Category: Entertainment Law

California District Court Won’t Reconsider Prior Ruling in NCAA Class Action – National Collegiate Athletic Association

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

On May 12, 2014, the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) lost its motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of a prior ruling, which barred the NCAA from arguing at trial that not paying student-athletes for their likenesses increased competition by raising financial support for women’s and less prominent men’s athletics.  A former NCAA basketball player originally filed a class action suit against the NCAA in 2009 in the Northern District of California, alleging that the NCAA profited from student-athlete likenesses on television and in video games while prohibiting the athletes from receiving payment.

In re Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, case number 4:90-cv-01967.  In April 2014, upon consideration of the parties’ opposing motions for summary judgment, District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment as to the NCAA’s fourth justification for the challenged restraint – greater support for women’s and less prominent men’s sports – because this argument was not legitimately pro-competitive.  Judge Wilken first determined that the NCAA could not restrain competition in the relevant market, football and men’s basketball, to allegedly promote competition in the markets for women’s sports and less prominent men’s sports.  Second, the NCAA could financially support women’s sports and less prominent men’s sports through less restrictive means by forcing member conferences to redistribute a greater portion of profits made from football and men’s basketball to these other sports.  In moving for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, the NCAA submitted a declaration and report from an economic expert, who argued that the relevant market should be broadened to include athletes who play sports other than football and men’s basketball.  In response to the NCAA’s arguments, Wilken concluded that plaintiffs’ allegations challenged conduct with respect to football and men’s basketball, and the possibility that the challenged behavior affected student-athletes in other sports did not redefine the relevant market.  Judge Wilken thus denied the motion, reiterating that the purported pro-competitive justification did not address competition in the relevant market of football and men’s basketball.  Trial is set to begin on June 9, 2014.

Article By:

Megan Morley
Of:
McDermott Will & Emery

Bulgaria Adopts New Gambling Tax Regime

Dickinson Wright Logo

 

Bulgaria has a new gambling taxation regime effective January 1, 2014, which, together with the reasonable and balanced regulations currently in place, makes the country attractive for local licensing and gambling operations based upon a low corporate tax and highly qualified and low-priced technical specialists. One and a half years after theGambling Act (“Act”) was introduced, the tax base for gambling has been changed and is now in line with good business practices: switching from a turnover base to aGross Gaming Revenue (“GGR”) base.

On December 19, 2013, amendments in the Act (“Amendments”) for liberalizing gambling regulation in Bulgaria passed successfully the second reading in the Bulgarian Parliament amidst tense disputes. The Amendments were promulgated in the National Gazette on January 3, 2014, and came into force effective January 1, 2014.

The Amendments assure that as of January 1, 2014, the taxation of any online games in Bulgaria will be based on GGR with a 20% tax rate. For games in which fees and commissions are collected (such as poker), the tax rate will be 20% of the collected fees. In addition, there is a single fee for issuing and maintenance of a five-year license in the amount of approximately EUR 50,000 (BGL 100,000). No annual fee will be required during the five years’ validity of the license.

Offline bingo and keno will be taxed at a 10% corporate tax rate.

The GGR-based taxation is not a part of the common tax system, but rather it is an administrative fee regulated entirely in the Act instead of the tax laws. Nevertheless, any operator who decides to have an establishment in Bulgaria can take advantage of a favorable and stable corporate tax – only 10%. The low corporate tax rate would apply only to operators who decide to establish a local company in Bulgaria, which might be strongly supported from other economic arguments – for example, a very well-educated and qualified labor force at insignificant costs.

The Amendments introduce a new requirement for any licensed operator not established in Bulgaria but established in any other EU/EEA country or Switzerland. Such operators must have an authorized representative in Bulgaria, but this would not constitute having a local business in the country for purposes of obtaining the 10% corporate tax rate. An operator, in all events, is required to have a local representative in Bulgaria, who should be authorized for representation before Bulgarian authorities and courts.

