17 USC §106A tacked into the Copy[rite] Act in 1990 invalidated.

The Visual Artists Rights Act was an attempt made in 1990 to make the per se unconstitutional Copy[rite] Act appear to Berne Convention signatories {164} to more closely protect the rights of visual artists that were proudly ignored for two centuries though ignoring the "Progress Clause" from the 1787 Constitution.

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

      17 USC §106A (VARA) was an attempt to appear more fully compliant with Berne Convention Article 6bis(1) as follows.

      (1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.

        Sir Lord most Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren showed senility in 2010 when rendering United States clearly no longer Berne Convention compliant despite contradicting Golan v Holder in


        Neeley v NameMedia Inc et al, (5:09-cv-5151) in Docket #267 free mirror or via PACER #267.

        Sir Lord most Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren wrote as follows clearly making the United States no longer Berne Convention compliant.

          Section 106A(c)(3) provides that § 106A(2) "shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work" in connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of "work of visual art" found at 17 U.S.C. § 101.
          Items described in subparagraph (A) of that definition include "electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication." The Court's interpretation of this rather convoluted provision is that § 106A(2) would not apply to copies of Neeley's photographs on the internet.

            Copywrong_by_curtisneeley-d52rnhe_medium

            via fc07.deviantart.net

            Curtis J Neeley Jr advised Sir Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren in filings that the prior rulings in this action were indications of senility or mental defect in open court on December 9, 2010. These rulings remain counter to "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective [visual creations]".

            An embarrassed and repented creator of indecent visual art can't secure the exclusive right to preclude showing this indecent visual art to minors while at schools on the [sic] "internet".

            This legal invalidation of 17 USC §106A (VARA) leaves the Federal Communications Commission guilty of nonfeasance of not making interstate and world-wide wire communications safe or the mission given by Congress in 1934.

            Neeley Jr v FCC, et al, (12-cv-5208)(13-1506) is where Sir Lord most Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren invalidated 47 USC §605 and failed to follow clear state and federal laws in order to dismiss Curtis J Neeley Jr with frivolous rulings that are now on appeal for clear legal errors and abuse of discretion.

            Make_internet_safcc_from_goog_by_curtisneeley-d5hc5g9_medium

            via th01.deviantart.net