Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education The Internet Your Rights Online

UCSD Vs. Free Speech, Round 2 296

Posted by timothy from the controlling-the-terms dept.
Suburbanpride writes "Last year, as Slashdot readers may remember, the University of California, San Diego forced student website UCSDuncensored to change its name to SDuncensored, citing California education code that gives it exclusive rights to the name. This year, the target is youCSD, a student blog that has been critical of the administration. The university denies that the site's content had anything to do with the nastygram they received, which informed them that were in violation for not only the name, but for an image they took of the Geisel Library, which the university claims to hold a trademark on. There are dozens of sites that use UCSD in the name, not to mention the 1000+ members of the UCSD xanga blogring. What's next, campus police stopping people from taking pictures of the library?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UCSD Vs. Free Speech, Round 2 More

UCSD Vs. Free Speech, Round 2

Comments Filter:
  • If they try to shut down a protest site, we just turn Slashdot loose on their asses. It may not shut them down, but it'll strain their bandwidth.

  • Why would this be a threat? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mind21_98 ( 18647 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:36PM (#10499439) Homepage Journal
    It just seems fishy. The more popular sites (like SDuncensored) are the ones that get hammered by the administration, while sites like ucsdfacebook.com [ucsdfacebook.com] aren't touched. I have a feeling UCSD is planning on launching their own service, or otherwise have some reason other than vigorously defending their trademarks.

    • Re:Why would this be a threat? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA did something similar a few years ago. There was a website named drexel.com which was used to promote the college community. Offering a place for students to post comments on message boards, and even had a system for students to share their viewpoints about professors. Drexel U threatened legal action, however, the drexel.com owners later settled with the university for an 'undisclosed amount.' Drexel University later that summer went on a buying spree of domain nam

    • Re:Why would this be a threat? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gcaseye6677 ( 694805 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @11:54PM (#10500638)
      This is clearly just a case of university lawyers trying to stop criticism of the school by sending out threatening letters, with little case law to back them up. Notice they did not actually sue, and they wouldn't, because they would get their asses handed to them. Some lawyers are slow learners and haven't yet figured out that they can't have a website shut down just because it says something their client doesn't like. But from the university's perspective, it doesn't hurt to try to stifle criticism. If the website operator is easily intimidated, they might just shut down right away. Moral of the story: if you're running a website that is critical of someone or something, know the laws and know what your rights are. If you're going to cave at the first sign of a legal battle, save yourself the trouble and don't put up the site to begin with.

  • Red Hot Chili Pepper is in trouble (Score:3, Funny)

    by usefool ( 798755 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:37PM (#10499446) Homepage
    Californication

  • it's tricky, really... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bechthros ( 714240 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:38PM (#10499452) Homepage Journal
    cuz sure, the university owns the name, and won't want their name being used to promote things they disagree with.

    OTOH, it's a *public* university, if it's in the UC system. So then if you're a taxpayer, doesn't that kinda give you some sort of ownership rights?

    Morally speaking, of course. I'm sure they'll win in court.

    • Re:it's tricky, really... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Immaterial. The 1st Amendment applies here. This would be like George W. Bush trying to sue John Kerry for mentioning his name on his website or suing some random person for making the website "georgewbushsucks.com" (which probably does exist, haven't bothered to check).
      • right, but i'm sure their ostensible beef is that people would get confused and think this was somehow the official product of the university. Brand confusion, as it were.

        • Re:it's tricky, really... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:50PM (#10499535) Homepage Journal
          *right, but i'm sure their ostensible beef is that people would get confused and think this was somehow the official product of the university. Brand confusion, as it were.*

          certainly there's very little chance of that.. and if they don't seem to have trouble with non-critical sites that argument goes out of the window..

          they're just trying to shut down the critics the 'easy' way(i don't know the issues at hand, but this is hardly the right way to do it since a) you're not shutting up anybody and b) they just get mainstream attention - so, if the sites are dissing them for being stupid biggots then they could even be right!).

