Supreme Court upholds copyright law

Headline Legal News 2012/01/18 10:08   Bookmark and Share
The Supreme Court upheld a law Wednesday that extended U.S. copyright protection to books, musical compositions and other works by foreign artists that had been available without paying royalties.

The justices said in a 6-2 decision Wednesday that Congress acted within its power to give protection to works that had been in the public domain. The law's challengers complained that community orchestras, academics and others who rely on works that are available for free have effectively been priced out of performing "Peter and the Wolf" and other pieces that had been mainstays of their repertoires.

The case concerned a 1994 law that was intended to bring the U.S. into compliance with an international treaty on intellectual property. The law made copyright protection available to foreign works that previously could not have been copyrighted.

The court ruled in 2003 that Congress may extend the life of a copyright. Wednesday's decision was the first time it said that published works lacking a copyright could later be protected.

"Neither congressional practice nor our decisions treat the public domain, in any and all cases, as untouchable by copyright legislation. The First Amendment likewise provides no exceptional solicitude for works in the public domain," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her opinion for the court.

But Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for himself and Justice Samuel Alito, said that an important purpose of a copyright is to encourage an author or artist to produce new work. "The statute before us, however, does not encourage anyone to produce a single new work. By definition, it bestows monetary rewards only on owners of old works," Breyer said.

top

Court upholds firing of deputy who claimed racism

Court News 2012/01/16 09:36   Bookmark and Share
A federal appeals court has upheld the firing of an Indiana sheriff's deputy who accused the department of racism in part because detectives watched excerpts from the movie "Blazing Saddles" in his presence.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that Warrick County Sheriff's Deputy Kevin Harris' 2007 firing for insubordination was legal. Harris was let go during a standard one-year probationary period.

Harris claimed white officers on probation received better treatment despite their performance problems. Harris also claimed other deputies gave him racially tinged nicknames modeled after African-American TV characters, according to court documents.

A federal judge in Indianapolis, however, ruled there wasn't enough evidence to show discrimination, and the appeals court agreed.
top

Perry appeals judge's ruling on Va. primary ballot

Headline Legal News 2012/01/16 09:36   Bookmark and Share
Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Sunday appealed a federal judge's refusal to add him and three other candidates to Virginia's Republican presidential primary ballot.

In a filing with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Perry's attorneys requested that the court order his name be placed on the ballot, or order that ballots not be printed or mailed before his appeal is considered.

Perry sued last month after failing to submit enough signatures to get on the Mach 6 ballot. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman joined Perry's lawsuit after also failing to qualify.

Only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul qualified for the primary ballot.

Virginia requires candidates to obtain the signatures of 10,000 registered voters, including 400 from each of the state's 11 congressional districts, to get on the ballot. State law also allows only Virginia residents to circulate petitions.
top

Court Upholds Burlington Man's Murder Conviction

Court Watch 2012/01/16 03:36   Bookmark and Share
The Iowa Supreme Court has overturned an appeals court ruling that threw out the conviction of a Burlington man in his ex-wife's death.

The court ruled Friday that even if the trial court erred in refusing to let a physical therapist testify, the error was harmless in light of the "overwhelming evidence" of guilt.

Dennis Richards was convicted of murder and arson after authorities found Cyd Richards strangled to death in a burning house in 2009.

The appeals court reversed the conviction because the trial court excluded testimony from a physical therapist who would have suggested Richards wasn't strong enough to strangle his ex-wife. A new trial was ordered.

The attorney general's office sought the Supreme Court review.
top

Court hearing Thursday on Credit Suisse loans

Headline Legal News 2012/01/13 10:12   Bookmark and Share
Attorneys for Credit Suisse told a federal judge in Idaho that a multi-billion dollar lawsuit brought by homeowners at four resorts should be tossed out because there's not enough factual evidence to support the claims.

The lawsuit from property owners at Idaho's Tamarack Resort, the Yellowstone Club in Montana, Nevada's Lake Las Vegas resort and the Ginn Sur Mer Resort in the Bahamas is backed by Yellowstone Club founder Tim Blixseth. The plaintiffs allege Credit Suisse inflated the value of the resorts and issued loans so large to developers that they could never be repaid in hopes of foreclosing on the properties as part of a so-called "loan to own" scheme.

Credit Suisse contends the lawsuit is baseless and that Blixseth is just trying to escape blame for the financial problems at the ultra-exclusive Yellowstone Club.

Roughly two dozen attorneys representing the plaintiffs, Credit Suisse and real estate consultant Cushman & Wakefield gathered before U.S. District Judge Ronald Bush in Boise on Thursday to argue over several motions, including one to have the lawsuit dismissed and one to have Cushman & Wakefield reinstated as a defendant. The real estate consultancy was listed as a defendant when the case was originally filed in 2010, but last year U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge dismissed all the claims against the company.

One of Credit Suisse's attorneys, David Lender, told the court that the plaintiffs have never been able to show there was any misrepresentation made to the homeowners by the bank.
top

Md. man's leave lawsuit lands in Supreme Court

Headline Legal News 2012/01/11 10:42   Bookmark and Share
The Supreme Court wrestled with how the federal Family and Medical Leave Act applies to state government workers in a case that could affect millions of them.

The case argued before the high court Wednesday was brought by a Maryland man who says he was wrongly fired for trying to take a 10-day medical leave to deal with hypertension and diabetes and then was barred from suing state officials for money damages.

Daniel Coleman was fired from the Maryland court system in 2007.

The 1993 federal leave act provided workers a right to unpaid medical leave, but Maryland and Coleman disagree about the penalty for violations. Coleman argues he should be able to sue the state for money damages. Maryland and 26 other states argue they're protected from such lawsuits.
top









Disclaimer: Nothing posted on this blog is intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice. Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Nothing submitted as a comment is confidential. Nor does any comment on a blog post create an attorney-client relationship. The presence of hyperlinks to other third-party websites does not imply that the firm endorses those websites.

Affordable Law Firm Website Design