CLE event to explore uses of music in political campaigns

Next Wednesday, Nov. 17 I'll be participating in a CLE event that will explore various legal issues related to the use of music in political campaigns. Anyone can participate (for a fee) via telephone conference or live webcast hosted by the ABA. Details below:

The Politics of Fair Use: A Practical Discussion of Fair Use Principles Using Recent Examples of Popular Music in Political Campaigns Date: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 Format: Teleconference and Live Audio Webcast Duration: 60 minutes

Sponsors:

The American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law, Forum on the Entertainment and Sports Industries and the ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education

12:30 PM-1:30 PM Eastern	11:30 AM-12:30 PM Central
10:30 AM-11:30 AM Mountain	9:30 AM-10:30 AM Pacific

Program Description

Recently, high profile politicians including John McCain, Charlie Crist, and Chuck DeVore have had lawsuits brought against them for using the music of famous musicians such as Jackson Browne, David Byrne, and Don Henley in their campaigns without receiving the necessary permissions and licenses. What rights do politicians have to use popular music at their live events and in advertisements? Are such uses a "fair use"? Our expert panel will discuss these issues and use them as a means to review principles of the Fair Use doctrine.

Program Faculty

Robert Clarida (Moderator) is the partner in charge of the copyright practice at the New York firm of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., which was named “Copyright Firm of the Year” for both 2008 and 2009 by Managing Intellectual Property magazine. He has conducted jury trials, argued federal appeals, and served as lead litigation counsel in a number of reported federal copyright cases. He also counsels clients on non-litigious copyright matters, and has been the principal drafter of amicus curiae briefs on copyright matters in the U.S. Supreme Court and a number of Circuits, on behalf of organizations including the AIPLA, the Motion Picture Association of America, the New York City Bar Association, and the Recording Industry Association of America. Mr. Clarida speaks and writes frequently on copyright issues, is the author of the treatise Copyright Law Deskbook (BNA 2009), and the principal author of the annual review of copyright decisions published each year by the Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA.

Jacqueline C. Charlesworth is of counsel in the litigation department in the New York office of Morrison & Foerster LLP. Ms. Charlesworth's practice focuses on copyright law in the digital environment. She represents media, entertainment, and other clients in litigation, legislative, regulatory, and transactional matters. In addition to handling infringement matters, she has negotiated industry-wide licensing agreements to facilitate the development of online music services. She advises on copyright-related legislation and appears in proceedings before the
U.S. Copyright Office.

Ben Sheffner is a copyright/First Amendment/media/entertainment attorney and former journalist. Currently senior counsel, Legal Affairs in the NBC Universal Television Group, Mr. Sheffner has also worked as senior counsel, Content Protection Litigation at Twentieth Century Fox, as litigation counsel in the NBC Universal Television Group, and as an associate in the Century City office of O'Melveny & Myers LLP. From July-November 2008, Mr. Sheffner served as special counsel on Senator John McCain's presidential campaign where, among other responsibilities, he handled the campaign's copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property issues. Mr. Sheffner blogs at http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/, which was recently named as one of the top 100 legal blogs by the American Bar Association, and writes a regular column on legal issues in the music industry for the Billboard.

Andrew Sparkler is the associate director, Legal Corporate at the American Society of Composers Authors and Publishers ("ASCAP") where he focuses on legislative and international issues, as well as providing legal support to ASCAP's internal departments and The ASCAP Foundation. He is a co-chair of the New York Chapter of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A. In 2009, he was named the New York State Bar Association's "Outstanding Young Lawyer." Mr. Sparkler received his law degree from the Fordham University School of Law and his undergraduate degree from Brown University.

CLE Credit

1.0 hours of CLE credit in 60-minute states/1.2 hours of CLE credit in 50-minute states have been requested in states accrediting ABA teleconferences and live audio webcasts.*

NY-licensed attorneys: This non-transitional CLE program has been approved for experienced NY-licensed attorneys in accordance with the requirements of the New York State CLE Board for1.0 total NY CLE credits.

The following states accept ABA teleconferences for CLE credit:
AL, AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, KY, LA, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NH, NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VI, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY.