    • I think that the University should not be slamming these sites, and I think it has to do with bashing of said administration. Regardless of public or private, it is just plain stupid and is akin to many of the other stupid shit we see everyday from corporations. You would think that they would first try and listen to what their students have to say about their administration.

      OTOH, it is NOT really a *public* university as you say, because we (the students) pay for nearly all of it. Since the Gubernator (wh
      • Not intending to be dismissive of your pain, but if UCSD has enough money to send lawyers after websties on trumped up copyright claims because they don't like what they have to say, they need their funding cut some more. Were I a California resident, I'd write to the Board of Regents with a copy to the Governator and say so myself.

      • Re:it's tricky, really... (Score:4, Funny)

        by calidoscope ( 312571 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @12:04AM (#10500685)
        OTOH, it is NOT really a *public* university as you say, because we (the students) pay for nearly all of it.

        I think you are wildly overestimating the share of costs supported by tuition. When I was an UC student (overlapping the final two years of the Reagan governorship) tuition was ~$300/year for CA residents - figure total tuition revenue from residents was 30 million per year which was a drop in the bucket compared to UC's budget. Tuition is a lot higher now (as is most prices), but I would be really surprised that it was anywhere near the cost of running the system.

        The University is also subsidized in that it doesn't pay property tax, land in La Jolla is worth on the order of 1 million/acre - so UCSD's land would be able to generate several million per year in property tax revenue if it was privately owned.

      • Re:it's tricky, really... (Score:5, Informative)

        by bigman2003 ( 671309 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @12:09AM (#10500710) Homepage
        Vectorian-

        If you really are a UC student, you should educate yourself a little bit on how the University is funded.

        Student fees (the stuff you pay) makes up about 10% of the University of California budget.

        Since it is a public institution (no, your 10% does not make it private) they make their budget readily available to the public. In fact, you can view it here: UC Budget in PDF [ucop.edu]

        Anyone who has seen the budget, and understands what students really pay, finds it pretty amusing when the students 'protest' on campus (whichever one you're on, it happens everywhere) the way their money is being spent. I'm not against the idea that the university should answer to the public, but students have an inflated sense of their (or their parents) financial contribution.

        Why is it? Well, the University of California is not just an institution dedicated to teaching, but it also is an institution of research, outreach to the public, medicine for the state, etc. etc. When you walk through your science building, know that every faculty member there is trying desperately to get outside grants.

        Go to your Ag department (if you are at Davis, Riverside, or Berkeley), and find out how much money comes from the USDA.

        Find out how much money the Federal government gives your school before your friends protest the ROTC classes. We won't even talk about the Department of Energy- because that could be going away soon...

        But list goes on, and on and on. Student fees are only a small part of the budget.

    • Re:it's tricky, really... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by GoofyBoy ( 44399 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:49PM (#10499526) Journal
      They own their name, but how else are people suppose to critize them without using their name?

      The University with the acronym that begins with "U", ends with "D", and has the letters "C" and "S" in the middle in that order?
    • doesn't that kinda give you some sort of ownership rights
      No.

    • Re:it's tricky, really... (Score:4, Informative)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday October 11, 2004 @10:28PM (#10500133) Homepage Journal

      OTOH, it's a *public* university, if it's in the UC system. So then if you're a taxpayer, doesn't that kinda give you some sort of ownership rights?

      I doubt it. The University is created for the public with public funds, and there are public funds paid for students who attend classes, but the fact is that a significant percentage of the money is paid by students and by donors. How many new buildings do you see showing up at any kind of school without a private grant? Unless bonds are sold to finance it, that's pretty much none. New schools, on the other hands, are occasionally built by municipalities.

      Anyway the CSU's mission statement is encased in the Donahoe Higher Education Act of 1960, the meat of which can be found http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?sect ion=edc&group=66001-67000&file=66010.1-66010.8">he re. [slashdot.org]

      You want 66010.4.b and .c:

      (b) The California State University shall offer undergraduate and graduate instruction through the master's degree in the liberal arts and sciences and professional education, including teacher education. Presently established two-year programs in agriculture are authorized, but other two-year programs shall be permitted only when mutually agreed upon by the Trustees of the California State University and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. The doctoral degree may be awarded jointly with the University of California, as provided in subdivision (c) and pursuant to Section 66904. The doctoral degree may also be awarded jointly with one or more independent institutions of higher education, provided that the proposed doctoral program is approved by the California Postsecondary Education Commission. Research, scholarship, and creative activity in support of its undergraduate and graduate instructional mission is authorized in the California State University and shall be supported by the state. The primary mission of the California State University is undergraduate and graduate instruction through the master's degree.