From a regulatory perspective, the Bulgarian gaming regime is now one of the most balanced in Europe. It does not require a local establishment and main server in Bulgaria for any foreign operator who decides to obtain a local Bulgarian license (nevertheless, a local control server in Bulgaria is required). There are no specific requirements for performing payments through a local bank or to make certain investments in the country. The operators are not required to operate a dot bg domain. Foreign operators – registered, investing, and having a main server anywhere within EU, EEA, and Switzerland – can apply for a license. Nevertheless, the restrictions the Act imposes on an applicant whose shareholder is an offshore company should be carefully considered in light of provisions of the Act relating to economic and financial relations with companies registered in preferential tax regime jurisdictions and their actual shareholders.

A significant number of online gambling operators are expected to apply for a license in Bulgaria. The first online operators have already submitted applications. They are eager to enjoy not only reasonable taxation but also liberal regulation. The Bulgarian government has further stimulated the licensing of online operators by approving amendments that allow the operator to be removed from the blacklist even before being granted a license if the online operator applies for such removal not later than March 31, 2014.

The Amendments also permit the operators to perform any other business activity apart from organized gambling, which was not the case until now.

The efforts of the Bulgarian Parliament are of major significance. Instead of concentrating on blocking measures (such as ISP and/or payment blocking), the government has focused on best practices and introduced regulations that motivate the online gambling operators to get a license and work not only in a balanced regulatory environment but also under a favorable tax regime. These changes are aimed at balancing and optimizing the new sector regulation model that was introduced back in 2012. They give the online operators promising conditions to work legally in the Bulgarian market. At the same time, the new regulations impose stricter administrative sanctions on illegal online gambling operations.

Nadya Hambach, of Velchev & Co., authored this article.

Article by:

Dickinson Wright PLLC

Fashion Documentaries: A Fashion Do

Sheppard Mullin 2012

 

Since the first major fashion documentary featuring designer Isaac Mizrahi, “Unzipped,” made its debut in 1995, the popularity of fashion documentaries has only gained traction.  Within the past five years, a smattering of renowned brands, including Marc Jacobs, Louis Vuitton, and Valentino, as well as some fixtures in fashion like Anna Wintour and Diana Vreeland, have allowed cameras to capture their exclusive world of fashion through their respective documentaries.  More recently, James Franco, the former face of Gucci, steered his production company toward a collaboration with Gucci’s creative director Frida Giannini, creating the documentary entitled “The Director: An Evolution in Three Acts.”  The film, which debuted last spring at the Tribeca Film Festival, documented how a Gucci collection comes together.  Even retailers are following suit, with documentaries such as director Matthew Miele’s “Scatter My Ashes at Bergdorf Goodman,” which features the history of New York’s famous luxury department store, making their way to audiences.

While fashion documentaries have yet to garner the same level of commercial appeal as the level attained by certain political and/or topical documentaries, the fashion industry’s elite players seem eager and willing to demystify their creative process on-screen.  The value, while not necessarily directly realized through documentary distribution proceeds, may indirectly be realized through marketing.  In the same vein as fashion film shorts, full-length fashion documentaries blur the line between film and advertisement for the brands upon which the films are based.  (See Victoria Lee and Ted Max, Fashion Film Art Movement, Fashion and Apparel Law Blog, June 14, 2012).

Yet tension may exist between the desire of fashion houses and designers to promote their brands in a particular light, and documentary filmmakers’ desire to capture the provocative truth, whether positive or negative.  Even when the filmmaker has a vested interest in the brand’s success, it may have a particular point of view which is not in line with the brand’s marketing goals.  Therefore, when contemplating whether to pull back the curtain for the cameras, it’s important for a fashion brand to consider all the potential issues which may arise from the release of a fashion documentary featuring the brand and to preemptively address these potential issues during contract negotiations with the filmmaker involved with the project.

Certain contractual limitations on the filmmaker, such as those affecting access granted to production crews and approvals and controls over aspects of the documentary’s development and production, may be negotiated as precautionary measures for the brand to ensure the documentary serves its purpose as a marketing tool.  As “Bergdorf’s” director, Matthew Miele noted in a press release, while his film could come across as overly promotional, he noted that he retained control over its contents, working closely with Bergdorf Goodman during the post-production and editing process.

