More Lawyers Should Feel Comfortable Bringing Kids To Court – Above the Law

I
have
had
a
number
of
in-person
court
appearances
in
the
past
few
months,
and
the
experience
has
shown
me
that
lawyers
may
treat
in-person
appearances
a
little
differently
than
they
did
before
the
pandemic.
Last
week,
I
wrote
about
how

some
lawyers
seem
to
appear
in
court
in
less
formal
attire
,
possibly
due
to
the
return
to
in-person
appearances
following
the
COVID-19
pandemic.
I
have
also
seen
lawyers
bringing
kids
to
court
in
recent
months,
which
may
be
due
to
childcare
issues
or
the
fact
that
kids
were
out
of
school
for
the
summer.
At
a
recent
court
appearance,
I
saw
a
lawyer
bring
three
kids
to
court!
I
was
impressed
with
how
this
lawyer
was
able
to
handle
his
children
as
well
as
the
legal
task
at
hand.
In
some
circumstances,
bringing
kids
to
court
is
entirely
appropriate,
and
in
certain
situations,
this
might
actually
be
an
advantage
to
the
lawyer.

The
first
time
I
ever
saw
a
lawyer
bring
a
kid
to
court
was
about
a
decade
ago
when
I
was
arguing
an
appeal
in
front
of
a
state
intermediate
appellate
court.
The
gallery
of
the
courtroom
was
full
of
numerous
lawyers,
and
possibly
some
clients,
who
were
all
in
formal
attire.
In
the
back,
a
father
who
was
wearing
a
suit
sat
next
to
a
kid
who
was
probably
7
or
8
years
old,
who
everyone
presumed
was
his
child.

When
it
was
time
for
this
lawyer
to
argue
his
appeal,
the
lawyer
told
the
child
to
stay
in
his
seat
and
then
he
approached
the
lectern
to
make
his
arguments.
I
think
the
appellate
judges
were
touched
by
the
fact
that
the
father
brought
his
child
to
court
that
day.
One
of
the
appellate
judges
remarked
“it
looks
like
you
have
a
legal
assistant
with
you”
or
something
to
that
effect
to
playfully
point
out
that
the
lawyer
was
accompanied
by
his
child.
From
the
smiles
I
could
see
on
the
faces
of
the
appellate
judges,
it
seemed
that
bringing
a
kid
to
court
did
not
hurt
this
lawyer,
and
might
have
actually
helped
humanize
the
lawyer
in
front
of
the
appellate
judges.

As
previously
mentioned,
I
saw
a
lawyer
bring
three
of
his
kids
to
court
several
weeks
ago,
and
this
was
an
interesting
sight
to
see.
The
kids
followed
the
lawyer
around
as
he
worked
on
various
matters.
Everyone
was
talking
about
the
kids
and
the
attorney
who
had
brought
them
to
court.
However,
I
did
not
hear
a
negative
comment
about
the
fact
that
this
lawyer
brought
his
kids
to
court.
On
the
contrary,
most
of
the
comments
were
about
how
cute
and
well-behaved
the
kids
were
and
how
it
was
cool
that
this
lawyer
showed
his
kids
what
his
work
was
like.
I
am
not
sure
whether
having
children
helped
the
lawyer
advance
his
client’s
interests,
but
it
definitely
added
some
levity
to
the
drudgery
many
people
experience
in
court.

Granted,
I
am
the
type
of
person
who
likes
it
when
people
bring
their
kids
with
them
to
various
events.
When
I
was
in
law
school,
I
took
a
family
law
class
with
a
student
who
brought
her
infant
child
to
class
with
her.
There
were
only
around
30
people
in
the
class,
so
it
was
pretty
noticeable
when
the
child
acted
up,
but
for
the
most
part,
it
was
really
enriching
to
have
the
child
there.
Of
course,
not
everyone
is
comfortable
around
children,
and
some
people
do
not
understand
childcare
and
other
issues
that
surround
having
kids.
Indeed,
I
remember
one
story
about

