I understand fully that you have made the point that property owners and event organizers are perfectly able to set limits on gun possession, and I agree with t

I understand fully that you have made the point that property owners and event organizers are perfectly able to set limits on gun possession, and I agree with this statement. However, I don't see how the right of physical property owners to set limits on the use of their property restricts the rights of IP owners to set limits on the use of their property. You haven't made the connection between the two. If you feel you've made that point clearly, I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic. You'll have to reframe your argument instead of simply repeating it. I'm not picking up what you're putting down. > Those things are all equally out of scope of a trademark copyright document. This is where we disagree. I think it is squarely within the scope of trademark law, as long as it complies with the First Amendment, including fair use. That's what "ownership" means. If anyone were allowed to use any mark they want at any event they want, and the rights holder has no say over that, then what "rights" do they actually have? What does trademark actually mean? Let's take a hypothetical situation. Suppose you wanted to host a conference about all things Disney. You brand your conference with Disney logos, Disney word marks, and Disney characters. You advertise the event and charge money to attend. However, this Disney conference is also a satanic blood orgy. Does Disney have the right to restrict the conference from using their logo? Satanic blood orgies are allowed, the venue has okayed it, and it's allowed in the state. The satanic blood orgy aspect is legal and allowed. Doesn't Disney still have the right to send a cease-and-desist letter to the conference? If they don't, can you please explain how trademarks work in your worldview? Furthermore, if what you say is true, then what is the legal basis for all of these artists restricting at which events their songs can be played: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/28/all-the-artists-who-have-told-trump-to-stop-using-their-songs-at-his-rallies/?sh=3766256774b8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/28/all-t... It seems to me that a trademark, such as the Rust logo, should have more protection than a copyright of a song. So why can't Rust restrict the use of its logo based on the character of a gathering, while musicians can restrict the playing of their songs based on the character of those gatherings in the linked article?