Based on the flurry of fashion documentaries slated to be released this year, including films profiling Stanley Marcus of Neiman Marcus, New York fashion icon Iris Apfel, and Miele’s look at Tiffany & Company, fashion documentaries appear to continue to serve a valuable marketing purpose.  No doubt with the right filmmakers attached to a fashion documentary project, a fashion brand can use the finished product to increase its presence as global powerhouse, both on- and off-screen.

Article by:

Fashion and Apparel Team

Of:

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Court Narrows Claims Surrounding “HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU” Copyright Suit

MintzLogo2010_Black

Following up on a previous post regarding the lawsuit winding its way through federal court seeking clarity on whether the music publisher Warner Chappell owns or has the exclusive right to license the copyright in the ubiquitous “Happy Birthday to You” song, U.S. District Judge George H. King (Central District of California) has ordered that certain tangential claims be stayed until further notice, while the case will move forward on the central claim, essentially whether Warner’s copyright in the song is valid and enforceable or not.

Judge King’s order confirms the parties’ agreement at an October 7th hearing to bifurcate (separate) the central claim from the remaining claims (seeking an injunction against Warner, and a variety of related claims such as unfair competition, false advertising, and breach of contract) at least through the summary judgment phase of the central claim.  The central claim alone will proceed for the time being allowing the parties and the Court to focus on what is truly the dominating question in this case.

In his order Judge King also declined to apply a four-year statute of limitations to the central claim instead of the traditional copyright infringement three-year period.  Plaintiffs claimed that unlike a traditional copyright infringement action where a plaintiff alleges a defendant infringed its copyright, this is a “declaratory judgment” action involving a copyright, that is to say one where plaintiffs are preemptively bringing suit so the Court can decide whether Warner even has rights it can assert.  Basically instead of asserting its purported rights, Warner is being forced into a suit to defend its rights.  Despite the procedural change however, the analysis and issues are very similar to a traditional copyright infringement action.  The question Judge King has to resolve was, since the Declaratory Judgment Act (which permits this type of suit) does not contain its own statute of limitations, plaintiffs argued that the Court should instead use the four-year period applicable to California’s unfair competition claims (one of those ancillary claims Judge King stayed in this same order).  Judge King declined, holding that because the Declaratory Judgment Act is merely a procedural vehicle and the substantive rights being challenged are copyright-based under the Copyright Act, the best statute of limitations period is not California’s four-year period, but rather the Copyright Act’s three-year period.  He therefore dismissed two plaintiffs whose claims were time-barred by the new shorter period and gave them three weeks to re-file if they can/chose to.

Judge King’s order is clearly going to focus the parties and the court on the central issue, whether Warner has a valid enforceable copyright in the “Happy Birthday to You” song.  We will continue to closely watch this one as it proceeds.

Article By:

 of

Consent Isn’t the Only Consideration: NY Comic Con Attendees Disagree that Hijacking Twitter Accounts Makes the Event “100x cooler! For realz.”

MintzLogo2010_Black

The comic book industry is no stranger to displays of heroic anger and berserker rage, but over the weekend New York Comic Con (NYCC) was on the receiving end of considerable fan fury after it began ghostwriting effusive tweets about NYCC and posting on the Twitter pages of NYCC attendees in a way that made it appear as though the attendee was the author of the tweet.

During the event registration process, NYCC attendees were given the option of linking RFID badges to their Twitter account through the event’s mobile application interface.  During the application registration process, attendees were asked to authorize NYCC to access their Twitter accounts.  At this point, attendees arguably consented to having NYCC impersonate the attendee when posting about NYCC on the attendee’s Twitter feed.

The NYCC website page explaining the ID badge technology and the site’s registration page did not mention that NYCC would be posting to attendee Twitter pages on the attendee’s behalf.  Rather, the registration process is explained as a method for giving the attendee access to enhanced social media content, while helping NYCC protect against fraudulent credentials.  The activation terms provided that NYCC could use the information collected through the badge “for internal purposes” and to contact the user about future events.  After a user registered his or her badge and elected to link a Twitter account, the user was presented with an opt-in notice (a screenshot of which can be seenhere), specifying that following authorization, the application would be able to, among other things, “post Tweets for you”.  This type of warning is not uncommon.  For example, any website that allows users to click to share news articles or stories on their Twitter pages requires this type of access.