a
judge
who
scolded
a
lawyer
for
bringing
an
infant
to
court

even
though
the
judge
refused
to
adjourn
a
matter
because
the
lawyer
had
recently
given
birth.
In
addition,
male
and
female
attorneys
are
likely
to
be
perceived
differently
if
they
bring
children
to
court
because
of
ways
people
unfairly
perceive
women
differently
from
men
if
they
mix
work
with
their
personal
lives.
Moreover,
some
courts
have
rules
prohibiting
children
from
appearing
in
court
due
to
the
disturbance
they
may
cause,
and
this
is
usually
reasonable
if
members
of
the
public
are
not
expected
to
appear
in
court.

In
any
case,
people
should
be
more
understanding
of
lawyers
who
need
to
bring
children
to
court
for
childcare
or
other
reasons.
Courts
are
generally
flexible
to
members
of
the
public
bringing
children
to
court,
and
this
should
extend
to
lawyers.
In
the
post-COVID
era
in
which
in-person
court
appearances
are
rarer,
and
hybrid
work
arrangements
make
consistent
childcare
more
impractical,
judges
should
be
more
flexible
to
lawyers
who
bring
children
to
courts.
Kids
usually
do
not
cause
a
disturbance
in
court,
and
they
can
add
an
enriching
and
humanizing
element
to
court
proceedings
that
is
typically
absent
in
the
legal
industry.




Rothman Larger HeadshotJordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of




The
Rothman
Law
Firm
,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of




Student
Debt
Diaries
,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at





[email protected]
.

‘The Saga Continues’: Costco Denies Lawyer’s Claims That Diddy Bought Baby Oil ‘In Bulk’ At Its Stores – Above the Law

Sean
‘Diddy’
Combs
(Photo
by
Shareif
Ziyadat/Getty
Images)

The
customer
is
not
always
right

especially
when
it
comes
to
allegations
regarding
alleged
purchases
reportedly
used
in
scandalous
“freak
offs.”

Earlier
this
week,
Sean
“Diddy”
Combs,
the
man
behind
many
of
the
greatest
90s
rap
hits,
was

arrested
and
charged
with
three
criminal
counts

in
a
federal
indictment,
accusing
the
music
mogul
of
sex
trafficking,
racketeering,
and
transportation
to
engage
in
prostitution.
The
recording
artist
pleaded
not
guilty
during
his
arraignment
hearing
and
was
denied
bail.

Almost
immediately
after
Diddy’s
lawyer,

Marc
Agnifilo

of
Agnifilo
Intrater,
suggested
that
his
client’s
sizeable
cache
of
baby
oil
was
purchased
at
Costco,
the
beloved
bulk
retailer
stepped
forward
to
issue
a
statement
denying
the
attorney’s
assertions.

During
a
raid
of
the
rapper’s
homes,
federal
prosecutors
claim
that
more
than
1,000
bottles
of
baby
oil
were
found,
and
that
the
oil
was
allegedly
used
during
sex
parties.
If
you
recall,
Agnifilo
said
of
his
client’s

shopping
habits
,
“He
buys
in
bulk.
I
think
they
have
Costcos
in
every
place
where
he
has
a
home.”

In
a
statement
given
to

TMZ
,
a
Costco
spokesperson
said
that
none
of
the
store’s
locations
in
the
U.S.
sell
baby
oil.
As
noted
by
the

New
York
Post
,
Sam’s
Club,
a
rival
warehouse
store,
doesn’t
sell
baby
oil
either.

Combs
is
currently
being
detained
while
he
awaits
trial,
but
his
baby
oil
ain’t
goin’
nowhere,
’cause
he’s
an
alleged
Bad
Boy
who
may
be
sentenced
to
life.


Costco:
Diddy
Didn’t
Get
His
Baby
Oil
From
Us!!!

