|
Wow.
These cases are very illuminating. It says that the law is very mutable, and subject to interpretation as each particular judge sees fit.
The only one that surprised me was the First amendment case where it was considered parody of the judge. Since the artist wasn't a journalist, there was no editorial content to the painting of the judge in horns, so I'm surprised at that ruling.
I love your analogy of the blackjack hand. I think it's very apropos.
So no painting parade scenes, then, without first going to each person in your photo and obtaining their written authorization to use their likeness! DARN.
|