In spite of the opt-in warning, the wide-spread surprise among attendees suggests that the opt-in language did not draw a clear distinction between posting tweets for a user and posting tweets as a user.  Moreover, the failure to mention this practice when explaining the registration process could have led attendees to conclude that even if they were agreeing to provide this type of access, NYCC would not be taking the unusual step of pretending to be the attendee when it published tweets on the user’s page.

NYCC’s initial response was a brief tweet telling attendees not to “fret” over the ghostwritten posts and informing attendees that the “opt-in feature” had been disabled.  However, after anger continued to spread, NYCC issued a longer statement apologizing for any “perceived overstep.”

This type of disconnect between online service providers and users is becoming increasingly common as advances in technology permit mobile device and social media data to be accessed and used in new ways.  Earlier this year, for example, Jay-Z and Samsung stepped into a public relations debacle when the “JAY Z Magna Carta” mobile application required that the user, in exchange for receiving a free music download, authorize the application to have extensive access to phone data and social media accounts. The response from NYCC attendees also underscores the lesson learned by Googleearlier this month, that consent provided by users who do not fully understand what they are consenting to may not be consent at all.

As your online business finds new and innovative ways to deliver products and services to your users, it is important to take a step back and consider whether additional communications in different formats, such as just-in-time notifications, are necessary to ensure that the only surprise your customers have is how great your products and services are.   Or, to put it another way, “with great power comes great responsibility.”

Article By:

 of

Cloning Decision Could Lead to Copycat Litigation in the World of Racing

Sheppard Mullin 2012

Owners of elite American Quarter Horses may soon be ponying up to create clones of their champions.

On July 31, 2013 a North Texas District Court jury decided that the American Quarter Horse Association’s (“AQHA”) rule prohibiting the registration of cloned American Quarter Horses violates federal and Texas antitrust laws. The AQHA, located in Amarillo, Texas, is the world’s largest equine breed registry and membership organization, with more than 5 million American Quarter Horses registered to nearly 350,000 members.

The American Quarter Horse excels at sprinting short distances and racing of these animals is the third most popular form of horse racing, generating more than $300 million in bets at U.S. racetracks in 2012. American Quarter Horses are bred to run in races of under a quarter-mile and have been clocked at speeds up to 55 mph.

Plaintiffs Jason Abraham and Gregg Veneklasen sued the AQHA for $6 million in damages, arguing that Rule 227(a) of the AQHA, which prohibits the registration of clones, violated both the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Texas Free Enterprise Act, which reflects federal antitrust law.

Plaintiffs alleged that the association’s prohibition of clones violates Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act because the AQHA acted as a conspiracy that unreasonably restrained interstate or foreign trade. In response, the AQHA argued that the association is a single body and that the Board of Directors acted with a single interest, and therefore cannot be a conspiracy. Plaintiffs further alleged that the rule violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act because the AQHA acted to maintain its monopoly power in the industry by enacting the rule. In response, the AQHA argued that the rule did not maintain monopoly power, but instead narrowed the association’s reach by reducing the potential universe of its registered horses.

On July 31, the jury found that the AQHA’s Rule 227(a) violated Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, as well as the equivalent Texas laws. In their decision, the jury awarded no damages, but could lead to the reversal of Rule 227(a) following an order the District Court Judge.

Johne Dobbs, the President of the AQHA’s Executive Committee, is reported as saying that the AQHA will appeal the North Texas District Court decision to the 5th Circuit, though it may be a year before a decision is made on the appeal.

