Touro College: Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center
Not a member yet
3484 research outputs found
Sort by
(Un)Masking the Truth - The Cruel and Unusual Punishment of Prisoners Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic
Get PDF
Bundle of Joy: Why Same-Sex Married Couples Have a Constitutional Right to Enter into Gestational Surrogacy Agreements
Get PDF
Qualified Does Not Mean Over Qualified: The ADA’s Accommodation of Last Resort Should Not Be a Competition!
Get PDFDoes Due Process Have an Age Limit? Why the Law Concerning the Parental Right to Freedom of Intimate Association in the Relationship with an Adult Child Is a Mischaracterization of a Circuit Split
Get PDFUncle Sam’s Dilemma: Whether Prioritizing Confederate Memorials over National Sentiment Is a Monumental Mistake
Get PDFDebunking “De Minimis” Violations of Prisoners’ Religious Rights: Further Problems with the Supreme Court’s “Hands Off” Approach
Get PDFCircuits are split as there continues to be an inconsistent application of Supreme Court doctrine stemming from the notion of the separation of church and the state. Imprisonment does not strip a wrongdoer of his constitutionally guaranteed rights and protections. Some Circuits have held that a minor, or de minimis, interpretation of an inmate’s religious rights can constitute a substantial burden under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. In the absence of clear direction from the Supreme Court, I propose that courts should refrain from determining the value of a religious belief or practice as it relates to a religious adherent and err on the side of providing religious accommodations whenever reasonable. This would follow the intended goal of the religious-question doctrine and protect constitutionally guaranteed rights as well as likely benefit the society and the individual wrongdoer in his efforts towards maintaining a law-abiding lifestyle
Protest Art and Copyright Law: Weaponizing Intellectual Property against Systemic Inequality and Social Injustice
Get PDFThe death of George Floyd ignited a powerful modern-day Civil Rights movement that spread across the globe. While some protesters took to the streets to demand change, creators amplified the message of hope and unity through protest street art. Murals of police brutality victims like George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery, among many others, appeared in most large cities in the United States and were widely spread on social media. From cave art to modern protest street art, graffiti continues to be a generational medium of expression of the human experience. However, while a handful of artists like Banksy, Keith Haring, and Basquiat are celebrated, lesser-known graffiti artists face prosecution and fines. The cognitive dissonance at the heart of this debate grows more evident as graffiti art is commercialized, while still considered an act of vandalism.
Copyright law has long protected economic rights of artists, encompassing unauthorized reproduction and distribution of the works. Moral rights of artists against destruction and mutilation were ignored until the passage of Visual Artists Rights Act ( VARA ) in 1990. Today, 17 U.S.C. § 106A recognizes moral rights of attribution and integrity for a limited category of visual artworks of “recognized stature.” By failing to issue legislative guidance defining the recognized stature standard, Congress left this critical element to subjective judicial interpretation. The outcome creates a fundamentally flawed standard that ignores potential prejudice and dislike of graffiti as an art form.
In Castillo v. G&M Realty LP, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a judgment against a New York developer for painting over graffiti, thereby violating artists\u27 rights under VARA. Although Castillo was a landmark case for graffiti artists, its holding further narrowed the scope of VARA. This Note discusses the potential negative effect of Castillo on future graffiti art cases litigated under VARA. It also proposes an amendment to VARA which will help limit judicial bias and ensure a fair and equitable application of the law for graffiti artists
