Ever since Illinois Republican Aaron Schock stepped foot in Washington D.C. he’s been making headlines. He was one of the first millennials to be elected to Congress, in 2009. He gained prominence for his flashy Instagram account, constant presence at the gym, weird office re-decoration possibly inspired by television show “Downton Abbey,” and persistent gay rumors. All of those things, in addition to his millennial status earned him applause from some and criticism from others. Either way, one thing is certain: Aaron Schock was certainly a character. A character that Washington is losing, as Schock announced his resignation yesterday after weeks of financial scandal allegations. But I want to be clear about one thing: Schock isn’t resigning because he’s young, or because he’s a millennial. He’s resigning because he’s a corrupt idiot.

Schock’s downfall essentially came from the fact that he spent way too much money. Some of that money was campaign donations, which he is accused of spending for personal use. He also used taxpayer money for things like private flights, and he was untruthful when filing things like spending reports and travel reimbursements. Some of the best allegations about Schock’s spending include:

• A personal photographer named Jonathan Link. Schock paid Link and his studio more than $50,000 last year and listed that cost as “personnel.”
• He requested mileage reimbursements for miles driven in his car for both official government business and campaigning; however, his car had less than half of the miles on it he claimed he had driven.
• He paid to take his interns to a sold-out Katy Perry concert.
• His “Downton Abbey” inspired office cost $35,000, but was designed by the wife of one of his donors. Many have argued that it was an “inappropriate gift.” The Washington Post described Schock’s private office as including “a drippy crystal chandelier, a table propped up by two eagles, a bust of Abraham Lincoln and massive arrangements of pheasant feathers.” Overall, Schock has spent more than $100,000 to renovate his various offices.

Last one. Full shot of Aaron Schock’s office. http://t.co/PJ1NGekafQpic.twitter.com/2SjsGQlKhp

— Ben Terris (@bterris) February 3, 2015

Overall, it seems pretty clear that Schock’s spending practices weren’t really in line with helping his constituents, but more with helping Schock himself.

Many of his colleagues are disappointed because they saw him as a rising, attractive Republican star. With an active presence on social media that included pictures with people like popstar Ariana Grande, he was more prominent for many young people than say, Senator Lindsey, “I’ve never sent an email” Graham. In a party that has long struggled to connect with young people, Schock seemed like a shoe-in to help fix that problem. But not everyone was so impressed with the Congressman. Politico, which broke the story yesterday, reported:

Schock’s associates — many of whom are afraid to speak for attribution, fearing potential legal action — say a combination of immaturity, sloppiness and an oversized ego led to his downfall. He came to Congress as an eager 27-year-old, raised a lot of money and spent it at a rapid clip.

I think that’s partly right. I think he did have a huge ego, was incredibly sloppy with his position, and was incredibly immature. That being said, politicians get slammed on this kind of stuff all the time, particularly in Schock’s home state of Illinois. I’m not sure what’s in Illinois’ water, but more than 1,500 holders of various political offices in the state have been convicted on corruption charges in roughly the last 40 years. That includes four out of seven of its most recent governors. Schock may have been sloppy, immature, and egotistical, but I don’t think he’s alone.

The issue isn’t that a millennial politician can’t be successful. Schock’s fellow millennials include Representatives Tulsi Gabbard, Patrick Murphy, and Elise Stefanik, none of whom seem to have the same spending issues. Young people need to get involved in politics–from the most recent midterms alone, it’s obvious we’re lagging in participation. It really is pretty clear Schock didn’t get nabbed because he’s young or  likes to travel. He got nabbed because he, like so many other politicians, became entitled and thought he was untouchable.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aaron Schock’s Age Didn’t Do Him in, His Idiocy Did appeared first on Law Street.

