Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Sherman Division

ANTHONY MAZUR
Case No. 4:18-cv-00191

Plaintiff
v.
LEWISVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT;

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

LEWISVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES;
JEFFREY A. BROWN, in his individual
capacity and official capacity;
SONYA LAIL, in her individual capacity and
official capacity;
TOMMY ELLINGTON, in his individual
capacity and official capacity; -andKEVIN ROGERS, in his individual capacity and
official capacity;

PLAINTIFF ANTHONY MAZUR’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Anthony Mazur files this Complaint against Defendants Lewisville Independent
School District, Lewisville Independent School District Board of Trustees, Jeffrey A. Brown,
Sonya Lail, Tommy Ellington, and Kevin Rogers seeking a declaratory judgment as to his
exclusive rights in his original works arising under the Copyright Act. Plaintiff alleges as follows
in support of his claims.
INTRODUCTION
1.

Plaintiff is a nineteen-year old who has spent the past few years of his young life

honing a passion for photojournalism. While a student at Flower Mound High School (“FMHS”),
a school within the Lewisville Independent School District (“LISD”), Plaintiff applied his passion

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 2

for photojournalism toward enhancing the campus community. Plaintiff served on the FMHS
yearbook staff, where he took pictures of campus events and had access to many of these events
to pursue his photojournalism efforts.
2.

After investing significant time and effort chasing his passion, Plaintiff started to

gain significant recognition for his work and created a demand for the same, which continues to
grow. Plaintiff has put time, effort, and money to protect his original works, including registering
and applying to register his photographs with the United States Copyright Office.
3.

While at FMHS, Plaintiff started a “Flickr” site online to post and create exposure

to his original works. And having an entrepreneurial spirit, Plaintiff offered his works for sale on
his Flickr site.
4.

Plaintiff assumed FMHS staff and LISD administrators would encourage both his

passion for photojournalism and his burgeoning entrepreneurial efforts and would understand and
promote Plaintiff’s entitlement to copyright protection in his works.
5.

But Plaintiff soon discovered that this was not the case. Instead, Defendants

subjected Plaintiff and his copyrighted works to arbitrary and baseless restrictions on Plaintiff and
his ability to use and enjoy the fruits of his original works, going as far as to claim ownership over
the copyrights in Plaintiff’s works and compel him under the threat of punishment to suspend
displaying and promoting his works on his Flickr site.
6.

Defendants even went so far as to deprive Plaintiff from using school equipment

generally available to all students to take photography necessary to complete class assignments,
simply because Plaintiff would not agree to an unenforceable “work for hire” agreement through
which LISD attempted to gain ownership of Plaintiff’s copyright interests in his work and to
prevent Plaintiff from enjoying the fruits of his original expressive works.

2

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 3

7.

Defendants’ conduct and policies have deprived Plaintiff of his copyright

ownership and exclusive rights in his original works, taken Plaintiff’s property and deprived him
of use of the same, discriminated against his ability to further his education, and restrained and
punished his protected expressive activity.
PARTIES
8.

Plaintiff Anthony Mazur currently is a resident of Denton county in the state of

9.

Defendant Lewisville Independent School District (“LISD”) is an independent

Texas.

public school district in Lewisville, Texas, and was created and operates under the laws of Texas.
At all times relevant to this action, LISD operated Flower Mound High School (“FMHS”), which
is part of LISD. LISD may be served through the President of the LISD School Board, Angie Cox,
or through the LISD superintendent, at 1565 W. Main Street, Lewisville, Texas 75067.
10.

Defendant Lewisville Independent School District Board of Trustees (“LISD

BOT”) is a body corporate organized and operating under the laws of Texas. At all times relevant
to this action, LISD BOT was responsible for governing LISD, including FMHS, and served as a
final policymaker for LISD. LISD BOT may be served through the President of the LISD School
Board, Angie Cox, at 1565 W. Main Street, Lewisville, Texas 75067.
11.

Defendant Jeffrey Brown, at all times relevant, was employed by LISD as an

assistant principal at FMHS. Defendant Brown may be served at his principal place of business of
3411 Peters Colony Road, Flower Mound, TX 75022. Defendant Brown acted under color of law
with respect to the allegations made herein, and is a person subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Defendant Brown is being sued in his individual capacity and in his official capacity.

3

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 4

12.

Defendant Sonya Lail, at all times relevant, was employed by LISD as the principal

at FMHS. Defendant Lail may be served at her principal place of business of 3411 Peters Colony
Road, Flower Mound, TX 75022. Defendant Lail acted under color of law with respect to the
allegations made herein, and is a person subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant
Lail is being sued in her individual capacity and in her official capacity.
13.

Defendant Tommy Ellington, at all times relevant, was employed by LISD as

Student Services Executive Director. Defendant Ellington may be served at his principal place of
business of 1565 W. Main Street, Lewisville, Texas 75067. Defendant Ellington acted under color
of law with respect to the allegations made herein, and is a person subject to liability under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Ellington is being sued in his individual capacity and in his official
capacity.
14.

Defendant Kevin Rogers, at all times relevant, was the LISD Superintendent and

served as a final policymaker for LISD. Defendant Rogers may be served at his principal place of
business of 1565 W. Main Street, Lewisville, Texas 75067. Defendant Rogers acted under color
of law with respect to the allegations made herein, and is a person subject to liability under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Rogers is being sued in his individual capacity and in his official
capacity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101

et seq., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201, and 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
16.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants LISD and LISD BOT because

they are government entities of the State of Texas and are located in this judicial district.

4

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 5

17.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Brown, Lail, Ellington, and

Rogers (collectively “Individual Defendants”) because they reside in the state of Texas and in this
judicial district.
18.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400 because

all Defendants reside in and may be found in this judicial district, and the acts and injuries alleged
herein occurred in and continue to occur in this judicial district.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff’s Photography and Photojournalism Background
19.

Plaintiff is a freshman college student who quickly has gained significant

recognition as a photographer and photojournalist. He has seen an increasing demand for use of
his copyrighted photographs since he began pursuing his photography efforts as a freshman on the
yearbook staff at FMHS. His efforts on the yearbook staff resulted in Plaintiff being promoted to
photo editor his junior year at FMHS.
20.

Plaintiff has developed a serious interest in pursuing a photojournalism career. In

chasing his passion, Plaintiff has and continues to spend substantial time, money, and effort
creating, developing, editing, and producing hard copies and digital copies of his original
photographs.
21.

Plaintiff has also undertaken efforts to understand his intellectual property rights in

his original photographs, including copyright protection. Plaintiff has registered and applied for
registrations for several of his original works. Plaintiff also makes efforts to monitor the use of his
copyrighted photographs.
22.

During his time at FMHS, Plaintiff began promoting and distributing his works

through a number of channels, including his personal website, www.amnewsnet.com; his personal

5

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 6

Flickr

site,

www.flickr.com/photos/129536761@N08/;

and

his

Twitter

account,

www.twitter.com/mazur_anthony. Plaintiff continues these entrepreneurial efforts to promote and
distribute his works through these websites. Plaintiff has and continues to receive many inquiries
from visitors to these websites who wish to purchase or license Plaintiff’s original works.
23.

FMHS and LISD benefitted significantly from Plaintiff’s photography and

photojournalism efforts when he was a student at FMHS. Plaintiff’s copyrighted works were
prominently and frequently placed in the FMHS’s annual yearbooks and other publications.
Plaintiff’s works were also posted in school hallways and teachers’ offices. Individuals associated
with FMHS, such as coaches and students, often used Plaintiff’s works for their benefit, such as
promoting student athletic efforts in local print media.
Defendants Start to Suppress Plaintiff and His Exclusive Rights in His Intellectual
Property
24.

On or about March 16, 2015, Plaintiff—who was sixteen years old at the time—

was summoned to Defendant Brown’s office. Plaintiff’s parents were not notified that he was being
called into the Assistant Principal’s office.
25.

When Plaintiff arrived at Defendant Brown’s office, Defendant Brown alleged that

an unidentified parent of another FMHS student had complained about a picture of the student
participating in a school athletic event that Plaintiff had made available for purchase on his Flickr
site. The identity of the allegedly complaining parent, student, and specific picture remain
unknown to this day, as Defendant Brown refused to provide such details.
26.

In response to Defendant Brown’s allegations, Plaintiff explained to him that as a

student taking the yearbook class, he was taking photographs as part of an assignment for the class,
which included taking photographs of various sporting events in which FMHS students
participated that might be published in the annual FMHS yearbook.

6

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 7

27.

Plaintiff further explained that he had a Flickr site, where he would upload

photographs he had taken, which included both photographs related to yearbook assignments and
photographs taken for other purposes unrelated to his school assignments. Plaintiff, believing he
had full copyright interests in his original works, explained to Defendant Brown that he offered
the Flickr site photographs for purchase at a nominal fee (usually $5.00), licensed the works to
third party news organizations, and used the site as a portfolio when seeking internships.
28.

At the time Plaintiff had his initial meeting with Defendant Brown, the LISD

student handbook made clear that students retained full copyright interests in original works
created as part of an assignment or with school equipment, consistent with the Copyright Act: “A
student shall retain all rights to work created as part of instruction or using District technology
resources.” A copy of this portion of the LISD Handbook is attached as Exhibit A.
29.

Yet despite the LISD handbook’s edict, Defendant Brown asserted that the school,

and not Plaintiff, possessed the copyrights in all of Plaintiff’s original works taken at school-related
events or as part of a yearbook class project or other school assignment. Plaintiff showed
Defendant Brown a copy of the Copyright Act to illustrate to Defendant Brown why his position
was legally wrong.
30.

But it was a futile effort. Defendant Brown demanded, under the force of his

position of assistant principal at a public high school, that Plaintiff remove all pictures including
that included FMHS students from his Flickr site, including images other than those original
photographs taken for a yearbook assignment or at school events and regardless of whether the
student was merely part of an image’s background (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Photos” or “the
Photos”). Defendant informed Plaintiff that failure to remove the Photos—which comprised
almost the entirety of Plaintiff’s Flickr site—would result in suspension. Curiously, Defendant

7

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 8

Brown asked Plaintiff at this initial meeting whether Plaintiff would be filing a lawsuit against the
school. Defendant Brown also claimed that he would not “report any of this to the IRS.”
31.

Fearing punishment and a negative mark on his student records, Plaintiff removed

his Flickr site including the Photos, and it remained down until July 6, 2015.
32.

Notably, Plaintiff’s Flickr site was not the only site offering for sale pictures of

FMHS students in athletics events. For example, the FMHS athletic booster club maintained a
Shutterfly.com website on which they offered for sale images of FMHS athletic events depicting
FMHS students. Defendants did not demand or request that the booster club remove its Shutterfly
website.
33.

On or about March 17, 2015, the day after Defendant Brown met alone with

Plaintiff, Defendant Brown met with Plaintiff and his parents. At this meeting, Defendant Brown’s
story changed from the day prior. He alleged that there were now multiple complaints from
students (not a parent) made to a teacher at FMHS about Plaintiff selling photographs which
included those students, despite the fact that Plaintiff took those pictures in a setting generally
available to the public.
34.

Defendant Brown also claimed he had “investigated” these numerous alleged

complaints prior to speaking with Plaintiff the previous day (despite informing Plaintiff of only
one parental complaint during their meeting the prior day). To this day, the alleged students who
complained have never been identified, their exact complaints and number have never been
identified, the teacher who supposedly heard the unidentified students’ concerns has never been
identified, and no information whatsoever has ever been revealed about the supposed
“investigation” conducted by Defendant Brown prior to March 16, 2015.

8

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 9

35.

At the March 17, 2015 meeting, Defendant Brown issued to Plaintiff a written

“Administrative Directive,” which directed Plaintiff to:
a. Remove all postings online of FMHS student pictures where Plaintiff has profited or
has the potential to profit, by March 18, 2015; and
b. Cease posting pictures of FMHS students to any form of mass communication with the
intent to profit.
A copy of Defendant Brown’s March 17, 2015 “Administrative Directive” is attached as Exhibit
B.
36.

The Administrative Directive also stated that should Plaintiff not comply with its

requirements, that Plaintiff faced (1) losing press credentials and the use of FMHS credentials
(with the exception of school-specific assignments); (2) losing access to some or all FMHS
extracurricular activities; and (3) further disciplinary measures as LISD deemed appropriate.
37.

The Administrative Directive also contained several statements, couched as

“expectations,” in an effort to justify Defendant Brown’s wrongful treatment of Plaintiff and his
intellectual property. For example, the Administrative Directive claimed that the school granted
unique access to school events for students to complete yearbook and journalism class
assignments. But non-student photographers, athletic boosters, and members of the public at-large
were given similar or identical access.
38.

The Administrative Directive also claimed that because FMHS yearbook and

journalism students were given special access to equipment, facilities, and students when working
on the behalf of FMHS for purposes of completing classroom projects and assignments, that
FMHS’s students, parents, teachers, coaches, and administration expect pictures taken during these
situations be used for the sole purpose of school-related publications. But nowhere was such an

9

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 10

expectation expressed, and in fact, this expectation was at direct odds with the LISD Handbook’s
edict that students retain full copyright interests in works created at school and using school
equipment. Thus, Plaintiff was never on notice of this “expectation” prior to being coerced into
taking down his Flickr site.
39.

Also at odds with the LISD Handbook copyright policy, as well as with the

Copyright Act, was the Administrative Directive’s claim that Plaintiff’s photographs taken with
school equipment and at school facilities vested FMHS with the copyright ownership in Plaintiff’s
original works and allowed the school to take the actions listed in the Directive. This “expectation”
was never expressed anywhere before Defendant Brown placed it in the Administrative Directive,
and thus Plaintiff was never on notice of the same prior to being coerced into taking down his
Flickr site.
40.

Defendant Brown’s Administrative Directive deprived Plaintiff of his due process

rights, deprived him of his intellectual property rights under the force of a state official,
discriminated against and caused harm to Plaintiff’s entrepreneurial efforts, and suppressed
Plaintiff’s right to engage in free expression.
Defendants’ Arbitrary and Unlawful Treatment of Plaintiff and the Enjoyment of His
Intellectual Property During the Disciplinary Grievance Process
41.

On April 13, 2015, Plaintiff and his parents presented a Level One Complaint to

Defendants Lail and Brown in accordance with Defendant LISD’s disciplinary grievance process.
Plaintiff’s Level One Complaint made clear that Plaintiff and his parents were opposed to the
demands made and actions taken by Defendant Brown, including the demand Plaintiff take down
his Flickr site, as well as the threats of suspension and other disciplinary actions for failure to
comply with the Defendant Brown’s March 17, 2015 Administrative Directive. Plaintiff’s Level

10

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 11

One Complaint made clear that Defendant Brown’s mandates violated both the LISD Copyright
Policy and the Copyright Act. A copy of the Level One Complaint is attached as Exhibit C.
42.

On April 17, 2015, Defendant Lail, the principal at FMHS, responded to the Level

One Complaint. A copy of the Level One Complaint Response is included as part of Exhibit D.
Defendant Lail echoed Defendant Brown’s unjustified position that LISD, and not Plaintiff, owned
the copyright to Plaintiff’s original photographs.
43.

Defendant Lail’s response contained the equally unjustified claim that Plaintiff’s

posting of his original works on Flickr violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act,
20 U.S.C. § 1232g (“FERPA”). Being a career educator and principal of a large public high school,
Defendant Lail knew or should have known that FERPA relates only to privacy of personally
identifiable information found in student educational records, which do not include pictures of
students taken by other students at events generally accessible to the public (let alone pictures
unrelated at all to school activities). Indeed, the Department of Education clearly has defined
“educational records” to mean records: (1) directly related to a student; and (2) maintained by an
educational agency or institution, or by a party acting for the agency or institution. See 34 CFR §
99.3. FERPA simply did not relate to Plaintiff’s creation of original photographs, and it was wrong
for Defendant Lail to assert otherwise and use FERPA as a pretext for mistreating Plaintiff,
depriving him of his copyright ownership and exclusive rights, coercing him into giving up his
right to enjoy his intellectual property, and suppressing Plaintiff’s protected right to free
expression.
44.

On April 27, 2015 Plaintiff and his parents filed a Level Two Appeal. A copy of

the Level Two Appeal is included as part of Exhibit D. On May 7, 2015, Plaintiff and his parents

11

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 12

met with Defendant Ellington, Executive Director of Student Services, about the Level Two
Appeal.
45.

On May 18, 2015, Defendant Ellington issued his Level Two Appeal findings, a

copy of which are attached as Exhibit E. While Defendant Ellington concluded that Plaintiff did
not violate copyright, FERPA or any school or district policy, his findings continued Defendants’
wrongful treatment of Plaintiff and his right to enjoy the exclusive rights in his intellectual
property. Specially, Defendant Ellington demanded that Plaintiff not post “any images taken with
District technology devices or while given special access as part of any assignment for school
courses after March 17, 2015.” Defendant Ellington’s findings provided no substantive
explanation for the continued wrongful and unconstitutional treatment of Plaintiff, and one could
not be found in the LISD Handbook or other material constituting proper notice to Plaintiff. As a
result of Defendant Ellington’s findings, Plaintiff was compelled to keep his Flickr site down and
forego promoting and selling Plaintiff’s Photos.
46.

Plaintiff and his parents filed a Level Three Appeal. A copy of the Level Three

Notice of Appeal is attached as Exhibit F. In a letter from Defendant Ellington dated May 29,
2015, Plaintiff and his parents were notified that the LISD BOT would hear the Level Three
Appeal, but that in yet another arbitrary choice, the LISD BOT would now be relying on the LISD
Authorized Use Policy (“AUP”) for the first time during the grievance process. A copy of
Defendant Ellington’s letter is attached as Exhibit G.
47.

The AUP covers student use of electronic communication systems, which is defined

as LISD’s computer network (including the wireless network), servers, computer workstations,
mobile technologies, peripherals, applications, databases, online resources, Internet access, email,
and any other technology designed for use by students, including new technologies as they become

12

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 13

available. The AUP declares an inappropriate use of the electronic communications system to be
“electronically posting data (including but not limited to audio recordings, video recordings,
images, and personal information) about others or oneself when it is not related to a class project
and/or without the permission of all parties.” The AUP does not mention cameras, camera
equipment, or other photography technology, or posting data on systems not owned by LISD. A
copy of the AUP is included as part of Exhibit G.
48.

On May 29, 2015, the Student Press Law Center (“SPLC”), a non-profit

organization dedicated to supporting and assisting students in secondary and post-secondary
education in media and mass communications legal matters, forwarded a letter to the president of
the LISD BOT, in which the SPLC outlined Plaintiff’s rights protected under the Constitution and
Copyright Act.
49.

On June 15, 2015, Defendant LISD BOT set aside Defendant Brown’s

Administrative Directive. But the harm from the Administrative Directive had been done, as
Plaintiff’s Flickr site was down for over three months while his complaint worked its way through
the grievance process, resulting in loss of revenue and potential business and internship
opportunities.
50.

And the LISD BOT’s determination did not discontinue fully the wrongful

treatment of Plaintiff and his exclusive rights in his copyrighted original works. The LISD BOT
determined that Plaintiff could only use his own equipment to photograph LISD events, and only
photographs events open to the public and only from public viewing areas. In other words, the
LISD BOT determined Plaintiff would be prevented from using any school equipment to take
photographs, and that Plaintiff would be denied any access regularly granted to students and other
members of the public at large (like booster club members or other photographers).

13

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 14

51.

So, not only did Defendant BOT’s determination continue to infringe on Plaintiff’s

exclusive rights in his intellectual property and his expressive rights, but it began depriving
Plaintiff access to taxpayer-funded equipment available to similarly-situated students for no
legitimate purpose at all.
Defendants’ Continued Wrongful Treatment of Plaintiff and His Intellectual
Property Interests
52.

During the summer of 2015, Defendants elected to force students in the FMHS

yearbook class to adhere to a contract that Defendants called a “work for hire” agreement (“WFH
Agreement”) through which Defendants attempted to compel students to assign any copyrights in
their original photographs to LISD in exchange for (1) using school equipment and (2) enjoying
access to school events in order to complete yearbook class assignments. The WFH Agreement
was approved by Defendants Rogers and/or LISD BOT, who have final policymaking authority in
LISD matters. A copy of the purported “work for hire” agreement is attached as Exhibit H.
53.

The WFH Agreement was and remains defective for several reasons. First, FMHS

yearbook students were not employees of LISD, and taking pictures for a school assignment does
not fall within the limited and clear categories of non-employee created “works for hire” defined
in the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101. Second, coercing a minor to sign a contract effectively
necessary to complete school assignments is an unenforceable adhesion contract that is offensive
to public policy in every way. And third, treating similarly-situated students differently by denying
some access to taxpayer-funded public school equipment because they disagree to give up their
legally-vested copyrights is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Defendants simply had no legitimate interest in making such a distinction between
similarly-situated students. Indeed, Plaintiff is unaware of any other school district in Texas that

14

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 15

compels its students to sign a “work for hire” agreement in exchange for access to school
equipment and facilities.
54.