*States currently not accrediting ABA teleconferences: DE, IN, PA, KS, OH

Click here to view a map of MCLE states

Reuters: 'The Obama aims to change Shanghai's clubbing scene'

I have no idea whether China even recognizes the concept of right of publicity. But, boys and girls, I strongly recommend that you do not try this at home:

The U.S. president has yet again unofficially lent his name to a place of entertainment, this time The Obama Club, one of Shanghai's largest entertainment venues which aims to revolutionize the city's thriving clubbing scene.

Designed by Las Vegas-based club and resort designers Cagley and Tanner, who are behind the Bellagio's Salon Prive, The Obama Club is a massive 6,000 square meters (64,580 sq ft).

It comes complete with pole dancers, hostesses as well as state-of-the-art audio and video systems in a city was once dubbed the "Paris of the East" for its glamorous lifestyle, but also the "Whore of the Orient" for it decadent ways.

And lest you think that the club's use of "Obama" was just a coincidental use of a Chinese sound-alike word, the owner helpfully dispels that notion:

"We had thought of all kinds of names but then, by coincidence the radio was on and we heard some news about Obama. So we thought this name was quite good. We just felt it was easy to say and was controversial enough," Dragon Chiang, vice chairman of Shanghai Yahe Investment and Management Co. Ltd, one of the owners, told Reuters.

"Because Obama mentioned 'change', we also hoped that this nightclub, a pinnacle of culture and entertainment, can be an instrument of change," Chiang added.

The popular U.S. president's name has been used as a drawcard by clubs, pubs and restaurants in many Asian cities.

Update: Now with video!

Another Obama right-of-publicity violation; NY Times gets results!

Looks like President Obama doesn't need the White House Counsel's Office to take action against commercial enterprises that use his likeness to sell products. He's got the NY Times!

According to the Times, an online education site called Classesandcareers.com, to "reinforce the idea that a federal windfall might be a click away, ...featured three people in mortarboards flanked by a photograph of President Obama" in online ads.

But when a Times reporter called to ask whether the site had Obama's permission, the site quickly folded:

"We had initially believed we were authorized to use that picture," Andrew Jensen, the marketing director of One on One [the site's parent company], said in an e-mail message. "After researching it further, we have found we were not, and are in the process of taking it off the landing page you saw. This is something that slipped through the cracks."

If only all IP enforcement were this easy...

Why you can't trust legal analysis that doesn't link to legal documents, part 437

Among the starkest lessons I've learned since I started this blog is this: Never write about a legal issue without reviewing the underlying legal documents. Don't write about a new lawsuit until you've read the complaint. Don't write about a motion unless you've read the briefs.

Today's example of what happens when this rule is ignored comes from UPI, which reported that actor Ron Livingston "is suing Wikipedia, saying the online encyclopedia's page about him incorrectly identifies him as gay." Techdirt dutifully followed the UPI report without any checking, declaring the suit "obviously dead-in-the-water" due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

One problem: Livingston didn't sue Wikipedia. As THR, Esq. -- an excellent publication that almost always does link to the legal documents it discusses -- accurately reported today, Livingston (technically his loan-out company) sued an unknown individual who allegedly impersonated Livingston online and posted accusations that he is gay on Wikipedia and Facebook. The complaint includes claims for libel, false light, and violations of Livingston's statutory and common-law right of publicity, and seeks actual and punitive damages. Presumably Livingston will seek discovery (IP and email addresses and other identifying information) from Wikipedia and Facebook, which he hopes will identify the poster. Livingston can then name the individual in the complaint, and proceed against him. Section 230 won't protect the individual; it only shields the service (i.e., Wikipedia or Facebook) that hosted the material.
Complaint in Coupleguys, Inc. v. John Doe

There are a few interesting issues buried in this lawsuit. First, is it defamatory to falsely label someone as gay? It's a very interesting issue; obviously many people don't like being falsely called gay, but some gay rights activists argue that to permit a defamation action for a false accusation of homosexuality perpetuates the harmful notion that there is something wrong, or shameful, about being gay. Indeed, a New York federal court recently ruled that a false accusation of homosexuality is not defamatory per se. (I haven't researched this question under California law, which I assume will apply here; feel free to weigh in in the comments with relevant citations.)