[TMZ]

Costco
denies
Sean
‘Diddy’
Combs’
lawyer’s
claim
he
bought
baby
oil
‘in
bulk’
at
wholesale
giant

[New
York
Post]


Earlier
:

Lawyers
For
Sean
‘Diddy’
Combs
Make
Embarrassing
Mistake
In
Bail
Letter
To
Judge


Mo’
Baby
Oil,
Mo’
Problems:
Diddy’s
Lawyer
Says
His
Client
Was
Just
Trying
To
Get
The
Most
Out
Of
His
Costco
Membership



Staci ZaretskyStaci
Zaretsky
 is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter

and

Threads

or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn
.

Eric Adams Indictment Not As Bad As That Time AOC Wore A Dress, Says Jonathan Turley – Above the Law

(Photo
by
TIMOTHY
A.
CLARY/AFP
via
Getty
Images)

Jonathan
Turley
continues
his
effort
to
erode
any
lingering
misconception
that
he
understands
the
law
by
rushing
to
the
aid
of
embattled
NYC
Mayor
Eric
Adams.
Despite
an
indictment
filled
with
more
smoking
guns
than
a
Guy
Ritchie
film,
Turley
assures
readers

like
a
broad
caricature
of
an
old-timey
cop

to
“move
along,
nothing
to
see
here,”
dismissing
some
23
overt
acts
and
a
cornucopia
of
embarrassingly
damning
text
messages
to
explain
how,
as
political
corruption
goes,
this

isn’t
as
bad
as
the
time
AOC
wore
a
designer
dress
.

To
borrow
from
George
S.
Patton:
Never
tell
Turley
how
to
explain
legal
concepts.
Tell
him
what
partisan
result
to
get
and
he
will
surprise
you
with
his
disingenuity.

How
does
one
explain
away
all
the
trips
and
gifts?

For
example,
many
of
the
gifts
from
Turkish
sources
were
realized
in
the
form
of
upgrades
on
flights
to
business
class
or
expensive
hotel
suites.
It
is
not
clear
what
Adams
knew
of
the
logistics
for
such
travel
or
their
inclusion
in
annual
reports.
Despite
their
public
personas,
many
populist
politicians
tend
to
be
a
pampered
class
who
expect
to
be
feted
in
the
best
quarters
as
they
speak
as
the
“voice
of
the
people.”

“First
stop
is
always
Istanbul,”
Adams
wrote
apparently
coincidentally.
The
indictment
includes
multiple
exchanges
where
Adams
exhibits
firsthand
knowledge
of
what’s
going
on.
And,
of
course,
there
was
the
other
side
of
the
quid
pro
quo
in
the
form
of
letting
Turkey
erect
a
building
on
one
of
the
most
valuable
pieces
of
real
estate
in
the
world
that
couldn’t
pass
basic
safety
laws.

Turley
digs
deep:

The
government
alleges
that
Turkish
officials
immediately
dialed
up
their
well-groomed
ally,
Adams,
and
told
him
that
it
was
“his
turn”
to
support
Turkey.

Adams
intervened
and
prosecutors
say
that
FDNY
officials
were
afraid
for
their
jobs.

Once
again,
however,
Adams
has
defenses.
He
can
argue
that
New
York
is
the
home
of
the
United
Nations
and
a
large
population
of
diplomats
and
international
organizations.
This
was
a
foreign
country
seeking
to
open
a
consulate
and
he
intervened
to
avoid
an
embarrassing
diplomatic
tiff.

He
only
blessed
the
death
trap
because
he’s
a
diplomat.
10/10.
No
notes.

The
biggest
problem
for
Adams
is
that
the
US
Attorney’s
Office
went
public
with
a
threat
for
all
of
those
who
do
not
cooperate
and
pledged
that
more
will
be
“held
accountable.”

In
other
words,
the
indictment
amplified
the
tune
in
a
game
of
musical
chairs.
Anyone
close
to
Adams
may
want
to
sit
down
before
the
music
stops.
That
means
that
Adams
can
expect
close
associates
to
be
testifying
against
him
with
the
enthusiasm
of
those
threatened
with
ruin
by
federal
prosecutors.

