Forgot password?
A law blog by Robert Lombardo on The Whole 9

Attorney Robert Lombardo came from the creative world and then began practicing law in 1995. The diversity of his professional life (years of which were spent in Europe, Australia and Japan) gives him a unique perspective on the law. Currently Robert is focusing on entertainment law (which encompasses nearly all creative industries) and brings this firsthand experience and desire to make the law accessible to the The Whole 9 community.

The Kids Are Alright

Two legal cases involving the “education” of school children were decided this past week.

The first involves the Florida law that high school students must recite the pledge of allegiance unless they get an exemption from their parents.

In 2005, a parent on behalf of her son who was in the 11th grade filed a lawsuit challenging a Florida school policy requiring students to get a parent’s permission to avoid having to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.  (I don’t remember reciting it after the sixth grade but perhaps I just wasn’t paying attention).

A federal district judge agreed with the student and ruled that the law “robs the student of the right to make an independent decision whether to say the pledge.”

Last year, however, a three judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit reversed the lower court.  After acknowledging that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled over a half a century ago that local government authorities can’t compel a salute to the flag,  the court nonetheless held that “the State, in restricting the student’s freedom of speech, advances the protection of the constitutional rights of parents: an interest which the State may lawfully protect.” 

A legal aside here – the Eleventh Circuit is considered a conservative court and conservative jurists (think Scalia, Thomas, et al.) generally read the constitution quite narrowly (i.e. literally).  So the decision begs the question:  where in the U.S. Constitution does one find anything having to do with the “constitutional rights of parents”?  (Hint:  don’t spend too much time looking for it).

The Court did throw the student a bone when it found that the part of the law requiring all “civilians” to stand during the pledge in schools was unconstitutional.   On the question of standing during the pledge, the state of Florida acknowledged that students have a right to remain seated but had urged the court to read the requirement as applicable only to those students who don’t get a parent’s permission to not say the pledge.   (That is just plain weird).

You may read the court’s decision in its entirety here.

The student appealed to the full Eleventh Circuit but, this past Monday, it declined to review the panel’s ruling.

A copy of that final ruling can be found here.  If you scroll down past the Order you can read the well reasoned dissent from Judge Rosemary Barkett, who argues that states cannot force minors to recite the pledge.

For more great ideas the State of Florida has had for educating its children please check out this article from CNN.

 

In the second case, a California state court ruled that a private school can expel lesbian students – even when there was no actual evidence of homosexuality.

Back in 2005, a teacher at the California Lutheran High School checked out a couple of female students’ My Space pages.  One of the girls was identified as bisexual and the other said she was “not sure” of her sexual orientation.  Their My Space pages also purportedly contained a photograph of . . .  get ready for this  . . . the two girls hugging!

The school’s principal also claimed that the girls had been kissing each other  . . . Oh, no!  Not that!

In its infinite wisdom, the California Lutheran High School expelled two 16-year-old girls for having a “bond of intimacy” that was “characteristic of a lesbian relationship.”

The girls sued claiming the school had violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by expelling them.   In ruling for the school, a state court cited a 1998 decision by the California Supreme Court holding that that the Boy Scouts, which had been sued for sexual-orientation discrimination, did not have to comply with state civil rights law.

“The whole purpose of sending one’s child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious context,” wrote Judge Betty Richli for the 4th District Court of Appeals.

This sordid story may be found in more detail at the LA Times.  Please be warned that the content may not be suitable for adults!

This case begs the question:  what valuable lesson have the girls at the California Lutheran High School learned?

 

Sometimes, I feel I gotta get away
Bells chime, I know I gotta get away
And I know if I don’t, I’ll go out of my mind
Better leave her behind with the kids, they’re alright
The kids are alright

 – Pete Townshen

 

comments

Ohhhhhhh and it makes me wonder………
and (they think they’re) buying a stairway to heaven.

I shouldn’t be surprised but I am.

Informative as usual.

To quote AmErykah Badu .. “oh no ! .. freedom’s here ” …

california may be liberal in some aspects, but its still mired in the dark ages when it comes to this sort of crap. take the passing of prop 8 for instance. if it has no bearing on you personally, i say mind your own fucking business, neighbor.