Despite these obvious defects with the WFH Agreement, Defendants insisted on

forcing students to sign it at the risk of losing access to school technology to complete class
assignments.
55.

Plaintiff, understanding his exclusive rights in his original photographs vested by

the Copyright Act and wishing to protect the same, refused to sign the WFH Agreement. As a
result, Plaintiff was deprived of the ability to use LISD photography equipment and other
technology to complete yearbook assignments, even though he was expected to fulfill the same
requirements as other yearbook students. Plaintiff was forced to use personal equipment and
money to complete assignments, and was denied access from facilities and events generally open
to others, including other yearbook students and athletic boosters.
56.

Plaintiff’s punishment for not signing the objectionable WFH Agreement went

beyond Defendants depriving him of using school equipment to complete school assignments.
When other yearbook students became aware of Plaintiff’s refusal to sign the WFH Agreement,
Plaintiff was singled out, harassed, and bullied by those students, resulting in a difficult and hostile
educational environment for Plaintiff.
57.

Despite depriving Plaintiff from the use of school equipment and access to certain

events and facilities, LISD used over one-hundred (100) of Plaintiff’s original photographs in the
FMHS 2015-2016 yearbook. FMHS sold the 2015-2016 yearbook for $80-100.00 per book
(depending on time of purchase), and on information and belief, enjoyed over $80,000.00 in
revenue from sales of the 2015-2016 yearbook. FHMS also provided an augmented reality version

15

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 16

of the 2015-2016 yearbook through the “Aurasma” application, which linked to Plaintiff’s original
works, including several works not included in the hardcopy yearbook.
58.

That Defendants enjoyed pecuniary gain from its use of Plaintiff’s original works,

when it illegitimately deprived Plaintiff of his ability to use school equipment and facilities
available to similarly situated students, is just further evidence of Defendants’ lack of respect for
Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights, and moreover, it is entirely contrary to how public schools
should operate and encourage the fair treatment of students pursuing expressive and
entrepreneurial endeavors.
59.

Further evidencing Defendants’ lack of respect for Plaintiff and his copyright

interests is that an LISD employee gave permission to a local media outlet to use and distribute
one of Plaintiff’s original photographs—and the photograph was not even one Plaintiff took for a
school assignment. Specifically, Plaintiff saw his original photograph appear in the Carrollton
Leader’s online version, in connection with an article titled “Dynamite on the Diamond: LISD
Players Named to 6-6A All-District Softball Team,” dated June 1, 2016, by Justin Thomas.
Plaintiff found the photograph because he has been forced to monitor the unauthorized use of his
copyrighted works, in part because of the Defendants’ actions.
60.

Plaintiff’s photograph was not part of his yearbook class, and the photograph

appeared solely on two of Plaintiff’s personal websites. Plaintiff contacted the Carrollton Leader
and indicated he had not provided permission to use the photograph, that his copyright interests
were being violated, and that he expected payment for the photograph. The Carrollton Leader
indicated to Plaintiff that an athletics coach employed by LISD provided Plaintiff’s image to The

16

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 17 of 24 PageID #: 17

Carrollton Leader. The coach had found the picture on Plaintiff’s personal websites, and forwarded
the image to the Carrollton Leader without first seeking Plaintiff’s permission. 1
61.

Plaintiff has applied for and paid the fees for copyright registration of many of his

original works, and owns the Copyright Registration Nos. VA0002050734 and VA0002026201
for his original visual works.
62.

In a final attempt to clarify the ownership of Plaintiff’s works and avoid the need

for litigation, the undersigned counsel for Plaintiff wrote to counsel for the LISD on October 26,
2017, asking for the school to clarify its position as to the ownership of Plaintiff’s works, so that
Plaintiff could move forward with his plans to make the works available for sale. A copy of the
exchange of correspondence between counsel for Plaintiff and the LISD is attached as Exhibit I.
63.

Jeff Crownover, General Counsel for the LISD, responded by email of the same

day, stating in pertinent part that the District would not “prospectively respond regarding issues
that have not occurred” in regard to the ongoing cloud over Plaintiff’s ownership in his original
works, and that “the District generally maintains that it has exclusive control over all of its
intellectual property and would take measures as needed to protect that property if it becomes
aware someone has improperly interfered or impeded with it.” (Exhibit I).
64.

On November 1, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel responded to the General Counsel’s

email with a follow-up email noting the lack of a “clear written renunciation” of Defendants’ prior
position that Plaintiff’s images he was forced to remove from his Flickr site are the property of the
school and not Plaintiff. In the email, Plaintiff’s counsel specifically informed LISD that
“Mr. Mazur is hesitant to sell or use those photographs absent a clarification from LISD.” (Exhibit
I).

1

The coach eventually admitted liability to Plaintiff for infringement of his copyright, and an agreement has been
reached between the coach and Plaintiff to settle that claim.

17

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 18 of 24 PageID #: 18

65.

LISD’s General Counsel replied by email of November 2, 2017, forwarding a copy

of the District’s Intellectual Property policy. While the policy states that students own the
copyright in the work they create “as part of instruction or using District technology resources,”
LISD’s General Counsel again refused to address Defendants’ repeated insistence over the course
of many months that, notwithstanding the policy, Plaintiff’s Photos and other work is the property
of LISD or otherwise subject to LISD’s governmental authority. (Exhibit I).
66.

Simply put, the policy does nothing to lessen the uncertainty Plaintiff has regarding

Defendants’ view of his copyright ownership and exclusive rights, and his resulting apprehension
to exercise those rights. Rather, the LISD General Counsel’s nebulous highlighting of the policy
have only added to this uncertainty.
67.

Importantly, the General Counsel’s reply did not provide any clear written

renunciation of Defendants’ positions, all of which attempted to restrict on numerous bases
Plaintiff’s exercise of his exclusive rights, and did so under the force of government action.
68.

As a result of this exchange, Plaintiff remains in a state of uncertainty as to whether

Defendants will insist on, and attempt to enforce, their longstanding and legally unfounded claim
of ownership.
CAUSES OF ACTION
First Claim for Relief
Declaratory Judgment as to 17 U.S.C. § 201 (Copyright Act)
Against all Defendants
69.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
70.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 of the Declaratory Judgment Act and 17 U.S.C. § 201(e)

of the Copyright Act, this Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment regarding the
ownership of original, creative works.
18

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 19 of 24 PageID #: 19

71.

The Copyright Act provides that copyright ownership “vests initially in the author

or authors of the work,” 17 U.S.C. § 201(a), making clear that Plaintiff is the author of the images
in question.
72.

The Copyright Act further provides that ownership “remains with the author unless

ownership is divested by conveyance or by operation of law.” 17 U.S.C. § 201(d)(1). Plaintiff has
not conveyed his ownership or exclusive rights in his work to anyone, and there is no law that can
operate to convey Plaintiff’s rights here.
73.

The Copyright Act further provides that, where no divestiture of initial ownership

has taken place, “no action by any governmental body or other official or organization purporting
to seize, expropriate, transfer, or exercise rights of ownership with respect to the copyright, or any
of the exclusive rights under a copyright, shall be given effect(.)” 17 U.S.C. § 201(e).
74.

Each of Defendants’ numerous acts purporting that, by virtue of student status

and/or by virtue of using equipment made available by a public school, Plaintiff and other students
forfeit their ownership of the work they create, constituted and continue to constitute a
governmental action purporting to seize, expropriate, transfer or exercise rights of ownership, in
violation of 17 U.S.C. § 201(e).
75.

An actual controversy requiring the declaration of the parties’ rights is warranted

here. The arbitrary and inconsistent directives and other administrative actions by the various
individual Defendants aimed at suppressing Plaintiff’s ability to enjoy the exclusive rights in his
Photos through the power of governmental authority, along with the Defendants’ numerous claims
to ownership in Plaintiff’s Photos and insistences that Plaintiff is the not copyright owner in his
own original works, has created an existing and real controversy over who owns the copyrights
and exclusive rights deriving from the same in Plaintiff’s Photos.

19

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 20 of 24 PageID #: 20

76.

Plaintiff has refrained from offering his Photos for sale, otherwise distributing his

photos, and making any derivative works of the Photos out of fear of legal action by Defendants,
because of their insistence that they are the owners of his work and their refusal to recant any
claims to own the copyrights in Plaintiff’s Photos. Plaintiff is prepared to offer the Photos for sale
and distribute and make derivative works of the same, but has not done so out of his apprehension
that Defendants will seek to enforce and/or litigate their adverse claim of ownership.
77.

Plaintiff’s apprehension that Defendants will bring legal or other action should he

exercise his ownership by offering the Photos for sale is real and reasonable, based on Defendants’
prior threats to use governmental authority to compel Plaintiff to surrender his ownership rights.
78.

Plaintiff’s apprehension that Defendants will bring legal action should he exercise

his ownership by offering the Photos for sale is real and reasonable, based on the Defendants’
ongoing use of governmental authority to compel other similarly situated students to surrender
their ownership rights through the “work for hire” agreement described herein.
76.

Plaintiff therefore seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

77.

In a declaratory judgment action, a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to reasonable

attorney’s fees, costs and expenses incurred in the prosecution of the action as provided by the
underlying substantive statute giving rise to the claim. The Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505,
provides for the recovery of full costs and for the award of reasonable attorney’s fees for the
prevailing party.
78.

Accordingly, Plaintiff requests an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and

expenses incurred in the prosecution of the action.

20

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 21 of 24 PageID #: 21

Second Claim for Relief
Declaratory Judgment as to Unconstitutional Deprivation of Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Against all Defendants
79.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
80.

The Copyright Act provides that copyright ownership “vests initially in the author

or authors of the work,” 17 U.S.C. § 201(a), making clear that Plaintiff is the author of the images
in question.
81.

The Copyright Act further vests numerous exclusive rights in a copyright owner,

including: (1) the exclusive right to reproduce the work; (2) the right to prepare derivative works;
(3) the right to distribute the work; and (4) the right to display the work publicly. 17 U.S.C. § 106.
82.

Because of Plaintiff’s copyright ownership in his photographs, the Copyright Act

secures to Plaintiff such exclusive rights in his photographs.
83.

Defendants’ arbitrary and inconsistent directives and other administrative actions

purporting to restrict Plaintiff’s ability to exercise such rights in his original photographs, as
detailed herein, constitutes a governmental action depriving Plaintiff of the exclusive rights in his
original works secured under the Copyright Act.
84.

Defendants’ arbitrary and inconsistent directives and other administrative actions

also deprived Plaintiff of his general property interest in his photographs and his ability to use such
property freely, and did so without affording Plaintiff proper notice and hearing as required by the
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
85.

Defendants were acting under color of state law in making and enforcing such

directives and administrative actions.
86.

An actual controversy requiring the declaration of the parties’ rights is warranted

here. The arbitrary and inconsistent directives and other administrative actions by the various
21

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 22 of 24 PageID #: 22

individual Defendants aimed at suppressing Plaintiff’s ability to enjoy the exclusive rights in his
Photos through the power of governmental authority, along with the Defendants’ numerous claims
to ownership in Plaintiff’s Photos and insistences that Plaintiff is the not copyright owner in his
own original works, has created an existing and real controversy over Plaintiff’s ability to exercise
in his original work any of the exclusive rights secured by the Copyright Act.
87.

Plaintiff has refrained from offering his Photos for sale, otherwise distributing his

photos, and making any derivative works of the Photos out of fear of legal action by Defendants,
because of their insistence that they are the owners of his work and their refusal to recant any
claims to own the copyrights in Plaintiff’s Photos. Plaintiff is prepared to offer the Photos for sale
and distribute and make derivative works of the same, but has not done so out of his apprehension
that Defendants will seek to enforce and/or litigate their adverse claim of ownership.
88.

Plaintiff’s apprehension that Defendants will bring legal or other action should he

exercise his ownership by offering the Photos for sale is real and reasonable, based on Defendants’
prior threats to use governmental authority to compel Plaintiff to forego exercising his exclusive
rights.
89.

Plaintiff’s apprehension that Defendants will bring legal action should he exercise

his ownership by offering the Photos for sale is real and reasonable, based on the Defendants’
ongoing use of governmental authority to compel other similarly situated students to surrender
their ownership rights through the “work for hire” agreement described herein.
76.

Plaintiff therefore seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

77.

In a declaratory judgment action, a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to reasonable

attorney’s fees, costs and expenses incurred in the prosecution of the action as provided by the
underlying substantive statute giving rise to the claim. 42 U.S.C. § 1988 provides for the recovery

22

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 23 of 24 PageID #: 23

of full costs and for the award of reasonable attorney’s fees for the prevailing party in an action
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
78.

Accordingly, Plaintiff requests an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and

expenses incurred in the prosecution of the action.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff hereby requests that the Court enter judgment in
favor of Plaintiff and against all Defendants and award relief as follows:
1.

A judgment declaring that, notwithstanding his student status and/or his use of
equipment made available for student use by his school, Plaintiff is the owner of any
and all photographs he created during his enrollment at Flower Mound High School.

2.

A judgment declaring that all actions by the Defendants, jointly and individually,
purporting to seize, expropriate, transfer, or exercise rights of ownership with respect
to Plaintiff’s copyrights in his photographs, or any of the exclusive rights Plaintiff
enjoys under those copyrights, has no effect and shall not be given any effect under the
Copyright Act.

3.

A judgment declaring that all actions by the Defendants, jointly and individually and
acting under the color of state law, purporting to restrict or prevent Plaintiff from
exercising exclusive rights in his original works as secured by the Copyright Act, was
an unlawful deprivation of those rights, and any such actions have no effect and that
Plaintiff is free to exercise any and all exclusive rights in his photographs as permitted
under the Copyright Act and any other applicable laws.

4.

An award of reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses incurred in the prosecution
of the action.

23

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 24 of 24 PageID #: 24

5.

Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: March 21, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ JT Morris____________
JT Morris
Texas State Bar No. 24094444
JT Morris Law, PLLC
610 Brazos Street, Suite 320
Telephone: (512) 717-5275
Fax: (512) 582-2948
E-mail: jt@jtmorrislaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
ANTHONY MAZUR

24

 Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 83 PagelD 25

EXHIBIT A

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 2 of 83 PagelD 26

Lewisville ISD

061902

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CY
(LOCAL)

INTELLECTUAL All copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property rights

PROPERTY shall remain with the District at all times.

STUDENTS A student shall retain all rights to work created as part of instruction

or using District technology resources.
EMPLOYEES As an agent of the District, an employee, including a student em-
DISTRICT ployee, shall not have rights to work he or she creates on District
OWNERSHIP time or using District technology resources. The District shall own
any work or work product created by a District employee in the
course and scope of his or her employment, including the right to
obtain copyrights.

EMPLOYEE Ifthe employee obtains a patent for such work, the employee shall

OWNERSHIP grant a non?exclusive, non-transferable, perpetual, royalty-free,
Districtwide license to the District for use of the patented work. A
District employee shall own any work or work product produced on
his or her own time, away from his or her job and with personal
equipment and materials, including the right to obtain patents or
copyrights.

PERMISSION A District employee may apply to the Superintendent or designee

to use District materials and equipment in his or her creative
projects, provided the employee agrees either to grant to the Dis-
trict a non?exclusive, non-transferable, perpetual, royalty-free, Dis-
trict-wide license to use the work, or permits the District to be listed
as co?author or co?inventor if the District contribution to the work is
substantial. District materials do not include student work, all rights
to which are retained by the student.

WORKS MADE FOR The District may hire an independent contractor for specially com? 

HIRE missioned work(s) under a written works?made-for-hire agreement
that provides that the District shall own the work product created
under the agreement, as permitted by copyright law. Independent
contractors shall comply with copyright law in all works commis-

sioned.
RETURN OF Upon the termination of any person?s association with the District,
INTELLECTUAL all permission to possess, receive, or modify the District's intellec?
PROPERTY tual property shall also immediately terminate. All such persons

shall return to the District all intellectual property, including but not
limited to any copies, no matter how kept or stored, and whether
directly or indirectly possessed by such person.

COPYRIGHT Unless the proposed use of a copyrighted work is an exception un?
der the ?fair use? guidelines maintained by the Superintendent or
designee, the District shall require an employee or student to ob-
tain a license or permission from the copyright holder before copy?
ing, modifying, displaying, performing, distributing, or otherwise

DATE ISSUED: 5/10/2011 1 of 3
UPDATE 90


Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 3 of 83 PageID 27

Lewisville ISD

061902
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CY
(LOCAL)
employing the copyright holder?s work for instructional, curricular,
or extracurricular purposes. This policy does not apply to any work
sufficiently documented to be in the public domain.
TECHNOLOGY USE All persons are prohibited from using District technology in violation

ELECTRONIC MEDIA

DESIGNATED
AGENT

TRADEMARK

SCHOOL-RELATED
USE

PUBLIC USE

DATE ISSUED: 5/10/2011

UPDATE 90


of any law including copyright law. Only appropriately licensed
programs or software may be used with District technology re?
sources. No person shall use the District?s technology resources to
post, publicize, or duplicate information in violation of copyright law.
The Board shall direct the Superintendent or designee to employ
all reasonable measures to prevent the use of District technology
resources in violation of the law. All persons using District technol-
ogy resources in violation of law shall lose user privileges in addi-
tion to other sanctions. [See BBI and 

Unless a license or permission is obtained, electronic media in the
classroom, including motion pictures and other audiovisual works,
must be used in the course of face-to-face teaching activities as
defined by law.

The District shall designate an agent to receive notification of al?
leged oniine copyright infringement and shall notify the US. Copy-
right Office of the designated agent?s identity. The District shall in?
clude on its Web site information on how to contact the District?s
designated agent and a copy of the District's copyright policy.

Upon noti?cation, the District?s designated agent shall take all ac-
tions necessary to remedy any violation. The District shall provide
the designated agent appropriate training and resources necessary
to protect the District.

If a content owner reasonably beiieves that the District?s technolo?
gy resources have been used to infringe upon a copyright, the
owner may notify the designated agent.

The District protects all District and campus trademarks, including
names, logos, mascots, and symbols, from unauthorized use.

The District grants permission to students, student organizations,
parent organizations and other District affiliated school?support or
booster organizations to use, without charge, District and campus
trademarks to promote a group of students, an activity or event, a
campus, or the District, if the use is in furtherance of schooI-related
business or activity. The Superintendent or designee shall deter?
mine what constitutes use in furtherance of school?related busi~
ness or activity and is authorized to revoke permission if the use is
improper or does not conform to administrative regulations.

Members of the general public, outside organizations, vendors,
commercial manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers shall not use

20f3

 Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 4 of 83 PagelD 28


061902

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CY

(LOCAL)

District trademarks without the written permission of the Superin-
tendent or designee. Any production of merchandise with District
trademarks for sale or distribution must be pursuant to a trademark
iicensing agreement and may be subject to the payment of royal?
ties.

Any individual, organization, or business that uses District trade-
marks without appropriate authorization shall be subject to legal
action. 

DATE ISSUED: 5/10/2011 ADOPTED: 3 0f 3

UPDATE 90


Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 5 of 83 PagelD 29

EXHIBIT 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 6 of 83 PagelD 30

Flower Mound High School
Administrative Directive

Date: 3-17-15
To: Anthony Mazur

From: Jeffrey A. Brown, Assistant Principal Flower Mound High School

This letter is to serve as documentation of an Administrative Directive for Anthony
Mazur. The student has been noti?ed by administration to cease or desist the
following action(s].

FMHS yearbook and journalism students are given special access to equipment,
facilities and students when working on the behalf for the purpose of
completing classroom projects and assignments. students, parents, teachers,
coaches, and administration expect pictures taken during these situations be used
fer the sole purpose of school related publications. Anthony has violated this
understanding when he posted pictures on Flicker for personal gain. As a result of
this violation the following directives are given.

Anthony must remove all postings of FMHS student pictures where Anthony
has profited or has the potential to pro?t by 3-18-15.

Anthony is not allowed to post pictures of FMHS students to any form of
mass communication with the intent to profit.

Non-compliance with this directive may result in:
- Denied access of FMHS press credentials and equipment with the exception
of school speci?c assignments
Denied access to some or all FMHS extracurricular activities
0 Such as journalistic access to ?oors or dugouts
- Disciplinary actioos as deemed appropriate by FM HS administration

Please contact the appropriate administration if you have questions or concerns
about this letter. Please sign and return a copy ofthis letter and retain one for your
own records.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.