If
Eric
Adams
is
convicted,
it
will
be
at
the
hands
of
his
associates.

Yes.
Those
associates
are
customarily
called
“witnesses.”
This
is
actually
how
criminal
cases
work.

For
Turley,
the
real
injustice
involves
targeting
a
mayor
for
allegedly
taking
illegal
foreign
campaign
contributions
in
exchange
for
political
favors
when
a
more
liberal
politician…
wore
a
dress
once.

That
was
captured
most
vividly
by
NYC
Rep.
Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez
sashaying
at
the
Met
Gala
in
a
designer
dress
reading
“tax
the
rich.”
It
was
a
scene
with
a
crushing
irony.
The
dress
itself
was
worth
more
than
some
people
make
in
a
year
and
it
was
just
“loaned”
to
AOC
despite
being
made
specifically
for
her.
She
also
did
not
pay
for
her
ticket,
which
would
cost
$35,000.

It
triggered
an
ethics
investigation
and
allegations
of
ethical
violations.

Yeah,
and
what
happened
with
that
ethics
investigation?
Seems
like
the
fact
that
she
paid
the
expenses
with
personal
funds
would
be
a
worthwhile
fact
to
include
here.
Turley
opens
his
piece
stressing
that
Adams
should
be
given
every
benefit
of
the
doubt
at
this
stage…
weird
to
not
extend
the
same
courtesy
over
a
fizzled
House
rules
investigation
from
over
a
year
ago.

It’s
also
not
clear
how
there’s
any
potential
influence
peddling
involved
in
wearing
a
rented
dress
as
opposed
to,
you
know,
TAKING
TEN
MILLION
DOLLARS
OF
ILLEGAL
CONTRIBUTIONS.

Is
it
possible
that
Turley
is
just
Turkey’s
burner
account?

And,
of
course,
being
Turley,
he
finds
a
way
to
ramrod
Hunter
Biden
into
the
conversation:

The
Adams
allegations
would
constitute
a
fairly
crude
form
of
corruption
by
today’s
standards.
For
the
Biden
family,
it
looks
like
small
potatoes.
Adams
lacked
a
Hunter
and
the
type
of
labyrinth
of
accounts
maintained
by
the
Bidens
to
funnel
millions
from
foreign
sources.

It
seems
at
least
marginally
relevant
that
Eric
Adams
was
a
public
official
and
Joe
Biden
was
not
at
the
time
his
son
did
all
this
work
overseas.
Turley
tends
to
overlook
that
because

he
can’t
figure
out
how
calendars
work
,
but
there’s
not
really
anything
wrong
with
a
guy
working
with
a
foreign
company
while
his
dad
isn’t
even
an
elected
official.

But
despite
Turley’s
cartoonish
effort
to
wave
away
the
Adams
indictment
and
drag
other
Democratic
Party
figures
instead,
he
does
hit
on
one
potentially
accurate
point:

Suggesting
that
a
push
to
cut
short
fire
inspections
may
be
difficult
to
maintain
under
a
bribery
theory.
That
was
the
type
of
expansive
case
that
government
attorney
Jack
Smith
used
against
former
Virginia
Republican
Gov.
Robert
McDonnell
and
it
failed
spectacularly
before
the
Supreme
Court.

While
it
does
violence
to
the
concept
of
rule
of
law
to
cite
the
Supreme
Court’s
fixation
on
legalizing
bribery,
it
is
a
reality.
The
Supreme
Court
decided
that
McDonnell’s
graft
couldn’t
sustain
a
conviction
and
recently
declared
that
bribery
laws

can’t
be
used
to
prosecute
an
official
who
accepts
money
under
the
table
AFTER
doing
the
favor
.

Screenshot 2024-09-27 at 11.39.31 AMThe
current
majority
is
on
a
holy
crusade
to
legalize
payola
so
it’s
unfortunately
not
absurd
to
think
Adams
will
eventually
prevail.
So
give
Turley
his
due
on
this
one.