I was just cruising for a pre-school for my daughter and right down the street there’s a place called Play Mountain Place and on their website they actually have a list of workshops…one of which is for parents on how to talk with their kids about Gay and Lesbian issues.

I was heartened to see this and to know that not only are some schools becoming more accepting…but they are being proactive in teaching parents how to effectively communicate and frame what it all (same sex parents, etc.) means to kids.

Needless to say, this school’s moving to the top of my list.

It seems that the legal system’s caretakers in Florida are regular abusers of the rights and safety of inmates and wards. I know the man in the wheelchair that was tossed in the Orient Road Jail in Hillsborough County, Florida. He is so weak that he has to use both hands to hold his IPOD. I abhor the treatment that they dish out there and I ran into a man that drives a Hartline Bus that said he worked with her and as a retired officer from that jail is now also an investigator and investigated her case and found that she was not remiss but that the system was in not categorizing him as disabled. Nonsense! They brought a wheelchair to his arrest procedure because they knew precisely what his physical condition was. Imagine that guy trying to tell me otherwise? What we need in Florida is a system for investigating that will over power the acts of the officials that attempt to and frequently shroud these treatments of persons. And, to jail officials like Sheriff Gee that cover it up. This nonsense has to stop. We are not in Nazi Germany!

Defamation – Think Before You Vent

Defamation actions have increased proportionally with the increase in Internet blogs and social networking sites.  Are you at risk?

 

What it is

Defamation (or “defamation of character”) is words, spoken or written, that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person’s reputation.

There are two kinds of defamation: slander and libel.  Slander is spoken defamation, while libel is written.

So be warned:  if you publicly write something false in order to damage one’s reputation, you risk a lawsuit – no matter how casual the nature of your post.

Facts vs. Opinion

In order for a statement to be defamatory, it must be published as a fact – not merely an idea or opinion.  However, if your opinion can “reasonably be understood as declaring or implying actual facts capable of being proved true or false,” you will not be protected from libel laws.

In other words, don’t think you are immune from a lawsuit just because you preface your statement with “I think that …” or “I believe that …” or “I have been told that …” or “It is rumored that ….”

The line between “fact” and “opinion” is a fine one but, generally, “rhetorical hyperbole” and “vigorous epithets” are not actionable.  You may find some juicy examples of both here.

For an example of a guy who offered his humble opinion on his blog, check out this sad tale from Miami here.

Public Figures vs. Private Individuals

Public figures (like politicians) get less protection than the average Joe (like Joe the Plumber).  Public figures must prove not only that the statement was false but that the intent was malicious.  The reasons for the added element are that a public figure has purposely placed him/herself in the public eye and the public figure can defend him/herself quickly and effectively with the use of the news media.

A question:  Is Joe the Plumber still an average Joe?

Anonymity

For the most part, nothing published on the Internet is anonymous – nothing!

Although there are services out there that claim to allow one to remain anonymous (see Tor), Internet anonymity is just a myth. 

Check out what happened to this poor slob in Colorado who trashed his ex on Craigslist - anonymously.

Liability

Not only is the person who actually posted the defamatory statement liable, but blogs and social network websites (such as TheWhole9.com) in which the defamatory statements were written are potential sources of liability and recovery for the person whose character was defamed.

While the operators of blogs and networks are generally immune from this liability, if the service is aware of the defamatory statement and does nothing, it is likely to face liability issues. 

Be careful – it’s dangerous out there.

comments

This is VERY interesting, Robert. The Internet is still a virtual wild west and people do say/write more things on it than are generally allowed by newspapers or other print media. But WHO polices all the sites, forum and blogs? Look at what people spew about politicians. Do we have to worry that we (“the people”) are not entitled to speak our truth or vent our thoughts about the politicians that hold us hostage (a very recent previous administration comes to mind)? Are these laws governed nationally or by individual states? And, what about the rest of the world? Sounds a little too “big brother” for me.
Nice to see you back.

Hey Robert,

Thanks for sharing this. I was actually just researching this not too long ago from the military perspective. Obviously, Soldiers are entitled to the rights they so actively fight to protect, however we have a very, very unique position as military personnel when it comes to stating our opinions.

I plan on taking to the stage in 2009 once again. However, this time I am not simply your angry college student with a ‘fro. Now, I am your angry college graduate, Iraq war veteran, with a ‘fro! Rules are a little different second time around …

At any rate, thanks for sharing!