A decision in favor of the AQHA by the 5th Circuit could have a reversing effect on a number of changes to AQHA rules since 2000, while a decision against could further cement the trend toward the AQHA being more inclusive. In 2000, a breeder sued the AQHA regarding the association’s rule that limited one registeredhorse per breeding pair per year, which thereby prohibited the use of embryo transplants to create multiple foals per breeding pair. The court held in an interlocutory order that the rule was an anticompetitive restraint of trade, adopted for the purposes of limiting the supply of registered quarter horses. Before a final order was written, the two parties settled and the AQHA changed its rules to allow for the registration of all embryo transfer foals. Since then, the AQHA has changed its rules to also register horses considered perlinos and cremellos to register, as well as horses deemed to be excessively white. The AQHA may be interested in pursuing a reversal to these changes if the 5th Circuit rules in their favor.

A decision against the AQHA could also lead to other breeder associations, including the American Kennel Club and American Paint Horse Association, to change their rules prohibiting the registration of clones.

An industry able to support quarter horse clones is likely ready to go if the courts side with the plaintiffs. Texas company ViaGen owns the patent that created the infamous cloned sheep, Dolly. The company has already cloned a number of horses, including Royal Blue Boon, the all-time leading dam of cutting horses with personal lifetime earnings of $381,764 and produce earnings of over $2.6 million. Hundreds of American Quarter Horse owners have already gene banked their horses in anticipation of the AQHA changing Rule 227(a).

Article By:

 of

The Financial Crisis and A New Round of Deaccessioning Debates

Sheppard Mullin 2012

When public institutions are suffering from financial deficits, one question is usually raised: can they sell art to survive? In the museum world it is generally understood that you are to deaccession art only if the work is duplicative of another work in the collection, or for similar collections-related reasons, and the sale proceeds are used exclusively for collections activities. Therefore, for example, you cannot seek to sell art to obtain sufficient liquidity to meet any financial obligation, or make debt service payments. There is little government regulation on deaccessioning (for example, the NY Board of Regents has the power to provide limitations on deaccessioning on New York museums chartered after 1890). However, private institutions such as the American Alliance of Museums (“AAM”) and the Association of Art Museum Directors (“AAMD”) have adopted for their members certain policy guidelines on deaccessioning. Their members are subject to sanctions such as censure, suspension and/or expulsion in the event they do not follow these guidelines.

This is the debate currently happening in the city of Detroit, which has recently filed for bankruptcy, and countries in Europe such as Spain, where steep cuts in its budget have affected state-sponsored museums such as the Prado museum.

As for Detroit’s bankruptcy, some have argued whether the Detroit Institute of Arts (“DIA”) should sell its artwork, yielding an estimate of $2 billion (the city of Detroit has a $20 billion debt). The DIA has 600,000 annual visitors and a collection of approximately 65,000 artworks. Michigan’s attorney general, Bill Schuette, has stated that DIA’s artworks were ‘held in trust for the public’ and could only be sold for the purpose of acquiring new art. Others have claimed that the collection should be sold to refrain Detroit’s retired employees from losing part of their pensions.

From a bankruptcy law perspective, municipalities, unlike businesses, cannot be forced to liquidate their municipal assets (the concept which provides that if a debtor wishes to reorganize it must provide creditors with at least as much as they would get in liquidation does not apply to municipalities). A municipal restructuring plan cannot be approved unless it complies with state law, and as mentioned above, Michigan’s attorney general issued a non-binding opinion stating that the artworks were held in trust for the citizens of Michigan, and thus cannot be sold.

As for Spain, the Spanish Official Gazette has published the annual statements of the Prado museum and one thing is clear: art is not immune to Spain’s recession. Patronage from the Spanish government had a 28% drop (from approximately €6.6 million to €4.8 million) in the last 2 years. However, rather than deaccessioning, this drop has been set off by increasing its international loans. Therefore, the museum authorities allocated these foreign loans receipts as deemed patronage, and this has allowed the museum to stabilize its balance sheet. The annual statements report that the main private sponsors for temporary exhibitions were Axa, Telefónica, BBVA and La Caixa, who contributed a total aggregate amount of €625,000. However, the statements do not specify how much the museums actually invested in setting up such temporary exhibitions. The Contemporary Art Institute (Instituto de Arte Contemporáneo) has been criticizing the lack of transparency in museums and art galleries that receive sponsorship or other type of financial assistance from the state. This Institute has created standards of best practices for contemporary art museums (the “Standards”), which attempt to follow the path of the AAM’s National Standards and Best Practices for U.S. Museums (see http://www.aam-us.org/resources/ethics-standards-and-best-practices/standards and http://www.iac.org.es/seguimiento-del-documento-de-buenas-practicas/documento-de-buenas-practicas-en-museos-y-centros-de-arte).