Broken
clocks
and
all
that.




HeadshotJoe
Patrice
 is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer
.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky

if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search
.

The Future Of Cyberlaw Is Feminist – Above the Law

Cyberlaw
is
probably
not
the
first
thing
you
think
of
when
feminist
jurisprudence
comes
up.
But
what
if
it
was?

The
release
of
the
new
book Feminist
Cyberlaw
,
edited
by
Meg
Leta
Jones
and
Amanda
Levendowski,
was
celebrated
with
a

book
launch
party

at
NYU
Law
earlier
this
week.
Levendowski
was
joined
by
contributors Esha
Bhandari
,

Cynthia
H.
Conti-Cook
Gabrielle
Rejouis
,
and Anjali
Vats

as
they
each
shared
their
unique
perspectives
that
brought
them
to
the
project.

Right
to
repair,
trade
secrets,
patents,
antitrust,
cybercrime,
Section
230,
security,
and,
of
course,
artificial
intelligence
(and
more)
all
get
the
“radical
reimagining
of
technology
law”
promised
in
the
introduction.
It’s
a
fascinating
new
look
at
the
law
of
technology
that
shapes
our
lives.

Check
out
the

free,
open-access
volume
here.

How Appealing Weekly Roundup – Above the Law

(Image
via
Getty)




Ed.
Note
:

A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s

How
Appealing
blog
,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.


“Republican
senator
backs
judiciary
workplace
protections
bill
after
Alaska
judge
scandal”:
 Nate
Raymond
of
Reuters
has this
report
.


“The
Pa.
Supreme
Court
sided
with
DA
Larry
Krasner
in
his
impeachment
suit,
casting
doubt
on
the
effort
to
remove
him;
The
justices
cited
a
procedural
error
by
House
Republicans;
The
DA’s
lawyer
said
the
effort
to
oust
him
‘is
dead’”:
 Chris
Palmer
of
The
Philadelphia
Inquirer
has this
report
 on
a
ruling
that
the Supreme
Court
of
Pennsylvania
 issued
today.


“Ghost
Guns
Are
Making
the
Gun
Violence
Crisis
Worse.
Will
the
Supreme
Court
Care?
Are
guns
really
‘guns’
if
you
have
to
spend
a
few
minutes
assembling
them
in
your
home?
Soon,
Sam
Alito
will
get
to
decide!”
 Madiba
K.
Dennie
has this
essay
 online
at
Balls
and
Strikes.


“Stephen
Vladeck
Replies
to
Judge
Reed
O’Connor
on
Forum
Selection
and
Judge-Shopping”:
 This
post
 appears
today
at
“The
Volokh
Conspiracy.”


“How
would
a
second
Trump
presidency
change
America’s
courts?
There’s
a
real
risk
Trump
would
fill
the
courts
with
MAGA
nihilists.”
 Ian
Millhiser
has this
essay
 online
at
Vox.


“FTX
customers
shouldered
‘extraordinary’
costs
in
Bankman-Fried
conviction,
law
profs
argue”:
 Alison
Frankel’s
“On
the
Case”
from
Reuters
has this
post
.

Yes, You Can Convert To A New Case Management Software – Above the Law


It’s
the
nightmare
scenario:
You’ve
decided
you
need
to
switch
case
management
software,
and


the
concerns
are
beginning
to
overflow,
revolving
around
how
to
move



all


of
that
data
over. 


But
what
are
you
going
to
do?
Continue
to
use
a
software
that
doesn’t
work
for
your
business?  


I
mean,
that
was
kind
of
a
rhetorical
question.
But,
if
you
were
like:
“Well,
yeah

I
guess
so”

I
have
a
podcast
you



need


to
listen
to. 


That’s
because
the
prospect
of
swapping
out
law
practice
management
softwares
isn’t
as
daunting
as
you
might
think.
While
it’s
not
easy,
it’s
definitely
not
impossible!
 