Studewt?t? 
Parent signature: {J?r 2"?ij date: 

74:

 

Administrator signature: date:

 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 7 of 83 PagelD 31

EXHIBIT 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 8 of 83 PagelD 32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lewisville ISD

061902

STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: FNG
STUDENT AND PARENT (EXHIBIT)

 

 

The forms on the following pages are provided to assist the District in processing student and parent
complaints:

Exhibit A: Student and/or Parent Complaint Form - Level One - 2pages
Exhibit B: Notice of Appeal to Superintendent or Designee Level Two 1 page

ExhibitC: Notice of Appeal to the Board - Level Three - 1 page

 

EXHIBIT A
LEWISVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

STUDENT PARENT COMPLAINT FORM LEVEL ONE
Any student or parent filing a complaint must fill out this form completely and submit it to the

principal. All complaints will be processed in accordance with and (LOCAL) or any
exceptions outlined therein. Additional pages may be added as needed.

1. Student?s name Anthony Mazur

 

Parents? names Len and Mary Jo Mazur

 

2, Campus Flower Mound High School

 

3' Address 2700 Heather Wod Drive, Flower Mound, TX 75022

 

4. Telephone number (972)874'0673 (817)403-0141

 

 

5. Please state the date of the event or series of events causing the complaint:

6. Please state the date, time and name of the supervisor or principal with whom you met to informally
resolve your grievance:

 

 

Name of Principal or Supervisor: Jeffrey A. Brown, Assistant Principal Flower Mound High School

 

Page 1 of 3

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 9 of 83 PagelD 33

6a. What decisions were made or recommendations agreed upon as a result of the informal resolution
conference?

It was agreed upon that Anthony would remove his Flickr site from the Internet while the complaint

 

process moved fonivard. This action was taken, not as an admission of guilt to the Directive, but rather

 

to ensure no negative information would be a part of Anthony?s transcript record.

 

6b. Please state what issues were not resolved in the informal resolution meeting:

The issue as to whether or not Anthony has the right to post pictures he takes of FMHS sporting events

 

to the Internet for pro?t was not resolved and no supporting policy information or governing law was

 

materially cited as a reason for Anthony to remove the site.

 

7. Please state your complaint, including the individual harm alleged.
Paragraph 2 of the Directive claims that various parties, including the administration, ?expect? pictures

 

taken during these events be used for the ?sole purpose? for school related publications. Anthony was

 

never told of such expectations, nor did he agree to such expectations either verbally or in writing.

 

Therefore he can not be in violation of an ?expectation? that was never communicated.

 

The same paragraph also claims that access to equipment and facilities allows the school to take such

 

actions as listed in the Directive. According to Board policy, it does not. Further, the policy states

 

that the copyright for Anthony?s works, remains with Anthony - not the school. By requesting that he

 

?cease and desist? from posting and selling these pictures, the school is imposing a prior restraint

 

violation of Anthony?s freedom of speech rights, as well as monitarily effecting his ability to conduct

 

commerce via his Flickr website. Additonally, we feel that AP Jeffrey Brown acted in a coercive and

 

intimidating fashion when originally speaking with Anthony. Mr Brown made references in the context of

 

not asking for revenues generated from the site to be returned to the school and that he would not report

 

any of this to the IRS. Also, Mr Brown inquired as to whether Anthony was going to ?le a lawsuit in this

 

case. We feel these were scare tactics to get Anthony to comply with the directive and these threats

 

were out of line with the way school administrators should be engaging with students.

 

Page 2 of 3

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 10 of 83 PageID 34

8. Please state specific facts of which you are aware to support your complaint (list in detail).

Copvrightl Picture Ownership: Title 17 of the United Staes Code, CY Local Lewisville ISD

061902, student shall retain all rights to work created as part of instruction or using District

 

technology resources.

 

 

?Posting/Selling lmages:FNAA Legal Local: There is nothing contained
in these documents prohibiting Anthony from posting for personal use, or for profit, pictures that he

legally owns (whether working on school projects or not)

 

 

Expectations Sole Purpose: The references to ?expectations? and ?sole purpose? use in the

 

Directive was never communicated to Anthony either verbally or in writing, and he never

 

agreed verbally, or in writing, to those conditions.

 

?Special Access?: Anthony is not the only person with special access to these sporting events.

 

Others have press passes and are on the ?oor and in dugouts with the intention of using

 

photography for use In non-school publications and/or commerce for profit.

 

9. Please state the remedy you seek for this complaint.

We are asking that the school lift the Administrative Directive and allow Anthony to repost his website

 

without fear of school punishments or marks on his school record as described in the existing Directive.

 

 

 

Page 3 of 3

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 11 of 83 PageID 35

EXHIBIT 

Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 12 of 83 PageID #: 36

April 27, 2015
To: Superintendant Tommy Ellington
Re: Notice of Appeal to the Superintendent – Level Two
This is Anthony Mazur and Parents Notice of Appeal to the Superintendent – Level Two. Rational
for this complaint is indentified in this Level 1 document as text that is indented and italicized.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sonya Lail, Principal
Flower Mound High School
April 17, 2015
To: Len and Mary J o Mazur
Re: Complaint Response Level 1
Response of Level 1 Complaint
1. Student's Name: Anthony Mazur
2. Parent's Name: Len and Mary Jo Mazur
3. Campus: Flower Mound High School
4. Telephone Number: (h) 972-874-0673 (w) 817-403-0141
5. Please state the date of the event or series of events causing the complaint:
6. Please state the date, time and name of the supervisor or principal with whom you met to
informally resolve your grievance:
Date: 3117115 Time: 2:00pm
Name of the Principal: Jeffrey A. Brown, Assistant Principal Flower
Mound High School
6a. What decisions were made or recommendations agreed upon as a result of the informal
resolution conference? It was agreed upon that Anthony would remove his Flickr site from the
Internet while ·the complaint process moved forward. This action was taken, not as an admission of
guilt to the Directive, but rather to ensure no negative information would be a part of Anthony's
transcript/record.
Response: Anthony's Flickr site was removed as agreed and has stayed down
during this process. There has been no negative information added to Anthony's
transcript/records.

6b. Please state what issues were not resolved in the informal resolution meeting: The issue as to
whether or not Anthony has the right to post pictures he takes of FMHS sporting events to the
internet for profit was not resolved and no Supporting policy information or governing law was
materially cited as a reason for Anthony to remove the site.
Response: As we discussed before we met for the grievance conference, LISD
Board Policy CY (Local) states, "All copyrights, trademarks, and other
intellectual property rights shall remain with the District at all times." However,
even if the photographs are the student's intellectual property, I have determined
that the student's act of posting and selling the photographs at issue violated the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Pursuant to FERPA, a
school district may not disclose a record that contains personally identifiable
information regarding a student to an outside party without that student's parent's
written consent. See 34 C.P.R. § 99.30. However, a district may disclose such
1

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 13 of 83 PageID #: 37

information without parental consent if a stated exception applies. One such
exception is if the information has been designation by the school district as
"directory information." See 34 C.F.R. § 99.31.
LISD has designated what is "directory information" in its Board Policy FL
(LOCAL), which creates two separate categories of directory information: 1.
Items for use only for school sponsored purposes, and 2. Items for all other
purposes. Directory information for school-sponsored purposes is defined as
"student name, address, photograph, honors and awards, dates of attendance,
grade level, most recent school previously attended, participation in officially
recognized activities and sports, and weight and height of members of athletic
teams." For "all other purposes," directory information is defined as "student
names, honors and awards, and participation in officially recognized activities and
sports." Thus, in LISD, whether directory information may be released without
parental consent is dependent upon the purpose for which the information is being
released. In this case, when the student posted the pictures for sale on a third
party website, his purpose was clearly not a "school-sponsored" purpose, but fell
into the category of "all other purposes." Since a photograph is not listed as
directory information under "all other purposes," and since neither Anthony nor
his father provided evidence that he obtained written consent from the parent of
each student whose photograph was posted, the student improperly posted those
photographs on the third party website.
Further, I have determined that the student's actions are covered by FERPA in this
case because he took the photographs as part of his Yearbook class for which he
received academic credit from the school. He was given access to certain events
and was given district equipment to take these photographs solely because of his
enrollment in the Yearbook class. As such, these photographs are the educational
record of the students whose image was taken, and the District may not release
such records without written parental consent. When the student posted those
photographs on the third party site, the records were released and the District has
an interest in preventing such a release from occurring.
In light of these policies, it is my determination that the photographs are not
Anthony's intellectual property since he took them while at school-sponsored
FMHS sporting events while earning credit for his Yearbook class. Alternatively,
even if the photographs are his intellectual property, when Anthony posted the
photographs on the third party website, the District arguably violated FERPA
because the photographs were not "directory information" as defined by Board
Policy and he did not obtain written permission from the parent of each student
photographed before posting the information. As such, the administrative
directive letter issued to the student was appropriate.

2

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 14 of 83 PageID #: 38

Anthony Mazur and Parent Response: Ms. Lail’s determinations stated here in 6b are based on
a mis-reading of the policies that she is citing.
1. CY Local, paragraph #2 (“Student”) clearly states that “a student shall retain all rights to
work as created as part of instruction or using District technology resources”. Ms. Lail cites
the “Intellectual Property” portion of CY Local which states” All copyrights, trademarks,
and other intellectual property rights shall remain with the District”. This would seem in
direct contradiction to the “Student” portion of the document until you arrive at the proper
reading of these two statements.
Both the “Intellectual Property” and the “Student” sections can coexist in the same document
without contradiction because they refer to separate rights under the guideline. The “Student” is
unequivocally clear. The student retains all rights EVEN as part of instruction OR using District
technology resources. The “Intellectual Property” section reserves copyrights and trademarks to
the school, but the application of this guideline refers to copyrights and trademarks that the
school owns. For example, a student (or anyone else except the school), could not use the image
of the Flower Mound High School mascot to reproduce hats, t-shirts, mugs etc. because that
trademark is owned by the school.
In Anthony’s case, there is no trademark or copyright infringement because the works that he is
producing and selling are his property.
A further reading of the CY Local documents lists a section on “Permission”. This paragraph
clearly states “District materials do not include student work, all rights to which are retained by
the student”.

FERPA - DIRECTORY INFORMATION
“Pursuant to FERPA a school district may not disclose a record that contains personally
identifiable information regarding students…” In this case Anthony is not “The District”. He is
free to publish his own works under Title 17 US copyright law, CY Local, and TASB legal
guidelines as stated below. The school does not own the rights to Anthony’s work, thus the
District is in no position to claim they (or he) are in violation of posting to a school Directory. In
essence, the District cannot violate something that the District did not do.
Ms. Lail also references Board Policy FL (Local) referring to “Directory Information”. The
pictures that Anthony has taken and posted to his personal Flickr site are not District Property
(see CY Local), nor are they part of a District directory..

EDUCATIONAL RECORDS OF STUDENTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
On page two / paragraph 3 & 4 of this document Ms Lail references FERPA with regard to
educational records of students and Anthony’s Intellectual Property rights.
TASB Legal Services document ©2011 states: “Students may draw a picture, record a song, or
create another type of original work as part of a class assignment. Though the student may
develop the work at the direction of the school, the district is not automatically entitled to
distribute the work. Copyright law does not include special provisions on ownership of student
works similar to the work for hire provisions addressing employee works. Therefore, the
copyrights associated with student works should be considered to be like that of third party

3

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 15 of 83 PageID #: 39

works. The student holds the copyright to the work and may choose to transfer the right or give
the district permission to use the work 17 U.S.C. § 201 (a), (d).”
The repercussions of the TASB guideline are significant. The proper reading of this guideline is
stating that the student owns his work, even as part of a class assignment – which Ms. Lail
clearly alleges in page 2 paragraph 3 of this document. Further, because Anthony created this
work as part of his Yearbook Class, such work is part of HIS educational record. As such, THE
DISTRICT cannot distribute Anthony’s works without his and ours (as parents) permission. In
Anthony’s case, he owns the pictures that were provided to the Yearbook class, but did not
transfer copyright or permissions for the school to distribute. This could mean that the school
may be in violation of Anthony’s Educational Record and copyright ownership by printing and
distributing the 2015 Flower Mound High School Year Book.

4

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 16 of 83 PageID #: 40

1. Please state your complaint, including the individual harm alleged.
Paragraph 2 of the Directive claims that various parties, including the
Administration, "expect" pictures taken during these events be used for the
"sole purpose" for school related publications. Anthony was never told of
such expectations, nor did he agree to such expectations either verbally or in
writing. Therefore he cannot be in violation of an expectation that was never
communicated. The same paragraph also claims that access to equipment
and facilities allows the school to take such actions as listed in the Directive.
According to Board Policy, it does not. Further, the policy states that the
copyright for Anthony's works, remains with Anthony - not the school. By
requesting that he "cease and desist" from posting and selling these pictures,
the school is imposing a prior restraint violation of Anthony's freedom of
speech rights, as well as monetarily effecting his ability to conduct commerce
via Flickr website. Additionally, we feel that AP Jeffrey Brown acted in a
coercive and intimidation fashion when he originally spoke with Anthony.
Mr. Brown made references in the context of not asking for revenues
generated form the site to be returned to the school and that he would not
report any of this to the IRS. Also, Mr. Brown inquired as to whether
Anthony was going to file a lawsuit in this case. We feel these were scare
tactics to get Anthony to comply with the directive and these threats were out
of line with the way school administrators should engage with students.
Response: Mr. Brown referenced to Anthony during their 3/16/15 meeting that
journalism/yearbook students have a symbiotic relationship which allows them
access to athletic facilities and events. This relationship allows students to
complete school assignments such as photos to be used in school publications .
. The expectations referred to in the Administrative Directive were explained
verbally and distributed in written document form to Anthony and his parents the
following day.
Anthony Mazur and Parent Response: The “expectation” that Ms Lail refers to was created
after the fact. Mr. Brown used this previously non-communicated expectation as a key element in
his original Administrative Directive that accused Anthony of a violation. The fact that this
“expectation” was first communicated on 3/16/15, as per Ms Lail’s response above, ,
demonstrates that there was no prior expectation. Thus, this portion of the Administrative is not
applicable and should be removed from the Directive.
In the school's initial meeting with Mr. Brown on 3/16/2015, Mr. Brown
explained to Anthony that there were multiple outcries by students who felt
exploited by having their pictures sold online without their permission. These
students told a teacher who then informed Mr. Brown. After investigating their
complaint, Mr. Brown conferenced with Anthony and attempted to use this as a
teachable moment. Mr. Brown asked questions that were thought-provoking such
as, "Did you get permission to sell the pictures? Have you talked to the coach or
booster clubs about this? Have you considered the IRS and taxes?'' Mr. Brown
asked these questions with the purpose of having Anthony think about this
situation from all points of view. Mr. and Mrs. Mazur did voice their concern
regarding perceived intimidation and coercion during their parent/administrative
meeting on 3-17-15. Mr. Brown apologized directly to the student at that parent
meeting for any intimidation that Anthony may have felt, as that was not his
intent.
5

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 17 of 83 PageID #: 41

Anthony Mazur and Parent Response: Ms. Lail’s recollection of Mr. Brown’s “teachable
moment” is not entirely accurate. Her description of how Mr. Brown engaged Anthony differs
from Anthony’s version of what occurred. Specifically, according to Ms. Lail, Mr. Brown asked
an open ended question “Have you considered the IRS and taxes.” If it had been framed in this
way, you may conclude the dialogue was constructive in nature and meant to be thought
provoking. However, Anthony recalls the tone and actual wording of Mr. Brown’s word to be
more of a statement rather than a question. Anthony recalls this portion of the meeting as Mr.
Brown stating: that “He (Mr. Brown) would not be asking me to return money I made on the site
and he would not report to the IRS that I am not filing taxes.” Additionally, according to
Anthony, Mr. Brown stated that “He, as a Principal, could exercise administrative discretion and
could enforce punishment on me”. This is a vastly different account that what Ms. Lail is
reporting based on her conversation with Mr. Brown.
By employing this style of engagement with Anthony and stating that if Anthony did not take down
his Flickr site before any violations were proven, we believe Mr. Brown has exercised a form of
prior restraint censoring Anthony’s free speech prior to proving any of the District’s allegations.
While we are not seeking a remedy for this situation at this time, I would like it to be known that
this encounter between Mr. Brown and Anthony, in my opinion, fell very short of being either
“thought provoking” or representing what is acceptable to meet the minimum standards of what
is a “teachable moment”.

6

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 18 of 83 PageID #: 42

2. Please state specific facts of which you are aware to support your complaint
(list in detail). ·
Copyright/Picture Ownership: Title 17 of the United States Cody, CY Local
Lewisville ISD 061902, "A Student shall retain all rights to work created as a
part of instruction or using District technology resources.

Response: Anthony is allowed access to our Athletic Facilities and use of our
FMHS District Technology equipment such as cameras, under the guidelines that
he is producing work (photographs) that will be used for Flower Mound High
School publications (yearbook/newspaper).
Anthony Mazur and Parent Response: Use of school resources and technology does not grant
the right to the District of infringing on Anthony’s copyrighted materials.
CY Local, paragraph #2 (“Student”) clearly states that “a student shall retain all rights
to work as created as part of instruction or using District technology resources”
Ms. Lail’s reference to “under the guidelines” he is producing work that will be used for Flower
Mound High School publications (Yearbook/newspaper)” does not preclude his copyright
protection or freedom to express his work in channels / media of his choice.
CY Local, paragraph #5 (“Permission”)” …District materials do not include student
work, all rights to which are retained by the student.”
With regard to “access”; multiple parties have similar access that has been granted to Anthony
for picture taking purposes. To my knowledge, no similar restrictions have been exercised
against these parties in ways that are being applied to Anthony. This includes parents of students
who have been witnessed on the floor, journalists from the Dallas Morning News, Star Local
Media, and WFAA. In fact, the Dallas Morning News has a gallery of student images available
on their website for sale. I’m unsure if they are aware that the District believes these hosted
pictures are a violation of a student’s “Educational Record”.

Posting/Selling Images: FNAA Legal/Local: There is nothing contained in
these documents prohibiting Anthony form posting for personal use, Or for
profit, pictures that he legally owns (whether working on school projects or
not)

Response: LISD Board Policy CY (Local) states, "All copyrights, trademarks, and
other intellectual property rights shall remain with the District at all times." As
described in detail above, the District arguably violated FERPA when Anthony
posted the Pictures on the third party website.
Anthony Mazur and Parent Response: Again this is a mis-application of CY (Local).
See Page 3 #1 of this document
Also – FERPA does not apply, as Anthony is not the “District” and thus is not restricted
to distribute his copyrighted materials

7

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 19 of 83 PageID #: 43

Expectations/Sole Purpose: The references to "expectations" and "sole
purpose" used in the Directive was never communicated to Anthony either
verbally or in writing, and he never agreed verbally, or in writing, to those
conditions.

Response: Expectations were communicated in writing (Administrative Directive)
and verbally (Parent/Student Meeting on 3/17/15) immediately after Mr. Brown
was made aware of the situation and an investigation had occurred. On 3/6/1 5,
Mrs. Jones, yearbook teacher, met with Anthony and also had a discussion for
him to remove his site and to cease selling the pictures. No discipline
accompanied this directive if the Flickr site was taken down, which was removed
and has remained down to date.
Anthony Mazur and Parent Response: Again this expectation was communicated after the fact
that pictures were posted on Anthony’s personal Flickr site. Thus it can NOT be materially cited
in the Administrative Directive as the foundation of the violation – as it never existed prior to
3/16/15.
"Special Access": Anthony is not the only person with special access to these
sporting events. Others have press passes and are on the floor and in dugouts
with the intention of using photography for use in non-school publications
and/or commerce for profit.

Response: Anthony is not the only photographer allowed special access to FMHS
sporting events. However in those cases an agreement and/or written contract
exists between the District Booster Clubs, and/or campus to allow pictures to be
taken by those individuals/businesses per that contract. Additionally, Anthony
had permission from the school to take photographs because of his enrollment in
the Yearbook class. That access was granted for the purpose of inclusion in the
yearbook, on the District's website, and for other school-sponsored purposes. The
District never gave Anthony permission to use the photographs for other
purposes, such as posting them for sale on a third party website.

Anthony Mazur and Parent Response: See Page 7 / Response #2
3. Please state the remedy you seek for this complaint: We are asking that the
school lift the Administrative Directive and allow Anthony to repost his
website without fear of school punishments or marks on his school record as
described in the Directive.

Response: Following our level one grievance meeting held on 4/13 /2015, my
decision is that this remedy is denied and that Administrative Directive stands_
Anthony Mazur must remove all postings to any third party website of FMHS
student photographs when such photographs were taken using District equipment
and in the scope of his responsibilities for the Yearbook class.

