Sovereign immunity is the legal doctrine that the government can't be sued for anything unless it specifically allows you to do so. In this case, Texas state law does not have a provision that allows it to be sued for copyright infringement. So, the photographer could not file a claim for copyright infringement, either in state or federal court. That's why he tried the novel approach of suing them under the "takings" clause of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is a specific case where the government has allowed itself to be sued for violating those provisions. Under Supreme Court precedent, most provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well as to the federal government.
> Sovereign immunity is the legal doctrine that the government can't be sued for anything unless it specifically allows you to do so.
I recognize why this exists, but I can't help but wonder why people working in government are so prepared/eager to defend the actions of the government or avoid admitting wrongdoing at any cost. Just admit, 'hey, yeah, we should have paid. We aren't required to because, like, immunity, but it would be the right thing to do. Here's some money.' and move on.
Or when cops and DAs use some sketchy means of doing something good, like stingrays. Is there no sense of, hey, maybe we shouldn't have this power. We should self-regulate or get legislation made. It's not even against self-preservation as those tools made them better at their jobs, in theory, reducing the need for more people.
I just feel like the people in our government, at all, levels, could be more honest.
Sovereign immunity doesn't preclude suing a public university; it doesn't preclude it as a general matter, and definitely doesn't preclude it wrt copyright. One way to look at it is that a university is akin to a municipality--it exercises state powers but it's not the state, per se.
There are many well known copyright claims against public universities. The one that immediately came to mind (I forgot the case citation) would have supported his infringement claim, though it involved xerox'ing of academic textbooks so not quite on point.
See my post elsethread for the most likely reason they went to state court.
Very interesting. So how do you distinguish between the state and a branch or arm or subsidiary of a state? A department (say, the Department of Motor Vehicles) is clearly the state. What if a public university is operated just like a department? If it's taxpayer-funded, professors are public employees, and management is appointed by the governor?
I could see how it would not be the state if it were separately incorporated, funded, and governed, just like a municipality.
So what's the rule that distinguishes entities that have sovereign immunity from those that don't?
The necessity of the taking for the purpose of operation. Same rule that limits federal government agencies from taking anything they want. A constitutional grant.
Use of this specific photograph is not required by any means that could be seriously construed.
It answers the question of when state sovereignty protects state activities from federal regulation. Questions of when a person can directly sue a state or state entity under federal law and what types of remedies might be available are different, but I'm pretty sure you can find your way to cases that explain those in Garcia's citations (the actual case, if not from the Wikipedia article). I can't remember any good ones off-hand, and sadly I can't articulate a way to frame the issues that would help finding them.
TL;DR: if an individual employee can sue a state transit agency to enforce federal minimum wage, then I can't imagine of any reason sovereign immunity would categorically prohibit enforcing copyright against a public university, especially considering that regulation of copyright is one of the few enumerated powers of the Federal government.
