You are viewing dpolicar

Previous Entry | Next Entry

A marketing opportunity

but...
I am startled to discover that nobody is marketing a line of Amicus Curiae briefs to the queer community.

The closest I can find is this, which really doesn't cut it.

I'm envisioning a line of bikini- and boxer-briefs printed with exerpts from the various marriage-equality court cases (in very small print, for obvious reasons), as well as golden oldies like Lawrence v Texas.

Tags:

Comments

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
lyonesse
Dec. 22nd, 2013 06:05 pm (UTC)
cafepress is your friend!
r_ness
Dec. 22nd, 2013 11:21 pm (UTC)
Indeed!
navrins
Dec. 22nd, 2013 06:12 pm (UTC)
Are they copyrighted?
reconditarmonia
Dec. 22nd, 2013 06:39 pm (UTC)
IIRC, things produced by the federal government are in the public domain, so Supreme Court rulings must be included? But this is a guess.
redbird
Dec. 22nd, 2013 07:02 pm (UTC)
I think you're right, and that would also apply to other federal court rulings, such as the most recent one from Utah. But it doesn't (necessarily) apply to state courts, so there might be copyright in the relevant Massachusetts and Iowa decisions.
drwex
Dec. 23rd, 2013 03:13 pm (UTC)
It does apply
Governmental entities of all sorts cannot copyright things. That does not stop them trying now and then.

Third parties sometimes produce material that is copyrightable based on this stuff (legal decision compilations being a prime example) but the copyright there is in the arrangement and indexing, not the decision text itself.
frotz
Dec. 22nd, 2013 06:18 pm (UTC)
Friend of the court... with benefits?
drwex
Dec. 23rd, 2013 03:14 pm (UTC)
I might be something of a wonk
I didn't realize what meaning you had assigned to "briefs" until almost the end of your entry.

It's a hilarious idea - you should pass the idea to HRC or similar.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

September 2014
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Taylor Savvy