8

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 20 of 83 PageID #: 44

Anthony Mazur and Parent Response:.
Conclusion and Remedy Request:
We believe that the Administrative Directive which was given to Anthony on 3/16/15 was
based on Board policy guidelines that were both misapplied and/or misinterpreted by
Flower Mound High School.
The responses that we have put forth in this Level Two filing, and the supporting
documents we have referenced, clearly illustrates Anthony’s standing to maintain his
copyright authority and use his work as the laws and policy provides.
Ms. Lail, in filing her Level One response, has provided no policy or existing laws that
prevent Anthony from posting his work in ways that he wishes to do so. In fact, the
documents that Ms Lail has put forth actually strengthen Anthony’s rights to post his
work as he chooses. Further, many of her quoted documents unequivocally provide
ownership rights and protections that reside with Anthony, regardless of her personal
positions on guidelines regarding “Access”, “Use of District Equipment”, “Educational
Records” and “Expectations/ Sole Purpose”.
With regard to “Expectations / Sole purpose”, I would like to reemphasize the fact that
Ms Lail admits that prior to3/16/15 no verbal or written communication was in place as
to how these photographs were to be used. Yet – this was the basis of the Administrative
Directive. In Essence saying an “expectation” was violated when in reality there was
never any “expectation” communicated. This was an “after-the-fact” assumption on
part of the school and should never have been included in the Administrative Directive.
Also in the original Administrative Directive was a reference to Anthony profiting from
the posting of his work. Specifically, the only mandated steps for Anthony to take to
escape disciplinary action were in reference to “profit”. However, nothing in Ms Lail’s
response supports the case that Anthony CANNOT profit from his work. In fact, the word
“profit” never appears in any of the text of Ms. Lail’s explanations of her position.
When you couple these two elements of the Administrative Directive;
Expectations that were never communicated, and
Profit that Ms. Lail fails to address in her response,
The directive has very little standing. For these reasons, we are asking for relief of the
original Administrative Directive and allow Anthony to move forward with the posting of
pictures he legally owns and whose freedom of expression is protected speech under the
constitution. In addition, we feel that his actions are in compliance with all board policy
guidelines and we have provided the documentation that supports our view.

9

 Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 21 of 83 PageID 45

EXHIBIT 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 22 of 83 PagelD 46

in
Louisville
I Independent 400 W. Main Street
School District Lewisuile. Texas ?505?

T0 EXCELLENCE

 

469-713-5206

TOMMY W. ELLINGTON
Executive Director/ Student Services

Date: May 18, 2015

Level Two Notice of Appeal

Student and/or parent?s name Anthony Mazur
Campus Flower Mound High School
Address 2700 Heather Wood Drive, Flower Mound. TX 750;;

Telephone number [9721874-0673(w) {817} 403-0141
To whom did you last present your complaint? Principal Sonya Lail Date of

conference 04(1312015

6. If you will be represented by a parent or other adult in pursuing your



complaint, please identify the individual representing you.

Name Len and Mary Jo Mazur

Address 2700 Heather Wood Drive, Flower Mound, TX 75022
7 Attach a copy of your original complaint.

8 Attach a copy of the Level One decision being appealed.

Student and/or parent signature

 

Date submitted 4127115
Background:

It was brought to the attention of Flower Mound High School that Anthony Mazur
had posted images taken with District technology devices to his Flickr account for
sale without the knowledge or permission of certain Flower Mound High School
students. Anthony Mazur was given an administrative directive to cease and desist
from posting images taken when he was using District technology devices and given
special access to certain events. A Level One complaint was filed with Sonya Lail,
Principal of Flower Mound High School. Ms. Lail responded to the complaint on
April 17, 2015.

 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 23 of 83 PagelD 47

A Level Two appeal was filed on April 27, 2015. A meeting was held on May 7, 2015
with Len and Mary Jo Mazur at the office of Tommy Ellington.

Response to Level Two Appeal

Anthony Mazur was not in violation of Lewisville ISD Board Policy CY (Local) nor of
FERPA regulations protecting student information by posting to his Flickr account
any images taken prior to the administrative directive dated March 17, 2015
(attached). Anthony Mazur may not post any images taken with District technology
devices or while given special access as part of any assignment for school courses
after March 17, 2015.

Lewisville Independent School District and its administrators may issue
administrative directives to govern unforeseen situations that may arise in the
course of education of the District?s students. The administrative directive issued by
Sonya Lail on March 17, 2015, is appropriate due to the concerns expressed by
students whose images were taken with District technology devices and posted
without the student?s permission. This directive will become part of any/all courses
where images are taken with District technology devices and special access is given
to the student(s).

Sincerely,

Tommgalington

Executive Director/Student Services

 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 24 of 83 PageID 48

Flower Mound High School
Administrative Directive

Date: 3-17-15
To: Anthony Mazur

From: Jeffrey A. Brown, Assistant Principal Flower Mound High School

This letter is to serve as documentation of an Administrative Directive for Anthony
Mazur. The student has been noti?ed by administration to cease or desist the
following action(s].

FMHS yearbook and journalism students are given special access to equipment,
facilities and students when working on the behalf for the purpose of
completing classroom projects and assignments. students, parents, teachers,
coaches, and administration expect pictures taken during these situations be used
fer the sole purpose of school related publications. Anthony has violated this
understanding when he posted pictures on Flicker for personal gain. As a result of
this violation the following directives are given.

Anthony must remove all postings of FMHS student pictures where Anthony
has profited or has the potential to pro?t by 3-18-15.

Anthony is not allowed to post pictures of FMHS students to any form of
mass communication with the intent to profit.

Non-compliance with this directive may result in:
- Denied access of FMHS press credentials and equipment with the exception
of school speci?c assignments
Denied access to some or all FMHS extracurricular activities
0 Such as journalistic access to ?oors or dugouts
- Disciplinary actiOns as deemed appropriate by FM HS administration

Please contact the appropriate administration if you have questions or concerns
about this letter. Please sign and return a copy ofthis letter and retain one for your
own records.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.



Studewt?? alt/lezgfr?w??atEI 
Parent signature: {J?r 2"?ij date: 

74:

 

Administrator signature: date:

 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 25 of 83 PageID 49

EXHIBIT 
LEWISVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE BOARD LEVEL THREE

This form must be filled out completely by a student andfor parent appealing a Level Two decision, or
the lack of a timelyr response after a Level Two conference. to the Board in accordance with
and (LOCAL) or any exceptions outlined therein.

1. Name

 

2. Campus

 

3. To whom did you last present your complaint?

 

Date of conference

 

4. If you will be represented by a parent or other adult in pursuing your complaint, please identify the
individual representing you.

Name

 

Address

 

 

Telephone number i i
5. Attach a copy of your original complaint.

6. Attach a copy of the Level One and Level Two decisions being appealed, if applicable.

Student andfor parent signature

 

Date submitted

 

Page 4 of 4

 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 26 of 83 PageID 50

EXHIBIT 



  




EXHIBIT 
LEWISVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

 
 
   

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE BOARD - ?if.



ll



This form must be filled out completely by a student andrerpareatungijg? 
the lack of a timely response after a Level TWO eonrerenee. to- smell
and (LOCAL) or any exceptions outlined thereln.

Name Anthony Mazur

Campus Flower Mound High School

5 

Date Of conference 05,07,2015

. If you will be represented by a parent or other adultiin {autism 615individual representing you.



Name Len 8: Me .10 Magur

--.

      
 

l?



Address 2700 Heather Weoel Dn?izi
?FleWer Menm?hit 

numba? 9.72 874-0678

5. Attach 

.: 


.L


5- Attache-ow of-the-Levela??e??Case D: 1 Wed 03/21/18 Page 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 28 of 83 PageID 52

EXHIBIT 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 29 of 83 PageID 53



(5

REAL mneva-rien Temmyr Ellington Executive Directer
$11155, Student Services

 

see W. Main StreetI Lewisville. TX 75115?
icne {459] 113-52115 fax 3513-94157

Date: May 29:. 2015

Te: Mr. and Mrs. Maser
Re: Level 111  Grievance

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mazun

This letter is te inferin yen that new material pertinent te yeur Level Ill
grievance scheduled te be heard by the LISD Beard ef Trustees en June
15, 21115 will be presented tn the beard. By rule yen must be made
aware eftliis new evidence at least three (3) days befere the hearing.
The new evidence eneeinpasses the District AUP agreement as well as a
eepv ei the deenrnent signed by Mary Je Maser stating the AUP had
been read and agreed te eentent. A eepjv ef each is enelesed fer the
hearing June 15, 2015.

Sincerely, 

Tengten

Executive DirectertStudent Services

 

 

 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 30 of 83 PageID 54



 

Hmna --.- l??lu?li? anllins

il? Eustmn Farms Tab 

Cualmn Palms

madam
?TE-ElLaur
HTS-Email

HTS-SEEK:

Em Public
MTH. Flt-i.
HEDE- 
Alla
NEDE- Ellm
HSUE- GT 
Hfi?E- Hun-m
HSUJE- 
HEDE- 
HEDE- UCLIJ
FRG lil??liltfi
HII Frog

55: HS Hequ
35 HS ltnqu
Frag


AlvFIiEl-l.

 

Erin-ni- II .-.

Custom Farms 'I'ub? Emil}:- - - - Dili?l?ll??
runl'mhum?. Ir

MUUHIJ 33 {?lm -r



ILL-mum L'ul

Educalud

 

Mama] Gus-Hm u.

Ullm ?dmlnistm?un Hope-1 : 

Semi-:25 ?tness Plus

I r? 1, Fm?u?ns? 'u?tn'l'u'nnuwr :h-?Ilahl?rrtnuwcl



Guam-u :mm?munm 1 Enm. Emu-o1. 

mum tnq?sfaj'f?'u?l Misanlnii??h?rnul unm- 1 Hummulwm 

 

?udnnl-tuawm?luun EMHAHUEL II 1 U?angesl Md 

 

ETE-AUP

 

'4


F7 Etudnnl. Ftnul?t chucttm

mm 

 

 



 

 

Paga111

 

 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 31 of 83 PagelD 55

I-?entt: 

 

tree

til. 
leu?l-ITF.
I

 

 

Student: illn?llt. r?ti'fl'lt?i'i?r

?letie'?intl ll}: 

itlellt'

Independent Echeel District
Studenl Guidelines [or Tacltnelemr lteseurces
pere ies estudr'enies seem tes recurses tecireiegices

 

 

 

Internet Click: HERE [er the AUP er ge Ie:
{click on Ferms}

en el Internet: .i'tUF? er
I'Iillili?l?lil'lJiEtlJ'l?t [hege clic cn Ferms]

 

 

Hy- this lernt cemplelcd. I af?rm that I have med end
discussed 'l'riII'I my Int-I.- SludEInl Guidelines fer
Technelemt Heseurees- lundetslend lltetulele?en eI litese
previsiens result In suspenslen er revecelien el sye1em
access. as well as epprepriete disciplinary action. Ii I have
any regarding these guidelines. I slteuld direct
lhesc quesliens te Ilte principal ei the campus. Principal
email addresses l'li?ji be feund by using] lhe ietlewtng rink
and eliciting en echeel 
[Select the campus]

Al mereer esle ietnmlerie cemplele, ?t'e alirme que lie leide 1; tliseulide cen
ntis Itl]es Ies Dircetriccs tic! cslutliantc pare lee Resumes tleTEcueleufa-
Te enliende que EllaltluiEI tn'eleelen de dishes regles uede res uller en la
suspen slen del dereehe dc eeccse el slsteme, el iguel clue
en la disciplinerie eprepiede. Si Ienge algune pregunle cen
respecle esles direclrices. dehe t'liligillas el direeler del planlel- Les
diteecieues de ceriee clienlee de les direeleres se pueden encentrer
ulsitende el slgnienle enlecn 5' Iteelcnde clic en in inlerrnecien de le
escucle.

{?elneciene nl plenteL}

 

 

that my child's use til the Lewis?llu ISD
nieeltmtit: system Is net missile and 1 IrIt Iltc
tiisliiet will meetjlm cut cempnler syslent.

 

't'e cnlienrle que el use dc Eicclninlcn dc
anisvi-ile per nnrle tie :ni Inje en es plitredu due Lewisei'ee 
manner-e [Hit In anti-aided en dieltn sislemrt Lie 

I agree te ellew my student access In LIED Tecllnelegy Reseurees in tile pretrisiens eutllned in the
Acceptehle Llse Penile]! referenced nieetreJ
Ester tie ecuerde en cue mi esiurlr'ente tearye ies .Fiecurses de Tecneiegie tie MED tie ecueide ceir ies
dispesieienes desen'ies en la Petitice rte Use Accidental mcucr'acedes enien'ennente.



If vet: de net merit the hen sleeve yenr student may be preltthiled irent using LIED Technelegy Reseurces. i Hr? ester! m:
mum: .in min rt'u.? :m-r'lim. .rr sir unri'rn?ren't' .34: is music pmhibr'r' t'i use tic he Remnants tic Tct'ueiegr'rr uric 

 

eel ParenUGu ardlatt Heme lit-?teeters eel pedreImedre?uler a m?euine} Meryl Je Mezur

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 32 of 83 PageID 56
I

SD

meme-Hano?

. I. 

 

Student Acceptable Use Policy

Lewisvillc Independent School District provides a variety of electro nic eommu nieations systems for educational
purposes. The electronic communications system is de?ned as the District?s network {including the
wireless network), servers, computer workstations, mobile technologies, peripherals, applications,
databases, online resources, Internet access, email, and any other technology designated for use by
students, including all new technologies as they become available. This also includes any access to the
Lewisvillc ISD electronics system while on or near school property, in school vehicles and at school-sponsored
activities, and includes the appropriate use of district technology resources via off?campus remote access.
Please note that the Intemet is a network of many types of communication and infortnation networks, including
Web 1.0 resources thlogs, Wikis, Podcasts, etc}, and is part of the district?s electronic communications
systems. Web 1f} applications offer a variety of 21"? Century communication, collaboration, and educational
creativity opportunities. in a 2151 {Centuryr school system, technologies, the Internet, and Web 2.0 tools are
essential.

In accordance with the Children?s Internet Protection Act, Lewisvillc Independent School District educates staff
and students regarding appropriate online behavior to ensure Internet safety, including use of email and Web ll]
resources, and has deployed filtering technology and protection measures to restrict access to inappropriate
content such as those that are illegal, harmful, or contain potentially offensive information. While every effort
is made to provide the most secure and optimal learning environment, it is not possible to absolutely prevent
access {accidental or otherwise} to inappropriate content- It is each student?s responsibility to follow the
guidelines for appropriate and acceptable use.

Web 1t] and Digital ooIs

Students 13 or younger.

For students under the age of 13, the Children?s Cinline Privacy Protection not suggests that a school
district maintain a list of the websites and online services appropriate for educational use it has consented to on
behalf of the parent 

LISD maintains a district list of suggested classroom digital tools at: id=2964.

LISD will always use digital tools or apps in a way that is consistent with the Children?s Unline Privacy
Protection Act.

Parents may deny access to any specific digital tool by notify_i_rig their child?s campus administrator in writing.

USE

I- Students will adhere to good digital citizenship expectations

in Studean must only open, view, modify, and delete their one: computer ?les.

Internet and bandwidth usage at school must be directly related to school assignments during class time

I Students will be assigned individual email and network accounts and must use only those accounts and
passwords that they have been granted permission by the district to use. All account activity should be
for educational purposes only.

I Students must im mediately report threatening messages or diseemforting Internet tiles! sites to a teacher.

. Students must at all times use the district?s electronic communications system, including email, wireless
network access, and Web 2.3 toolsireseurces to communicate only in ways that are kind and respectful.

I Students are responsible at all times for their use of the district?s electronic communications system and
must assume personal responsibility to behave ethically and responsibly, even when technology
provides them freedom to do otherwise.

Ircase Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 33 of 83 PagelD 57

ISD

IIAL 1WATQH
uHrruu 
. I. . . 

 

Students will use LIST) guest wifi access for filtering purposes on Bring Your [Jilin ibcimoi'ogy devices.

INAPPRUPRLETE USE

Wireless Hotspots not provided by LIED are prohibited on the LIED network.

Using the district?s electronic communications system for illegal purposes including, but not limited to,
cyberbullying, gambling, pornography, and computer hacking.

Disabling or attempting to disable any system monitoring or filtering or security measures.

Sharing user names and passwords with others; andi?or borrowing someone else?s username, password,
or account access-

Purposefully opening, viewing, using or deleting files belonging to another system user without
permission.

Electronically posting data {including but not limited to audio recordings, video recordings, images, and
personal information] about others or oneself when it is not related to a class project and i or without the
permission of all parties.)

Downloading or plagiariaing copyrighted information without permission from the copyright holder-
intentionally introducing a virus or other malicious programs onto the district?s system.

Electronically posting messages or accessing materials that are abusive, obscene, sexually oriented,
threatening, harassing, damaging to another?s reputation, or illegal-

Gaining unauthorised access to restricted information or network resources.

SPECIAL NDTE: CYBEHBULLYING
Cyberbullying is de?ned as the use of any Internet-connected device for the purpose of bullying, harassing, or
intimidating another student. This includes, but may not be limited to:

Sending abusive test messages to cell phones, computers, or Internet?connected game consoles-

Posting abusive comments on someone?s blog or social networking site (eg, MySpaee or Facebook}.
Creating a social networking site or web page that masqueradcs as the victim?s personal site and using it
to embarrass him or her.

Making it appear that the victim is posting malicious comments about friends to isolate him or her from
friend s-

l?osting the victim's personally identi?able information on a site to put them at greater risk of contact by
predators.

Sending abusive comments while playing interactive games.

Recording and distributing media wilh the intent to manipulate or embarrass others.

CDNSEQUENCES FGR INAPPROPRIATE USE

Appropriate disciplinary or legal action in accordance with the Student Code ofConduct and applicable
laws including monetary damages-

of access to the district's electronic communications system-

Revoeation of the district?s electronic communications system andior

'l'crmination of System User Account: The district may deny, revoke, or suspend specific user?s access
to the district?s system with or without cause or notice for lack of use, violation oi'policy or regulations
regarding acceptable network use, or as a result ofdisciplinary actions against the user-

Possible criminal action.

EMERGENCY 

 

 

[22139 Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 34 of 83 PageID 58

ISD

MLIHWAHM
umm
. .. 

. 

 

During an emergency situatien, students may enly use their cell phencs te centact 911. All ether calls will he in
vielatien ef the AUP. Status} actiens required, and eiTicial inferrnatien will he cemmunicated te parents and
ethers by the District.

Electrenie Cemmunieatien Devices: Bring Your ?wn Teenneiegp

is excited aheut the new learning eppertunities available threugh Bring Fear Techneiegy. It is cur
geal that students and teachers will cellaherate in rich: engaging learning experiences using teehnelegy.
Students may hring their ewn and utilise persenal electrenic devices at seheel and
at seheel activities. Students may use these devices in the classreem when the teacher deems them apprepriate
t?er educatienal purpeses. All devices must remain silent er he put away unless being used within a lessen
during class time. Students may else use devices dnring nenFinstructienal times, such as passing perieds, lunch
and heferei'aFter seheel.

Devices includci hut are net limited te, the t'ellewing: neteheeks, smart phnnes: iPhenes? iPads, iPeds, mp3
players and eReaders. r-?tll devices sheuld be clearly laheled with student?s full name. Students are rcspensible
fer persenal preperty hreught te seheel and sheuld keep persenal items with self er in it lacked space. Devices
sheuld he charged prier te bringing them te seheel.

In the event the technelegy is used inapprepriatcly; nerrnal disciplinary censenuenees may eccur.

Student Agreement:

I understand that my use ef the Lewisville electrenie cemmunieatien system is net private and that the
Lewisville ISD will meniter activity en the cemputer system.

I have read the district's dceeyn?niht'e Use Pairs}? and agree in abide by their previsiens.

I understand that vielatien ef these previsinns may result in suspensien er revecatiun e1? system access as well
as apprupriatc disciplinary actien.

Student Name (Please Print]

 

 

Campus Grade

 

StudentID

 

Student Signature

 

 

 

 

 Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 35 of 83 PagelD 59
I

?mm
?hum cam-twins
- I . .

 

Pa rent Agreement:

I understand that my child's use of the Lewisville ISD electronic cemmunicaticn system is not private and that
the district will meniter activity an the computer system.

I have read the district's Acceptabie Use Fairies and agree tc abide by their previsiens.

I understand that Vielaticn previsiens may result in suspension er access as well
as apprepriatc disciplinary acticn.

 

Parenti?uardiaa HarnewPlease Print

 

 

Farentr?Guardian Name?Signature Date

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 36 of 83 PageID 6O

EXHIBIT 

Cas 61

 

Dear Students and Parents of FMHS Journalism,

I would like to welcome you to my class and extend my hospitality as a professional
educator. My door is always open to hear your joys as well as your concerns. Our
work together will be much more like a job than a class, requiring professionalism
and a willingness to represent me and the department, Flower Mound High School,
Ms. Lai] and other administrators and Lewisville 150. Our school relationship and
access to many venues needed to do our jobs require that we maintain decorum and.

