#Tiger Woods' greed forces constitutional issue
The Big Weasel
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,750834,00.html
'Enormous constitutional issues at stake' as top golfer launches
lawsuit
Lawrence Donegan in San Francisco
Sunday July 7, 2002
The Observer
Rick Rush's paintings - faithfully reproduced great sporting scenes -
might not be considered great art but no one has ever argued they're
not so much art as illegal rip-offs masquerading as art.
No one, that is, except Tiger Woods, who has taken the Alabama-based
artist to court, accusing him of exploiting his likeness for unlawful
commercial gain.
Sporting commentators would call it a David versus Goliath battle; the
small-town painter against the world's richest sportsman. Lawyers and
constitutional experts in the US put the court case on an altogether
higher plane.
'There are enormous issues at stake about an artist's freedom of
speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution,' says one.
'The issue is, can an artist freely create paintings of great athletes
in action and then sell them, or must he pay for the right to paint
that athlete?'
Standing on the sidelines is an array of other interested parties,
from the estates of Frank Sinatra, Jimi Hendrix and Elvis Presley, to
the NFL Players' Association and a group of America's most powerful
media organisations, including Time magazine and the New York Times.
'Mr Woods's extraordinary accomplishments give rise to many benefits
and a few burdens,' the media organisations said last week in a joint
statement. 'One of the burdens, we submit, is having to see himself
depicted in words and pictures by people who have things to say about
him.'
That may be so, responds Woods's lawyer Terence Clark, but what
happens when the artist takes that painting, mass- produces it and
sells the reproductions to the public? 'When the painting is done and
you hang it on the wall, that is probably acceptable... but when you
commercialise that person's image or likeness, you cross the line.
That's what has happened here.'
The case, which is going through the appeals court system, is the
latest in a series of worldwide legal battles over sports memorabilia
and the increasingly valuable 'image rights' of celebrities.
Last week a Geneva court ruled incompetent a Ł1.7 million action by
Brazilian footballer Ronaldo against the luxury watchmakers Montego.
He claimed the company hadn't pay him royalties on sales of watches
bearing his image and his trademark R9. The company counter-claimed
for Ł4.4m damages, citing his injury problems. But the court ruled
that the issue centred on a trademark, not a personality.
In Kent, the owners of a memorabilia shop won the right to begin legal
action against Victoria Beckham who, they allege, accused them of
selling a fake autographed photo of her husband, the England captain
David Beckham. The accusations almost ruined the memorabilia company,
GT's Recollections, the High Court was told last week.
Woods's legal action dates back to 1998, when Jireh Publishing, a
small company based in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and owned by Rick Rush's
brother Don, issued a limited-edition print of the artist's painting
depicting the golfer winning the 1997 Masters at Augusta. The prints
were for sale at $700, along with 5,000 lithographs at $15.
Lawyers for ETW, a company founded by the golfer to control the
marketing of his image, invoked what is called rights-of- publicity
statutes, which make it illegal for others to profit from an
individual's name, likeness or photograph without that individual's
permission.
Despite the threat of bankruptcy, the Rush brothers decided to
challenge the action, saying it was a fight on behalf of all artists
who want to paint public figures at public events. 'I believe these
events are in the public domain,' Rick Rush said.
In April 2000 the Federal District Court in Ohio ruled in favour of
Jireh Publishing, saying the painting was 'an artist's creation
seeking to express a message'.
ETW took the case to the appeal court in Cincinnati. No judgment has
yet been issued, but many observers expect the case to go all the way
to the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling.
'We need to establish the hugely important principle that artists like
Rush - as well as newspaper reporters and magazine writers - can
depict or say what they want about celebrity,' said Rush's attorney,
Dennis Niermann. 'As Americans that is our consti tutional right. If
you throw away that freedom of expression, we might as well live in
some communist country where there are rules about what you can and
can't say.'
Among those backing Woods is the NFL's Players' Association. 'Can you
knock off thousands of copies of the image of Tiger Woods and hide
behind the First Amendment and say it is a work of art?', the
association's lawyer Bruce S. Meyer asked the New York Times last
week.
In a case last year, a court ruled in favour of a company, which owned
images of The Three Stooges that appeared on T-shirts without
permission. The court said unauthorised use of such images might be
protected under the First Amendment under certain circumstances.
Rush's work falls into this category, says Diane Zimmerman, a New
York-based academic, who wrote a legal brief on behalf of 73 law
professors backing the artist. 'Our shared conviction [is] that the
prints in this case are unambiguously fully protected speech over
which ETW cannot exercise control,' she said.
**************************************
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the
citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a
double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows
the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the
blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no
need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry,
infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of
their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this
is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
-- Julius Caesar on Patriotism
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
To subscribe to Zepp's News and Commentaries, email me at
ze...@snowcrest.net with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject header.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary, go to
http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
***********
"Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong,
good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western
civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The
reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not
correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West
because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so
forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in
primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he
GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY
points out (and often greatly exaggerates)these faults where they
appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are
not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He
hates America and the West because they are strong and successful."
--rant from a typical right wing whack
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
For Zepp's commentaries, go to http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/zeppol.htm
Robin*
"The Big Weasel" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
news:jeifiugr17hc8t5td...@4ax.com...
