Home / Parks sues Outkast

Parks sues Outkast

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Via: CMU

Outkast and BMG label La Face could be facing an embarrassing lawsuit in the US after the Supreme Court there decided that civil-rights icon Rosa Parks could proceed with her legal action against the duo.

The action relates to Outkast’s 1998 track called ‘Rosa Parks’. Parks, of course, became an iconic figure in the US civil rights movement after she refused to give up her seat to a white man and move to the back of a segregated bus in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955. Outkast’s songs didn’t really deal with Parks’ story, or even name check her in the song. The only real reference to Parks was the line: “Ah, huh, hush that fuss/ Everybody move to the back of the bus.”

Either way, Parks filed a lawsuit against the song in 1999 on two main grounds – first that the song used her name and likeness without her permission, second that it defamed her character. The latter claim was previously rejected by a federal judge – La Face were hoping to have the former similarly thrown out of court on the basis that, given Parks’ status as a historical figure, Outkast did not need permission to use her name providing they didn’t do so in a derogatory way.

However the Supreme Court yesterday dismissed that plea, meaning 90 year old Parks is now free to continue that component of her original lawsuit in front of a lower federal court judge.

Neither Parks nor Outkast have commented on the latest decision.

Powered by

About Marty Dodge

  • I’ve never quite understood what Rosa Parks is thinking here, or why this wasn’t tossed out of court to begin with. I can’t blame the SCOTUS for not hearing it since it’s not that huge a freaking deal, but can someone with more understanding of the legal system explain what chance Rosa Parks has of actually winning this case?

  • first that the song used her name and likeness without her permission, second that it defamed her character

    I’d like to know how she thinks this “defame[s] her character” in the first place. Luckily, that part’s been thrown out, but the first is equally puzzling. I was not aware that the names of historical figures were not allowed to be used in, essentially, fictional works. Has a precedent been set before this that we’re unaware of? And is anyone concerned about the precedent this case will set if the court finds in favor of Parks?