So,


Joyce
Brafford


of



ProfitSolv


is
back
again
as
a
co-host
of
the
Non-Eventcast
to
talk
about
how
you
can
make
the
move
from
one
case
management
software
to
another. 


For
this
episode,
we’re
joined
by



Donna
Brown
,
from



Beyond
Square
One
.
She
is
an
expert
in
data
transfers,
and
she
has
helped
a
number
of
law
firms
move
off
of
one
software
and
onto
another. 


If
you’re
feeling
like
a
software
transition
is
not
in
the
cards
for
your
law
firm

even
though
you
may
desperately
want
one

listen
to
this
special
edition
of
the
Non-Eventcast,
because
you
may
have
the
right
hand
to
play,
after
all.


This
is
the
eighth
episode
in
a
special
podcast
series
hosted
in
conjunction
with
our
partner,



ProfitSolv
.  


This
episode
is
sponsored
by



Cosmolex
.  






Jared
Correia
,
a
consultant
and
legal
technology
expert,
is
the
host
of
the
Non-Eventcast,
the
featured
podcast
of
the
Above
the
Law
Non-Event
for
Tech-Perplexed
Lawyers.

Lawyer Gets Overly Familiar With Judge, Hilarity Ensues – Above the Law

There
are
only
24
hours
in
a
day,
and
so,
in
order
to
get
the
most
out
of
that
limited
time,
lots
of
lawyers
resort
to
multitasking.
It
might
be
efficient,
but
you’re
not
always
paying
the
perfect
attention
to
every
single
detail.
You’ve
jut
gotta
cross
your
fingers
that
nothing
too
bad
slips
through
the
cracks.

Because
it
would
be
suuuper
embarrassing
if
you
were
so
distracted
that
you
inadvertently
called
someone
who
has
not
your
significant
other
“babe.”
And
it
would
be
even
worse
if
that
person
you
casually
called
babe
(who,
again,
is
*not*
your
babe)
was
in
a
position
of
authority,
like
a
judge.
And
it
would
be
absolutely
mortifying
if
you
did
it
while
a
court
reporter
was
recording
every
single
word
said
and
there
was
a
record
of
your
snafu.
And
if
that
permanent
record
of
your
mistake
went
viral
on
social
media…

That
would
just
be
awful.




Kathryn Rubino HeadshotKathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast
,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer
.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her

with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1
 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

Trump Loses Copyright Suit Over ‘Electric Avenue’ 2020 Campaign Video In Summary Judgement – Above the Law

Here’s
a
phrase
I
have
to
use
but
hate
doing
so:
let’s
go
back
to
the
2020
presidential
campaign.
During
what
was
essentially
a
multi-year
advertisement
for
just
how
absolutely
petty,
stupid,
and
disingenuous
a
political
system
could
possibly
be,
the
2020
American
presidential
election
also
featured a
video
 sent
out
by
the
Trump
campaign
on
social
media
that
resulted
in
a
copyright
infringement
lawsuit.
You
can
see
below
a
news
clip
that
features
the
video,
which
is
an
admittedly
fairly
funny
poke
at
his
then
rival,
Joe
Biden,
but
which
also
uses
a
healthy
chunk
of
the
Eddy
Grant
song Electric
Avenue
 within
it.

The
Trump
campaign
used
the
music
without
permission.
That
appears
to
have
pissed
off
Eddy
Grant,
who
filed
a
copyright
infringement
lawsuit
against
the
Trump
campaign
as
a
result.

Now,
it’s
important
to
point
out
that
this
is
unlike
many
other
infringement
claims
we’ve
seen
in
the
past
and
in
the
present
from
bands
and
musical
artists
unhappy
about
Trump
using
their
music
at
campaign
rallies
and
events.
As
we’ve
pointed
out
before,
those
uses
are
often
covered
by
licenses
that
the
venues
themselves
have
to
play
the
music.
Again,
that’s
not
always
the
case,
and
in
fact
some
of
those
licenses
give
artists
an
opt-out
for
specific
uses
by
campaigns,
but
that’s
not
the
norm.