> Tiger Woods sues artist to draw a line between painting and profit
>
> http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,750834,00.html
Just another libera;/leftist racist bigot bringing down a black man.
The Big Weasel
wrote:
You'll be happy to learn that unlike your buddy Chris Morton, Tiger
Woods does not regard himself as being black. And since the race of
the artist isn't mentioned, I have to assume that you are simple being
a hypocritical race-baiting bigot, hmyessssss?
Robin*
> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 05:05:08 GMT, "Robin*" <sprin...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"The Big Weasel" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
> >news:jeifiugr17hc8t5td...@4ax.com...
> >> Tiger Woods sues artist to draw a line between painting and profit
> >>
> >> http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,750834,00.html
> >
> >
> >Just another libera;/leftist racist bigot bringing down a black man.
>
> You'll be happy to learn that unlike your buddy Chris Morton, Tiger
> Woods does not regard himself as being black. And since the race of
> the artist isn't mentioned, I have to assume that you are simple being
> a hypocritical race-baiting bigot, hmyessssss?
I'm aware that *blacks* consider Woods to be black. Who am I to argue?
The Big Weasel
wrote:
>
>"The Big Weasel" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
>news:clfgiu0behr0mrsiq...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 05:05:08 GMT, "Robin*" <sprin...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"The Big Weasel" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
>> >news:jeifiugr17hc8t5td...@4ax.com...
>> >> Tiger Woods sues artist to draw a line between painting and profit
>> >>
>> >> http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,750834,00.html
>> >
>> >
>> >Just another libera;/leftist racist bigot bringing down a black man.
>>
>> You'll be happy to learn that unlike your buddy Chris Morton, Tiger
>> Woods does not regard himself as being black. And since the race of
>> the artist isn't mentioned, I have to assume that you are simple being
>> a hypocritical race-baiting bigot, hmyessssss?
>
>I'm aware that *blacks* consider Woods to be black. Who am I to argue?
Wow! Robin actually decides that blacks know that they are doing for
once!
Robin*
> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 13:51:35 GMT, "Robin*" <sprin...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"The Big Weasel" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
> >news:clfgiu0behr0mrsiq...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 05:05:08 GMT, "Robin*" <sprin...@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"The Big Weasel" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:jeifiugr17hc8t5td...@4ax.com...
> >> >> Tiger Woods sues artist to draw a line between painting and profit
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,750834,00.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Just another libera;/leftist racist bigot bringing down a black man.
> >>
> >> You'll be happy to learn that unlike your buddy Chris Morton, Tiger
> >> Woods does not regard himself as being black. And since the race of
> >> the artist isn't mentioned, I have to assume that you are simple being
> >> a hypocritical race-baiting bigot, hmyessssss?
> >
> >I'm aware that *blacks* consider Woods to be black. Who am I to argue?
>
>
> Wow! Robin actually decides that blacks know that they are doing for
> once!
No race is wrong, 100 pecent of the time.
The Big Weasel
wrote:
>
>"The Big Weasel" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
>news:kmsgiu4as0p4gphq8...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 13:51:35 GMT, "Robin*" <sprin...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"The Big Weasel" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
>> >news:clfgiu0behr0mrsiq...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 05:05:08 GMT, "Robin*" <sprin...@earthlink.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"The Big Weasel" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:jeifiugr17hc8t5td...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> Tiger Woods sues artist to draw a line between painting and profit
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,750834,00.html
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Just another libera;/leftist racist bigot bringing down a black man.
>> >>
>> >> You'll be happy to learn that unlike your buddy Chris Morton, Tiger
>> >> Woods does not regard himself as being black. And since the race of
>> >> the artist isn't mentioned, I have to assume that you are simple being
>> >> a hypocritical race-baiting bigot, hmyessssss?
>> >
>> >I'm aware that *blacks* consider Woods to be black. Who am I to argue?
>>
>>
>> Wow! Robin actually decides that blacks know that they are doing for
>> once!
>
>No race is wrong, 100 pecent of the time.
>
Keeper.
iso
<ze...@zeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
>>No race is wrong, 100 pecent of the time.
>>
>Keeper.
Nice, but not as good as your latest howler.
See below.
"Yo, Knickers. I'm God. No, serious. I'm God. Now, you have the
freedom to not believe in Me and go your own way, but remember, if you
do, I'll cast you in the lake of everlasting fire."
---- Zepp, the Weasel Deity of A.S.L.
The Big Weasel
Are you willing to take that wager? It's just as valid as Pascual's
wager.
No, you'll run away. You always do.
Chris Nelson
news:3d28dd19...@basic.bs.webusenet.com...
If you don't understand Zepp's point in posting that, you have some serious
problems!
He posted it to underscore the absurdity of using Pascal's Wager as a
defense of religious belief.
--
Chris
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
<cris...@insightBBB.Replace_BBB_with_BB_and_put_dot-com_after_it>
wrote:
Typical Knickers. He does know better, but he'll keep posting it in
the hopes of creating the wrong impression, and never, ever respond to
my point. It's why he had to change his name. However, a new account
doesn't solve his underlying problems.