B.

Brooke:

You may find this article interesting:

The Military, Freedom of Speech, and the Internet: Preserving Operational Security and
Servicemembers’ Right of Free Speech

http://www.utexas.edu/law/journals/tlr/assets/current/cornyn.pdf

Robert

Patricia:

It gets worse – check out this case concerning “libel tourism”:

http://www.thelibeltourist.com/

Robert

Robert,

Great to see you back! 2009 promises to be a great year. I encourage everyone to view the video on the link above. Shocking. Here’s to a new America and new energy sources that cut us loose from Middle Eastern regressive countries.

Lisa

Start Your Own Nonprofit Organization

look at me, 1-2-3, I can be, 501(c)(3)

Although this is not the best time to be soliciting donations, it is a good time to consider forming a nonprofit organization pursuant to 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.  When the economy rebounds, you will be ready to rake in those tax free donations to your cause.

 

What’s a Nonprofit Organization?

A nonprofit organization is one that is organized to achieve a purpose other than generating profit.

 

Duh!?

Well, OK, although a nonprofit may not “distribute” profits to its directors, officers, employees, or members, it may pay them a “reasonable” salary and provide benefits and reimburse expenses.

The key is to put yourself -and your friends - on the payroll. 

 

But why a nonprofit organization pursuant to 501(c)(3)?

No taxes, baby!

But, if you want to take advantage of the tax benefits, you will have to start and operate your charity pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.  Forming and maintaining a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation can take a lot of time, energy, and money but the benefits of tax-exempt status are just too good to pass up.

 

Great – no taxes - anything else?

More than no taxes?!  OK, here are a few more reasons.

501(c)(3) status gives your organization credibility with potential donors because it shows that your organization has a legitimate charitable purpose, a formal structure for accomplishing its goals, and is publicly accountable.

Just as important – donations to the organization will be tax deductible by donor, making fundraising easier. In fact, some donors – like foundations and the federal government – can’t fund projects that don’t have 501(c)(3) status.

You may also be eligible for other special benefits – discounted postal rates, state tax exemptions (sales tax), limited tort liability and, local tax exemptions (no property tax).

 

But if the IRS is involved it must be a big pain-in-the-butt?

Not really, you just have to follow the rules.

In order to qualify as a public charity, a nonprofit corporation must be formed and operated for a charitable purpose.  The term “charitable” describes all the organizations covered under section 501(c)(3) - for instance, organizations with religious, educational, scientific, or literary purposes.  These purposes must be for the benefit of some significant section of society, whether it be the general public or a specific community. 

Additionally, a public charity must be publicly supported.  This means that the nonprofit corporation must normally receive funds from governmental entities or multiple private donors.

A note to you political junkies: 501(c)(3) tax exemptions are denied if you want to engage in certain political or lobbying activities.

 

So, I think my organization qualifies under 501(c)(3) – what’s the downside?

Forming and operating a nonprofit organization is burdensome and costly.

There are reporting requirements and operating restrictions in order to comply with the law and maintain 501(c)(3) exempt status.   Additionally, you will also be responsible for the tax and other regulatory obligations imposed on all small businesses.

Like other corporate entities, nonprofit organizations can be sued for any number of reasons but, like any other corporate entity, a director of a nonprofit corporation, and other individuals who participate in the founding and/or operating of the nonprofit organization, enjoy limited liability for the debts and obligations of the organization, including for the unlawful acts of other directors, officers, and employees.  However, directors, officers, and employees may be personally liable for their own wrongful conduct, regardless of whether they are paid for their work or are volunteers.

As with any other small business, if you apply for a loan to help fund your nonprofit corporation, the lender probably will require you to give a personal guarantee and, in that case, you are personally responsible for the paying back the debt.

Finally, taxation is complicated.  The tax returns and reports of the nonprofit corporation should be handled by an experienced (expensive) tax accountant.

 

How much will it cost me to register with the IRS?

Not as much as you might think.

Thanks to websites such as Legalzoom, it is probably the easiest and least expensive part of the whole process – between $150 and $400.

 

What if I’m not ready to jump right in - can I wade in slowly?