Copyright law took center stage last week as not one but two famous singers took vendors and fans to court over their intellectual property. The number one article of the week is from Anneliese Mahoney who brought us the case of Katy Perry versus the vendor who produced 3-D figures of the infamous “Left Shark” from Perry’s Superbowl halftime performance; the second most popular post was from writer Morgan McMurray who threw the flag on “50 Shades of Grey” and its abusive storyline; and the number three article, from writer Alexis Evans, details Taylor Swift’s legal action against Etsy vendors making a buck off her song lyrics. ICYMI, here is the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Katy Perry Claims Left Shark is Her Intellectual Property and Files Suit

Katy Perry’s halftime performance at last week’s Super Bowl was really great, but it wasn’t without its moments of humor. Unfortunately, one of those moments of humor has now sparked the pop star’s legal team to file a lawsuit. Read full article here.

#2 Fifty Shades of Grey and Abuse

You may have heard of a small erotic “novel” (I use the term loosely), which once started off as Twilight fan fiction and has become a worldwide, bestselling trilogy soon to be a major motion picture. I am of course referring to the phenomenon known as Fifty Shades of Grey by E.L. James, which follows the story of timid Anastasia Steele and her BDSM-loving boyfriend Christian Grey. Read full article here.

#3 Taylor Swift vs. Etsy Vendors: Singer Trademarks Song Phrases

America’s red-lipped singing sweetheart Taylor Swift is at the center of another intellectual property dispute, this time with vendors on Etsy. The dispute is over several items, including t-shirts using her likeness and candles adorned with her lyrics. Swift’s legal team sent several vendors on the online DIY marketplace cease and desist letters demanding the immediate removal of their trademark-infringing products. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Katy Perry’s halftime performance at last week’s Super Bowl was really great, but it wasn’t without its moments of humor. Unfortunately, one of those moments of humor has now sparked the pop star’s legal team to file a lawsuit.

One of those great moments that came out of the performance was during Perry’s rendition of her hit song “Teenage Dream.” She did it as a beach-themed segment of the show, and no beach-themed dance would be complete without giant humanoid sharks doing complicated choreography. Unfortunately, one of Perry’s two sharks, now dubbed “Left Shark,” didn’t really do so well. Instead of following the sharp choreography, “Left Shark” kind of just flopped around. See for yourself:

Oh Left Shark. We’ve all known the struggle.

Left Shark has sparked a bunch of spin offs though:

This meme is soooooo much fun…. Valentine’s Day anyone? #sharks#leftsharkpic.twitter.com/StDC2xEDc1

— John (@Hayler97) February 4, 2015

Everyone really does love Left Shark. So much so that people have started producing Left Shark items. One company that tried to monetize Left Shark was called Shapeways; it’s a 3D printing company that sells 3D-printed figurines of famous people, such as politicians or celebrities. It started selling a Left Shark figurine; however, it just received a cease and desist letter from Perry’s lawyer.

Fernando Sosa who runs Shapeways, posted a picture of the cease and desist letter on Instragram. It claimed that Left Shark was Perry’s “intellectual property.” Part of the letter read:

As you are undoubtedly aware, our client never consented to your use of its copyrighted work and [intellectual property], nor did our client consent to the sale of the infringed product. Your infringing conduct entitles our client to significant legal relief against you, which may include actual damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages, as well as immediate and permanent injunctive relief.

What exactly does Katy Perry claim is her intellectual property though? The shark costume itself? It looks like a pretty basic shark costume if you ask me, and courts have often ruled that you can’t trademark costumes. Because they’re clothing, and viewed as an “essential article,” they’re often considered beyond what copyright protection can protect.

So, is she trademarking the concept of “Left Shark” then? That also seems like a stretch. The whole Left Shark debacle occurred because the dancer screwed up and/or forgot the choreography. It wasn’t planned, it was a happy, hilarious accident. Can she really claim that something is her intellectual property if it wasn’t something she came up with?

The cease and desist letter seems more like it was an attempt to scare Sosa and Shapeways, rather than a legitimate threat of legal recourse. Sosa has stopped selling the figurines, but it still seems like a petty move on Perry’s part. After all, all the buzz about Left Shark means people are talking about her halftime show. There’s also been plenty of other Left Shark merchandise produced:

Just bought my very own #LeftShark tshirt!! pic.twitter.com/3qD54F2Syb

— Methibosheth Ichabod (@methibosheth) February 5, 2015

Will Katy Perry send letters to everyone who creates something that’s Left Shark-themed? With the proliferation of pictures on the internet, that may be difficult. It will be a shame if Left Shark disappears just because Katy Perry is grumpy.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Katy Perry Claims Left Shark is Her Intellectual Property and Files Suit appeared first on Law Street.

