One reason not to commission a mural for your building: the federal Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, which with some exceptions “prohibits the intentional alteration, mutilation or destruction of artworks without the consent of the artists” and gives the offended artist a right to sue. Lawsuits under VARA have not been numerous, but have raised questions of fairness to art owners as well as of unintended consequences. (Daniel Grant, Wall Street Journal Leisure & Arts/OpinionJournal.com, May 27; Cynthia Esworthy, “A Guide to the Visual Artists Rights Act”, NYArtsAlive.com, undated; IvanHoffman.com.
Author Archive
“Attorney loses lawsuit over Super Bowl show”
“Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction during the Super Bowl halftime show may be a lot of things, but it’s apparently not worth $5,000. A judge rejected a Utah lawyer’s claim that CBS owner Viacom should pay him $5,000 for having to see Jackson’s bared breast during the Feb. 1 show. Eric Stephenson, contending false advertising, sued Viacom in small-claims court.” (AP/San Francisco Chronicle, May 27). On the earlier Boobgate lawsuit by Terri Carlin of Knoxville, Tenn., see Feb. 5, Feb. 8 and Feb. 14.
Houston accident operators indicted
A federal grand jury has indicted Houston attorney Gene Burd and chiropractic clinic owner Paul Samson Christie on tax charges. Among the allegations against Burd are that he employed runners to bring in car-crash victims which he signed up as clients and referred as patients to the chiropractic clinics; that the clinics kicked back about half the fees they charged to him; that he conspired to defraud insurance companies in the resulting lawsuits; that he settled some clients’ cases without their knowledge or consent, and misrepresented to them the share of the settlement money that he was keeping; and (perhaps his most fateful lapse, if the allegations prove true) that he failed fully to report the income from all this for federal tax purposes. Lawyers for Burd and Christie assert that their clients are not guilty and Burd’s lawyer attributes the indictment to “a misunderstanding by the government”. (U.S. Department of Justice press release, Apr. 12; Mary Alice Robbins, “Houston Attorney, Clinic Owner Face Federal Tax Charges”, Texas Lawyer, Apr. 23).
Latest newsletter
What, you still haven’t subscribed to our free periodic newsletter? The latest one went out this afternoon to its c. 2300 subscribers, covering the last three weeks’ worth of postings to the site. It’s a great way to keep up with items you may have missed. Don’t delay any longer: sign up here.
Watch it, Teach, I know my rights
In a new poll of educators conducted by Public Agenda and commissioned by Common Good, “Nearly 8 in 10 teachers (78%) said students are quick to remind them that they have rights or that their parents can sue.” (Fredreka Schouten, “Study: Pupils pay academic price for unruly classrooms”, Gannett/USA Today, May 11)(more at Common Good: poll, May 11 forum co-sponsored with AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, “EdWatch”). More: Tresa Baldas, “The Anaconda in the Chandelier”, National Law Journal, May 19.
Next time maybe he should just litter?
Andy Chasin tossed a FedEx airbill — just the one piece of paper — in a trash receptacle near his District of Columbia home. Thirteen days later, he was served with a $35 ticket from the city’s Department of Public Works charging him with Improper Use of Public Litter Receptacles: statute 24 DCMR 1009.1 provides that “Public wastepaper boxes shall not be used for the disposal of refuse incidental to the conduct of a household, store, or other place of business. …” Official inspectors, it turns out, rummage through the litter in search of items that should have been disposed of in home or office trash. “I tell people all the time: Don’t put anything with your name on it in a public trash can,” says Mary Myers, spokeswoman for the city’s Department of Public Works. (Marc Fisher, “When It Comes To Waste, D.C. Is Priceless”, Washington Post, Mar. 24).
An encomium
“I like Overlawyered.com.
“But then, I like public hangings.” …
How can you not keep reading after an opening like that? (Sharp Knife, May 23)
“Panel Finds Mold in Buildings Is No Threat to Most People”
“Stepping into an issue that has alarmed homeowners and led to hundreds of lawsuits and billions of dollars in insurance payments, a government panel of experts reported yesterday that toxic mold in homes did not appear to pose a serious health threat to most people.” A panel of epidemiologists, toxicologists and pediatricians convened by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, surveyed existing scientific literature on the subject. “Though the experts said mold and indoor dampness were associated with respiratory problems and symptoms of asthma in certain susceptible people, they found no evidence of a link between mold and conditions like brain or neurological damage, reproductive problems and cancer.” (Anahad O’Connor, New York Times, May 26). For more on mold litigation, see Dec. 4 and earlier posts; “The Growing Hazard of Mold Litigation”, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Manhattan Institute Center for Legal Policy, Jul. 17, 2003 (paper in PDF format/press release). More: press release, video briefing and report links from National Academies.
Update: not the date they expected
“The six straight men who sued to prevent the broadcast of an UK reality show in which, unbeknownst to them, they competed for the affection of a preoperative Mexican transsexual quickly got over their claims of injury and public humiliation in return for a cash payment, clearing the way for the program to debut on UK television”. (see Oct. 31, Nov. 5). Various reports pegged the undisclosed settlement “at anywhere between $150,000 and $250,000 a man”. (Steve Rogers, “Lawsuit settled, ‘Crying Game’-like ‘There’s Something About Miriam’ premieres in UK”, RealityTVWorld, Feb. 23; Debi Enker, “Reality reaches new low”, Melbourne Age, May 20) (via Curmudgeonly Clerk, May 20).
Custody law’s inquisitors
Court-appointed forensic evaluators, who may be psychiatrists, psychologists or social workers, wield extraordinary influence in New York custody litigation. Judges usually go along with their recommendations, which can include the smallest minutiae of visitation; they can present the court with a bill for $40,000 or more, which the parents have no choice but to pay; and some parents and lawyers believe that cronyism plays a part in some judges’ handing out of the lucrative appointments. “And many — including some forensics — question whether there is any scientific basis to justify the evaluators’ recommendations.” (Leslie Eaton, “For Arbiters in Custody Battles, Wide Power and Little Scrutiny”, New York Times, May 23).