

Good question. : ) You got me. I guess we'll have to wait for the next lawsuit.

I have a question????A recent anti Riaa song on Dmusic talked about Bob Dylan and Neil Young and asked the question or addressed the question to them as to why they did not speak out on the Riaa lawsuits and speak out against what the RIAA was doing. The soug is called Checkmate RIAA and even has two famous song titles in it which is ok because song titles are not copyright able how ever is there a problem with doing a song like that using Dylan or Young's names like that???? Could you be sued for doing it JUST WONDERING ?????

No

The difference is that Candle in the Wind is about Marilyn Monroe. The court is saying simply that you can't write a song about how much you love cheese and title the song "Kobe Bryant" in order to sell copies.


-----------------------
Thats a good analogy mroop.

THANKS GUYS. HOW About any of the mroop's care to chime in on my question JUST WONDERING??????

She has every right to sue outkast and friends for using her name to sell their RIAA crap.