As a “melting pot,” Americans observe and consume different aspects of various cultures every day. In Western culture, it has become the norm to borrow foods, traditions, and clothing from other racial and ethnic groups as we please. But when exactly does taking inspiration from other cultures’ ways of dressing cross the line into cultural appropriation?

Cultural appropriation by definition is “the taking over of creative or artistic forms, themes, or practices by one cultural group from another.” From Pharell’s Elle UK cover, to Katy Perry’s music videos, the fashion and entertainment industries always seem to cause an uproar every time someone wears a Native American headdress or Indian bindi. But is it possible to ever rock a turban or fringe without offending anyone?

The answer to that question is complicated, especially when it comes to those cultures that have been historically repressed by others. Native Americans seem to be the biggest issue with the ubiquitous use of headdresses everywhere from the runway to music festivals like Coachella. There’s no doubt that white people have done horrible things throughout history to exploit Native Americans, so I understand why they would be terribly offended when they see people from outside of their culture wearing full-on headdresses.

However, there are some styles that have become so ingrained into the Western way of dress that people may wear them without even realizing that they might be offending someone. Moccasins, for example, have become a staple shoe option in the West. And why wouldn’t they? They’re comfortable and go with almost anything. And what about driving moccasins? Should we stop using such a practical innovation in footwear just because our forefathers stole the idea hundreds of years ago?

So what determines what styles belong to a certain culture anyway? One culture that seems to have a lot of gray areas is that of African Americans. One of the most sensitive areas in African American culture is the representation of their hair. And just because a person is a minority doesn’t mean that they are free to wear whatever they want without considering other subcultures. Dreadlocks, for example, have religious associations that might make it inappropriate for some African Americans to wear. 

African Americans in general have taken on certain kinds hairstyles to be considered as their own, such as cornrows and baby hairs. As a white Hispanic girl with curly hair, sometimes I find it difficult to tell if I’m “allowed” to get in on the natural hair movement that many mixed-race women and women of color have been embracing lately. Some mixed-raced Latinas may be able to get away with sporting cornrows, but as someone who appears to be a white woman of Anglo-Saxon descent it’s difficult to see where I fall. Am I supposed to walk around with a sign that says “I am Cuban-American. My ancestors did not enslave your ancestors”?

Granted there are times when celebrities completely disregard a culture’s background and simply wear certain styles because they think it’s cool or sexy. Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, and Rihanna come tend to come to mind as examples. Perry’s “Dark Horse” video is just a bunch of random cultural messages slapped together without even trying to make a statement or anything of artistic substance.

A lyric in Lady Gaga’s song “Aura” reads verbatim “she wear burqa for fashion.” So not only is she trying to make light of a garment that women are forced to wear in some parts of the Middle East, she uses incorrect grammar to imitate a foreign accent. Not cool.

Yeah…not really sure what’s going on here.

And let’s not forget the time Rihanna came under fire for trying to look sexy in traditional clothing in Abu Dhabi.

Abu Dhabi mosque asks Rihanna to leave after photo shoot clashed with “sacredness.” http://t.co/1jgq2Duh5q pic.twitter.com/SjjrIx7Pxi

— Jim Roberts (@nycjim) October 22, 2013

While I’m not sure if we can always dress without appropriating any cultures whatsoever, there are few instances where it is a big no-no. With Halloween coming up, try to be conscious about what kind of costumes you choose to wear. For example the sexy version of any kind of ethnic-wear is probably not the most politically correct thing to wear. Most importantly, this holiday should be about having fun, so think about how un-fun it would be to feel like your own cultural identity is under attack.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Beckett via Flickr]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Cultural Appropriation in Fashion Ever Okay? appeared first on Law Street.