The Artful Jurist

Maybe Jack Benny was right to remain 39 years old all those years. Television isn't so keen on the over-40 crowd. At least, that's what one might read into the $70 million settlement in a class action suit that alleged that the TV industry discriminated against writers who were 40 or older.

More than 100 plaintiff writers sued about 20 TV production companies and agencies on the claim that they systematically kept writers over 40 from attaining work in the industry. This past January, a settlement was announced, and now the laywers for the plaintiffs are collecting the names of everyone who qualifies for inclusion in the class that will split the money. The deadline to apply is April 13, 2010. There's a website specifically for this class action.

Now, before you get too excited about the prospect of a little quick cash, you're going to have to offer some evidence other than just your word that you qualify for inclusion. The website specifies what that evidence might be.

Photographer Spencer Tunick has done it again – this time down under. Mr. Tunick, who’s best known for taking photos of groups of nude people in public places, just added to his portfolio by photographing more than 5,000 nude people in a massive group shot on the steps of the Sydney, Australia, Opera House.

Since he’s been doing this for years, and has received lots of coverage (including one TV news reporter’s much publicized first-hand account of her own participation in a shoot), Mr. Tunick’s particular brand of nude photography isn’t really a “new” thing. But, since we don’t see too many naked people walking around city streets, we all sort of sense that there are still public nudity laws on the books that prohibit that sort of thing. The question then is: Are Mr. Tunick and his mass of uninhibited models breaking the law?

Well, the city of New York thought so back when Rudy Giuliani was mayor. Mr. Tunick was arrested there five times in connection with public nude shoots. He countered with a lawsuit alleging that his First Amendment rights were being violated. The case eventually went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which chose to let stand a lower court ruling in favor of the photographer. It seems the New York laws were a tad overly broad in their scope, and artistic freedom of expression doesn’t crumble under laws that aren’t narrowly tailored to meet a compelling necessity.

Author J.K. Rowling – of “Harry Potter” fame – is being sued on a charge that her Harry Potter books constitute copyright infringement. The estate of the late Adrian Jacobs claims that Ms. Rowling swiped substantial portions of Mr. Jacobs’ book, The Adventures of Willy the Wizard. Mr. Jacobs died in 1997.

The Jacobs estate is also suing Ms. Rowling’s publisher, Bloomsbury Publishing.

Just like the flap that arose right after President Obama’s gaffe when he made his “Special Olympics” joke on TV, you just knew there was going to be a recoil the moment this one hit the airwaves…

I’m talking about a recent episode of the Fox network’s animated TV show, Family Guy, which portrayed a Down syndrome character who said one of her parents was the former governor of Alaska.

Just in case it’s not incredibly obvious, former Alaska Governor (and former Republican vice presidential candidate) Sarah Palin has a young son with Down syndrome. And, if she didn’t let David Letterman slide when he made a joke about one of her kids, you had to figure she wasn’t about to let this one go, either. Ms. Palin’s Facebook page features a response, mostly authored by her daughter, Bristol Palin, whose name found its way into both news headlines and comedians' punch lines when it was announced during her mother’s campaign that the teenage Bristol Palin was unwed and pregnant. As you might imagine, mother and daughter are displeased about what they view as a cheap shot from Family Guy.

If you’re asking yourself what legal standing the Palins might have to bring an action against the producers of the TV show, the answer is: probably not much. The cartoon character was never specifically identified as a Palin. And, even if it were, public figures (such as Ms. Palin and her family) are typically fair game for humorists under the First Amendment protections of free speech – that is, so long as the speech doesn’t step over the line into something like defamation or false light.

Undoubtedly, many will say the show stepped way over the line on this occasion in terms of its chosen target for humor. And, from a good taste perspective, there are many reasonable arguments that can be made to back up that opinion. However, the First Amendment protects even offensive speech. So it takes more than just being offended to bring a lawsuit over something someone said on TV.

You can always count on the Super Bowl to provide some type of after-game brouhaha to give us something to talk about. And, as we all know, it isn't always the game, itself, that causes the fuss. (Can you say "wardrobe malfunction" or "racy commercial"?)

The newest source of post Bowl unrest comes from the band known as the White Stripes, which claims that the Airforce Reserve made unauthorized use of its song, "Fell in Love with a Girl," as part of a Super Bowl TV commercial. Apparently, the White Stripes isn't keen on having its music used for the purpose of recruiting enlistees. But, even if it doesn't mind, the band still has exclusive rights to such uses of its music, unless of course it gives permission for it to be used by others...which the band claims it did not.

The Air Force Reserve, on the other hand, is reported as having said it did not use "Fell in Love with a Girl" but, rather, used original music created for it by a company hired by its ad agency, and any similarity is -- as the well-worn saying goes -- purely coincidental.

I haven't yet heard anyone mention the word "lawsuit."