In
this
case,
however,
there
is
no
defending
this
through
venue
licenses.
The
song
wasn’t
played
in
a
venue
at
all.
It
was
played
in
a
campaign
video
tweeted
out
by
the
campaign.
As
a
result,
the
Trump
campaign’s
defense
was
instead
fair
use.
And,
as
I
detailed
in
my
original
post
above,
the
fair
use
defense
in
this
case
is
fairly
laughable.

The
judge
overseeing
the
case
apparently
agrees,
having
found for
Eddy
Grant
on
summary
judgement
.
The
court
went
through
the
four
factors
test
for
fair
use
and
found
that
every
one
of
them
was
in
favor
of
Grant
and
against
fair
use.
The
use
of
the
song
could
encourage
other
political
campaigns
to
make
use
of
Grant’s
work
unlicensed,
impeding
his
ability
to
market
his
song
in
that
way.
The
song
played
for
the
majority
of
the
video,
making
it
an
important
factor
in
the
overall
video
production.
The
song
is
obviously
a
creative
work.
And
on
the
topic
of
transformation,
well:


The
court
first
found
that
Trump’s
use
did
not
“transform”
Grant’s
original
work. In
its
words,
“the
video
is
best
described
as
a
wholesale
copying
of
music
to
accompany
a
political
campaign
ad,” .
.
.
“[T]he
video’s
creator
did
not
edit
the
song’s
lyrics,
vocals
or
instrumentals
at
all.”

Fair
use
as
a
defense
here
was
always
going
to
be
a
longshot.
And
while
I
don’t
make
a
habit
of
agreeing
with
creative
artists
in
stories
on
Techdirt
when
it
comes
to
infringement
claims,
this
one
is
fairly
straight
forward.
Trump
made
a
campaign
video,
used
an
artist’s
song
for
it,
and
didn’t
bother
to
license
it
or
get
permission.

Now
because
this
is
2024,
I’m
quite
sure
the
judge
will
be
accused
of
being
“woke”,
or
a
“communist”,
or
maybe
a
feline-consuming
person
of
some
national
origin
or
another.
Explain
it
away
however
you
like;
Donald
Trump’s
campaign
committed
copyright
infringement,
full
stop.


Trump
Loses
Copyright
Suit
Over
‘Electric
Avenue’
2020
Campaign
Video
In
Summary
Judgement


More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:


Elon
Musk’s
ExTwitter
Regularly
Caves
To
Censorship
Demands;
Way
More
Than
Old
Twitter


Ex-Congressmen
Pen
The
Most
Ignorant,
Incorrect,
Confused,
And
Dangerous
Attack
On
Section
230
I’ve
Ever
Seen


Court
Shuts
Down
Tennessee’s
Attempt
To
Ban
People
From
Talking
About
Abortion
Options

Morning Docket: 09.27.24 – Above the Law

*
New
Wyden
bill
proposes
adding
six
justices
staggered
over
the
next
12
years,
expanding
to
15
circuits,
and
tougher
transparency
and
financial
reporting
requirements.
This
is
the
sort
of
opening
position
that
could

yield
better
reforms

as
concessions.
[Washington
Post
]

*
Biglaw
firm
settles
claim
that
partner
hacked
emails.
[RollonFriday]

*
Man
who
threw
a
nationally
televised
temper
tantrum
advises
law
students
that
it’s
important
to
have
a
thick
skin.
[National
Law
Journal
]

*
Appellate
panel
offers
Trump
a
ray
of
hope
that
the
nearly
half
billion
civil
fraud
fine
might
be
reduced.
[Law360]

*
Former
partner
living
with
judge
while
representing
clients
in
his
courtroom
now
subject
of
a
criminal
investigation.
[Bloomberg
Law
News
]

*
The
ethical
challenges
of
Google
Sponsored
ads
for
lawyers.
[Reuters]

*
Lawyer
quit
profession
to
become
mac
and
cheese
millionaire.
[Fortune]