Second, is what alleged here really a right of publicity violation? I'm skeptical. There are no allegations that the poster had any commercial purpose; the complaint seems to alleged that he was simply engaged in some sort of malicious prank. While the cases in this area aren't terribly consistent, I tend not to think that right of publicity is the correct claim here.

Third, this case once again demonstrates the awesome power of Section 230. Livingston didn't sue Wikipedia or Facebook because Section 230 clearly protects them here, at least on the libel and false light claims. (Whether the right of publicity claim is a "law pertaining to intellectual property" and thus outside the scope of Section 230's protections, see 47 U.S.C. 230(e)(2), is a tougher question. Compare Perfect 10, Inc. v. CC Bill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007) (state IP claims not immunized under Section 230), with Doe v. Friendfinder Network, Inc., 540 F.Supp.2d 288 (D.N.H. 2008) (state IP claims immunized under Section 230).) But let's assume Livingston wins; the court agrees that the statements are defamatory and infringe his right of publicity, and awards him money. That doesn't solve the problem that's really bugging him: that people are saying false things about him on the web. Under Section 230, the court cannot order a site to remove defamatory content it didn't create, even after it's been determined definitively that the content infringes the plaintiff's rights. The court could, presumably, order the defendant to remove the content he has posted (though the complaint does not specifically request this remedy). But what if the site won't permit that? Or what if another bozo re-posts the same material? Or what if, despite the best efforts of Livingston's attorneys, they can't find whoever posted the offending content? Or what if he's dead? Section 230 means he has no effective recourse, and the false information may remain there forever.

Maybe that's an acceptable result, necessary to preserve free speech on the Internet. But whatever the case, I doubt it's a result Congress intended when it passed the CDA back in 1996.

Update: make sure to read Sam Bayard's analysis of the issue whether it's defamatory to falsely call someone gay. "[T]he courts appear to be split, but it is hard to say for sure because of the evolving nature of the inquiry," he concludes in his post at the Citizen Media Law Center site.

Also, still no correction at Techdirt's post, which continues to claim, falsely, that Livingston sued Wikipedia. The post's subhed mocks Livingston's attorneys for supposedly failing to do "research,-research,-research." That, in a post that failed to do even one "research," and that continues to report false information, even after acknowledging in an "update" that a commenter alerted the author to the error. "Updates" are to report new developments; errors demand plain, old-fashioned "corrections."

Jackson Browne settles suit with McCain, RNC, and Ohio Republican Party over use of song in web video

The lawsuit brought by Jackson Browne against John McCain, the Republican National Committee, and the Ohio Republican Party over the use of Brown's song "Running on Empty" in an ORP web video during last year's presidential campaign has been settled. Today the parties issued the following press release:

SINGER/SONGWRITER JACKSON BROWNE RESOLVES LAWSUIT AGAINST THE OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND SENATOR JOHN McCAIN

Singer/songwriter Jackson Browne has resolved his lawsuit against the Ohio Republican Party (“ORP”), the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) and Senator John McCain. The lawsuit arose from a web campaign video produced by the ORP in support of Senator McCain's campaign for President of the United States which incorporated portions of the song Running On Empty, a song written and recorded by Mr. Browne. The lawsuit, filed in August, 2008 in the United States District Court in Los Angeles, alleged that this use of Mr. Browne's song required a license which was not obtained, and that the defendants were liable for copyright infringement, false endorsement under the United States Lanham Act and violation of Mr. Browne’s right of publicity for the use of his voice.

The financial terms of the settlement are confidential.

The ORP, RNC and Senator McCain issued the following statement: "We apologize that a portion of the Jackson Browne song ‘Running On Empty’ was used without permission. Although Senator McCain had no knowledge of, or involvement in, the creation or distribution of the web campaign video, Senator McCain does not support or condone any actions taken by anyone involved in his 2008 presidential election campaign that were inconsistent with artists’ rights or the various legal protections afforded to intellectual property. The ORP, RNC and Senator McCain pledge in future election campaigns to respect and uphold the rights of artists and to obtain permissions and/or licenses for copyrighted works where appropriate."

Disclosure: I worked on Senator McCain's defense of this lawsuit. I have not enabled comments for this post because I will not be able to respond, given my confidentiality obligations.

