Arkansas Blog

It may be OK for Lindsey to use this in his marketing campaign - as long as he paid the U of A the same fee that is demanded of others for the rights to use the image.

I suppose that if the U of A prohibits use or charges others for the right to use this image - but then allowed Lindsey to use this for no consideration, then the Internal Revenue Service might have an interest in whether this was additional taxable compensation to him as a trustee and also an improper benefit given to a trustee by a charitable non-profit organization. Improper benefits given by non-profits to related parties can lead to pretty good tax penalties . . .

Any IRS agents read this blog for interesting tidbits?

Yes, as DonKey suggests, give UA the Al Capone treatment. When you can't get them any other way, sick the IRS on them and on those in collusion with them.

Same goes for tax exempt churches that enter into politics and preach about who God wants folks to vote for. That's dangerous, and people are easily led and misled.

I know you can copyright a photo. If the photo on the tee shirt and the photo of Old Main are somebody's copyrighted photos used without their authorization, then there is certainly reason to stop use of the photos.

But can UA prevent use of any photo of Nutt or Old Main? If not, and I assume not, surely the tee shirt guy could come up with a Nutt pic he can freely use, and the "feel-good image advertising meant to signify a business's arrival in Fayetteville" could make their own Old Main photo to use.

We all grab photos where ever we find them on the Internet, but we have to be prepared to stop using them if the copyright owner complains.

ARK. BLOG The UA is specifically attempting to protect any image of Nutt and Old Main, not specific photographs. A big difference.

A couple of notes from the hill from a correspondent not yet registered.

No. 1:

This is hootworthy.

Can a state agency or institution really trademark the name and likeness of a public employee then licence favorable mentions and deny unfavorable mentions? Isn't that what Justice Scalia called viewpoint discrimination?

Can, say, the General Assembly trademark the faces and names of its membership and sue when anyone uses those trademarks without prior approval? Or the Attorney General's Office? And if so, then why has The Huckster done this already?

I understand that L. Ron Hubbard's flock have done that with their sacred texts to prevent refutation, but can a state agency really do that? Doesn't the First Amendment make short work of Crown Copyright?

I would hate to have Scott Varady's job and his fool of a client. Isn't the Moses First Amendment loss enough for one year, when the financial wizards running the asylum miscalculated the budget by more than a millions dollars?

No. 2

John White had a chauffeur drive him around the weekend of the Alabama game, apparently an employee of the UA Public safety Department. Whether this is an everyday thing or a ballgame special, I know not. But, perhaps cutting out the emperor's personal driver could save a few bucks.

The U of A heavy handedness is the norm. Mike Ibsen has fought with them for years over the distribution of his Uncle Heavy Hog Hat, the original. The U of A has threatened him and when he wouldn't give in the U of A produced their own version of the Hog Hat. Betcha the U of A version won't hold a half pint.

ARK. BLOG The UA is specifically attempting to protect any image of Nutt and Old Main, not specific photographs. A big difference.

A big difference indeed, and just as I suspected, but I was bending over backward above to give them a little credit for having a brain.

I'm ready to jump on this now with all my cloven razorback hooves.

Surely the student body and a few professors will rise up and march in the name of all that's right with the Constitution.

Keep sticking it to them Max. If you find out how much the U of A wants for the image of Nutt, maybe we can pass the hat and raise the money on the blog. For the first time in 30 years I suddenly want me a black t-shirt.

I dropped my ACLU membership a few years ago, but would renew and donate if they'll step in on the side of free speech here.

And if they don't, then what good are they? I know DonKey, I know. Your answer to that question is "nothing". But will you still tell them they're good for nothing when somebody tries to silence you and they are the only ones who offer to stand by you in court.

I've never understood why conservatives don't support those who stand up for the Bill of Rights. I know, I know DonKey. It's because they defend the civil rights of those you don't agree with.

But will you still tell them they're good for nothing when somebody tries to silence you and they are the only ones who offer to stand by you in court. - Posted by: Spirit
********
I guess my analogy would be that the ACLU seems to have gone the way of the labor union. (I am an ex-union member). In its earlier days, unions were needed and fulfilled a critical need. As time progressed, it strayed from its purpose. The unions became corrupt and only served the leadership at the expense of the workers. The ACLU in turn has become overly partisan and focuses on helping leftist causes and is antagonistic toward conservative or religious causes. I would be hard-pressed to be able to cite any instances where the ACLU has acted on behalf of any religious person or organization whose speech was being suppressed. Someone can enlighten me.

However, If we all think this guy is right, maybe each of us ought to walk the talk and send him a hundred bucks a piece. If there's enough of us out there, he can spring for a young, righteous, idealistic lawyer with a little fire in his/her belly and let the ACLU focus on their preferred targets.

The ACLU will still be good for something . . . when I think of it, I will let you know.

The ACLU in turn has become overly partisan and focuses on helping leftist causes and is antagonistic toward conservative or religious causes.
Posted by: Don Keyhotay

Ah, DonKey, I would have expected no less from you and you did not disappoint, especially working "religious" into the mix.

On the other hand, and there is always an other hand, why do you think I let my membership with them lapse? It's because they supported unpopular causes even I couldn't stand. I agree that they've gone overboard in one direction when they should go overboard in both directions.

But I still admire the cause and the goal.

Ah, DonKey, I would have expected no less from you and you did not disappoint, especially working "religious" into the mix . . .But I still admire the cause and the goal. - Posted by: Spirit
********
I aim to please.

I, too, admire the cause and the goal. Unfortunately, the execution is disappointing.

"I would be hard-pressed to be able to cite any instances where the ACLU has acted on behalf of any religious person or organization whose speech was being suppressed. Someone can enlighten me."--Don Keyhotay

Consider yourself enlightened:

http://aclu.org/religion/schools/25799prs20060605.html

http://aclu.org/religion/discrim/25518prs20060419.html

http://aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22354prs20051206.html

The ACLU has its flaws (e.g., its Arkansas chapter), to be sure, but it does defend both sides of the religious expression issue with great regularity.

The ACLU has its flaws (e.g., its Arkansas chapter), to be sure, but it does defend both sides of the religious expression issue . .. - Posted by: Gaddis
********
Fantastic! I am truly enlightened and I stand corrected.

Now, not really being facetious, but If I were to seek more enlightenment, I would have to wonder if these are just three oddities out of X thousand cases they have filed. Aberrations, so to speak?

And are there any in Arkansas?

And I agree, the ACLU in Arkansas is a flaw.