According to the web page, Fauquier Community Theatre blames it on "copyright agreements [that] prevent us from advertising the name of FCT’s big fall musical production until July."

Okay, I'm reasonably certain that there's probably some legal agreement the theater's adhering to so as not to get itself into unwanted trouble (with a capital T).  But it's not copyright laws that forbid the mentioning of a show's name.  All copyright does in a case like this is make the rules about who can legally produce a show.  A production of a stage drama is considered a "copy," and, as such, must be licensed by the copyright holder.

If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on this restriction perhaps having something to do with D.C. theatrical powerhouse Arena Stage, which just happens to be currently running a production of The Music Man through mid July.  If any D.C. area theater has the clout to get a licensing agreement that forbids other local theaters from concurrently advertising their own upcoming productions of the same show, I'd say it's Arena.  But that's only a guess on my part (with a capital G, and that rhymes with D, and that stands for "Disclaimer.")

I'm talking about the newly released 3-D version of the film, Titanic, which features a scene in which a character admires a reproduction of the famous Picaso painting known as Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, which was painted in 1907.  There was a legal flap about it when the film first came out in 1997, and, reportedly, a settlement was reached with the Picaso Estate.

However, that settlement apparently didn't include an agreement for any derivative movies, which a 3-D version might be termed.  So the Artists Rights Society sent film director James Cameron a letter claiming compensation is due the Estate.

Yes, there's precedent that artists have the right to be compensated for the use of their works in films and television.  But the thing that piques my curiosity is that, at least under American copyright law, anything created before 1923 ought to be in the public domain by now.  So how does a 1907 painting still merit copyright protection?  Perhaps there's some other country's copyright statutes in play here.  Or perhaps, when you've got a blockbuster movie, it's just cheaper to pay off the family than to fight about copyright status in the courts.  Your guess as to the reality of this one is as good as mine.

Artist Cady Noland cited the federal Visual Artists Rights Act and New York's Artists' Authorship Rights Act as justification to cancel art dealer Marc Jancou's attempt to sell one of Ms. Noland's paintings through auction at Sotheby's.  Ms. Noland's reason: she said the aluminum on which it's painted has been dented.  In Ms. Noland's mind that constitutes defacing of her work.

But Mr. Jancou believes the artist overstepped her bounds.  He's suing her and Sotheby's for a reported total of more than $45 million.

The rationale for the advertising ban was basically to keep public television stations from making programming choices based on the dollars they would attract from advertisers.  If those stations chase the money, the programming could reflect the political taste of those with the most money to spend on TV advertising.  But the Court ruled that the ban was just too broad.

The decision does not lift public TV's ban on accepting ads from for-profit commercial enterprises.

As a lawyer, one of my favorite moments is Vinny's cross-examination of the eyewitness who claimed he knew how long a suspect car had been parked because he saw it from his kitchen window as he was cooking his breakfast grits.  Vinny's cross was a classic example of "commit, credit, challenge" -- the method by which an attorney discredits a witness's testimony.  If you see the film again, note how it's done in that scene.

A Colorado woman successfully ducked jury duty by convincing a judge she had mental issues that would prevent her from serving on a jury.  The judge bought it and excused her, even though it seems the woman didn't really have the issues she claimed she had.  How do we know this?  Well, some months later, the woman called in to a radio talk show to brag about how she had duped the system to get out of jury duty.

What the woman hadn't counted on was that among that radio station's listeners was the very judge before whom the woman had appeared when she answered her jury summons.  From the description of the story the woman gave on the radio, the judge recognized who it was, and reported her to the authorities.  She was arrested and now faces Class 4 felony charges of perjury and attempting to influence a public servant.

Note to self:  Broadcasting something on the radio is not the same as sharing a secret with your friends.

You can read more about it in the Denver Post.

According to an article in the Art Newspaper, the judge held that one photographer's photo substantially reproduced elements and visual effects of another photographer's earlier composition.  As such, the court ruled the latter image an infringement of copyright.

What makes the decision controversial is that the images are not even close to being exactly alike.  The shots were taken at different angles from different spots, although both used Big Ben and the British Houses of Parliament in the background.  Opponents of the ruling say it comes dangerously close to applying copyright protection to ideas rather than expressions, and copyright, in the U.K. as well as the U.S., is not extended to the protection of ideas.

Mr. Fairey pleaded guilty to the criminal charge in connection with his destroying documents, manufacturing evidence, and submitting false images as part of his legal battle with the A.P.  Although Mr. Fairey had a lot of public support for his side of the infringement issue, his case basically fell apart when he admitted he had not been fully truthful with the court or, apparently, even his own lawyers.

The civil case was settled out of court.  Sentencing on the criminal count is scheduled for July 16, 2012.