      (c) The University of California may provide undergraduate and graduate instruction in the liberal arts and sciences and in the professions, including the teaching professions. It shall have exclusive jurisdiction in public higher education over instruction in the profession of law and over graduate instruction in the professions of medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine. It has the sole authority in public higher education to award the doctoral degree in all fields of learning, except that it may agree with the California State University to award joint doctoral degrees in selected fields. The University of California shall be the primary state-supported academic agency for research.

      Anyway it doesn't say anything about ownership but the fact is that you can't even be on the property without the permission of the state and Universities typically have their own police force in order to protect them, a clear sign that they are a governmental entity. Your government doesn't really belong to you and neither do the schools. :P

      You could also try looking in the CSU Archives [csudh.edu].

  • legal system designed to control populace (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Cryofan ( 194126 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:40PM (#10499467) Journal
    Our legal system is really designed to control our populace, the ordinary people. So the laws are aimed to the people in general. But we really need a entire legal system aimed at controlling those at the top of the hierarchy, the elite. They are the ones who really cause a lot of the trouble in life. Not just those who run the universities, but those in charge of institutions everywhere, in government and in commerce. They are the ones causing so many problems.

    Extraordinary power requires extraordinary controls. We need extra-strict laws and punishments aimed at those in charge of institutions.

    I am talking about civil law, but criminal law here.

    • Re:legal system designed to control populace (Score:4, Interesting)

      by delirium of disorder ( 701392 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:49PM (#10499529) Homepage Journal
      Mod parrent up! In addition, we must realise that such laws will not be made by elites unless they have their lives or their wealth on the line. Its up to the rest of us to act. We need direct democracy that goes beyond voting. We need boycotts, strikes, protests, gurilla theater, piracy, and more. We must make our own media and our own economy outside of the realm of coporate America. A radical movement like that of the 30's or 60's would press the center to the left and make real progress finally happen.
    • But we really need a entire legal system aimed at controlling those at the top of the hierarchy, the elite.

      You've got one. It's called the Second Ammendment. Given that the U.S. has a poor record of fighting a guerrela (sp?) war, if enough people are equally pissed off at the powers that be, sucessfull "enforcement" might not be that far-fetched.

      • This is only slightly related, but I'll run with it. Everyone seems to remember Thomas Jefferson saying that every ten or so years we need a revolution, maybe not a bloody one, but a revolution non-the-less. Why? To keep people involved and continunually thinking critically of the 'Government'. This keeps what is known as the 'Goverment' as being the people, not the beaurocracy. But when the southern states thought that they were no longer being represented fairly, they decided to get the fight the issue

        • Re:legal system designed to control populace (Score:5, Interesting)

          by bechthros ( 714240 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @09:37PM (#10499801) Homepage Journal
          "Here's the bad part, for as much as the Democrats and Republicans can say they are different, they are both so authoritarian and elitist,"

          i think the word you're looking for is "corporatist".

          "Republicans can say that they are more fiscally responsible, that they try to lower taxes, that they support rights, but where are their examples? Bush increased spending during his term,"

          As did King George the First, as did King Ronnie. My favorite republican quote is "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Karl Rove, I think...

          "and we all know that Democrats support larger government."

          Do we? Bill Clinton did a lot of wrong shit, but he made a campign promise to end welfare as we know it, and damned if he didn't come within a hairs breadth of doing exactly that. And eliminated the federal defecit. How?

          By taxing most those whom taxes affect the least.

          "The rest of the world can stop bitching and just wait, because our direction is heading right toward Socialism, there is no questioning that."