Spain’s Ministry of Culture was actively involved in drafting these Standards, which were revised and signed in 2007 by the Ministry of Culture, the Contemporary Art Institute, and other prestigious institutions, such as ADACE (Association of Directors of Contemporary Art in Spain), CG (the Consortium of Contemporary Art Galleries), UAAV (the Association of Visual Artists), CCAV (the Board of Critics of Visual Arts), and UAGAE (the Association of Art Galleries of Spain). As in the United States, the Standards are voluntary. The pressure by funders, regulators, the press and the public may be considerable, but museums still choose to follow, or not, the Standards. As of this date, of all 50 museums ranked by the Contemporary Art Institute, only two museums comply with the Standards’ minimum requirements: the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía and the Artium.

Spain is also trying to overcome the steep cuts in state subsidies and public grants for art institutions by enacting a bill that will heavily increase tax benefits for museum’s private donors (mirroring the French system) through the Patronage Act (Ley de Mecenazgo). If this bill is passed, tax deductions will increase from 25% to 70% for natural persons, and from 35% to 65% for legal persons. Moreover, small donations of less than €150 will be fully deductible. The aim is to achieve France’s success, where revenues increased from €150 million to € 683 million in a seven-year period (2004 to 2011).

In conclusion, the vast majority of museums are nonprofit and ask for public support in return for providing some kind of public good. Thus, it is essential that museums are broadly accountable for their conduct, in particular in times of recession.

Should they sell part of their collection, or should they choose Spain’s path? i.e. advocate for a subset of artworks in the collection to be sent on a 10-year tour (or less) to museums around the world, receiving a revenue stream while having part of its collection available for the public as a representative and emissary of the city of Detroit? Or is there another path?

 of

The Financial Crises in Detroit and Spain and a New Round of Deaccessioning Debates

Sheppard Mullin 2012

When public institutions are suffering from financial deficits, one question is usually raised: can they sell art to survive? In the museum world it is generally understood that you are to deaccession art only if the work is duplicative of another work in the collection, or for similar collections-related reasons, and the sale proceeds are used exclusively for collections activities. Therefore, for example, you cannot seek to sell art to obtain sufficient liquidity to meet any financial obligation, or make debt service payments. There is little government regulation on deaccessioning (for example, the NY Board of Regents has the power to provide limitations on deaccessioning on New York museums chartered after 1890). However, private institutions such as the American Alliance of Museums (“AAM”) and the Association of Art Museum Directors (“AAMD”) have adopted for their members certain policy guidelines on deaccessioning. Their members are subject to sanctions such as censure, suspension and/or expulsion in the event they do not follow these guidelines.

This is the debate currently happening in the city of Detroit, which has recently filed for bankruptcy, and countries in Europe such as Spain, where steep cuts in its budget have affected state-sponsored museums such as the Prado museum.

As for Detroit’s bankruptcy, some have argued whether the Detroit Institute of Arts (“DIA”) should sell its artwork, yielding an estimate of $2 billion (the city of Detroit has a $20 billion debt). The DIA has 600,000 annual visitors and a collection of approximately 65,000 artworks. Michigan’s attorney general, Bill Schuette, has stated that DIA’s artworks were ‘held in trust for the public’ and could only be sold for the purpose of acquiring new art. Others have claimed that the collection should be sold to refrain Detroit’s retired employees from losing part of their pensions.