'Obama have Blackberry, I have Blockberry'

Via the Cloned in China blog:

We all know Obama uses Blackberry phone, and right now the China shanzhai phone maker haff-comm is using this information to promote their new shanzhai phone blockberry 9500 and has Obama’s figure appeared in this phone’s poster with a slogan "Obama have Blackberry, I have blockberry".

If you're making blatant rip-offs, shouldn't you make some attempt to stay a little under the radar?

(h/t Likelihood of Confusion)

'Obama Dog' hits Irvine; 'smothered with pork'?

What is it with fast food joints and President Obama? The Orange County Register reports that a place in Irvine called Haute Links is now serving an "Obama Dog":

For $2.99, here’s what you’ll get on a poppy seed bun: an all-beef hot dog, tomato, onions, neon green relish, pickle spear, sport pepper, mustard and celery salt.

Judging from the comments in the Register piece, opinions on the Obama Dog are heavily influenced by one's political views.

The White House right-of-publicity cops are going to have a very busy four years...

Is using politicians' speech to sell cars a right of publicity violation?

The TV ad described and linked to in this Detroit Free Press article (which I can't seem to embed) raises some very interesting and I think difficult right of publicity issues. The one-minute spot for a Dearborn, Michigan auto dealer includes clips of Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) criticizing, and President Obama praising, the US auto industry. Its purpose is obviously commercial: to sell cars. Does Shelby have a right of publicity or Lanham Act claim? Does Obama? What if the person lauding US cars wasn't Obama, but Brad Pitt? Different answer? Keep in mind that most states' right of publicity statutes and common law standards are triggered by a mere "commercial use" of a person's likeness--no "false" endorsement or affiliation required.

(h/t The Hill, which links to a couple other similar ads from the dealership.)

Because it just isn't a right of publicity fight...

until Al Sharpton weighs in.

A new low in right of publicity violations

The Chia Obama:

Pulled from "some" Walgreens, reports Fox. Transformative?

(h/t Drudge)

Brooklyn's newest fast food trend

I concede we don't know which "Obama"...

(h/t Krispy Kruller's All Nite Sugar Palace, via The Smoking Gun)

UPDATE via AP:

The White House did not comment directly on the issue of racial overtones in the New York restaurant names, but spokesman Ben LaBolt said the administration disapproves of using "the president's name and likeness for commercial purposes."

If you're going to infringe President Obama's right of publicity...

Do you have to be racist about it?

See here:

And here:

(h/t UsefulArts)

Obama White House enforces right of publicity against casino

After a complaint by the White House, an Indiana casino has agreed to pull print and TV ads featuring an Obama look- and sound-alike, reports the Indianapolis Star:

Indiana Live! Casino has agreed to pull ads that show a President Barack Obama lookalike calling for economic growth and “change you can believe in,” said Mark Hemmerle, the casino's general manager.

The White House this week asked the casino to stop using the ad campaign, he said.

The print ads have run in The Indianapolis Star and commercials have appeared on local TV and radio stations. There are also billboards.

Here's the TV ad:

Court declines to dismiss Jackson Browne's suit against John McCain

A federal court in Los Angeles has declined to dismiss a lawsuit filed last August by Jackson Browne over use of the song "Running on Empty" in a web video produced by the Ohio Republican Party. Browne sued John McCain, the ORP, and the Republican National Committee for copyright infringement, and for alleged violations of his rights under the Lanham Act and California's common law right of publicity. The court denied McCain's and the RNC's motions to dismiss the copyright and Lanham Act claims, as well as their motions to strike Browne's right of publicity claim. The court did grant the ORP's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction over the ORP in California. A scheduling conference has been set for April 20.

The McCain campaign released the following statement through its outside counsel Lincoln Bandlow:

The McCain campaign is disappointed that the Court declined to dismiss Jackson Browne's suit about the Ohio Republican Party's political video, despite the fact that the Court found that Browne's claims arise out of protected speech activity under California's Anti-SLAPP statute and that the evidence was undisputed that Senator McCain "played no part in the creation or dissemination" of the video. But it is important to keep in mind that the Court has not yet ruled on the merits of the case, which we will continue to vigorously contest. We intend to seek immediate review of the Court's orders in the Ninth Circuit.

