> Olive tried the approach after the University of Houston rejected his claim that the public university should pay for a photo it used without permission in web and print publications, contending the university has sovereign immunity, a well-established legal principle that protects a state from getting sued.
Terrifying. So the University of Houston claims they can just steal whatever they want?
It's sovereign immunity. Any state agency can do whatever it wants and claim immunity unless the Feds get involved. The Feds can do whatever they want full stop.
The only constraint is that the state can allow itself to be sued, and therefore you have some recourse that way.
The courts are generated, and therefore subject to, the executive. It's easy to see how an executive could stack a court (a la Roosevelt). Or simply denying the courts the ability to enforce their rulings and doing whatever (Jackson).
So wait, universities can patent things, but then have sovereign immunity from infringing copyright?
I know the other parts of government are prohibited from being able to get copyright or patents, so that means sovereign immunity makes sense in a heavy-handed way, but allowing both ownership and immunity seems... like having your cake and eating it too.
The problem isn't the judge; it's that the defendant didn't claim copyright infringement, but a "taking" of property. I'd rather like to know who is the lawyer.
If you read the link posted elsewhere in the thread by Mathnerd314, it is apparent that the question of whether the states can be sued for copyright infringement is a live one, on which the Supreme Court has just granted certiorari.
Thanks; I was led astray by another case (Cambridge University Press v. Patton) in which a State University was found guilty, but it seems they simply failed to raise the immunity argument and therefore the court didn't apply it.
Terrifying. So the University of Houston claims they can just steal whatever they want?