          Wow. I wish I lived in the same America you do. No, my friend, the direction we are heading in is most definately *not* toward socialsm, unfortunely. I saw this cited in somebody's sig file here once, and kick myself daily for not bookmarking it, but the Italian Dictionary from 1936, written by and for the people who pretty much *invented* modern Fascism, defined Fascism as "a government by Corporations". Fascism is where we're headed, and we're uncomfortably close today. And beyond that lies only Corporate Feudalism (you eat, sleep and bathe at the workplace, have little to no rights thanks to a pre-employment EULA, and have a corporate surname... watch it happen)

          "And most of America is to complacent to even notice."

          Amen to that.

          You load sixteen tons. What do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. St. Peter don't you call me, cuz I can't go - I owe my soul to the company store.

          Google it.

          • Re:legal system designed to control populace (Score:5, Informative)

            by scrod ( 136965 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @09:47PM (#10499853) Homepage
            "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
            - Benito Mussolini

            "Fascism is an extreme right-wing ideology which embraces nationalism as the transcendent value of society. The rise of Fascism relies upon the manipulation of populist sentiment in times of national crisis. Based on fundamentalist revolutionary ideas, Fascism defines itself through intense xenophobia, militarism, and supremacist ideals. Although secular in nature, Fascism's emphasis on mythic beliefs such as divine mandates, racial imperatives, and violent struggle places highly concentrated power in the hands of a self-selected elite from whom all authority flows to lesser elites, such as law enforcement, intellectuals, and the media."
            - Ben Tripp, paraphrasing Mussolini's diary

            "By setting up special parastate agencies or "corporations" to replace failing or inadequate private enterprises, [Mussolini] was able to control the important economic sectors. Elitists everywhere found that laudable."
            - Ernest Fitzgerald

    • Re:legal system designed to control populace (Score:4, Interesting)

      by UpLateDrinkingCoffee ( 605179 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @09:13PM (#10499679)
      I think the legal system works when people's deeds come to light no matter what thier status... the problem is congress and the supreme court over time have created a superclass of citizen, the Corporation, whos rights supercede yours and mine. This creates a great opportunity for the elite that control the institution to hide behind that veil and get away with a lot more than they normally could. People controlling other types of entities (such as UCSD) have taken notice and now are acting as if their institutions are supercitizens too... and after a few court ruling s they very well may be!

      The legal system works fine... the problem is more with comfortable career politicians in corporate pockets giving them more and more priviledges while eroding our rights. If that isn't criminal, I don't know what is.

      Check out This [reclaimdemocracy.org] if you want to know more.

    • Re:legal system designed to control populace (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Artifakt ( 700173 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @09:45PM (#10499841)
      The Ancient Maya supposedly had a legal system where the penalties for various things increased as the person's social status increased. Drunk and disorderly in public? Farmers got a small fine. Merchants got locked away for a few days. Beurocrats got paddled publicly and fired. Priests were lashed and exiled, and Generals beheaded. This system hasn't been used too much. The opposite, in one form or another, is almost universal.

  • Yeah, "rights" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:42PM (#10499484)
    I care so much about protection of their name. Not after they kept mine and 38,000 others name, addresses, and social security numbers on an unsecure computer. W#hy they had my ss# 2 years after I declined to enroll I'll never know.
    A source [ucsdguardian.org]
    This is a case of an institution that didn't care about my rights suddely crying foul when someone critques them.

  • I was young once . . . (Score:3, Insightful)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) <homerun@gmail.com> on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:47PM (#10499515)
    ... and I recall pretty much automatically disliking anything and anybody in authority and I would have done what these students are doing in a heartbeat. It's part of growing up and learning. Now that I am an old fart of 46 I can also see the University's side of this as well. But, that whole process of growing up and learning helped me to see opposing points of view and to even come to respect them. This is an age old battle that will be enacted over and over again so long as we have young people and old institutions (and a few old farts like myself.) Hopefully the end results is that people learn and become increasingly more respectful of, and tolerant of, opposing points of view.
    • ... and I recall pretty much automatically disliking anything and anybody in authority and I would have done what these students are doing in a heartbeat.

      Good for you.


