From May It Please the Court:

Earlier in the week, a promotional stunt in Boston was misinterpreted and went wrong, snarling traffic and commutes over the downtown area. Last year, Paramount Pictures teamed up with the Los Angeles Times to promote the new movie, Mission: Impossible III. Paramount, apparently with the LA Times’ permission, hooked up a device in the news racks to play the them to the new movie each time a patron opened the door to get a newspaper.

The music was triggered by a device that resembled a six-inch long red tube with wires running to the paper box. After one of the devices was reported to the police as a possible explosive device, the LA bomb squad blew up the newspaper dispenser.

Advertisers continue to come up with creative ways to catch our attention (some better than others, many not that good), but it seems to MIPTC that these two apparent misunderstandings could have been easily prevented, by both the police and the advertisers.

Had the advertisers thought to notify the police ahead of time, reports of possible bombs attached to newspaper boxes could have been summarily dismissed, and the promotion gone on to successfully caught our attention. Had the police thought to call the LA Time and ask if they knew anything about the device, the Times could have explained it instead of having the bomb squad blow up one of its newspaper dispensers.

In Boston it might not have been so easy for the police to call the Cartoon Network, which apparently placed around the City computers displaying the company’s new TV show.

In any event, both the police and advertisers need to remember the hypersensitive world we live in now, and talk with one another. Whether prosecutors should file criminal charges against these advertisers will likely depend on whether the advertisers actually sought the ultimate attention they got by designing something that looked like a bomb or could have been mistaken for a bomb.

It’s a crazy world out there. Let’s be careful and talk with one another more frequently.

Related Posts:

• Top 5 Ways to Deal With Police Officers Safely & Effectively
• Top 5 Tips For Dealing Successfully With Police Officers
• Copyright Issue In Video Recorded By Police Cars
• Law Student Life: Work versus Sweetness

From LibraryLaw Blog:

Library champion Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) reintroduced a bill yesterday, S.548, the Artist-Museum Partnership Act of 2007. The bill would allow artists, writers, and composers to take a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the works they donate to museums and libraries. Leahy says that this is something that collectors who make similar donations are already able to do. Under current law, artists who donate self-created works are only able to deduct the cost of supplies such as canvas, pen, paper and ink. Leahy notes that this hurts museums and libraries that are dedicated to preserving works for posterity. For Sen. Leahy’s statement, see: http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200702/021207.html

Status: 2/12/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Committee on Finance.

Democrats
MAX BAUCUS, MT
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, WV
KENT CONRAD, ND
JEFF BINGAMAN, NM
JOHN F. KERRY, MA
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, AR
RON WYDEN, OR
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, NY
DEBBIE STABENOW, MI
MARIA CANTWELL, WA
KEN SALAZAR, CO

Republicans

CHARLES GRASSLEY, IA
ORRIN G. HATCH, UT
TRENT LOTT, MS
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, ME
JON KYL, AZ
CRAIG THOMAS, WY
GORDON SMITH, OR
JIM BUNNING, KY
MIKE CRAPO, ID
PAT ROBERTS, KS

Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy,
Introduction Of The Artist-Museum Partnership Act Of 2007
February 12, 2007

Mr. President, today we reintroduce the “Artist-Museum Partnership Act,” and once again I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Bennett. This bipartisan legislation would enable our country to keep cherished art works in the United States and to preserve them in our public institutions. At the same time, this legislation will erase an inequity in our tax code that currently serves as a disincentive for artists to donate their works to museums and libraries. We have introduced this same bill in each of the past four Congresses. It was also included in the Senate-passed version of the 2001 tax reconciliation bill, the Senate-passed version of the 2003 Charity Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, and the Senate-passed version of the 2005 tax reconciliation bill. I would like to thank Senators Cantwell, Cardin, Cochran, Coleman, Conrad, Dodd, Domenici, Durbin, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry, Lieberman, Sanders, Schumer, and Stevens for cosponsoring this tri-partisan bill.

Our bill is sensible and straightforward. It would allow artists, writers, and composers to take a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the works they donate to museums and libraries. This is something that collectors who make similar donations are already able to do. Under current law, artists who donate self-created works are only able to deduct the cost of supplies such as canvas, pen, paper and ink, which does not even come close to their true value. This is unfair to artists, and it hurts museums and libraries – large and small – that are dedicated to preserving works for posterity. If we as a nation want to ensure that works of art created by living artists are available to the public in the future – for study and for pleasure – this is something that artists should be allowed to do.