Yes, there is a way to get your feet wet in the nonprofit field through a “fiscal sponsorship.”

Think of these as nonprofit franchises - a nonprofit organization with 501(c)(3) status lends its legal and nonprofit status to persons, groups, or businesses that engage in activities related to the sponsor’s mission.

Through fiscal sponsorship, you can function as a nonprofit organization (including receiving tax-deductible donations) without going through the hassle of forming your own independent organization.

Fiscal sponsorship also offers the possibility of benefiting from the sponsor’s established administrative infrastructure, financial liquidity, and expertise.  In exchange for these services, the fiscal sponsor generally keeps a percentage of each financial transaction or charges a monthly or yearly membership fee.

 

How ’bout a lead on some of these “fiscal sponsorships”?

No problem.

Fractured Atlas is an organization that offers fiscal sponsorship as well as other services (such as event liability insurance and even health insurance) to individuals or groups involved in the arts.  Once you are sponsored, Fractured Atlas will accept donations for you and act as a bank from which you can withdraw funds at any time.

The Tides Center is a large fiscal sponsor supporting programs that seek to accelerate social change.  In addition to sponsorship, the Tides Center offers other office-related services such as human resources management and payroll management.  However, it does not offer sponsorship to projects with less than $30,000 in annual funding and does not offer sponsorship to individuals.

Community Partners provides sponsorship services to southern California organizations. They do not have a minimum fund-raising requirement, but they analyze your business structure to determine the need for your project and the likelihood that your project will raise sufficient funding.

 

Happy Fundraising!

 

comments

Awesome! A timely post, thank you. A group of people and I who were planning a ministry decided last week to look into possibly creating a 501(c). Thanks for this primer!

Banned Books Week

This week marks the American Library Association’s annual “Banned Books Week” – which “celebrates the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one’s opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them.”

Please take the time to reflect upon a freedom we often take for granted.

http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/archive/bannedbooksweek73008archive.cfm

Free Speech v. Obama and McCain

I consider the Bill of Rights (10 amendments added to the United States Constitution in 1791 and influenced by the British Bill of Rights of 1689) to be one of the most impressive documents I have ever read.  (Full disclosure: I am not well read.)

If you are an American, take the time to read the United States Constitution line by line.  It is one of the few things that make me proud to be American – it should make you proud as well.

In my mind, the First Amendment is first for a reason – it is the most important.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(Again, in the interest of full disclosure, as a defense attorney, the fourth amendment -

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

- has been, practically speaking, more important for my clients and me.  There is just no way that the First Amendment is going to help get 2 kilos of cocaine, 5 kilos of marijuana, and 3 handguns suppressed.)

In any event, I wanted, for my own edification, to take a look at how the two presidential candidates have treated free speech (I will leave religion for another day).  I had wanted to use the sub-titles: the good; the bad; and, the ugly.  However,  I could not find anything either of the candidates had done to enhance free speech so I was left with “the bad” and “the ugly”.

“Bad” is something done through the democratic process that “chills” free speech.

“Ugly” is something that is an all out assault on free speech.

I am a sure I have missed some of “the good” and “the bad” and “the ugly”.  If you find something, please let us all know.

Whether you agree with my labels or not, it is clear that neither candidate follows Voltaire:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

 

The Bad

Obama

In a November 2005 speech to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Obama stated his support for the work of Sens. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, who have advocated for more indecency regulation of broadcasters and cable companies. In that speech Obama described the difficulty in balancing First Amendment liberties with cultural values in the context of regulating sex and violence on television.  Remarks of U.S. Senator Barack Obama regarding the “Sex on TV 4″ Report.

 

McCain

In April 2006, Don Imus asked Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., about the charge that his campaign-finance legislation violated the First Amendment:   “I would rather have a clean government than one where quote ‘First Amendment rights’ are being respected that has become corrupt . . . If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government.”

See Our Right And His Wrongs and Setback for the Censors for stinging indictments of McCain’s view of the First Amendment by George Will.

Millions of commercial Web sites and personal blogs would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000, if a new proposal in the U.S. Senate came into law.

Senator: Illegal images must be reported

 

The Ugly

Obama

The Obama presidential campaign beats back media messages it does not like by calling on supporters to flood radio and television stations when those opposed to him run anti-Obama ads or appear on talk shows.