      It's part of growing up and learning. Now that I am an old fart of 46 I can also see the University's side of this as well.

      That's not growing up and learning, it's selling out and sacrificing your principles. If you see anything remotely appropriate about a university being able to prevent somebody from displaying a picture of a buil
      • >That's not growing up and learning, it's selling out and sacrificing your principles.

        Hell yes! I agree totally!

        Forget about this drinking in milk in glasses, cleaning up your room, doing your homework and kissing girls. Thats just a cowardly sellout.

        GRADE SIX RULES!!!
    • In this situation there is no "other side" to see. UCSD thinks that maintaining its public image is more important than freedom of speech. Thats wrong, plain and simple.
    • No one is being disrespectful of UCSD's viewpoint. Their viewpoint has been thoroughly discussed and people are trying to assess whether it holds water. I don't see what this has to do with being young or being old though. Maybe you just stop caring about your rights when you get older. If so, then let's pray for the youth of the world.

  • On censorship in CA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PunchSix ( 251493 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:48PM (#10499517)
    For more on censorship in California public universities, view this excellent documentary:
    http://academicbias.com/bw101.html
    (download links on site)
    • I've been at Universities for years as a student and teacher. I've never heard of anyone being discriminated against by academic staff for a political opinion. There are standards of argument which must be maintained, and people need to justify the claims that they make. I don't know whether Conservatives consider that threatening, but that's not bias, that's inquiry.

  • It Actually Seems Pretty Reasonable (Score:4, Informative)

    by diagnosis ( 38691 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:52PM (#10499546) Homepage
    All the provision says (see here [ca.gov]) is that people may not use the UC.* abbreviations to promote things like business/financial enterprises. The code says:

    Nothing in this section shall interfere with or restrict the right of any person to make a true and accurate statement of his or her present or former relationship or connection with, his or her employment by, or his or her enrollment in, the University of California...

    So there's nothing preventing them from changing their name and just plastering all over the site that they're UCSD students, the site is about UCSD, for UCSD students, etc.

    ------------------
    Rate free iPod offers: RateTheOffers.com [ratetheoffers.com]
    (Flat screens and Desktop PCs too)

  • Don't blame them all... (Score:4, Informative)

    by disbaldman ( 804041 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:53PM (#10499563)
    I know a few members of the faculty, and from what I hear, the majority of the faculty is completely disgusted because of these actions, and some even fear their own websites may be taken away by force in the future...
  • If the university owns the rights to the images of the library and the name UCSD, then they can choose to arbitrarily enforce said rights (note: I am specifically avoiding the terms copyright and trademark).

    • The only kind of rights they could have are copyright and trademark. No other rights that could apply actually exist. The rights you have besides property rights can only be based on copyright law, or trademark law. As the sibling comment says they are not eligible for trademark protection even if they actually register(ed) one because they would have to aggressively protect it, and they are not eligible for copyright protection because they are a public institution and you can photograph it all you want,

  • Not just UCSD -- Stanford Too (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ortcutt ( 711694 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:57PM (#10499586)
    The following is an editorial from The Stanford Daily by Kai Stinchcombe (not me).

    University Free Speech Restrictions Are Illegal

    Stanford is illegally restricting my constitutional rights. Yesterday they prevented me from engaging in a peaceful assembly on campus to exercise my freedom of speech. I won't let them stop me again.

    Last week two friends of mine invited students to get together for an hour to make phone calls on behalf of John Kerry. That's a classic First Amendment activity. When the British government banned Committees of Correspondence, constituted by the patriots to write letters opposed to King George, the men who eventually framed the Constitution vowed never to tolerate a government that restricted peacefully assembly or free expression. They wrote the First Amendment to protect events like the John Kerry Power Hour.

    In its wisdom, the California legislature passed the Leonard Law, section 94367 of the California Educational Code, to protect the First Amendment rights of California's students. The law protects on-campus activities that would be protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment if performed off-campus.

    Cut to the present. Stanford's administration decided that the proposed John Kerry Power Hour constituted an event, and that University policy prohibits partisan political events on campus.