In my state of Vermont, we are incredibly proud of the great works produced by hundreds of local artists who choose to live and work in the Green Mountain State. Displaying their creations in museums and libraries helps develop a sense of pride among Vermonters, and strengthens a bond with Vermont, its landscape, its beauty, and its cultural heritage. Anyone who has contemplated a painting in a museum or examined an original manuscript or composition, and has gained a greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result, knows the tremendous value of these works. I would like to see more of them, not fewer, preserved in Vermont and across the country.

Prior to 1969, artists and collectors alike were able to take a deduction equivalent to the fair market value of a work, but Congress changed the law with respect to artists in the Tax Reform Act of 1969. Since then, fewer and fewer artists have donated their works to museums and cultural institutions. For example, prior to the enactment of the 1969 law, Igor Stravinsky planned to donate his papers to the Music Division of the Library of Congress. But after the law passed, his papers were sold instead to a private foundation in Switzerland. We can no longer afford this massive loss to our cultural heritage. Losses to the public like this are an unintended consequence of the 1969 tax bill that should be corrected.

Congress changed the law for artists more than 30 years ago in response to the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of the law by inflating the market value of self-created works. Since that time, however, the government has cut down significantly on the abuse of fair market value determinations.

Under our legislation, artists who donate their own paintings, manuscripts, compositions, or scholarly compositions would be subject to the same new rules that all taxpayer/collectors who donate such works must now follow. This includes providing relevant information as to the value of the gift, providing appraisals by qualified appraisers, and, in some cases, subjecting them to review by the Internal Revenue Service’s Art Advisory Panel.

In addition, donated works must be accepted by museums and libraries, which often have strict criteria in place for works they intend to display. The institution must certify that it intends to put the work to a use that is related to the institution’s tax exempt status. For example, a painting contributed to an educational institution must be used by that organization for educational purposes and could not be sold by the institution for profit. Similarly, a work could not be donated to a hospital or other charitable institution that did not intend to use the work in a manner related to the function constituting the recipient’s exemption under Section 501 of the tax code. Finally, the fair market value of the work could only be deducted from the portion of the artist’s income that has come from the sale of similar works or related activities.

This bill would also correct another disparity in the tax treatment of self-created works – how the same work is treated before and after an artist’s death. While living artists may only deduct the material costs of donations, donations of those same works after death are deductible from estate taxes at the fair market value of the work. In addition, when an artist dies, works that are part of his or her estate are taxed on the fair market value.

I want to thank my colleagues again for cosponsoring this bipartisan legislation. The time has come for us to correct an unintended consequence of the 1969 law and encourage rather than discourage the donations of art works by their creators. This bill will make a crucial difference in an artist’s decision to donate his or her work, rather than sell it to a private party where it may become lost to the public forever. Mr. President, with unanimous consent, I ask that this statement and the bill text be included in the Record.

Related Posts:

• Book Review of Starving the Artist by William Aicher

From LegalMatch.com:

LegalMatch.com, the nation’s premier online legal matching company, reports that The Valentine’s Effect, an abnormal rise in the number of divorce cases, is again expected in the days surrounding Valentine’s Day. LegalMatch, which matches tens of thousands of clients to lawyers per month across the US, says the number of people seeking divorce attorneys, as well as attorneys to help with annulments and prenuptial agreements, increases significantly around Valentine’s Day. According to Ken LaMance, associate general counsel for LegalMatch, "Over the last four years we have seen an average increase of 31% (compared to all other weeks) in divorce, annulments and prenuptial cases in the week prior to and directly after Valentine’s Day."

Across the US, population density seems to play a role in the Valentine’s Effect. Philadelphia divorce attorneys saw the biggest rise in 2006 with a nearly 50% increase in new cases in the weeks around Valentine’s Day. Texas, Dallas and Fort Worth saw a rise of 44% and 32%, respectively. The San Francisco Bay Area also saw a 27% increase in divorce, annulment and prenuptial cases and Atlanta saw the smallest spike of all metro areas, at 20%. Interesting, however, is LegalMatch data that suggests that it’s the small towns across America that seem immune to the Valentine’s Effect.