From a bankruptcy law perspective, municipalities, unlike businesses, cannot be forced to liquidate their municipal assets (the concept which provides that if a debtor wishes to reorganize it must provide creditors with at least as much as they would get in liquidation does not apply to municipalities). A municipal restructuring plan cannot be approved unless it complies with state law, and as mentioned above, Michigan’s attorney general issued a non-binding opinion stating that the artworks were held in trust for the citizens of Michigan, and thus cannot be sold.

As for Spain, the Spanish Official Gazette has published the annual statements of the Prado museum and one thing is clear: art is not immune to Spain’s recession. Patronage from the Spanish government had a 28% drop (from approximately €6.6 million to €4.8 million) in the last 2 years. However, rather than deaccessioning, this drop has been set off by increasing its international loans. Therefore, the museum authorities allocated these foreign loans receipts as deemed patronage, and this has allowed the museum to stabilize its balance sheet. The annual statements report that the main private sponsors for temporary exhibitions were Axa, Telefónica, BBVA and La Caixa, who contributed a total aggregate amount of €625,000. However, the statements do not specify how much the museums actually invested in setting up such temporary exhibitions. The Contemporary Art Institute (Instituto de Arte Contemporáneo) has been criticizing the lack of transparency in museums and art galleries that receive sponsorship or other type of financial assistance from the state. This Institute has created standards of best practices for contemporary art museums (the “Standards”), which attempt to follow the path of the AAM’s National Standards and Best Practices for U.S. Museums (see http://www.aam-us.org/resources/ethics-standards-and-best-practices/standards and http://www.iac.org.es/seguimiento-del-documento-de-buenas-practicas/documento-de-buenas-practicas-en-museos-y-centros-de-arte).

Spain’s Ministry of Culture was actively involved in drafting these Standards, which were revised and signed in 2007 by the Ministry of Culture, the Contemporary Art Institute, and other prestigious institutions, such as ADACE (Association of Directors of Contemporary Art in Spain), CG (the Consortium of Contemporary Art Galleries), UAAV (the Association of Visual Artists), CCAV (the Board of Critics of Visual Arts), and UAGAE (the Association of Art Galleries of Spain). As in the United States, the Standards are voluntary. The pressure by funders, regulators, the press and the public may be considerable, but museums still choose to follow, or not, the Standards. As of this date, of all 50 museums ranked by the Contemporary Art Institute, only two museums comply with the Standards’ minimum requirements: the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía and the Artium.

Spain is also trying to overcome the steep cuts in state subsidies and public grants for art institutions by enacting a bill that will heavily increase tax benefits for museum’s private donors (mirroring the French system) through the Patronage Act (Ley de Mecenazgo). If this bill is passed, tax deductions will increase from 25% to 70% for natural persons, and from 35% to 65% for legal persons. Moreover, small donations of less than €150 will be fully deductible. The aim is to achieve France’s success, where revenues increased from €150 million to € 683 million in a seven-year period (2004 to 2011).

In conclusion, the vast majority of museums are nonprofit and ask for public support in return for providing some kind of public good. Thus, it is essential that museums are broadly accountable for their conduct, in particular in times of recession.

Should they sell part of their collection, or should they choose Spain’s path? i.e. advocate for a subset of artworks in the collection to be sent on a 10-year tour (or less) to museums around the world, receiving a revenue stream while having part of its collection available for the public as a representative and emissary of the city of Detroit? Or is there another path?

Article By:

 of

Fast Food Comes to Indian Country

Dickinson Wright Logo

In-N-Out Burger, the quintessentially Californian burger chain, will open its first restaurant on tribal land in early 2014 at the Morongo Casino on the Morongo Indian Reservation on the heavily trafficked Interstate 10. The reservation lies 90 miles west of Los Angeles and 20 miles east of Palm Springs. Similarly, the Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma will open a Sonic restaurant on non-Indian land in Seneca, Missouri, about 10 miles from its Oklahoma reservation.

Fast-food restaurants have been noticeably lacking in Indian Country, primarily due to the lack of familiarity of restaurant franchises with tribal law. This is unfortunate as fast food is a perfect fit for tribal economic development. Fast-food restaurants are a magnet for highway traffic, bringing customers into the tribal business development that would otherwise not think to stop there. They complement tribally owned gas stations, gaming venues, and shopping centers with an inexpensive food alternative and bring in consistent revenue.