Campaign targets media when attacks aired

The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who “lies” or runs a “misleading” TV ad during the presidential campaign.

The Barack Obama Truth Squad

Another incident with free speech implications occurred during a May 2007 presidential campaign fundraiser at a Richmond, Va., at the art gallery Plant Zero. 

Art Critic Obama

Obama’s campaign threatened legal action this year against Lindsay Ashford, an American expatriate living in Europe and a self-professed pedophile who posted on his Web site judgments on the “cuteness” of presidential candidates’ children.

“If Obama knows that his lawyer is doing this, then that’s one reason not to vote for him. These are clear free-speech issues,” First Amendment lawyer Jonathan Katz.

Lawrence Walters, a constitutional lawyer, doubted Obama would win such a lawsuit if one were filed. “The big concern I would have is that if in the abstract, you don’t allow free speech for these kinds of people, that’s something to really think about. When we’re looking at the platform of the campaign, who else doesn’t get free-speech rights? You have to think through the implications.”

See ABC News and the Smoking Gun.

 

McCain

This tactic is particularly onerous and is one that has been used effectively by GWB:

John McCain Kicks Librarian Out of Town Hall Event

You should be asking yourself:  How do they get away with this?

And you should care.

I will explain in another post.

comments

First of all, welcome back! There is a lot respond to (I hope everyone took the time to read all the links) and you make so many interesting points, as always. A couple of comments:
I may be completely foolish to believe that the internet is quite likely the last frontier for real FREE speech (for how long, I don’t know). We can (and do and read and) write or say just about anything we please on the internet without facing the risk of libel or slander (for how long, I don’t know). It has become increasingly difficult to be able to do so in mainstream media. Having faced firsthand as a writer the chilling effect (and all that it implies) myself, I am grateful to have the internet as on outlet to speak my “truth”, regardless of whether anyone else agrees with it or not. Your blog today makes me think otherwise.
As for covering up the art, all I can say is “bullshit”. Has anyone ever done a study of all the nude art children are exposed to throughout Europe and whether or not that increased the propensity of any of them becoming sex addicts or pedophiles? Americans are the biggest subscribers to porn and gambling; Amber alerts happen almost every single day. The puritanical hypocrisy of this nation never ceases to amaze me.
The librarian with the sign? All I can say is “WOW”. You are right. I am asking how they are getting away with this and I DO care – enough to almost want to go and pull the same stunt myself.
The real grassroots effort that needs to be started is one that gets people to START WAKING UP from their comas before we find ourselves living back in the stone ages. It’s becoming dangerously apparent that this is where our society/country is heading; perhaps a little more slowly if Obama becomes president; certainly more rapidly if McCain does so with your bathing suit wearing friend Palin in tow.
Eventually though, we are all going to get fucked. Thanks for reminding me.
Shame on BOTH the candidates……….

When The GRIM REAPER Knocks; Will Your House Be In Order?

 

This has been one hellava summer: my best friend, Biko, died; my house was broken into; my father died; and, now, I learn that my sister has breast cancer.

Death is on my mind; so let’s talk about death.  No matter how fast you live, the Grim Reaper will find you. 

Death is ugly; there is simply no reason to make it uglier for the loved ones left in its wake. 

Unless you are a canine – as Biko was – you should take the time to prepare an “advance health care directive” and a will and/or trust.  Often these documents are referred to as “estate planning” or “end of life” issues.  I will refer to them as “death documents” – I am in no mood for euphemisms.

This is not a “how-to” post and I have no intention of “walking you though” the drafting of these death documents.  I would recommend LegalZoom.com for you “do-it-yourself” types.  If you have a lot of assets, you should visit an attorney who specializes in “death” issues.

Communication is important.  Even if you prefer to keep your legal documents private – as we all do – communicating your death wishes is essential.  Discuss your preferences with others and make sure your family knows where you stand. The more your family members know, the harder it will be for them to screw up.

 

Advance Health Care Directives (“living wills”)

Even if you a follower of Diogenes; get yourself a “living will.”   If you don’t, you could end up like Terri Schiavo – what a mess that was.

A living will is a written expression of preferences concerning medical treatment at the end of life.  A living will applies in situations where the decision to use such treatments may prolong life for a limited period of time and not obtaining such treatment would result in death.

