Posted on 12/08/2003 10:54:46 AM PST by NYer
The justices let stand a U.S. appeals court ruling that reinstated Parks' false advertising and publicity claims against OutKast and three Bertelsmann AG (news - web sites) units -- LaFace Records, the record producer, and Arista Records and BMG Entertainment, the distributors.
Parks made history in 1955 when she refused to give up her seat to a white man and move to the back of a city bus in Montgomery, Alabama.
Her arrest, which became a defining moment in the civil rights movement, led to a 381-day boycott of the bus system by blacks. It resulted in the end of segregation on public transportation and became a catalyst for organized boycotts, sit-ins and demonstrations across the South.
The song, "Rosa Parks," released as part of the 1998 album "Aquemini," was nominated for a Grammy award. The lyrics do not mention her by name, but the chorus says, "Ah, ha, hush that fuss. Everybody move to the back of the bus."
The album by rap recording artists Andre Benjamin and Antwan Patton has sold more than two million copies and the song enjoyed long-lasting success on the Billboard charts.
Parks, a Detroit resident, sued in 1999, claiming use of her name without permission constituted false advertising and infringed on her right to publicity. She also claimed it defamed her character and interfered with a business relationship.
She had approved a collection of gospel recordings by various artists, released in 1995 and entitled "A Tribute to Mrs. Rosa Parks."
A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in 1999, ruling constitutional free-speech rights under the First Amendment covered the use of Parks' name.
The appeals court upheld the dismissal of the claims of defamation and interference with a business relationship, but reinstated the rest of the lawsuit.
It said the defendants needed to show some artistic reason for calling the song "Rosa Parks." The appeals court sent the case back for more hearings to determine whether use of her name was symbolic, as the defendants argued, or disguised commercial advertisement.
Attorneys for OutKast and the other defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to hear the case. They said the appeals court unconstitutionally allowed public figures to use trademark and right-of-publicity laws to censor speech.
But the high court rejected the appeal without comment.
Owl_Eagle
" WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
DIVERSITY IS STRENGTH"
Whew is right Howlin.
I have learned to fear "The Look".
Not even a pistol will save a man from "The Look".
One Sunday a couple of years ago, my wife and I were driving home from church, and we stopped at a 7-11 to buy a newspaper. On impulse, I picked up a chocolate eclair and brought it and the newspaper to the register.
The clerk was a black lady, probably in her 60's. She didn't say "Good morning". She didn't ask if there was anything else I needed. When she saw what I had put on the counter, she gave me The Look and demanded, "Is THAT your breakfast?"
I'm 40 years old, but I was almost reduced to babbling. I said, "Uh, no. That's just to tide me over until I get home". Then I had a flash of inspiration and added, "We've been in church." She glared at me a moment more, then said, "Alright then", and rang up the sale. I got out the door as fast as I could move.
They did no such thing. The Court of Appeals did that, the Supreme court merely declined to hear the case, for whatever or no reason at all, since the article states they refused to grant cert and had "no comment".
So you think we could get away with a "Jack Kennedy" edition of refurbished Caracano rifles. Or maybe a "Ted Kennedy" edition luxery car, with waterproof interior?.
These guys aren't political commentators, they are in the business of selling records and making money. They either cut her in, which would of course require her permission, or forgoe explointing her name for money. The case is strictly a commercial infringement deal, not a defamation of character thing at all.
It's not a question of them saying something about her, but rather using her name to sell records. That's a commercial infringement, and what the suit is apparently about.
You know they have their own language today. I pick up on some of the meanings every now and then since I have a teenage daughter who was in the marching band in high school which I worked and chaperoned quite abit.
Phat = fine (as in that girl is fine)
shorty = girl, girlfriend
ice=jewelery
holla=see you later
crunk = like really jamming
But as far as the lyrics of that song, I'm just as lost as you. It sounds as if they are rapping about the making of their present and future music which is what a lot of rappers rap about.
My daughter just called me from college and I asked her what is the meaning of the lyrics of this cut and she replied that she did not know and half the time she does not know what the meaning of the lyrics are. She is 19 years old. So go figure.
Hey is the crunk spellchecker noncrunked?
You cannot be serious?
First the reference to Ho's was not specific to her. Second, the word nigger is not in the song (according to the posted lyrics). The word used is Nigga. Which when used by a black does not have the same meaning.
You are falling into the PC trap
I love being a middle-aged white guy who can instruct a black woman such as yourself on the more subtle points of rap speech. :o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.