The briefs can be found here. A declaration by the ORP Communications Director explaining the circumstances under which he made and disseminated the video is here.

(Disclosure: I have participated in Senator McCain's defense of this case.)

Panel Discussion on IP issues in the presidential campaign -- Feb. 19 at 6pm in Los Angeles

Those in the LA area may be interested in attending this panel discussion on IP issues in the 2008 presidential campaign, sponsored by the Los Angeles County Bar Association's Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law Section. (I was an attorney on Sen. McCain's campaign and am one of the panelists.) You may register by following the link below.


http://onlinestore.lacba.org/calendar/index.cfm?fuseaction=ViewCalendarEvent&CalendarEventID=2554

Intellectual Property & The Campaign: A View From The Trenches

02/19/2009

Presented by: Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law Section (IPEL)

Program Information:

Reception and Panel Discussion

(cocktails & hors d'oeuvres precedes program)

This program will feature the role of attorneys in vetting copyright and other intellectual property matters that arise on the campaign trail.

THE ESTEEMED PANEL WILL DISCUSS:

• The role of campaign attorneys in vetting intellectual property issues.

• The use of copyrighted material in campaign ads and videos, and the fair use issues it raises.

• The use (and abuse) of the DMCA takedown process, and the McCain campaign's response to improper takedowns.

• Analysis of complaints by musicians about their songs being used at McCain rallies. Is getting an ASCAP/BMI license enough? Do musicians have a right of publicity or Lanham Act claim if a song they perform is used without their permission?

• Right of publicity issues. Could Paris Hilton and Britney Spears have sued John McCain for putting them in ads? What about the McCain-Obama Dance Off video?

• The Jackson Browne v. McCain lawsuit arising from the use of "Running On Empty" in a video by the Ohio Republican Party, which involves anti-SLAPP and 12(b)(6) fair use motions that Lincoln recently filed.

Speaker Panel:

Lincoln Bandlow, a partner with Lathrop & Gage LLP in Century City, California, where he practices sophisticated business litigation and specializes in litigating Media, First Amendment, Intellectual Property and other entertainment-related matters. He has represented clients in the motion picture, television, publishing, broadcasting and advertising fields, as well as several of the principal underwriters for the entertainment industry. Lincoln has litigated and tried cases in both state and federal court in matters involving claims for copyright infringement, defamation, right of publicity, right of privacy, trademark infringement and related claims for clients such as CBS, NBC, Fox, A&E Networks, Steven Bochco, EMI, Virgin Records, Hawaiian Airlines and Hallmark Cards.

Elena Muravina, the CEO of Mini Movie Channel (MMC), a media company that webcasts on a broadband channel at minimovie.com. MMC specializes in short film content. It offers a forum for films produced by independent filmmakers, and also produces original content, including political satire. Elena also continues to provide legal services to clients, primarily in the entertainment and intellectual property areas, through her affiliation with the entertainment law firm of Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman, LLP where she serves Of Counsel.

Ben Sheffner, a copyright/First Amendment/media/entertainment attorney and former journalist. Ben has worked as Senior Counsel, Content Protection Litigation at Twentieth Century Fox, as Litigation Counsel in the NBC Universal Television Group, and as an associate in the Century City office of O'Melveny & Myers LLP. From July-November 2008, Ben served as Special Counsel on Senator John McCain's presidential campaign where, among other responsibilities, he handled the campaign's copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property issues. From 2006-2008, Ben served as Co-Chair of the Media Law Resource Center's California Chapter. He now blogs at http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/.

Program Chairs:

Allison Roher, White O'Connor Fink & Brenner LLP

Shahrokh Sheik, Independent Film & Television Alliance

Location:
Luxe Hotel Bel Air, 11461 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles

Parking:
Valet Parking only $8

Times:
Registration: 6:00 PM
Meal/Reception: 6:00 PM
Program: 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM

Malia and Sasha dolls 'retired'

Ty, Inc. has officially "retired" its "Marvelous Malia" and "Sweet Sasha" dolls after only a few weeks on the job -- and some words of disapproval from the real Malia and Sasha's mom (and advertising law expert). As the Chicago Sun-Times reports:

A Ty spokeswoman declined to comment, but the company's Web site featured pictures of the dolls marked with the word "retired.''