Depending on the law of your state, this document will permit you to express whether or not you wish to be given life-sustaining treatments in the event you are terminally ill or injured, to decide in advance whether you wish to be provided food and water via intravenous devices, and to give other medical directions that impact the end of life.

“Life-sustaining treatment” means the use of available medical machinery and techniques that will sustain and possibly extend life.  In addition, most states permit you to express your preferences as to use life-sustaining equipment and/or tube feeding for medical conditions that leave you permanently unconscious and without detectable brain activity.

A living will does not mean that medical professionals would deny you pain medications and other treatments that would relieve pain or otherwise make you more comfortable.  Living wills do not determine your medical care in situations that do not affect your continued life, such as routine medical treatment and non life-threatening medical conditions.  In all states, the determination as to whether or not you are dying is determined by doctors who have examined you and/or reviewed your medical records.

Doctors prefer advance health care directives because they provide a written expression as to your medical care. Rather than the physician having to obtain a consensus answer from your family as to your treatment, the physician knows your preferences and knows who you want to provide decisions when you cannot.

Making your wishes known in advance prevents family members from making such choices at what is one of the most stressful times.

While all states recognize these advance health care directives, the law varies as to recognizing a document prepared in another state.  If you spend a considerable amount of time living in more than one state, you should consider having advance directives prepared in each state.

Should you change your mind as to your living will decisions, you can simply destroy the document and create a new one.

Once you have a living will, keep it with your other important documents. Make sure a responsible adult knows where you keep these documents.  If you have a regular physician who keeps your medical records, you should provide her a copy.  

I don’t know if my father had an advance health care directive but he was a doctor; and all his doctors were his close friends.  He made all of them promise several weeks before he died that he would not suffer.  Still, I could not help wondering – while he laid there listening to his doctors tell his family that his morphine would be increased to 5 ml an hour via an IV – what he must have felt knowing it was the beginning of the end.  For once, I thought, ignorance would be blissful. 

 

Wills

If you die without a will (intestate), your state’s laws of descent and distribution will determine who receives your property.  These laws vary from state to state, but typically the distribution would be to your spouse and children; or, if none, to other family members.  A state’s plan often reflects the legislature’s guess as to how most people would dispose of their estates and builds in protections for certain beneficiaries, particularly minor children. That plan probably will not reflect your wishes.

A will allows you to alter the state’s default plan to suit your personal preferences and provides for the distribution of property owned by you at the time of your death in any manner you choose.

Wills can be of various degrees of complexity and can be utilized to achieve a wide range of objectives.  If a will provides for the outright distribution of assets, it is sometimes characterized as a simple will.  If the will establishes one or more trusts, it is often called a testamentary trust will.  The purpose of the trust arrangement (as opposed to outright distribution) is to ensure continued property management and creditor protection for the surviving family members, to provide for charities, and to minimize taxes.

 

Trusts

The term trust describes the holding of property by a trustee (which may be one or more persons or a corporate trust company or bank) in accordance with the provisions of a written trust instrument for the benefit of one or more persons called beneficiaries.

A “living trust” is legally in existence during your life, has a trustee who is currently serving, and owns property which (generally) you have transferred to it during your life.  While you are living, the trustee (who may be you) is generally responsible for managing the property as you direct for your benefit.  Upon your death, another trustee is generally directed to either distribute the trust property to your beneficiaries, or to continue to hold it and manage it for the benefit of your beneficiaries.  Like a will, a living trust can provide for the distribution of property upon your death.  Unlike a will, it can also provide you with a vehicle for managing your property during your life and authorize the trustee to manage the property and use it for your benefit (and your family) if you should become incapacitated, thereby avoiding the appointment of a guardian for that purpose.

Trusts are not only for the wealthy.  Many parents with limited assets choose to create trusts either during life or in their wills for the benefit of their children in case both parents die before all their children have reached an age deemed by them to indicate sufficient maturity to handle property.  This permits the trust estate to be held as a single undivided fund to be used for the support and education of minor children according to their respective needs, with eventual division of the trust among the children when the youngest has reached a specified age.

 

Other Death Considerations

Jointly Owned Property

If you own property with another person as “joint tenants with right of survivorship,” (i.e. not as tenants in common) the property will pass directly to the remaining joint tenant upon your death and will not be a part of your probate estate.