    This was a good-faith interpretation of a good-faith policy, intended to protect Stanford's not-for-profit status. As a 501c3 nonprofit, Stanford University cannot use its facilities or other resources in a way that advantages one candidate over another. Because of recent apparent violations of this policy, administators were intent on full enforcement. The administration decided that, rather than allow equal access to White Plaza for supporters of any candidate, the University would prohibit this sort of event altogether.

    In light of the Leonard Law, though, this interpretation seems illegal. Students' right to gather in public areas off-campus to advocate for John Kerry is constitutionally protected, and the Leonard Law extends that right onto campus.

    The Power Hour was scheduled for White Plaza, Stanford's designated open-to-the-public free speech zone. The students were told that they could not assemble in any location on campus, and would face the Judicial Panel if they continued. Accordingly, they decided to have the "John Kerry Power Hour" off-campus in a private residence.

    It seems the only legal, nonpartisan University policy would be to allow students of any opinion to peacefully assemble and exercise their free speech rights anywhere on campus where students are allowed to gather.

    The Leonard Law allows students to obtain court injunctions against illegal university policies. I checked with a handful of lawyers, and with folks from the Democratic Party, the ACLU, and People for the American Way, and they seemed to think that the case would be a slam dunk on our end if it came to that.

    I hope it won't come to that, because the administration's decision to push the event off campus wasn't just illegal, it's also a bad policy. Young people are increasingly alienated from the political process. If Stanford students are passionate about politics and eager to get involved, the University should put as few restrictions as possible in the way of their idealism.

    This coming Sunday at 1pm, I intend to peacefully assemble in White Plaza to express my opinion. As an individual I'll be advocating for John Kerry, but I hope students for Bush join me, because free speech is bigger than any political party. I hope the University also understands that, and lifts the restrictions before then.

    The political process only works if people get involved. The time is now: as George Bush declared in the debate the other night, freedom is on the march. Nobody's stopping our generation from weighing in.


    • Too bad.. These days, well-reasoned kids like this are likely to get pepper sprayed and dragged away in handcuffs for their disobedience. Sure, not as bad as Kent State, but we're getting there.
      • On one hand, it's too bad. On the other hand, I think we need to get there again, because without it, we're not going to see any actual change. The fact that the kids of today are the adults of tomorrow doesn't help if they don't become incensed enough today to still be pissed off tomorrow.
    • Not sure if Stanford gets state or federal funds, and whether that would make the Leonard law apply or not, but it seems to me that since they are a private university they can make the policy they were trying to enforce on you.
      • Doesn't matter. The law applies to all colleges in California public and private, regardless of where they get their funds. The only exception is for colleges controlled by a religious institutions, which Stanford is not. The section applying to Private Colleges reads as follows:

        "California Education Code 94367. (a) No private postsecondary educational institution shall make or enforce any rule subjecting any student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other comm

    • In light of the Leonard Law, though, this interpretation seems illegal. Students' right to gather in public areas off-campus to advocate for John Kerry is constitutionally protected, and the Leonard Law extends that right onto campus.

      It could be argued that as soon as the University permitted a partisan group to use its phone lines, it was moving beyond merely allowing free expression. It could be construed as directly supporting a partisan cause, which is something they're forbidden to do under other C

    • Sorry, go back and read your defense.

      The Leonard Law protects you from "disciplinary action" should you violate a university policy that violates your free speech rights.

      And you only get to file in court if there is a disciplinary action.

      Being told to stop is not a disciplinary action.

  • Copyrightability of Architectural Works (Score:5, Informative)

    by mooreBS ( 796555 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:57PM (#10499592)
    Sec 120(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976 states, "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photoghaphs or other pictorial representations of the work," if the building is in a public place.

    UCSD could sue for copyright infringement if said photo was pulled directly off it's site, because they own the rights to that photo. If a student were to take their own photo and place it on the site there would be no grounds for suit.
  • I always though that since the university is partially funded by my tax dollars that it is, in a way, public property. Is this idea totally wrong? Doesn't this mean that it is perfetcly leagal to take a picture of the library? Someone please help me out here.