. agree to several documents that are attached. it is importantto remember that we
"ride for the brand? as we represent Flower Mound High School.

The Flower Mound High School Journalism Department requires that all students;
and their parents sign the attached Code of Ethics set forth by the Society of .
Professional Journalists at the bottom of the page and return it to Mrs. Jones. by'tljg:
end of the ?rst week of class. A copy of this Code of Ethics will be availableoiri? "t 
Google Classroom along with many other documents pertinent to. this. chase.- 

.

A

 
  
   
  
 
  
   
   
  
      
   

It is imperative that all students and parents sign the LISD School Rules-Regard? 3; .
District Equipment to be allowed access to district camera 
iPads, etc. used in the course of our duties. Pay particular attentitin tot-he ., 
downloading photos and other work they must be saved. tome digger;
directly from the camera, etc. and not be placed on personal misdiagnosis,

Next, there is the Equipment Use and Check OutAgreement?oI?J-?eat
Newspaper Staff members. This must be signed aridg?legi is: -
checked out to the student. Please understand Ithdtiit 
equipment, but that I must havea s-ig-ned?cop 
with the expectation that most will osmosis" 

I very much look forward to workingnticlirp 

#45 a!

Warm?

Cas

  

 
  
  
  
 
  
     
   

DREPORTIT

22:12.. 


 

I- ,5 



I- an?s: 
m?te

.. Ease-.9 3:213:33
1221:. rd have Emile:
1. 27mm rgwas gamed
am: :a 

  

gm: cans?1d t2 share: 225a. Etta:

.. Dilzgemig 59-9? rue-2.3 
gr aileg?anz 1F 

m1 ?demos-e.- Cn? other smegma: maths-d: 11f glam 
Ira (.5111 metres: will #:1th infsmatimm' the watt;

Er; rg?am and wuragmus about hol?ing vase with writable
?ne mice 10 me ?aimless.

Suppm me open ardchiimga ofviews. 

Hemgnizea special obligation to 
goal-51mm. Seek ensue mam:- mr'smMEsm-nmnh
open. and that public [m are 0pm alL -

n- Provide-access msourca 

Baldy Lei! the MOMS: 
Seek sources Mme wines we saw hear.

Mamie 
am my shape their {m

Label mam mum-awry.

Never de?buaxelvdism fans or man. Miami mm
E13311 label ilhsuatims and 

v- New WIFE, Aim 

 

 

MINIMIZE HARM





WNW


amidlnmismtambmumm

.
h?ll?wm??'hu' -.

 

 

62

imr?d Wand-the de

mi Lba-mgh An elbiacd 'purmli-II an: 'i'lh lung-Ely.

51-1 ran-.45.: :25 abetm inits ?lm

3. 5-3.: amen :39; :3 #2an in- mu: m_ Us:
3 3:335? 52:513.: n'Ef ?rst; man W331 um
23:53:55 (wilted: Wigwam;
13-563 Tia-rm: :1 @332?! and MEN.

Frag-:2 1319;313:235 23 Hmr??rfacs Numerical justiir}
3'1: mist". 3r 3-3135:

. 11:23:31: mmag-ea?er mama-d mm
wet-3:352:21 l??ma?u?s?w?mu?mu

51:31:01 Wag: we Mn- amt-nil
Hen-am".

Aummtou?tmwiod?sm


wmw?mm magnum-1mm?



ACT INDEPENDENTLY







amt.
Mustangs-1 

5w" minim" mum-3? h?hh
mun?aha? 

BEACCOUNTABLEINDIW
mm ?Wynn-?Mid
Munich-Whit?:

Winch: .
. 

   
 
 
 
   
 
    



Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 39 of 83 PageID 63

Lewisvillc Independent School District
School Rules Regarding District Equipment

These school rules apply to any and all LISD classes where images (including
photographs or video) are taken with equipment owned by the Lewisville Independent
School District (?District?). Students 1n certain classes are given Special access to District
equipment for the purpose of completing classroom projects and assignments.

Any images of students taken by LISD students on equ1pment owned by the District shall
only be saved and/or posted on District computers and .on the District 3 network for the
sole purpose of classwork and school publications Such images created as a part of the
instructional program using District technology resources shall belong solely to the
District. Students shall not save and/or post. any such 1mages of other students taken with
equipment owned by the District to any personal computers or personal internet or secial
media site It is the intent of the District and District students and parents that such
images to be cieated shall be considered ?works made for hire? as the work 18 specially
ordered or commissioned for use as. a contribution to a; collective work, including but not
limited to a school newspaper or yearbook By Signmg this form, the student and parent

release any claim of ownership to images taken of other students with equipment owned
by the District . . . ..

If for any reason the 1mages or any part thereof would hot be considered a work made for
hire under applicable: law, the; "student and parent hereby assign, and transfer to the
District the entire right,__ title and interest in? and to the copyright 1n the images and any
registrations and cepyright applications relati'ii?g? thereto and any renewals and extensions
thereof, and 111 and to all works based upon, derived from, or incorporating the images.

Non-compliance with these school rules may result in: 

. Denial of access to District-owned equipment andfor press credentials except for
school speci?c assignments

Please contact the school adm1n1stranon if you have questions or concerns about these

rules. Please sign and return a copy of this form and retain a copy for your records
Thank you.

Student Signature: Date:

 

Parent Signature: Date:

 

Gas 64

 

131 512016 Equipment Use and Check Out Agreement
YearbookiNewspaper

2:tnti that per ofpr oducing publications involves the use ol'equipment,
.. o?:git 1.1 cameras, scanners computers tape recorders and media card



that it is my responsibility to care for a any equipment in my
possessions. and that I am responsible for any damage due {0 negligence.

?1 that digital cameras, film cameras, video cameras and tape recorders
mus-1 be checked out for speci?c assignments, following department procedures.

i2 12-. .1. 1.4. equipment must be returned to the Journalism Department imposed for failure to return the equipment.

?1 understand that 1 am responsible for any damages to or loss ofequipment.

*1 understand that ill damage or lose equipment, it is my obligation to pay for
repairs or replacement.

understand that the rechargeable batteries intended for the departmentd?tal'

   
   
 
  
  
   

cameras are to be used ONLY in the digital cameras. Other batteries are also it
available. 

understand thatwhen 1 return a digital camera, I am totake outthe 11. 1.2-1; '2 -
return them to the battery charger so they will be fully charged ferrite w;

*l understand that SD and CF cards must be emitted after photesauf? 
the Photo Bank when the camera equipment 15 ram-tied. 1.2 

understand that department equipment left, mam 2 
result In theloss ofdieck-outpriv?em 1 1 2 -

understand that failure to return equipm --

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 41 of 83 PageID 65

EXHIBIT I

Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 42 of 83 PageID #: 66
JT Morris   Attorney
jt@jtmorrislaw.com
Tel: 512-717-5275
610 Brazos Street, Suite 320   Austin, Texas 78701

October 26, 2017
VIA E-MAIL
Jeff Crownover, Esq.
General Counsel
Lewisville Independent School District
1565 W. Main Street
Lewisville, Texas 75067
crownoverj@lisd.net
RE: Anthony Mazur Copyright Issues
Dear Mr. Crownover:
I represent Mr. Anthony Mazur, a 2017 graduate of Flower Mound High School
(“FMHS”). I write to you regarding Lewisville ISD’s position on Mr. Mazur’s photographic works
that he took during his time as a FMHS student. During his time as FMHS, Mr. Mazur was an
active member of the Yearbook staff and other student publications, for which he served as a
photographer. Indeed, Mr. Mazur took hundreds of original photographs of FMHS events in his
four years as a student.
As I suspect you are aware, Mr. Mazur took several original photographs in 2015 of school
events using school equipment, which he also posted on a “Flickr” page to offer for sale at a
reasonable fee (“Flickr Photographs”). This precipitated disciplinary proceedings and an
administrative directive targeting Mr. Mazur’s ability to use his original photographs for personal
purposes. I have enclosed for your convenience the Level 1-3 appeals and responses as well as the
administrative directive from FMHS. I have also enclosed a letter from the Student Law Press
Center sent to LISD on Mr. Mazur’s behalf, detailing the unlawfulness of LISD’s attempts to
restrict Mr. Mazur’s use of his original works.
The purpose of my letter is an attempt to clarify LISD’s current position on Mr. Mazur’s
ability to use his works, as the various responses and directives from LISD have clouded whether
the District has yielded its positions restricting Mr. Mazur’s use of his original photographs.
Specifically, LISD has taken the following positions during the disciplinary and appeals process:
1. In a March 17, 2015 administrative directive, LISD claimed that Mr. Mazur “is
not allowed to post pictures of FMHS students to any form of mass
communication with the intent to profit;
2. In its April 17, 2015, Level 1 response, LISD claimed that LISD, and not Mr.
Mazur, owned the copyright in the original photographs Mr. Mazur had taken;

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 43 of 83 PageID #: 67
Page 2 of 2

3. In its May 18, 2015 Level 2 response, LISD maintained that Mr. Mazur could not
post online “any images taken with District technology devices or while given
special access as part of any assignment for school courses after March 17, 2015.”
4. In granting the Level III appeal, the LISD Board maintained that Mr. Mazur could
use only his personal equipment and photograph LISD events open to the public
for any photograph he wished to use personally or commercially.
These positions (among others) have left Mr. Mazur unclear as to whether LISD still believe it
maintains some control over how Mr. Mazur can use the Flickr Photographs, or any other
photographs that Mr. Mazur created using LISD equipment or that were included in any published
LISD yearbooks. In particular, there appears to be no clear written renunciation from LISD on any
of the above positions.
Accordingly, we would appreciate clarification from LISD as to its position on this matter.
Specifically, we ask that LISD provide its position on the following:
1. Whether LISD owns the copyright in the Flickr Photographs or any other photographs
Mr. Mazur created using LISD equipment;
2. Whether LISD owns the copyright in any of Mr. Mazur’s photographs included in
published LISD Yearbooks, periodicals, or other LISD-sponsored materials; and
3. Whether Mr. Mazur is still prohibited from posting online, publishing, or using
commercially photographs he created using LISD equipment.
We would appreciate a response no later than November 6, 2017. Thank you for your attention to
this matter, and please contact me by phone or e-mail should you wish to discuss further.

Regards,

JT Morris

Encl.

 Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 44 of 83 PageID 68

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lewisville ISD

061902

STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: FNG
STUDENT AND PARENT (EXHIBIT)

 

 

The forms on the following pages are provided to assist the District in processing student and parent
complaints:

Exhibit A: Student and/or Parent Complaint Form - Level One - 2pages
Exhibit B: Notice of Appeal to Superintendent or Designee Level Two 1 page

ExhibitC: Notice of Appeal to the Board - Level Three - 1 page

 

EXHIBIT A
LEWISVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

STUDENT PARENT COMPLAINT FORM LEVEL ONE
Any student or parent filing a complaint must fill out this form completely and submit it to the

principal. All complaints will be processed in accordance with and (LOCAL) or any
exceptions outlined therein. Additional pages may be added as needed.

1. Student?s name Anthony Mazur

 

Parents? names Len and Mary Jo Mazur

 

2, Campus Flower Mound High School

 

3' Address 2700 Heather Wod Drive, Flower Mound, TX 75022

 

4. Telephone number (972)874'0673 (817)403-0141

 

 

5. Please state the date of the event or series of events causing the complaint:

6. Please state the date, time and name of the supervisor or principal with whom you met to informally
resolve your grievance:

 

 

Name of Principal or Supervisor: Jeffrey A. Brown, Assistant Principal Flower Mound High School

 

Page 1 of 3

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 45 of 83 PagelD 69

6a. What decisions were made or recommendations agreed upon as a result of the informal resolution
conference?

It was agreed upon that Anthony would remove his Flickr site from the Internet while the complaint

 

process moved fonNard. This action was taken, not as an admission of guilt to the Directive, but rather

 

to ensure no negative information would be a part of Anthony?s transcript record.

 

6b. Please state what issues were not resolved in the informal resolution meeting:

The issue as to whether or not Anthony has the right to post pictures he takes of FMHS sporting events

 

to the Internet for pro?t was not resolved and no supporting policy information or governing law was

 

materially cited as a reason for Anthony to remove the site.

 

7. Please state your complaint, including the individual harm alleged.
Paragraph 2 of the Directive claims that various parties, including the administration, ?expect? pictures

 

taken during these events be used for the ?sole purpose? for school related publications. Anthony was

 

never told of such expectations, nor did he agree to such expectations either verbally or in writing.

 

Therefore he can not be in violation of an ?expectation? that was never communicated.

 

The same paragraph also claims that access to equipment and facilities allows the school to take such

 

actions as listed in the Directive. According to Board policy, it does not. Further, the policy states

 

that the copyright for Anthony?s works, remains with Anthony - not the school. By requesting that he

 

?cease and desist? from posting and selling these pictures, the school is imposing a prior restraint

 

violation of Anthony?s freedom of speech rights, as well as monitarily effecting his ability to conduct

 

commerce via his Flickr website. Additonally, we feel that AP Jeffrey Brown acted in a coercive and

 

intimidating fashion when originally speaking with Anthony. Mr Brown made references in the context of

 

not asking for revenues generated from the site to be returned to the school and that he would not report

 

any of this to the IRS. Also, Mr Brown inquired as to whether Anthony was going to ?le a lawsuit in this

 

case. We feel these were scare tactics to get Anthony to comply with the directive and these threats

 

were out of line with the way school administrators should be engaging with students.

 

Page 2 of 3

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 46 of 83 PageID 7O

8. Please state specific facts of which you are aware to support your complaint (list in detail).

Copvrightl Picture Ownership: Title 17 of the United Staes Code, CY Local Lewisville ISD

061902, student shall retain all rights to work created as part of instruction or using District

 

technology resources.

 

 

?Posting/Selling lmages:FNAA Legal Local: There is nothing contained
in these documents prohibiting Anthony from posting for personal use, or for profit, pictures that he

legally owns (whether working on school projects or not)

 

 

Expectations Sole Purpose: The references to ?expectations? and ?sole purpose? use in the

 

Directive was never communicated to Anthony either verbally or in writing, and he never

 

agreed verbally, or in writing, to those conditions.

 

?Special Access?: Anthony is not the only person with special access to these sporting events.

 

Others have press passes and are on the ?oor and in dugouts with the intention of using

 

photography for use In non-school publications and/or commerce for profit.

 

9. Please state the remedy you seek for this complaint.

We are asking that the school lift the Administrative Directive and allow Anthony to repost his website

 

without fear of school punishments or marks on his school record as described in the existing Directive.

 

 

 

Page 3 of 3

Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 47 of 83 PageID #: 71

April 27, 2015
To: Superintendant Tommy Ellington
Re: Notice of Appeal to the Superintendent – Level Two
This is Anthony Mazur and Parents Notice of Appeal to the Superintendent – Level Two. Rational
for this complaint is indentified in this Level 1 document as text that is indented and italicized.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sonya Lail, Principal
Flower Mound High School
April 17, 2015
To: Len and Mary J o Mazur
Re: Complaint Response Level 1
Response of Level 1 Complaint
1. Student's Name: Anthony Mazur
2. Parent's Name: Len and Mary Jo Mazur
3. Campus: Flower Mound High School
4. Telephone Number: (h) 972-874-0673 (w) 817-403-0141
5. Please state the date of the event or series of events causing the complaint:
6. Please state the date, time and name of the supervisor or principal with whom you met to
informally resolve your grievance:
Date: 3117115 Time: 2:00pm
Name of the Principal: Jeffrey A. Brown, Assistant Principal Flower
Mound High School
6a. What decisions were made or recommendations agreed upon as a result of the informal
resolution conference? It was agreed upon that Anthony would remove his Flickr site from the
Internet while ·the complaint process moved forward. This action was taken, not as an admission of
guilt to the Directive, but rather to ensure no negative information would be a part of Anthony's
transcript/record.
Response: Anthony's Flickr site was removed as agreed and has stayed down
during this process. There has been no negative information added to Anthony's
transcript/records.

6b. Please state what issues were not resolved in the informal resolution meeting: The issue as to
whether or not Anthony has the right to post pictures he takes of FMHS sporting events to the
internet for profit was not resolved and no Supporting policy information or governing law was
materially cited as a reason for Anthony to remove the site.
Response: As we discussed before we met for the grievance conference, LISD
Board Policy CY (Local) states, "All copyrights, trademarks, and other
intellectual property rights shall remain with the District at all times." However,
even if the photographs are the student's intellectual property, I have determined
that the student's act of posting and selling the photographs at issue violated the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Pursuant to FERPA, a
school district may not disclose a record that contains personally identifiable
information regarding a student to an outside party without that student's parent's
written consent. See 34 C.P.R. § 99.30. However, a district may disclose such
1

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 48 of 83 PageID #: 72

information without parental consent if a stated exception applies. One such
exception is if the information has been designation by the school district as
"directory information." See 34 C.F.R. § 99.31.
LISD has designated what is "directory information" in its Board Policy FL
(LOCAL), which creates two separate categories of directory information: 1.
Items for use only for school sponsored purposes, and 2. Items for all other
purposes. Directory information for school-sponsored purposes is defined as
"student name, address, photograph, honors and awards, dates of attendance,
grade level, most recent school previously attended, participation in officially
recognized activities and sports, and weight and height of members of athletic
teams." For "all other purposes," directory information is defined as "student
names, honors and awards, and participation in officially recognized activities and
sports." Thus, in LISD, whether directory information may be released without
parental consent is dependent upon the purpose for which the information is being
released. In this case, when the student posted the pictures for sale on a third
party website, his purpose was clearly not a "school-sponsored" purpose, but fell
into the category of "all other purposes." Since a photograph is not listed as
directory information under "all other purposes," and since neither Anthony nor
his father provided evidence that he obtained written consent from the parent of
each student whose photograph was posted, the student improperly posted those
photographs on the third party website.
Further, I have determined that the student's actions are covered by FERPA in this
case because he took the photographs as part of his Yearbook class for which he
received academic credit from the school. He was given access to certain events
and was given district equipment to take these photographs solely because of his
enrollment in the Yearbook class. As such, these photographs are the educational
record of the students whose image was taken, and the District may not release
such records without written parental consent. When the student posted those
photographs on the third party site, the records were released and the District has
an interest in preventing such a release from occurring.
In light of these policies, it is my determination that the photographs are not
Anthony's intellectual property since he took them while at school-sponsored
FMHS sporting events while earning credit for his Yearbook class. Alternatively,
even if the photographs are his intellectual property, when Anthony posted the
photographs on the third party website, the District arguably violated FERPA
because the photographs were not "directory information" as defined by Board
Policy and he did not obtain written permission from the parent of each student
photographed before posting the information. As such, the administrative
directive letter issued to the student was appropriate.

2

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 49 of 83 PageID #: 73

Anthony Mazur and Parent Response: Ms. Lail’s determinations stated here in 6b are based on
a mis-reading of the policies that she is citing.
1. CY Local, paragraph #2 (“Student”) clearly states that “a student shall retain all rights to
work as created as part of instruction or using District technology resources”. Ms. Lail cites
the “Intellectual Property” portion of CY Local which states” All copyrights, trademarks,
and other intellectual property rights shall remain with the District”. This would seem in
direct contradiction to the “Student” portion of the document until you arrive at the proper
reading of these two statements.
Both the “Intellectual Property” and the “Student” sections can coexist in the same document
without contradiction because they refer to separate rights under the guideline. The “Student” is
unequivocally clear. The student retains all rights EVEN as part of instruction OR using District
technology resources. The “Intellectual Property” section reserves copyrights and trademarks to
the school, but the application of this guideline refers to copyrights and trademarks that the
school owns. For example, a student (or anyone else except the school), could not use the image
of the Flower Mound High School mascot to reproduce hats, t-shirts, mugs etc. because that
trademark is owned by the school.
In Anthony’s case, there is no trademark or copyright infringement because the works that he is
producing and selling are his property.
A further reading of the CY Local documents lists a section on “Permission”. This paragraph
clearly states “District materials do not include student work, all rights to which are retained by
the student”.

FERPA - DIRECTORY INFORMATION
“Pursuant to FERPA a school district may not disclose a record that contains personally
identifiable information regarding students…” In this case Anthony is not “The District”. He is
free to publish his own works under Title 17 US copyright law, CY Local, and TASB legal
guidelines as stated below. The school does not own the rights to Anthony’s work, thus the
District is in no position to claim they (or he) are in violation of posting to a school Directory. In
essence, the District cannot violate something that the District did not do.
Ms. Lail also references Board Policy FL (Local) referring to “Directory Information”. The
pictures that Anthony has taken and posted to his personal Flickr site are not District Property
(see CY Local), nor are they part of a District directory..