Annuities and Retirement Benefits

If you receive some type of retirement benefit under an employee plan offered by your employer or have an Individual Retirement Account (IRA), the plan will provide for the payment of certain benefits to beneficiaries when you die.

Be careful to update your beneficiaries.  There are many ex-wives who have received all the benefits that should have gone to the surviving wife because a retirement plan was not updated.  That is a serious fuck-up!

Life Insurance

If you own life insurance, the laws pertaining to the taxability of insurance proceeds are complex so it is important that all matters pertaining to life insurance be carefully reviewed with your attorney and/or insurance advisor.

Again, be careful to update your beneficiaries.   Don’t encourage grave desecration by being sloppy!

Health Care Proxy

A “health care proxy,” sometimes called a “health care surrogate” or “durable medical power of attorney,” is the appointment of a person to whom you grant authority to make medical decisions in the event you are unable to express your preferences.  Most commonly, this situation occurs either because you are unconscious or because your mental state is such that you do not have the legal capacity to make your own decisions.

Pick this person wisely.  Your party-friend is not a good call.

Organ and Tissue Donation

In many states you can include in your advance directive your preference to become an organ or tissue donor at the time of death.  State law varies, so do some research.  Even if your state is one in which your driver’s license contains an organ or tissue donor statement, you need to express this by letting your health care proxy, your family, and/or your physician know your desire to become a donor.  In some states, you also need to be registered as an organ and tissue donor.

 

Please let me know when you get your death documents in order.

 

 

comments

These are probably the most important (and well written) instructions ever given for people to read and (hopefully) follow. Anyone with half a brain should cut and paste (or print) this blog, follow through and then send it to everyone they care about so everyone gets their house ” in order”.
I’m so sorry that your recent loss(es) served as the inspiration for this blog and wish you and your family comfort and your sister a full recovery.
What a selfless act on your part to share this information and think of others during these difficult times.
You must only be PART lawyer. ;)
Thank you.

I hope your sister finds its one of the less aggressive types and gets extraordinary treatment. My wife is in recovery and I know she will need to be strong but will get through it if she is. Our best wishes to her.

hey robert- thats some incredibly helpful info – way more than i expected after “I have no intention of “walking you though” the drafting of these death documents”- thanks!

Wow, excellent info, Robert. Just as I left a message for my insurance guy regarding life insurance — I will ask about taxability!

My sister-in-law just came through ten months of chemo, a lumpectomy and radiation and she is now cancer free, so keep the good vibes going and positive energy around her.

Lawyers need love too…

Thanks to everyone that has posted comments and asked questioned on Robert’s blog. He’s been called out of town on a family emergency, and contrary to everything you’ve ever heard or thought about lawyers, was concerned enough about all of you, to let us know he’d be absent for awhile.

Stay tuned for updates because you can be sure he’ll be riding back into town soon. In the meantime, let’s show Robert some love and stack those comments and questions up so he’s got plenty to look at upon his return.

Gratefully,

The Team at The Whole 9

comments

I hope your situation gets sorted and everything is okay! Ride safe and I wish you and your family all the best.

Hi.
I haven’t been around here for a while, but I saw your banner and was intrigued. So now I’m intrigued and concerned. I hope things wind down and everyone can find healing and love and connection.

I’m in the “Healing Arts” – which is entertaining for me, but may not be so entertaining for our Participants. Not sure. But you’ll have to judge if your knowledge applies. I am a Peer Counselor for a Client-run Peer Support Drop-In Center for the Mentally Ill. We are not “Therapists”…[disclaimer]… however! What we do is “therapeutic”. I am always pushing the envelope on therapeutic. It seems to be in my blood. How can I stay legally safe and still stake out new territory for therapeutic Peer Support? I don’t want to get the agency I work for in trouble either, so I won’t be comforted knowing they will get nailed for my mistakes.

Have fun with that one when you get back. I’ll try and check in soon.

We’re sending good thoughts your direction. You’ve been amazingly generous with your wit and expertise…know that it’s sent back to you ten-fold!

sorry to hear about your dad, robert.

You are in my thoughts.

namaste

Trademark enforcement: “are they fucking kidding me?” or “it’s silly, but scary at the same time.”