Deals may be as simple as a lease arrangement, as in the Morongo In- N-Out Burger, in which the franchise owner leases the land from the tribal owner and builds a restaurant there. Alternatively, the operation may be owned and operated by the Tribe, as in the Sonic restaurant, which is wholly owned by the Wyandotte Nation.

While tribally owned businesses operating on non-Indian land are clearly subject to local taxes, confusion surrounds taxation of non- Indian businesses on tribal land. In July, the Ninth Circuit precluded Thurston County in Washington State from imposing a property tax on Great Wolf Lodge, a waterpark on leased trust land, holding that state and local governments lack the power to tax permanent improvements built on Indian land. This means that a building owned by a non- Indian franchisee on tribal land is not subject to non-tribal property taxes. However, the Second Circuit recently decided that non-Indian personal property on tribal land – in that case, slot machines leased to the Tribe – is taxable.

Some fast-food restaurants on tribal land collect sales taxes for the tribe and other local governments. For example, while most businesses operating on the Navajo Reservation collect only a tribal sales tax of five percent, the McDonald’s restaurant in Shiprock, New Mexico, charges a 6.3 percent sales tax for San Juan County on top of the Navajo tax. While it is unclear that such a tax is required by law, some businesses may find it easier to pass sales taxes on to their customers than fight them.

With an ambiguous taxation framework, stand-alone businesses such as fast-food restaurants operating on tribal land must negotiate in advance who will pay these taxes should they be imposed and memorialize these decisions in the lease agreement.

Taxation is just one issue that makes doing business with Indian tribes unique. Other issues include tribal regulation, dispute resolution, and sovereign immunity. It is vital that experienced legal counsel be involved early in negotiations to ensure lasting and mutually beneficial businesses in Indian Country.

Article By:

 of

New Rules on Use of Child Models in New York

 

Katten Muchin

Historically, the laws in New York State regulating the employment did not include child models. However, the New York State Senate and Assembly has recently voted to pass legislation to ensure that child models will now be afforded the same protections as “child actors, dancers and musicians” working in New York. Such legislation, once signed into law, is expected to have a significant impact on the fashion industry.

Specifically, the new legislation will provide that companies employing models under the age of 18 will be required to obtain certificates of eligibility, to provide chaperones and tutors and to limit their work hours. In addition, the new legislation sets forth several new protections for child models, including: (1) if the model is under the age of 16, a “responsible person” must be designated to monitor the activity and safety for each model at the work place; (2) an employer must provide a nurse with paediatric experience (only applicable to infants); (3) employers must provide teachers and a dedicated space for instruction (generally, provided that the employment takes place on a school day and the child performer is not otherwise receiving educational instruction due to his or her employment schedule); (4) employers must provide safety-based instruction and information to performers, parents/guardians and responsible person(s); and (5) a trust must be established by a child performer’s parent or guardian and an employer must transfer at least 15% of the child’s gross earnings into the trust.

Further, child models will now also need to obtain work permits which would require not only the written consent of a parent or guardian, but also evidence that the model is maintaining the standards of academic performance from their enrolled school. The new requirements will be in addition to work hour regulations for child performers (which differ based on age, whether school is in session, and whether the performance is live or recorded) and limitations on the times along with the total number of hours that a child model can work.

Additionally, the employer must provide for meal and certain rest periods. Although the legislation does not specifically mention “fit models”, the spirit of the legislation is to ensure that child models have the same protections as other child performers. Therefore, it would be prudent for fashion companies to treat fit models in the same manner as runway and print models.

Once implemented, these regulations will be overseen by the Department of Labor which possesses far greater resources to enforce regulations than the Department of Education (which was the agency previously overseeing the regulations pertaining to the employment and education of child models in New York). Accordingly, companies employing young fashion models should be aware of, and anticipate planning for, the implementation of new legislation in New York (and any similar legislation in the jurisdictions in which they are based).

Article By:

 of