EDUCATIONAL RECORDS OF STUDENTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
On page two / paragraph 3 & 4 of this document Ms Lail references FERPA with regard to
educational records of students and Anthony’s Intellectual Property rights.
TASB Legal Services document ©2011 states: “Students may draw a picture, record a song, or
create another type of original work as part of a class assignment. Though the student may
develop the work at the direction of the school, the district is not automatically entitled to
distribute the work. Copyright law does not include special provisions on ownership of student
works similar to the work for hire provisions addressing employee works. Therefore, the
copyrights associated with student works should be considered to be like that of third party

3

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 50 of 83 PageID #: 74

works. The student holds the copyright to the work and may choose to transfer the right or give
the district permission to use the work 17 U.S.C. § 201 (a), (d).”
The repercussions of the TASB guideline are significant. The proper reading of this guideline is
stating that the student owns his work, even as part of a class assignment – which Ms. Lail
clearly alleges in page 2 paragraph 3 of this document. Further, because Anthony created this
work as part of his Yearbook Class, such work is part of HIS educational record. As such, THE
DISTRICT cannot distribute Anthony’s works without his and ours (as parents) permission. In
Anthony’s case, he owns the pictures that were provided to the Yearbook class, but did not
transfer copyright or permissions for the school to distribute. This could mean that the school
may be in violation of Anthony’s Educational Record and copyright ownership by printing and
distributing the 2015 Flower Mound High School Year Book.

4

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 51 of 83 PageID #: 75

1. Please state your complaint, including the individual harm alleged.
Paragraph 2 of the Directive claims that various parties, including the
Administration, "expect" pictures taken during these events be used for the
"sole purpose" for school related publications. Anthony was never told of
such expectations, nor did he agree to such expectations either verbally or in
writing. Therefore he cannot be in violation of an expectation that was never
communicated. The same paragraph also claims that access to equipment
and facilities allows the school to take such actions as listed in the Directive.
According to Board Policy, it does not. Further, the policy states that the
copyright for Anthony's works, remains with Anthony - not the school. By
requesting that he "cease and desist" from posting and selling these pictures,
the school is imposing a prior restraint violation of Anthony's freedom of
speech rights, as well as monetarily effecting his ability to conduct commerce
via Flickr website. Additionally, we feel that AP Jeffrey Brown acted in a
coercive and intimidation fashion when he originally spoke with Anthony.
Mr. Brown made references in the context of not asking for revenues
generated form the site to be returned to the school and that he would not
report any of this to the IRS. Also, Mr. Brown inquired as to whether
Anthony was going to file a lawsuit in this case. We feel these were scare
tactics to get Anthony to comply with the directive and these threats were out
of line with the way school administrators should engage with students.
Response: Mr. Brown referenced to Anthony during their 3/16/15 meeting that
journalism/yearbook students have a symbiotic relationship which allows them
access to athletic facilities and events. This relationship allows students to
complete school assignments such as photos to be used in school publications .
. The expectations referred to in the Administrative Directive were explained
verbally and distributed in written document form to Anthony and his parents the
following day.
Anthony Mazur and Parent Response: The “expectation” that Ms Lail refers to was created
after the fact. Mr. Brown used this previously non-communicated expectation as a key element in
his original Administrative Directive that accused Anthony of a violation. The fact that this
“expectation” was first communicated on 3/16/15, as per Ms Lail’s response above, ,
demonstrates that there was no prior expectation. Thus, this portion of the Administrative is not
applicable and should be removed from the Directive.
In the school's initial meeting with Mr. Brown on 3/16/2015, Mr. Brown
explained to Anthony that there were multiple outcries by students who felt
exploited by having their pictures sold online without their permission. These
students told a teacher who then informed Mr. Brown. After investigating their
complaint, Mr. Brown conferenced with Anthony and attempted to use this as a
teachable moment. Mr. Brown asked questions that were thought-provoking such
as, "Did you get permission to sell the pictures? Have you talked to the coach or
booster clubs about this? Have you considered the IRS and taxes?'' Mr. Brown
asked these questions with the purpose of having Anthony think about this
situation from all points of view. Mr. and Mrs. Mazur did voice their concern
regarding perceived intimidation and coercion during their parent/administrative
meeting on 3-17-15. Mr. Brown apologized directly to the student at that parent
meeting for any intimidation that Anthony may have felt, as that was not his
intent.
5

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 52 of 83 PageID #: 76

Anthony Mazur and Parent Response: Ms. Lail’s recollection of Mr. Brown’s “teachable
moment” is not entirely accurate. Her description of how Mr. Brown engaged Anthony differs
from Anthony’s version of what occurred. Specifically, according to Ms. Lail, Mr. Brown asked
an open ended question “Have you considered the IRS and taxes.” If it had been framed in this
way, you may conclude the dialogue was constructive in nature and meant to be thought
provoking. However, Anthony recalls the tone and actual wording of Mr. Brown’s word to be
more of a statement rather than a question. Anthony recalls this portion of the meeting as Mr.
Brown stating: that “He (Mr. Brown) would not be asking me to return money I made on the site
and he would not report to the IRS that I am not filing taxes.” Additionally, according to
Anthony, Mr. Brown stated that “He, as a Principal, could exercise administrative discretion and
could enforce punishment on me”. This is a vastly different account that what Ms. Lail is
reporting based on her conversation with Mr. Brown.
By employing this style of engagement with Anthony and stating that if Anthony did not take down
his Flickr site before any violations were proven, we believe Mr. Brown has exercised a form of
prior restraint censoring Anthony’s free speech prior to proving any of the District’s allegations.
While we are not seeking a remedy for this situation at this time, I would like it to be known that
this encounter between Mr. Brown and Anthony, in my opinion, fell very short of being either
“thought provoking” or representing what is acceptable to meet the minimum standards of what
is a “teachable moment”.

6

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 53 of 83 PageID #: 77

2. Please state specific facts of which you are aware to support your complaint
(list in detail). ·
Copyright/Picture Ownership: Title 17 of the United States Cody, CY Local
Lewisville ISD 061902, "A Student shall retain all rights to work created as a
part of instruction or using District technology resources.

Response: Anthony is allowed access to our Athletic Facilities and use of our
FMHS District Technology equipment such as cameras, under the guidelines that
he is producing work (photographs) that will be used for Flower Mound High
School publications (yearbook/newspaper).
Anthony Mazur and Parent Response: Use of school resources and technology does not grant
the right to the District of infringing on Anthony’s copyrighted materials.
CY Local, paragraph #2 (“Student”) clearly states that “a student shall retain all rights
to work as created as part of instruction or using District technology resources”
Ms. Lail’s reference to “under the guidelines” he is producing work that will be used for Flower
Mound High School publications (Yearbook/newspaper)” does not preclude his copyright
protection or freedom to express his work in channels / media of his choice.
CY Local, paragraph #5 (“Permission”)” …District materials do not include student
work, all rights to which are retained by the student.”
With regard to “access”; multiple parties have similar access that has been granted to Anthony
for picture taking purposes. To my knowledge, no similar restrictions have been exercised
against these parties in ways that are being applied to Anthony. This includes parents of students
who have been witnessed on the floor, journalists from the Dallas Morning News, Star Local
Media, and WFAA. In fact, the Dallas Morning News has a gallery of student images available
on their website for sale. I’m unsure if they are aware that the District believes these hosted
pictures are a violation of a student’s “Educational Record”.

Posting/Selling Images: FNAA Legal/Local: There is nothing contained in
these documents prohibiting Anthony form posting for personal use, Or for
profit, pictures that he legally owns (whether working on school projects or
not)

Response: LISD Board Policy CY (Local) states, "All copyrights, trademarks, and
other intellectual property rights shall remain with the District at all times." As
described in detail above, the District arguably violated FERPA when Anthony
posted the Pictures on the third party website.
Anthony Mazur and Parent Response: Again this is a mis-application of CY (Local).
See Page 3 #1 of this document
Also – FERPA does not apply, as Anthony is not the “District” and thus is not restricted
to distribute his copyrighted materials

7

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 54 of 83 PageID #: 78

Expectations/Sole Purpose: The references to "expectations" and "sole
purpose" used in the Directive was never communicated to Anthony either
verbally or in writing, and he never agreed verbally, or in writing, to those
conditions.

Response: Expectations were communicated in writing (Administrative Directive)
and verbally (Parent/Student Meeting on 3/17/15) immediately after Mr. Brown
was made aware of the situation and an investigation had occurred. On 3/6/1 5,
Mrs. Jones, yearbook teacher, met with Anthony and also had a discussion for
him to remove his site and to cease selling the pictures. No discipline
accompanied this directive if the Flickr site was taken down, which was removed
and has remained down to date.
Anthony Mazur and Parent Response: Again this expectation was communicated after the fact
that pictures were posted on Anthony’s personal Flickr site. Thus it can NOT be materially cited
in the Administrative Directive as the foundation of the violation – as it never existed prior to
3/16/15.
"Special Access": Anthony is not the only person with special access to these
sporting events. Others have press passes and are on the floor and in dugouts
with the intention of using photography for use in non-school publications
and/or commerce for profit.

Response: Anthony is not the only photographer allowed special access to FMHS
sporting events. However in those cases an agreement and/or written contract
exists between the District Booster Clubs, and/or campus to allow pictures to be
taken by those individuals/businesses per that contract. Additionally, Anthony
had permission from the school to take photographs because of his enrollment in
the Yearbook class. That access was granted for the purpose of inclusion in the
yearbook, on the District's website, and for other school-sponsored purposes. The
District never gave Anthony permission to use the photographs for other
purposes, such as posting them for sale on a third party website.

Anthony Mazur and Parent Response: See Page 7 / Response #2
3. Please state the remedy you seek for this complaint: We are asking that the
school lift the Administrative Directive and allow Anthony to repost his
website without fear of school punishments or marks on his school record as
described in the Directive.

Response: Following our level one grievance meeting held on 4/13 /2015, my
decision is that this remedy is denied and that Administrative Directive stands_
Anthony Mazur must remove all postings to any third party website of FMHS
student photographs when such photographs were taken using District equipment
and in the scope of his responsibilities for the Yearbook class.

8

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 55 of 83 PageID #: 79

Anthony Mazur and Parent Response:.
Conclusion and Remedy Request:
We believe that the Administrative Directive which was given to Anthony on 3/16/15 was
based on Board policy guidelines that were both misapplied and/or misinterpreted by
Flower Mound High School.
The responses that we have put forth in this Level Two filing, and the supporting
documents we have referenced, clearly illustrates Anthony’s standing to maintain his
copyright authority and use his work as the laws and policy provides.
Ms. Lail, in filing her Level One response, has provided no policy or existing laws that
prevent Anthony from posting his work in ways that he wishes to do so. In fact, the
documents that Ms Lail has put forth actually strengthen Anthony’s rights to post his
work as he chooses. Further, many of her quoted documents unequivocally provide
ownership rights and protections that reside with Anthony, regardless of her personal
positions on guidelines regarding “Access”, “Use of District Equipment”, “Educational
Records” and “Expectations/ Sole Purpose”.
With regard to “Expectations / Sole purpose”, I would like to reemphasize the fact that
Ms Lail admits that prior to3/16/15 no verbal or written communication was in place as
to how these photographs were to be used. Yet – this was the basis of the Administrative
Directive. In Essence saying an “expectation” was violated when in reality there was
never any “expectation” communicated. This was an “after-the-fact” assumption on
part of the school and should never have been included in the Administrative Directive.
Also in the original Administrative Directive was a reference to Anthony profiting from
the posting of his work. Specifically, the only mandated steps for Anthony to take to
escape disciplinary action were in reference to “profit”. However, nothing in Ms Lail’s
response supports the case that Anthony CANNOT profit from his work. In fact, the word
“profit” never appears in any of the text of Ms. Lail’s explanations of her position.
When you couple these two elements of the Administrative Directive;
Expectations that were never communicated, and
Profit that Ms. Lail fails to address in her response,
The directive has very little standing. For these reasons, we are asking for relief of the
original Administrative Directive and allow Anthony to move forward with the posting of
pictures he legally owns and whose freedom of expression is protected speech under the
constitution. In addition, we feel that his actions are in compliance with all board policy
guidelines and we have provided the documentation that supports our view.

9

 Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 56 of 83 PagelD 80

in
Louisville
I Independent 400 W. Main Street
School District Lewisuile. Texas ?505?

T0 EXCELLENCE

 

469-713-5206

TOMMY W. ELLINGTON
Executive Director/ Student Services

Date: May 18, 2015

Level Two Notice of Appeal

Student and/or parent?s name Anthony Mazur
Campus Flower Mound High School
Address 2700 Heather Wood Drive, Flower Mound. TX 750;;

Telephone number [9721874-0673(w) {817} 403-0141
To whom did you last present your complaint? Principal Sonya Lail Date of

conference 04(1312015

6. If you will be represented by a parent or other adult in pursuing your



complaint, please identify the individual representing you.

Name Len and Mary Jo Mazur

Address 2700 Heather Wood Drive, Flower Mound, TX 75022
7 Attach a copy of your original complaint.

8 Attach a copy of the Level One decision being appealed.

Student and/or parent signature

 

Date submitted 4127115
Background:

It was brought to the attention of Flower Mound High School that Anthony Mazur
had posted images taken with District technology devices to his Flickr account for
sale without the knowledge or permission of certain Flower Mound High School
students. Anthony Mazur was given an administrative directive to cease and desist
from posting images taken when he was using District technology devices and given
special access to certain events. A Level One complaint was filed with Sonya Lail,
Principal of Flower Mound High School. Ms. Lail responded to the complaint on
April 17, 2015.

 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 57 of 83 PageID 81

A Level Two appeal was filed on April 27, 2015. A meeting was held on May 7, 2015
with Len and Mary Jo Mazur at the office of Tommy Ellington.

Response to Level Two Appeal

Anthony Mazur was not in violation of Lewisville ISD Board Policy CY (Local) nor of
FERPA regulations protecting student information by posting to his Flickr account
any images taken prior to the administrative directive dated March 17, 2015
(attached). Anthony Mazur may not post any images taken with District technology
devices or while given special access as part of any assignment for school courses
after March 17, 2015.

Lewisville Independent School District and its administrators may issue
administrative directives to govern unforeseen situations that may arise in the
course of education of the District?s students. The administrative directive issued by
Sonya Lail on March 17, 2015, is appropriate due to the concerns expressed by
students whose images were taken with District technology devices and posted
without the student?s permission. This directive will become part of any/all courses
where images are taken with District technology devices and special access is given
to the student(s).

Sincerely,

Tommgalington

Executive Director/Student Services

 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 58 of 83 PageID 82

Flower Mound High School
Administrative Directive

Date: 3-17-15
To: Anthony Mazur

From: Jeffrey A. Brown, Assistant Principal Flower Mound High School

This letter is to serve as documentation of an Administrative Directive for Anthony
Mazur. The student has been noti?ed by administration to cease or desist the
following action(s].

FMHS yearbook and journalism students are given special access to equipment,
facilities and students when working on the behalf for the purpose of
completing classroom projects and assignments. students, parents, teachers,
coaches, and administration expect pictures taken during these situations be used
fOr the sole purpose of school related publications. Anthony has violated this
understanding when he posted pictures on Flicker for personal gain. As a result of
this violation the following directives are given.

Anthony must remove all postings of FMHS student pictures where Anthony
has profited or has the potential to pro?t by 3-18-15.

Anthony is not allowed to post pictures of FMHS students to any form of
mass communication with the intent to profit.

Non-compliance with this directive may result in:
- Denied access of FMHS press credentials and equipment with the exception
of school speci?c assignments
Denied access to some or all FMHS extracurricular activities
0 Such as journalistic access to ?oors or dugouts
- Disciplinary actioos as deemed appropriate by FM HS administration

Please contact the appropriate administration if you have questions or concerns
about this letter. Please sign and return a copy ofthis letter and retain one for your
own records.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.



Studewt?t? 
Parent signature: {J?r 2"?ij date: ?3'17?5'

74:

 

Administrator signature: date:

 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 59 of 83 PagelD 83

EXHIBIT 
LEWISVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE BOARD LEVEL THREE

This form must be filled out completely by a student andfor parent appealing a Level Two decision, or
the lack of a timelyr response after a Level Two conference. to the Board in accordance with
and (LOCAL) or any exceptions outlined therein.

1. Name

 

2. Campus

 

3. To whom did you last present your complaint?

 

Date of conference

 

4. If you will be represented by a parent or other adult in pursuing your complaint, please identify the
individual representing you.

Name

 

Address

 

 

Telephone number t? i
5. Attach a copy of your original complaint.

6. Attach a copy of the Level One and Level Two decisions being appealed, if applicable.

Student andfor parent signature

 

Date submitted

 

Page 4 of 4

 



       
     
    
 




EXHIBIT 
LEWISVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

 
 
   

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE BOARD - ?if.

i.
Vin-l:




This form must be filled out completely by a student 
the lack of a timely response after a Level TWO eonrerenee. td smell
and (LOCAL) or any exceptions outlined thereln.

Name Anthony Mazur

Campus Flower Mound High School

5 

Date Of conference 05,07,2015

. If you will be represented by a parent or other adultiin {autism 615individual representing you.



Name Len 8: Me .10 Magur

--.

      
 


. 


Address 2700 Heather Weoel Dn?izi
?FleWer Menm?hit 

numba? 9.72 874-0678

5. Attach 

.: 


.L


5- Attache-t3? 
Case D: 1 Wed 03/21/18 Page ?50 gt 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 61 of 83 PageID 85



(5

REAL mneva-rien Temmyr Ellington Executive Directer
$11155, Student Services

 

see W. Main StreetI Lewisville. TX 75115?
icne {459] 113-52115 fax 3513-94157

Date: May 29:. 2015

Te: Mr. and Mrs. Maser
Re: Level 111  Grievance

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mazun

This letter is te inferin yen that new material pertinent te yeur Level Ill
grievance scheduled te be heard by the LISD Beard ef Trustees en June
15, 21115 will be presented tn the beard. By rule yen must be made
aware eftliis new evidence at least three (3) days befere the hearing.
The new evidence eneeinpasses the District AUP agreement as well as a
eepv ei the deenrnent signed by Mary Je Maser stating the AUP had
been read and agreed te eentent. A eepjv ef each is enelesed fer the
hearing June 15, 2015.

Sincerely, 

Tengten

Executive DirectertStudent Services

 

 

 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 62 of 83 PageID 86



 

Hmna --.- l??lu?li? anllins

il? Eustmn Farms Tab 

Cualmn Palms

madam
?TE-ElLaur
HTS-Email

HTS-SEEK:

Em Public
MTH. Flt-i.
HEDE- 
Alla
NEDE- Ellm
HSUE- GT 
Hfi?E- Hun-m
HSUJE- 
HEDE- 
HEDE- UCLIJ
FRG lil??liltfi
HII Frog

55: HS Hequ
35 HS ltnqu
Frag


AlvFIiEl-l.

 

Erin-ni- II .-.

Custom Farms 'I'ub? Emil}:- - - - Dili?l?ll??
runl'mhum?. Ir

MUUHIJ 33 {?lm -r



ILL-mum L'ul

Educalud

 

Mama] Gus-Hm u.

Ullm ?dmlnistm?un Hope-1 : 

Semi-:25 ?tness Plus

I r? 1, Fm?u?ns? 'u?tn'l'u'nnuwr :h-?Ilahl?rrtnuwcl



Guam-u :mm?munm 1 Enm. Emu-o1. 

mum tnq?sfaj'f?'u?l Misanlnii??h?rnul unm- 1 Hummulwm 

 

?udnnl-tuawm?luun EMHAHUEL II 1 U?angesl Md 

 

ETE-AUP

 

'4


F7 Etudnnl. Ftnul?t chucttm

mm 

 

 



 

 

Paga111

 

 

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 63 of 83 PagelD 87

I-?entt: 

 

tree

til. 
leu?l-ITF.
I

 

 

Student: illn?llt. r?ti'fl'lt?i'i?r

?letie'?intl ll}: 

itlellt'

Independent Echeel District
Studenl Guidelines [or Tacltnelemr lteseurces
pere ies estudr'enies seem tes recurses tecireiegices

 

 

 

Internet Click: HERE [er the AUP er ge Ie:
{click on Ferms}

en el Internet: .i'tUF? er
I'Iillili?l?lil'lJiEtlJ'l?t [hege clic cn Ferms]

 

 

Hy- this lernt cemplelcd. I af?rm that I have med end
discussed 'l'riII'I my Int-I.- SludEInl Guidelines fer
Technelemt Heseurees- lundetslend lltetulele?en eI litese
previsiens result In suspenslen er revecelien el sye1em
access. as well as epprepriete disciplinary action. Ii I have
any regarding these guidelines. I slteuld direct
lhesc quesliens te Ilte principal ei the campus. Principal
email addresses l'li?ji be feund by using] lhe ietlewtng rink
and eliciting en echeel 
[Select the campus]

Al mereer esle ietnmlerie cemplele, ?t'e alirme que lie leide 1; tliseulide cen
ntis Itl]es Ies Dircetriccs tic! cslutliantc pare lee Resumes tleTEcueleufa-
Te enliende que EllaltluiEI tn'eleelen de dishes regles uede res uller en la
suspen slen del dereehe dc eeccse el slsteme, el iguel clue
en la disciplinerie eprepiede. Si Ienge algune pregunle cen
respecle esles direclrices. dehe t'liligillas el direeler del planlel- Les
diteecieues de ceriee clienlee de les direeleres se pueden encentrer
ulsitende el slgnienle enlecn 5' Iteelcnde clic en in inlerrnecien de le
escucle.