  • Xanga UCSD blogring (Score:4, Funny)

    by HoshiToshi9000 ( 786883 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:58PM (#10499599)
    Based on a quick perusal of the Xanga blogring, the UCSD student population is composed of 90% Asian women, of which 99% of them are quite hot. WTHail?
    • As someone who has been to the campus and used to date a student there, I can confirm that this is more or less true.
    • I've been a member of xanga for awhile now (2.3 years according to their nagscreen) and I can safely say that xanga has a huge asian community, so it's not just UCSD. If you choose a random weblog, you're about 80% likely to land on an asian persons. I have no idea why this is, it's not like the system is asian-centric or anything, but the community is.

  • UCSD's solution? (Score:4, Funny)

    by dv8ed ( 697300 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @09:02PM (#10499620)
    It's cheaper to let Slashdot take it down than to pay lawyers to do it.

  • terpidiots.com (Score:2, Informative)

    by tonyz2k ( 178027 )
    this article hit a bit too close to home for me. back in college we used to run a website, terpidiots.com .. its gone now, thanks to the University of Maryland asserting its ownership over the word "Terp". after a nasty-gram from the head attorney for the university, we stopped running the site.

    you can see the scattered pieces on google [google.com]

    come to think of it i think we went down without a fight. i was pretty caught up with trying to graduate and find a job. i tip my hat to these persistent young people

  • I think they meant copyrighted, but whatever.

    Assuming:

    • the photograph was taken by the web site owner and/or under "contract" thereof, or was taken from a public-domain/royalty-free source (as opposed to copied from the school or some other copyright-protected source);
    • the photograph was taken from public property or other public right-of-way (sidewalk, street, alley, etc.); and
    • the web site is not attempting to claim credit for the design, appearance, etc. of the building, nor trying to duplicate said de
    • No, they mean trademarked. There are some things you can't photograph without permission because the image is a trademark - the "lone cypress" tree for instance. Copyright doesn't prevent making an original picture of a building. I'm not sure what the status of trademarking the appearance of a building is at present; I seem to recall cases involving the Rock&Roll Hall of Fame, and the Transamerica building, but I don't know how they turned out.
      • Trademark does not stop you from taking pictures or posting those pictures, it would stop you from using those pictures for certain commercial purposes.
      • Wrong. You can take pictures of whatever you want that is not copyright-protected, and you can sell them, display them, etc, as long as it is done legally. You cannot copyright-protect a fucking tree for fuck's sake. It's a tree. No one can prevent me from taking a picture of that tree and selling it. That is clear-cut law because it was not a work produced by a person, it is nature. I can take a picture of the Mona Lisa and sell it if I want, because it is so old you cannot copyright something like t
  • For yall who don't get that simple concept.
    If he makes use of the concept of "you" in his site, the name should be allowed to be held. This is abuse, plain and simple.

  • photos of public buildings...? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by myowntrueself ( 607117 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @09:14PM (#10499682)
    "What's next, campus police stopping people from taking pictures of the library?"

    I thought that taking photos of any public building in the USA these days could result in arrest by the actual police?

  • This is America after all. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @09:19PM (#10499711) Homepage Journal
    Copyright, Trademarks, Corporate self interest and greed are the laws of the land.

    For those of you who didn't get the memo, Eisenhauer was a niave fool to whom no one listened. The common citizen is not in the interests of our Governments law making. It is the Corporations to who they attend.

    Just how many laws have been enacted in the last 6 years that grant you additional rights and protections? And just how many laws have been enacted that create criminal prosecution of citizens for actions that lay against the best interest of Corporations?

    Like those Bush tax cuts? Well, while you're cashing in a days pay check worth of tax cut, think about Microsoft. They pay no tax at all. Obviously placating MS and other mega-buck corps to the point of giving them a free ride means more than placating you and I. Funny how those that can least afford it pay the most while those that have bank accounts larger than developing nations pay the least.

    Want to fight a corporation who tries to usurp your rights? Prepare to be driven to the gutter by legal fees and get nothing in return, even if you do win. Thank god for the ACLU and EFF, without them you'd have no hope in the world. Face it.. we no longer live in a true Democratic Republic. We live in a Plutocratic-Capitalist society, which functions by a wealthy elite using it's wealth to influence policy to their self interest.