LegalMatch first noticed this phenomenon in 2006, at which time they researched their cases to see if it was just a one-year anomaly. To their surprise, company records indicated that this spike in cases was indeed visible in each of the three years prior. This is not that surprising to attorney Ken LaMance. LaMance says, "The added stress of a holiday where you are all but required to express your love with chocolates, flowers and even jewels, especially so soon after the holidays, can make people anxious and questioning." "It may have something to do with the idealized images of love they see all over the media," continues, LaMance. "As more and more people turn to the Internet when looking for a lawyer, we expect to sift through our close to a million legal cases to uncover more of these statistical trends,"

Related Posts:

• Law Firm Salaries are on the Rise
• Thoughts on the Rise in School Violence
• LegalZoom and the Rise of Online Legal Self-Help
• Unions Cannot Sue Businesses in Overtime Cases Without Authorization

From Freedom to Tinker:

Last Wednesday afternoon the U.S. Copyright Office released its list of DMCA exemptions for the next three years. The timing is interesting: releasing news in the afternoon of the day before Thanksgiving is a near-optimal strategy if you want that news to escape notice and coverage in the U.S.

The purpose of these exemptions are to prevent harm to the public from overbreadth of the DMCA’s prohibition on circumventing technologies that control access to copyrighted works. Exemptions last three years.

The good news that that six exemptions were granted, the most ever:

• Professors can make compilations of film and video material for research or teaching.
  
• Archivists can preserve copies of old programs and computer games.
  
• Anyone can work around broken hardware “dongles” that prevent access to software programs.
• Blind people can use software to have e-books read aloud.
  
• Wireless phone customers can switch their phones to a different wireless provider.
  
• Anyone can study, test, or remove malware distributed on CDs.

(These are summaries; the exact scope of each exemption is detailed in the original document.)

Related Posts:

• Face Veils and Driver License Photos: CAIR Survey Released
• Copyright Laws Don’t Have the Power to Rebuild the Internet
• Patent Office Rejects Patent Protection For Latin American Enola Bean
• Making an Example Out of Mondello: Feds Cracking Down Hard on Online Offenders
• Law School Summer Programs: U.S. Attorney’s Office

Now that corruption cases like Enron and WorldCom are falling out of the news, two influential industry groups with close ties to administration officials are hoping to swing the regulatory pendulum in the opposite direction. The groups are drafting proposals to provide broad new protections to corporations and accounting firms from criminal cases brought by federal and state prosecutors as well as a stronger shield against civil lawsuits from investors.

Although the details are still being worked out, the groups’ proposals aim to limit the liability of accounting firms for the work they do on behalf of clients, to force prosecutors to target individual wrongdoers rather than entire companies, and to scale back shareholder lawsuits.

The groups hope to reduce what they see as some burdens imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, landmark post-Enron legislation adopted in 2002. The law, which placed significant new auditing and governance requirements on companies, gave broad discretion for interpretation to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The groups are also interested in rolling back rules and policies that have been on the books for decades.

Moreover, committee members say that they expect many of their recommendations will be used as part of an overall administration effort to limit what they see as overzealous state prosecutions by such figures as the New York State attorney general Elliot Spitzer and abusive class action lawsuits by investors. The groups will also attempt to lower what they see as the excessive costs associated with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Their critics, however, see the effort as part of a plan to cater to the most well-heeled constituents of the administration and insulate politically connected companies from prosecution at the expense of investors.

One consideration in drafting the proposals has been the chain of events at Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm that was convicted in 2002 of obstruction of justice for shredding Enron-related documents; the conviction was overturned in 2005 by the Supreme Court. The proposals being drafted would aim to limit the liability of auditing firms and include a policy shift to make it harder for prosecutors to bring cases against individuals and companies.

Even though Arthur Andersen played a prominent role in various corporate scandals, some business and legal experts have criticized the decision by the Bush administration to bring a criminal case that had the effect of shutting the firm down.

The proposed policies would emphasize the prosecution of culpable individuals rather than corporations and auditing firms. That shift could prove difficult for prosecutors because it is often harder to find sufficient evidence to show that specific people at a company were the ones who knowingly violated a law.

One proposal would recommend that the Justice Department sharply curtail its policy of forcing companies under investigation to withhold paying the legal fees of executives suspected of violating the law. Another one would require some investor lawsuits to be handled by arbitration panels, which are traditionally friendlier to defendants.

“This is an escalation of the culture war against regulation,” said James D. Cox, a securities and corporate law professor at Duke Law School. He said many of the proposals, if adopted, “would be a dark day for investors.”

Professor Cox, who has studied 600 class action lawsuits over the last decade, said it was difficult to find “abusive or malicious” cases, particularly in light of new laws and court decisions that had made it more difficult to file such suits.

[thanks to stephen labaton]

Related Posts:

• Why Businesses Should Address Disputes Early
• Unions Cannot Sue Businesses in Overtime Cases Without Authorization
• Legal Activist Project Support For Arrested Protestors and Activists