To assess the purpose and character of the Prince Works, I divide the analysis into two parts. First, I assess whether the Prince Works are transformative of Plaintiffs’ Works. Second, I assess whether the Prince Works are commercial in nature. I conclude that (1) the Prince Works are not transformative of the Plaintiffs’ Works, and (2) the Prince Works are commercial in nature. […]
|
|
Weighed on the larger scale of things, the proposed methadone clinic’s predictable effect on those homeowners’ property values and sense of security is negligible, and the sacrifices involved on their parts mere fulfillment of their citizenly obligations to the town. […] The simple fact is that, for any creative person who engages with it seriously, the computer makes feasible things that couldn’t have been done before — either because they were impossible or because they were too labor-intensive to be worthwhile. […] I sat there in the respectful silence one reserves for historic moments marking major cultural change. So much for all our agonizing debates over the ethics of electronic image alteration in photojournalism, our ponderous ruminations about whether the editors at National Geographic should have moved those damn pyramids closer together. Vox pop had spoken, and its answer was: Go for it. […] |
 SPJ Research Award 2014 |
Nevertheless, They Persisted (1)
I have served as an expert witness in Graham v. Prince et al (15‑cv‑10160) and McNatt v. Prince et al (16‑cv‑08896), providing my services pro bono. This included drafting a written statement on behalf of the plaintiffs — responding to a specific set of questions posed by the lawyers for Graham and McNatt — and sitting through an extensive deposition by Prince’s high-priced lawyers. […]