The New York City Police Department, with its 35,000 officers, has in recent years been on the front lines of the citywide decline in serious crime. It has protected visiting dignitaries like Pope Benedict XVI at events that drew thousands of people, and it has posted officers in foreign capitals to gather information on terrorism and trends that could threaten New York.
But the Police Department continues to be flummoxed by bicyclists riding together once a month.
Politics & Society
Bicycle Activists Take to the Freeways in L.A.
The Bryant Park Project, June 12, 2008 · People tend to think of Los Angeles as the natural habitat of the automobile, a land where giant on ramps and multilane freeways determine the course of life.
But for three cyclists in Santa Monica, Los Angeles is a bikers' world. Morgan Strauss grew up riding bikes around L.A. Alex Cantarero grew up riding local buses, even celebrating childhood birthdays aboard, before making the move to pedal power. Rich Totheie moved from New York City a few years back, having never much used a bike for transportation.
In November, the three bicycle activists began dreaming up ways to make their point — that two-wheelers deserve a place in the transportation network. They say they'd grown tired of playing cat-and-mouse with Santa Monica police at monthly Critical Mass rides. Instead, their group, the Crimanimalz, began protests like bottling intersections with endless, lawful rounds of Crosswalk Craps.
Why You Should Be In New York July 1st
ctivists estimate that half the billboards in New York City are illegal. Between fudged permits, lack of enforcement, and millions in profit, outdoor advertising has become a corporate black market that wont flinch at breaking laws to get your attention. On July 1st, the Anti-Advertising Agency and Rami Tabello of IllegalSigns.ca will give a free workshop teaching you how to identify illegal advertising and get it taken down. You will leave this workshop equipped to have illegal signs removed in your neighborhood.
Bleinstein v. Donaldson Lithographic Company- 188 U.S. 239; 23 S. Ct. 298; 47 L. Ed. 460; 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1278
Bleinstein v. Donaldson faces the challenge and limitation faced and unanswered by broad definition of authorship in Burrow v. Sarony: What is the minimum originality and creativity required for a work to have copyright protection? The case centers on chromolithographic copies made of engravings of females in ballet costumes, bicycle tricks, and statuary originally used and designed for a circus poster. The circus company who circulated the design for their advertisement filed a copyright infringement suit against the lithographing company for making and distributing copies of their design, and asked for monetary compensation. The defense argued, and won in the circuit court decision, that under the statute, only “pictorial illustrations” and “work’s connected with fine arts” were to be granted copyright protections. The figures portrayed were not photographs and only pictorial replicas of the people that lack originality artworks and they were also immoral ones, as the females were drawn distastefully and crude to trigger excitement for potential customers, and therefore they only contained commercial value for the sole purpose of advertisement and minimal artistic value. Therefore, no copyright protection should be granted. However, Justice Holmes, in this crucial Supreme Court decision, demonstrates his concern over judges’ ability to evaluate art on its aesthetic merit and states that any work of real value, monetary or artistic, should be subjected to copyright—the fact in which this particular work was pirated adds value to the original work—and the court grants the plaintiff the exclusive copyright protection of the design.
Bleinstein v. Donaldson adds great support to my thesis. Unlike Burrow v. Sarony where the court jumped into defining authorship through judging art in its aesthetic qualities and original intention of the art, which is difficult to define or prove, the court admits to the difficulty as the judiciary to be evaluators of fine art. Instead, the court declares that any work of art that shows some value to the society—either in monetary sense, as in the circus advertisement, or in artistic contributions, as in works by Dahli—should be granted copyright protection. Through this decision, the artwork was no longer judged under constraints of morality or people’s perception of “high art.” Though this decision still left many questions, such as where do you draw the line for minimal originality/value to which court will grant copyright, the case is an example that court’s restraint in making aesthetic decisions helped broaden what society perceived as “art” and promoted creativity and progress through making high art more accessible for people.