    Wake up people, seems everyday /. posts an article such as this.
    And every day people will whine and bitch. But not many see the root of the problem.

    Nader has "an" answer for it, but the problem is much bigger than he and without support in Congress and Senate (it's they who collect the check and enact law devised and written by Groups such as the RIAA/MPAA/MS), he stands a snow balls chance of accomplishing anything. But this is a real problem that effects each and every ordinary citizen. The question is, what will be done about it.
    • Well, while you're cashing in a days pay check worth of tax cut, think about Microsoft. They pay no tax at all.

      In Bush's own words himself, rich people have lawyers and accountants so they can stick it to you. (That's why we shouldn't raise their taxes and get rid of loopholes like the stock option tax break that allows MS to pay no tax.... I think that's what he meant?)
  • Use a hosting service outside of the USA. Canada, for instance.

    If the content on your site is the least bit controversial, you're a bloody moron if you're still hosting in the USA.
  • bird. California education code doesnt mean jack shit in the 49 other states. Better yet, host the server in europe (havenco anyone?), so if UCSD decides to send a DMCA or some other bullshit violation notice, the web site owners can use it for toliet paper.
  • What you don't realize is that using the universities name makes them responsible for actions your organization may perform...

    It only make good LEGAL sense for them to not let you include it in your name. I recently started a club at my university, and they explained to me that if we use University of ____ in our club name that it would cause legal complications that the university does not wish to have.

    What the hell is the big deal anyway? It's THEIR name?

    • Re:You dolts... (Score:3, Informative)

      by twistedcubic ( 577194 )
      please. remember the federal court ruling about [website]sucks.com? when you sue somebody in court (in the USA), the FIRST thing the judge establishes is whether you're suing the right person. go to a real court and observe the beginning of a civil suit.
  • Unfortunatly the UC system has a long record of censorship going back to the free speech movement of the 60s at UC Berkeley. Of course now they claim to be in favor of free speech but this apparently only means free speech they deem appropriate.

    The same week UC Berkeley gave it's official celebration of the aniversery of the free speech movement it invoked it's trademark power to ban T-shirts which said "Fuck Trojans."

    Quite frankly I don't think much has changed since the 60's. They still claim to favor
  • I don't think that, at least for UC San Diego, this is particularly a matter of censorship of critical opinions, or even obscene content. In my four years at UCSD, there were a number of "free speech" rights incidents, and the university seems to be more concerned with protecting trademark rather than silencing any voices. For example:

    1. The Koala: An associated student funded organization which constantly used its funds to print obscene material, including an issue called "The Jizzlam" featuring women

  • Thanks (Score:2, Interesting)

    by shon ( 20200 )
    I just registered fuckucsd.com just to fuck with them. Free speech and all that... Censorship really pisses me off.

    Excercise your speech. www.fuckfrance.com

  • What trademark? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @12:34AM (#10500792) Homepage
    The only registered trademarks with "Geisel" in them relate to Ted Geisel of "Dr. Seuss" fame. They both are drawings, not word marks, and they're not pictures of that library.

    California also has state trademark registration, but that's narrow, only applies to "goods and services", and you have to register with the state. There's even a specific clause intended to prevent the use of trademarks to suppress publications, at Business and Professions Code 14320.

    • (3) Injunctive relief is not available to the owner of the right infringed with respect to an issue of a newspaper, magazine, or other similar periodical or electronic communication containing infringing matter if restraining the dissemination of the infringing matter in any particular issue of the periodical or in an electronic communication would delay the delivery of the issue or transmission of the electronic communication after the regular time for delivery and the delay would be due to the method by which publication and distribution of the periodical or transmission of the electronic communication is customarily conducted in accordance with sound business practice, and not to any method or device adopted for the evasion of this section or to prevent or delay the issuance of an injunction or restraining order with respect to the infringing matter.

    Also, California has a strong anti-SLAPP law. [casp.net]

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close