{?elneciene nl plenteL}

 

 

that my child's use til the Lewis?llu ISD
nieeltmtit: system Is net missile and 1 IrIt Iltc
tiisliiet will meetjlm cut cempnler syslent.

 

't'e cnlienrle que el use dc Eicclninlcn dc
anisvi-ile per nnrle tie :ni Inje en es plitredu due Lewisei'ee 
manner-e [Hit In anti-aided en dieltn sislemrt Lie 

I agree te ellew my student access In LIED Tecllnelegy Reseurees in tile pretrisiens eutllned in the
Acceptehle Llse Penile]! referenced nieetreJ
Ester tie ecuerde en cue mi esiurlr'ente tearye ies .Fiecurses de Tecneiegie tie MED tie ecueide ceir ies
dispesieienes desen'ies en la Petitice rte Use Accidental mcucr'acedes enien'ennente.



If vet: de net merit the hen sleeve yenr student may be preltthiled irent using LIED Technelegy Reseurces. i Hr? ester! m:
mum: .in min rt'u.? :m-r'lim. .rr sir unri'rn?ren't' .34: is music pmhibr'r' t'i use tic he Remnants tic Tct'ueiegr'rr uric 

 

eel ParenUGu ardlatt Heme lit-?teeters eel pedreImedre?uler a m?euine} Meryl Je Mezur

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 64 of 83 PageID 88
I

SD

meme-Hano?

. I. 

 

Student Acceptable Use Policy

Lewisvillc Independent School District provides a variety of electro nic eommu nieations systems for educational
purposes. The electronic communications system is de?ned as the District?s network {including the
wireless network), servers, computer workstations, mobile technologies, peripherals, applications,
databases, online resources, Internet access, email, and any other technology designated for use by
students, including all new technologies as they become available. This also includes any access to the
Lewisvillc ISD electronics system while on or near school property, in school vehicles and at school-sponsored
activities, and includes the appropriate use of district technology resources via off?campus remote access.
Please note that the Intemet is a network of many types of communication and infortnation networks, including
Web 1.0 resources thlogs, Wikis, Podcasts, etc}, and is part of the district?s electronic communications
systems. Web 1f} applications offer a variety of 21"? Century communication, collaboration, and educational
creativity opportunities. in a 2151 {Centuryr school system, technologies, the Internet, and Web 2.0 tools are
essential.

In accordance with the Children?s Internet Protection Act, Lewisvillc Independent School District educates staff
and students regarding appropriate online behavior to ensure Internet safety, including use of email and Web ll]
resources, and has deployed filtering technology and protection measures to restrict access to inappropriate
content such as those that are illegal, harmful, or contain potentially offensive information. While every effort
is made to provide the most secure and optimal learning environment, it is not possible to absolutely prevent
access {accidental or otherwise} to inappropriate content- It is each student?s responsibility to follow the
guidelines for appropriate and acceptable use.

Web 1t] and Digital ooIs

Students 13 or younger.

For students under the age of 13, the Children?s Cinline Privacy Protection not suggests that a school
district maintain a list of the websites and online services appropriate for educational use it has consented to on
behalf of the parent 

LISD maintains a district list of suggested classroom digital tools at: id=2964.

LISD will always use digital tools or apps in a way that is consistent with the Children?s Unline Privacy
Protection Act.

Parents may deny access to any specific digital tool by notify_i_rig their child?s campus administrator in writing.

USE

I- Students will adhere to good digital citizenship expectations

in Studean must only open, view, modify, and delete their one: computer ?les.

Internet and bandwidth usage at school must be directly related to school assignments during class time

I Students will be assigned individual email and network accounts and must use only those accounts and
passwords that they have been granted permission by the district to use. All account activity should be
for educational purposes only.

I Students must im mediately report threatening messages or diseemforting Internet tiles! sites to a teacher.

. Students must at all times use the district?s electronic communications system, including email, wireless
network access, and Web 2.3 toolsireseurces to communicate only in ways that are kind and respectful.

I Students are responsible at all times for their use of the district?s electronic communications system and
must assume personal responsibility to behave ethically and responsibly, even when technology
provides them freedom to do otherwise.

Ircase Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 65 of 83 PagelD 89

ISD

IIAL 1WATQH
uHrruu 
. I. . . 

 

Students will use LIST) guest wifi access for filtering purposes on Bring Your Clive Eschatology devices.

INAPPRUPRLETE USE

Wireless Hotspots not provided by LIED are prohibited on the LIED network.

Using the district?s electronic communications system for illegal purposes but not limited to,
cyberbullying, gambling, pornography, and computer hacking.

Disabling or attempting to disable any system monitoring or filtering or security measures.

Sharing user names and passwords with others; andi?or borrowing someone else?s username, password,
or account access-

Purposefully opening, viewing, using or deleting files belonging to another system user without
permission.

Electronically posting data {including but not limited to audio recordings, video recordings, images, and
personal information] about others or oneself when it is not related to a class project and i or without the
permission of all parties.)

Downloading or plagiariaing copyrighted information without permission from the copyright holder-
intentionally introducing a virus or other malicious programs onto the district?s system.

Electronically posting messages or accessing materials that are abusive, obscene, sexually oriented,
threatening, harassing, damaging to another?s reputation, or illegal-

Gaining unauthorised access to restricted information or network resources.

SPECIAL NDTE: CYBEHBULLYING
Cyberbullying is de?ned as the use of any Internet-connected device for the purpose of bullying, harassing, or
intimidating another student. This includes, but may not be limited to:

Sending abusive test messages to cell phones, computers, or Internet?connected game consoles-

Posting abusive comments on someone?s blog or social networking site (cg, MySpaee or Facebook}.
Creating a social networking site or web page that masqueradcs as the victim?s personal site and using it
to embarrass hint or her.

Making it appear that the victim is posting malicious comments about friends to isolate him or her from
friend s-

l?osting the victim's personally identi?able information on a site to put them at greater risk of contact by
predators.

Sending abusive comments while playing interactive games.

Recording and distributing media with the intent to manipulate or embarrass others.

CDNSEQUENCES FGR INAPPROPRIATE USE

Appropriate disciplinary or legal action in accordance with the Student Code ofConduct and applicable
laws including monetary damages-

of access to the district's electronic communications system-

Revocation of the district?s electronic communications system andior

'l'ermination of System User Account: The district may deny, revoke, or suspend specific user?s access
to the district?s system with or without cause or notice for lack of use, violation ol'poliey or regulations
regarding acceptable network use, or as a result ofdisciplinary actions against the user-

Possiblc criminal action.

EMERGENCY 

 

 

[22139 Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 66 of 83 PageID 90

ISD

MLIHWAHM
umm
. .. 

. 

 

During an emergency situatien, students may enly use their cell phencs te centact 911. All ether calls will he in
vielatien ef the AUP. Status} actiens required, and eiTicial inferrnatien will he cemmunicated te parents and
ethers by the District.

Electrenie Cemmunieatien Devices: Bring Your ?wn Teenneiegp

is excited aheut the new learning eppertunities available threugh Bring Fear Techneiegy. It is cur
geal that students and teachers will cellaherate in rich: engaging learning experiences using teehnelegy.
Students may hring their ewn and utilise persenal electrenic devices at seheel and
at seheel activities. Students may use these devices in the classreem when the teacher deems them apprepriate
t?er educatienal purpeses. All devices must remain silent er he put away unless being used within a lessen
during class time. Students may else use devices dnring nenFinstructienal times, such as passing perieds, lunch
and heferei'aFter seheel.

Devices includci hut are net limited te, the t'ellewing: neteheeks, smart phnnes: iPhenes? iPads, iPeds, mp3
players and eReaders. r-?tll devices sheuld be clearly laheled with student?s full name. Students are rcspensible
fer persenal preperty hreught te seheel and sheuld keep persenal items with self er in it lacked space. Devices
sheuld he charged prier te bringing them te seheel.

In the event the technelegy is used inapprepriatcly; nerrnal disciplinary censenuenees may eccur.

Student Agreement:

I understand that my use ef the Lewisville electrenie cemmunieatien system is net private and that the
Lewisville ISD will meniter activity en the cemputer system.

I have read the district's dceeyn?niht'e Use Pairs}? and agree in abide by their previsiens.

I understand that vielatien ef these previsinns may result in suspensien er revecatiun e1? system access as well
as apprupriatc disciplinary actien.

Student Name (Please Print]

 

 

Campus Grade

 

StudentID

 

Student Signature

 

 

 

 

 Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 67 of 83 PageID 91
I

?mm
?hum mum-h-
. I . .

 

Parent Agreement:

I understand that my child's use of the Lewisvilie ISD eieetrenie eemmunieatien system is not private and that
the distriet will meniter aetivity en the eemputer system.

I have read the district's Use Faiies and agree to abide by their previsiens.

I understand that Vielatien ef these previsiens may result in suspension er reveeatien et?system access as well
as apprepriate diseij?slittatj.J aetien.

 

Parenti?uardian Print

 

 

FarenLiGuardian Name?Signature Date

Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 68 of 83 PageID #: 92

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Trisha Sheffield
President, Board of Trustees
Lewisville Independent School DIstrict
Sent via email: sheffieldt@lisd.net

FROM:

Len Mazur

DATE:

June 10, 2015

RE:

Supplemental Material for Level III grievance – Anthony Mazur
(Timeline / Requested Findings)

Timeline
March 16, 2015: Informal dispute resolution meeting with Assistant Principal Jeffrey Brown –
agreed that Flickr site would be removed while dispute pending; no agreement on Anthony’s
right to use photos for personal/commercial purposes.
March 17, 2015: Assistant Principal Brown provides “Administrative Directive” (dated
3/17/15) stating that Anthony must remove all pictures and “is not allowed to post pictures of
FMHS students to any form of mass communication with the intent to profit.” Appears to be
based on alleged “special access to equipment, facilities and students when working on the
behalf of FMHS for the purpose of completing classroom projects and assignments.”
Comment: Please note that this directive purports to prohibit Anthony from any sales of
photographs, even if he uses his own equipment and is not given “special access.” Also,
“special access” is not defined; Anthony’s pictures have been taken from areas that are
accessible to others with no credentials, such as parents.
April 13, 2015: Level One complaint presented to Principal Sonya Lail and Assistant Jeffrey
Brown.
April 17, 2015: Principal Lail responds to Level One complaint, apparently stating that (1)
copyright to LISD material is held by LISD; (2) even if Anthony owns the copyright, postings
violated FERPA because the photos contain personally identifiable student information.

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 69 of 83 PageID #: 93

Comment: Both of these assertions are erroneous. Please see the letter sent by the
Student Press Law Center.
April 27, 2015: Level Two appeal filed.
May 7, 2015: The Mazurs meet with Tommy Ellington, Executive Director/Student Services, on
Level Two appeal.
May 18, 2015: Level Two appeal findings issued: Anthony did not violate copyright, FERPA,
or anything else before the March 17, 2015 Administrative Directive. But “Anthony Mazur may
not post any images taken with District technology devices or while given special access as part
of any assignment for school courses after March 17, 2015.”
Comment: This finding is not consistent with the March 17, 2015 Administrative
Directive, which purports to bar Anthony from selling any photos, even if taken with his
own equipment and without “special access.” This finding is correct in its conclusion
that Anthony did not violate copyright, FERPA, or any school policy before March 17,
2015.
May 29, 2015: Letter from Mr. Ellington, stating that Level Three appeal is schedule to be
heard on June 15. LISD will rely on new material – the District Authorized Use Policy
agreement, and the document signed by Ms. Mazur acknowledging and agreeing to comply with
the AUP.
Comments on AUP
The District has not specifically stated why it believes the AUP is relevant. It appears, however,
to be arguing that the District’s cameras fall under the definition of “electronic communications
system” in the AUP, which states:
“The electronic communications system is defined as the District’s network (including
the wireless network), servers, computer workstations, mobile technologies, peripherals,
applications, databases, online resources, Internet access, email, and any other technology
designated for use by students, including new technologies as they become available.”
The District apparently plans to argue that one of the AUP’s listed “inappropriate uses” of the
“electronic communications system” is “Electronically posting data (including but not limited to
audio recordings, video recordings, images, and personal information) about others or oneself
when it is not related to a class project and/or without the permission of all parties.)” [sic; there
is an orphan close-parenthesis at the end]
First, Stand-alone cameras without the ability to connect to the District’s network would not
appear to fall under this definition.
Second, this provision of the AUP would not appear to apply at all to pictures taken with
privately owned equipment.

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 70 of 83 PageID #: 94

Requested findings
Pursuant to the foregoing, we would request that the Board make the following findings in
resolution of the Level Three appeal:
•

At no time has Anthony Mazur violated the District’s copyright, the District’s Authorized
Use Policy, or FERPA.

•

Anthony Mazur may republish (including posting to the Internet) all photographs he has
taken at LISD events that are open to the public.

•

Anthony Mazur may offer for sale all photographs he has taken at LISD events that are
open to the public.

•

Any LISD student may republish (including posting to the Internet) any photographs
taken by the student, with the student’s own equipment, at any LISD event that is open to
the public.

•

Anyone, including any LISD student, may offer for sale photographs taken by the person,
with the person’s own equipment, at any LISD event that is open to the public, unless the
photograph was taken from a location not accessible to the general public if access was
granted in exchange for an explicit agreement that the photograph would not be sold.

 Case 4:18? -00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 71 of 83 PageID 95

 

SWDENT PRESS \m The knowledge to speak responsibly. The courage to speak free/y.
I
7
I 1608 Rhode Island Ave. NW, Suite 211 (202) 785-5450
LAW CENTER Washington, DC. 20036 splc@splc.org
May 29, 2015
Trisha Shef?eld

President, Board of Trustees
Lewisville Independent School District
1800 Timber Creek Road

Flower Mound, TX 75028


-- VIA EMAIL -
Dear President Sheffield:

The Mazur family has contacted us about a situation at Flower Mound High School in
Texas. The facts as I understand them are as follows.

Anthony Mazur is presently a sophomore enrolled in a yearbook class. As part of his
participation in that class, he has taken pictures at school sporting events. He uploaded
some of these pictures to a lickr page; additionally, he sold copies to parents, attempted
to license the works to third party news organizations, and used the site as a portfolio
when seeking internships.

At these events, Anthony used school equipment to generate the photographs. He took
them from positions accessible to parents and other photographers.

Recently, Anthony was called down to the principal?s office, where the principal
asserted, among other things, that the school owned the copyright in the photographs
Anthony took at these events and that his use of them was somehow illegal. He was told
that he would be suspended unless he signed an Administrative Directive agreeing to
remove the pictures from Flickr; he is appealing that directive now. That appeal, now in
its third stage, will come before the Board of Trustees in a little over a week.

Based on the documentation the Mazur family has provided, the school?s rationale for
attempting to control Anthony?s speech has changed in each response. After making the
copyright claim, the principal?s ?ling in the Level II appeal (dated April 27, 2015) shifted
the argument to a claim that Anthony violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act, or FERPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232g. Most recently, the Superintendent changed the
rationale offered for the school?s position yet again (in a letter dated May 18, 2015),
asserting that the district views the prior disciplinary action against Anthony as an

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 72 of 83 PageID 96

attempt to announce a new policy that interferes with the ability to post student work in
the future when using school equipment or when granted special access to events.

The Mazur family has contacted the Student Press Law Center seeking information about
the legal propriety of the District?s actions. The Student Press Law Center is the only
legal assistance agency in the country devoted exclusively to educating high school and
college journalists on the latest developments in the law affecting the student press.
Having provided assistance to over 2,500 student journalists and educators last year
alone, we are happy to help, with the understanding that we do not ?represent? any
individuals as legal counsel. If and when students require legal advice or representation,
we ?nd volunteer counsel to represent them locally. (I am sending a copy of this
correspondence to a Texas attorney who may be willing to undertake such a
representation.)

Given the facts above, Anthony owns the copyright in his photographs. Ownership of the
equipment is unrelated to ownership of the media generated using that equipment.
Furthermore, the school?s actions have interfered with his ownership and legitimate
business interests.

Anthony did not, and could not, violate FERPA. FERPA does not apply to the actions of
students. The school?s directive purporting to limit the distribution of student-generated
materials is both ineffective and unconstitutional.

1. Copyright Law
A. Ownership of the medium is independent from the media generated.

In the words of the Copyright Act, ?[o]wnership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive
rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the
work is embodied.?1 While ownership of the means of production is a factor in analyzing
whether someone is an independent contractor (which will be examined below), that the
school?s camera was used to obtain the picture confers to the school no rights whatsoever
in the pictures taken with that camera.

This dichotomy is easier to understand outside the photographic context. When you buy
the Avengers on Blu-Ray, you?re taking ownership of a physical object?the disc itself?
but not the movie the Avengers. You have the right to loan that disc to your friend, but
you don?t have the right to make an unauthorized copy or sequel.

Camera memory cards are no different. The Copyright Act instructs us that the owner of
the media on the card is the ?author? of the work?that is, the individual who decided to

 

17 U.S.C. 202.

Student Press Law Center May 29, 2015

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 73 of 83 PageID 97

press the camera shutter at the moment the picture was taken.2 The intervention of the
photographer is what creates the photograph, because that action is what creates an
?original work of authorship? as required by the Act.3 Indeed, the district?s own policy
has re?ected this understanding until this point.4

B. Ownership of a picture vests in the photographer in every case unless
a Work for Hire exists.

The only situation where the photographer is not the owner of the image at the moment of
its creation is if a Work for Hire arrangement exists.5

When Congress enacted the 1976 C0pyright Act, effective 1978 (and still in force today),
it strictly limited the instances in which a copyright transfer would be automatic under the
Work for Hire doctrine. Under the updated doctrine:

A "work made for hire" is -

(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her
employment; or

(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a
collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a
translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as
a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in
a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work
made for hire.

Note that a work made for hire is the only way to automatically transfer copyright to a
third party; all other copyright transfers must be made expressly in writing.6

 

2 17 U.S.C. 201(a). See also Burrow-Giles Lithographic v. Sarony, 111 US. 53 (1884)
(finding that photographs were protected works of authorship). While Burrow-Giles was
decided under the 1790 Act, the Supreme Court has since recognized that the standard of
authorship it articulates ?remains the touchstone of copyright protection today.? eist
Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Svc. Co., 499 US. 340, 347 (1991).
3 17 U.S.C. 102(a) (?Copyright protection subsists. .. in original works of authorship
?xed in any tangible medium of (emphasis added).
4 Lewisville ISD Intellectual Property, adopted 05/10/2011, update 90.
5 See 17 U.S.C. 201(a) (vesting initial ownership in the author) and (works made for
hire).
6 See 17 U.S.C. 204(a) (transfer of copyright invalid unless in writing and signed by
owner); accord 17 U.S.C. 202 (transfer of physical object not a transfer of copyright
ownership).

3
Student Press Law Center May 29, 2015

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 74 of 83 PageID 98

C. Students are not employees.

Subsection 1) of the "work for hire" doctrine says that work prepared by employees in
the scope of their employment will qualify as "works for hire." This is measured by a
traditional agency relationship.

The Supreme Court set out a non-exhaustive list of factors used to evaluate whether one
party is an agent of another for copyright purposes; their list included:

(1) the skill required;

(2) the source of the instrumentalities and tools;

(3) the location of the work;

(4) the duration of the relationship between the parties;

(5) whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired
party;

(6) the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work;
(7) the method of payment;

(8) the hired party's role in hiring and paying assistants;

(9) whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party;

(10) whether the hiring party is in business;

(1 1) the provision of employee bene?ts; and

(12) the tax treatment of the hired party.8

Looking over the list makes clear just how impossible it is to shoehom high school
students into an employee role. Presumably, students are not paid to go to school, let
alone given bene?ts. Nor does either party have direct control over the duration of the
relationship; it?s a public school. You have to permit students to ?work? there, and the
students have to go.