The dolls, which debuted in January, were criticized by Michelle Obama and others for using the names of the two Obama children, Sasha, 7, and Malia, 10.

A company representative first told reporters that the dolls were inspired by the Obama girls after company founder H. Ty Warner saw the daughters and thought they were "cute.'' The company later backed off that storyline, saying that the monikers of the African-American dolls -- Sweet Sasha and Marvelous Malia -- were chosen because they "are beautiful names.''

Well, one down; many more to go.

Bloomberg: 'White House Lawyers Look to Limit Commercial Use of President'

The White House better hurry up and hire an IP Czar - it may have some enforcing to do! Bloomberg reports that the counsel's office is gearing up to start dealing with all the corporations trying to cash in on Obamamania by incorporating the Presidents' -- and even his daughters' -- likeness into their advertising campaigns. Reports Bloomberg:

White House lawyers want to control the use of the president’s image, recognizing the worldwide fascination about Obama’s election, First Amendment free-speech rights and easy access to videos and photos on the Web.

“Our lawyers are working on developing a policy that will protect the presidential image while being careful not to squelch the overwhelming enthusiasm that the public has for the president,” White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

Bloomberg lists a few examples of Obama ad campaigns that even we here at C&C HQ weren't aware of:

Obama’s calls for change and his “Yes We Can” campaign mantra are being evoked to sell assembly-required furniture in Ikea’s “Embrace Change” marketing campaign, bargain airfares during Southwest Airlines Inc.’s “Yes You Can” sale and “Yes Pecan” ice cream at Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc. shops.

Additional examples cited by Bloomberg include the National Education Association, McKinstry Co., the lobbying group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, and J. Crew, whose clothes famously adorned Malia and Sasha Obama at the inauguration.

Good luck to the counsel's office on dealing with the tricky trademark, right of publicity, and First Amendment issues raised by these ad campaigns. I have a pretty good guess as to who will get this assignment. That is, unless the White House's own advertising law expert keeps this one for herself.

IP lesson of the day: Don't mess with Gene Simmons

The NY Times has a hilarious story about a Swiss ski company that had the bright idea of putting images of Kiss frontman Gene Simmons on its skis. Without a license. The company, The Faction Collective S.A., apparently tried to get a license, but got no response from Simmons' people. So it went ahead and slapped a painted image of Simmons, "his red tongue hanging," on the tip of its skis and headed to a big ski trade show in Vegas. Well, imagine the surprise of The Faction Collective's booth-manners when Simmons -- there to promote rival snowboard and ski accessory line MoneyBag -- himself showed up at the Faction booth:

“My friend said, ‘Oh my God, it’s Gene,’ and then he bolted — he just left,” said Ross Janzen, who was manning the booth for the Faction Collective. “I turned around and it was Gene. People were standing three-deep around him. I was completely dumbfounded. He’s an imposing figure.”

Company founder Tony McWilliam knew the risk of proceeding without a license but, hey, in the extreme sports world, you gotta take extreme risks:

We knew there might be a risk, but we wanted to get some impact.

Well, he certainly got that:

“If you’re a bootlegger, and you think you’re going to get by and put something out illegally, it will cost you more to defend that than simply getting a license,” Simmons said in a telephone interview Friday. “They think they can get by being a nuisance, just pests, until they meet Gene Simmons, who kills pests dead.”

Janzen offered to give Simmons the skis. Instead, Simmons gave Janzen his lawyer’s contact information.

And Simmons gets results:

For now, Faction is playing it safe. It is trying to license the image. If that fails, it will not sell the ski with that graphic.

“We’re not selling the ski,” said Billy Miller, Faction’s head of marketing. “We’re a small ski company.

Jackson Browne v. John McCain et al.: no oral argument on pending motions

Federal District Judge R. Gary Klausner, assigned to Jackson Browne's lawsuit against John McCain, the Ohio Republican Party, and the Republican National Committee, has issued the following order:

UsefulArts.com: 'Being Obama: Products Rip Off the Obama Mystique'

Fascinating post at UsefulArts.us on all the companies - including Pepsi, Ty, Inc., and Audi, seeking to cash in by using Obama inconography.