But further analysis of the list can be avoided by seeing what else the Supreme Court
wrote: using the term ?employee,? the parties and con ress meant to refer to a
hired party in a conventional employment relationship.? (Emphasis added.)

Given that students aren?t hired, it?s hard to characterize attending a school to avoid
truancy as entering a conventional employment relationship. The lack of any choice to
enter the relationship and absence of any pay suggests the kind of employment Egypt
offered to the Israelites.'0

 

7 Committee for Creative Nonviolence v. Reid, 490 US. 730 (1989).
8 1d. at 751-52, citing Restatement [(Second) of Agency] 220(2).
9 Id. at 743.
'0 In which case, I would note that such employment is currently highly unconventional,
as it has been unconstitutional since 1865. See generally U.S. CONST. Amend. X111.
4
Student Press Law Center May 29, 2015

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 75 of 83 PageID 99

Nor would it be in the District?s interest to succeed in the assertion that students are
employees. If anything, the school would ?nd itself unable to answer dif?cult questions
that would follow.

For example: why has Anthony not been paid in accordance with minimum wage law? Is
the school?s workers? compensation insurance properly paying out any ?employees?
injured in the course of their work, such as class? Is the school meeting its
obligation to avoid sexual harassment among ?employees,? requiring the disclosure of
any relationships between employees and subordinates?

After all, if students were hired parties in a conventional employment relationship, they
wouldn?t be in that relationship only for intellectual property purposes?because that
itself would be unconventional.

D. Ownership can be transferred via a signed writing that complies with
the formalities of the Work for Hire doctrine, but no such document
exists or could be effectively imposed.

The statute does allow for transfers of a copyright under the ?work for hire? doctrine
outside of an employment relationship when a work is ?prepared or commissioned for
use in a collective wor and the ?parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed
by them that the work shall be considered a work made for The Supreme Court
has additionally opined that such a writing must be entered before the creation of the
work and identify the intent of both parties that the speci?c work to be created will be a
work for hire.?2

Based on our conversations, it doesn?t sound as if any such writing exists. (In fact, the
only document Anthony was required to sign was one obligating him to pay if the school
equipment was damaged?a document that tends to undercut any claims of employee
status.) Furthermore, as minors, most students (including Anthony) are free to void
contracts for non-essential items until they reach the age of majority; so even if the
school attempted to impose such a rule going forward, any student under 18 could simply
serve notice of the intent to cancel the agreement at any time.

But the school likely could not impose such a requirement. Students are compelled to
attend school by state law. The school cannot burden that obligation with the additional
requirement that students surrender their personal property as a condition of attending the
school. A school could no more demand the surrender of intellectual property as a
condition of enrolling in a yearbook class than it could demand the surrender of a
student?s car as a condition of enrolling in a driving class. That the property isn?t physical

 

17 U.S.C. 101 (?Work for Hire?).
'2 Reid, 430 vs. at 730.

Student Press Law Center May 29, 2015

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 76 of 83 PagelD 100

doesn?t make Anthony?s ownership less real, or entitle the school to deprive him of it;
such a scheme would be little more than extortion using state authority.

E. In the absence of a work for hire, copyrights can only be transferred
by signed writings, but no such document exists or could be imposed.

Given the above, the initial copyright in photographs taken during class activities or using
school equipment vests in the student photographer. I want to emphasize, however, that
transfers after the moment of creation still would require a student?s active participation.
All copyright transfers that occur after creation must be made expressly 1n writing with
the signature of the party who owns the copyright.13

Once again, Anthony has not entered into such an agreement, the school could not
compel him to do so; and he could void any such agreement until his 18th birthday, if he
did enter into one.

F. Schools cannot create, through policy or otherwise, intellectual
property ownership schemes that would bind students in ways other
than the ones enumerated by the federal government.

Federal copyright law preempts state copyright schemes, such that a theory of ?school
policy? permitting such a transfer 15 expressly forbidden by federal law.'4 As a public
school 18 a state entity, it could not possess more powers than the state itself, and the state
lacks the power to modify, limit, or alter the subject matter of Title 17 of the United
States Code (the copyright statute); federal law governs, under the Supremacy Clause of
the US. Constitution.

II. FERPA

As the Superintendent has already determined that Anthony?s Principal incorrectly
invoked FERPA when attempting to restrain his speech, I include this section only to
emphasize that the determination was not discretionary: Anthony did not, and could not,
violate FERPA through his actions.

FERPA prohibits schools receiving federal funds from having ?a policy or practice of
permitting the release of education records? without written parental (or student, if the
student has reached the age of majority) consent. The regulations accompanying ERPA
de?ne ?education records? as those [d]irectly related to a student; and (2)

 

'3 See 17 U.S.C. 204(a) (transfer of copyright invalid unless in writing and signed by
owner); accord 17 U.S.C. 202 (transfer of physical object not a transfer of copyright
ownership).

'4 17 U.S.C. 301(a).

Student Press Law Center May 29, 2015

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 77 of 83 PagelD 101

[m jaintained by an educational agency or institution or by a party acting for the agency
or institution.? 5

Reading the law, including a Supreme Court decision interpreting FERPA, together with
the regulations makes it clear that a document is only an education record within the
meaning of the statute if the particular copy in question is, in fact, the copy maintained by
the institution. Copies of student-produced work that are not those maintained by the
school such as those in the possession of the student author, for example are not
covered by 

Furthermore, even if these records fell within the scope of FERPA which they do not
Anthony?s disclosure of those records is not one regulated by the statute. FERPA
applies to disclosures of records maintained by a school and disclosed by school of?cials
and no one else.

It is entirely appropriate, for example, that school district create a policy regarding a
principal?s disclosure of student information to a news station during an interview. It is
wrong, however, to suggest that a student photographer who is neither a school
of?cial nor an agent of the school is under the same limitations in disclosing to third
party news stations the documentary material that he lawfully obtained during the
newsgathering process. '7

In fact, in the only reported case to directly address the question of FERPA's application
to student media, a federal district court in New York speci?cally recognized the limits
imposed by the First Amendment when it rejected a school principal's claim that FERPA
required him to con?scate copies of the school paper because it contained "con?dential"
information about students. '8

As Anthony is not an agent of the school (something we discussed in the copyright work
for hire section above), and his copies of the photographs are not education records,

FERPA has no application to his activity.

School directives.

 

'5 34 CFR 99.3.

'6 See 0wasso Indep. School Dist. v. Falvo, 534 US. 426, 433 (2002) ("The word

'maintain' suggests ERPA records will be kept in a ?ling cabinet in a records room at

the school or on a permanent secure database, perhaps even a?er the student is no longer

enrolled").

'7 Id at 433 (2002) (?nding that students unlike "teachers, administrators and other

school employees" are not agents "acting for" the school under FERPA).

'8 Frasca v. Andrews, 463 F. Supp. 1043, 1050 (E.D.N.Y. 1979) (refusing to extend

FERPA to student media because "the prohibitions of the amendment cannot be deemed

to extend to information which is derived from a source independent of school records?).
7

Student Press Law Center May 29, 2015

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 78 of 83 PagelD 102

The most recent communication from the Superintendent level seems to abandon all prior
explanations offered for this process, which is astonishing, given that his current position
includes no justi?cation whatsoever for why Anthony was called into the of?ce in the
?rst place, yet still insists the District can censor him going forward. '9

The district?s current position, as articulated in the its May 18 letter, seems to be that the
Principal?s attempt to discipline Anthony while citing copyright law and 
really an attempt to articulate a new rule with no basis in external law: that students
cannot post material generated with school equipment when special access is given to the
student in the use of that equipment.

A. The ?Jim Crow? problem.

A facially neutral regulation that has the intent and effect of restricting the exercise of
civil rights is still unconstitutional. Its use here is to acknowledge that the District?s rule
did not come to exist in a vacuum.

The name ?Jim Crow problem? comes from some of the laws passed in the South to
restrict the rights of black voters. Some of those laws, such as literacy tests at the polls,
were facially content-neutral but the laws themselves were enacted with the purpose
and effect of disenfranchising black voters, who had not been permitted to learn to read in
many states when enslaved.

Here, the district has attempted, unsuccessfully, to censor student expression for months,
using a revolving door of reasoning, before ?nally settling on a regulation that would
restrict certain First Amendment activities in the future. This pattern of censorship would
suggest the action is unconstitutional, even if the rule were facially neutral.

B. The rule is vague and appears to regulate no activity of which we are
aware.

Perhaps the oddest part of this rule is that it applies to none of the activity in which
Anthony was engaged. As he described the situation to me, he took pictures from places
where parents and others were taking pictures. There was no ?special access? in that
situation.

 

'9 The Superintendent?s Level II response seems to leave unanswered the question of
whether the Principal?s actions were objectively reasonable. If her actions were not
reasonable, then the district would not enjoy quali?ed immunity, even though it later
imposed a backdated rule; this is due to the linear nature of time making it impossible to
lawfully discipline students for actions taken before a rule existed. Cf The 11th Doctor,
Doctor Who SSEIO (?Is this how time normally passes? Really slowly? In the right
order??)

8
Student Press Law Center May 29, 2015

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 79 of 83 PagelD 103

Nor does the Superintendent?s response, which refers to the Principal?s failed discipline
as an ?administrative directive,? de?ne what else would constitute ?special access.?
Students already have access to the school building by virtue of their student status.

At one point, the letter says Anthony cannot post images ?taken with District technology
devices or while given special access,? and then later says the directive applies ?where
images are taken with District technology devices and special access is given? (emphasis
added). Given that the letter summarizes a directive that has never been articulated, it?s
impossible to tell which conjunction was intended.

C. The summary references pictures taken ?without the student?s
permission? as a justi?cation for restricting student speech in the future.

The summary uses the absence of permission from student athletes to post their
photographs as a justi?cation for imposing a blanket censorship rule. But permission
from the subjects of photographs is not needed to take or post news photographs, and the
First Amendment right to publish those works cannot be in?'inged based on an
administrator?s whim that he or she disagrees with how privacy law works.

To be subject to a privacy right (apart from FERPA, discussed above), the information in
question must be private to begin with. These are pictures of students at sporting events
where they not only expect to be seen by other people, but there are stands erected for the
primary purpose of permitting them to be observed by the public - and the school,
presumably, charges admission for the privilege.

If it is the District?s position that a student possesses a privacy right great enough to
prevent someone from taking pictures of the event, but not so great that it doesn?t prevent
the school from selling admission to watch the student up close, the District will come to
discover it is wrong.

D. The District?s directive as it presently exists would infringe on the First
Amendment rights of its students.

While this is perhaps beyond the scope of the Mazurs? present appeal, the
Superintendent?s May 18 response purports to announce a new rule that is facially
unconstitutional.

At its core, a directive that purports to restrict the distribution of student-owned work off-
campus is an attempt to assert administrative authority over student speech in the space
where state authority is at its lowest ebb: the home of the student. Such a rule attempts to
interfere with the rights of parents to determine the propriety of their child?s online
activities; it interferes with the federally-granted ownership of intellectual property; and it
interferes with the Constitutional limitations placed on the ability of state actors to

9
Student Press Law Center May 29, 2015

Case Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 80 of 83 PagelD 104

control student speech off-campus. If such a rule stands after this appeal, the District is
creating an astonishing potential for liability.

Given the above, it appears that the District has violated Anthony?s intellectual property
rights and interfered with his legitimate business relationships. This appeal is the Board?s
opportunity to resolve this issue without further public scrutiny or potential litigation, and
I urge you and your fellow board members to seize it.

I further urge the Board to immediately acknowledge these limitations on its authority;
permit Anthony to resume his uploading and sales of photographs; and remove any
adverse or disciplinary entries in Anthony?s record connected to this incident.

If the Mazur family cannot ?nd relief from the Board, the Student Press Law Center has
offered the family access to our Attorney Referral Network of pro bono attorneys to
assist them in obtaining judicial review of the District?s actions. We hope, of course, that
is not necessary.

I hope this information is helpful. Please don?t hesitate to contact us if you have further

questions.

Yours,

STUDENT PRESS LAW CENTER
Adam Gol em

Attorney Advocate

CC: Jim Hemphill, Graves Dougherty Hearon Moody
Len Mazur

10
Student Press Law Center May 29, 2015

Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 81 of 83 PageID #: 105
JT Morris
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Crownover, Jeff <CrownoverJ@lisd.net>
Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:50 AM
JT Morris
Gunter, Ingrid
Re: Correspondence re Mazur IP issues

JT, 
The District’s local Board policy on intellectual property can be found here: 
https://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/384?filename=CY(LOCAL).pdf.  Regardless of what individual employees 
told Anthony while he was a student here during the time when he decided to make a very public ordeal out 
of a matter that frankly could have very easily been resolved internally, the District abides by its own 
policy.  This policy should answer your questions. 
If you think it would help to set up a time to talk on the phone about this further, I am happy to do so. 
Jeff 
Jeff Crownover  
General Counsel 
Lewisville ISD 
1565 W Main Street 
Lewisville, TX 75067 
Phone: (469) 948‐8015 
Fax: (214) 626‐1813 
CrownoverJ@lisd.net 
Attorney‐Client Confidentiality Notice:This email and attached documents may contain privileged or confidential 
information or attorney work product. All information is intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you are not 
the named recipient, you are not authorized to read, disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the 
information.  If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify sender by e‐mail or telephone and 
permanently delete this e‐mail and its attachments. If you are the named recipient you are not authorized to reveal any 
of this information to any other unauthorized person. If you did not receive all pages listed or if pages are not legible, 
please immediately notify sender by phone or e‐mail. 

From: JT Morris <jt@jtmorrislaw.com> 
Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 5:09 PM 
To: Jeff Crownover <CrownoverJ@lisd.net> 
Cc: "Gunter, Ingrid" <GunterI@lisd.net> 
Subject: RE: Correspondence re Mazur IP issues 
Jeff, 
Thank you for your e‐mail. As I indicate in my letter, Mr. Mazur is unclear as to LISD’s position regarding its control over 
or ownership of Mr. Mazur’s photographs that are the subject of my letter, given the inconsistent rulings during the 
1

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 82 of 83 PageID #: 106
appeals process and the lack of clear written renunciation from LISD of its prior positions. For example, LISD’s expressed 
position during the process that it owns some or all of the right in those works, and its expressed position during the 
process that it believes Mr. Mazur is prohibited from using works created using LISD equipment. Given the lack of 
consistently and clarity, Mr. Mazur is hesitant to sell or use those photographs absent a clarification from LISD. 
I believe my letter is fairly clear, and I’d appreciate a response to my requests in the letter. I’m happy to set up a call to 
discuss further, if you think that would be helpful. 
Regards, 
JT 
JT Morris 
JT Morris Law, PLLC 
Tel: (512) 717-5275 
Fax: (512) 582-2948 
jt@jtmorrislaw.com 
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail may by confidential and/or subject to the ATTORNEY-CLIENT and ATTORNEY WORK
PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. It is intended only for the individual or entity designated in the e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please take notice
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this electronic transmission or any accompanying documents is prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply immediately.

From: Crownover, Jeff [mailto:CrownoverJ@lisd.net]  
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 12:39 PM 
To: JT Morris <jt@jtmorrislaw.com> 
Cc: Gunter, Ingrid <GunterI@lisd.net> 
Subject: Re: Correspondence re Mazur IP issues 

JT, 
Did some incident or occurrence initiate this letter?  You are correct – I am generally aware of Anthony’s 
situation, but my understanding is that all of those issues have been resolved. 
As such, I do not see a need for the District to prospectively respond regarding issues that have not occurred 
or to provide the District’s stance based on your requests.  Of course, the District generally maintains that it 
has exclusive control over all of its intellectual property and would take measures as needed to protect that 
property if it becomes aware someone has improperly interfered or impeded with it. 
I am happy to discuss this matter further if you believe I need more information or am missing something in 
your letter, but otherwise the District will not be further responding to your letter at this time. 
Sincerely, 
Jeff 
Jeff Crownover  
General Counsel 
Lewisville ISD 
1565 W Main Street 
Lewisville, TX 75067 
Phone: (469) 948‐8015 
Fax: (214) 626‐1813 
2

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 83 of 83 PageID #: 107
CrownoverJ@lisd.net 
Attorney‐Client Confidentiality Notice:This email and attached documents may contain privileged or confidential 
information or attorney work product. All information is intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you are not 
the named recipient, you are not authorized to read, disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the 
information.  If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify sender by e‐mail or telephone and 
permanently delete this e‐mail and its attachments. If you are the named recipient you are not authorized to reveal any 
of this information to any other unauthorized person. If you did not receive all pages listed or if pages are not legible, 
please immediately notify sender by phone or e‐mail. 

From: JT Morris <jt@jtmorrislaw.com> 
Date: Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 11:17 AM 
To: Jeff Crownover <CrownoverJ@lisd.net> 
Subject: Correspondence re Mazur IP issues 
Mr. Crownover, 
Please see the attached letter to LISD sent on behalf of Anthony Mazur, a recent graduate of Flower Mound HS, 
concerning his intellectual property. Please contact me at the number below or this e‐mail address should you wish to 
discuss further.  
Regards, 
JT 
JT Morris 
JT Morris Law, PLLC 
Tel: (512) 717-5275 
Fax: (512) 582-2948 
jt@jtmorrislaw.com 
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail may by confidential and/or subject to the ATTORNEY-CLIENT and ATTORNEY WORK
PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. It is intended only for the individual or entity designated in the e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please take notice
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this electronic transmission or any accompanying documents is prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply immediately.

3

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-2 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 108

CIVIL COVER SHEET

JS 44 (Rev. 06/17)

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

Lewisville Independent School District, Lewisville Independent School
District Board of Trustees, Jeffery A. Brown, Sonya Lail, Tommy
Ellington, Kevin Rogers
Denton
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

Anthony Mazur

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

Denton

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
NOTE:

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)

JT Morris, JT Morris Law PLLC, 610 Brazos St., Ste. 320, Austin, TX
78701

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
u 1

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

u 3

Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

u 2

U.S. Government
Defendant

u 4

Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
u 1

DEF
u 1

Citizen of Another State

u 2

u

2

Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State

u 5

u 5

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

u 3

u

3

Foreign Nation

u 6

u 6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u

u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u

u
u
u
u
u
u

Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

TORTS

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits
160 Stockholders’ Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

u
u
u
u
u
u
u

PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers’
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education

and One Box for Defendant)
PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
u 4
u 4
of Business In This State

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY
u 365 Personal Injury Product Liability
u 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
u 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
u 370 Other Fraud
u 371 Truth in Lending
u 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
u 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
u 463 Alien Detainee
u 510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
u 530 General
u 535 Death Penalty
Other:
u 540 Mandamus & Other
u 550 Civil Rights
u 555 Prison Condition
u 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

u 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881
u 690 Other

LABOR
u 710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
u 720 Labor/Management
Relations
u 740 Railway Labor Act
u 751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
u 790 Other Labor Litigation
u 791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

BANKRUPTCY
u 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
u 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
u 820 Copyrights
u 830 Patent
u 835 Patent - Abbreviated
New Drug Application
u 840 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY
u 861 HIA (1395ff)
u 862 Black Lung (923)
u 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
u 864 SSID Title XVI
u 865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS
u 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
u 871 IRS—Third Party
26 USC 7609

IMMIGRATION
u 462 Naturalization Application
u 465 Other Immigration
Actions

OTHER STATUTES
u 375 False Claims Act
u 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
u 400 State Reapportionment
u 410 Antitrust
u 430 Banks and Banking
u 450 Commerce
u 460 Deportation
u 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
u 480 Consumer Credit
u 490 Cable/Sat TV
u 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
u 890 Other Statutory Actions
u 891 Agricultural Acts
u 893 Environmental Matters
u 895 Freedom of Information
Act
u 896 Arbitration
u 899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
u 950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
u 1 Original
Proceeding

u 2 Removed from
State Court

u 3

Remanded from
Appellate Court

u 4 Reinstated or
Reopened

u 5 Transferred from
Another District

u 6 Multidistrict
Litigation Transfer
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

u 8 Multidistrict
Litigation Direct File

17 U.S.C. Sec. 101, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. Sec 1983; 28 USC Secs. 1331, 2201, 2202

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

Declaratory Judgment as to Copyright Act and 42 U.S.C. 1983

u CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
u Yes
u No
JURY DEMAND:

DEMAND $

DOCKET NUMBER

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

/s/ JT Morris

03/21/2018
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

 Case 4:18-cv-00191-ALM-KPJ Document 1-2 Filed 03/21/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 109

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a)
(b)
(c)

Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II.

Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III.

Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV.

Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V.

Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.

VI.

Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII.

Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.