My dear readers:

Sunday, I plan on presenting a (brief) primer on Trademarks but, without your questions (real or manufactured), it could be dreadfully boring.  I do not intend on letting that happen.

Therefore, I ask that you take a quick look at these two articles and respond with your comments.

The first is about an artist in Alaska who ran afoul of the California Milk Processor Board.  See here.

The second is about Dave Navarro of Jane’s Addiction who ran afoul of Louis Vuitton.  See here.

Please share your reaction(s) to these two trademark issues – it would be greatly appreciated.

RLL

comments

I’m glad you brought this up. It’s something I definitely need to learn more about. The whole milk thing seems a little out there. On one hand I can understand that the milk company might feel a little jolted that they didn’t come up with the clever mommy pun, but does it seriously warrant a lawsuit?

Now I know you’re going to be surprised at this one, but three important questions come to mind for us lay people…

1. What the hell is a trademark?

2. When do you need one? (i.e., what must be trademarked?)

3. What does this do for you?

I’m guessing I’m not the only one (at least I hope I’m not!) that doesn’t even know the answers to these basic questions.

Oh…and might I just say that it seems a far stretch that you could ever be boring!

This is absolute bullshit! I have said “just do it” on a few occasions where the sex was bad and nobody from Nike has sent me a “cease and desist” letter. In the Louis Vuitton matter, I understand their concern about knockoffs. It is my understanding however, it is only illegal to SELL them, but not to purchase, use or wear them (even if they were a gift). So, LVMH should be hunting down the salesperson to the bearer of gifts and not the poor guitarist.

I mean seriously, if I (or anyone else) came up with a great name that replaced the word money and the whole world started using it, would that not make me entitled to get ALL of it (the money), every time somebody “used” it? Didn’t Donald Trump want to own the words “You’re Fired” too? Technically, that would mean every time somebody wants to can someone they would have to pay a royalty to the Donald.

I can see it becoming even more complicated than it already is. Say, for example, an artist decides to write a famous person’s name or use their likeness in a piece of art (which has been done for ages). Do we suddenly have to worry about facing infringement suits for that? Are we going to have to copyright and trademark our entire being and existence so we always resort to suing when everything else fails?

I guess I’ll have to go and destroy all my “Got MILF?” t-shirts. (If you try to steal this great idea, I’ll take you to court and prove that I first put it out publicly on this website to prove that it’s mine!) ;)

PLEASE write a blog about this and share your expertise. Pretty please?

Okay…so I just read both of these…and they’re both bullshit (I just had to take time out of my day after I saw nonconformist’s vehement response). And I love Dave Navarro’s blog…he should pack up and deliver all of his Louis Vuitton articles to their public relations person with a note that he will never wear or use their brand again. The reality is that PR people understand endorsements far better than most lame ass attorneys (since you are a kick-ass attorney you know where I’m coming from).

I guarantee that they would be not only begging him to change his mind after that, but probably custom-making a new set of guitar straps for him that would put the cheap knock-offs to shame.

Those are the reactions I am looking for!

That stuff happens everyday!

Copyrights and Cocktails

Copyright was created to protect what writers, artists, photographers and musicians create:  intellectual property.  Ultimately, it was meant to afford artists a decent income.

This post will not address the interesting questions:  did it ever really work that way (most artists never seemed to have made much money from the copyright system) and has it just become a tool that multinationals in the music, publishing, imaging and movie industries use to control their markets.

Whether what was meant to be a shield is now employed as a sword will be left for another day.  But your comments are always welcomed.

The purpose of this post is simply to allow you to hold your own at a cocktail party on the subject of copyrights.  Now before we begin, let’s all fill our glasses.

 

What do copyrights do?

Copyright protects “original works of authorship“ that are fixed in “a tangible form of expression.“  Under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which almost all major nations have signed, every creative work is copyrighted the moment it is fixed in tangible form.

Whooooo hooooo!

 

Do I need to register my creative work with a copyright office?

No registration is necessary, although it helps later if you eventually want to take legal action.

Which you probably will never do.

 

How about that © thing?  What is all that about?

The use of a copyright notice has not been required under US law since 1989 (when the US joined the Berne Convention).  Before that, US law required the notice to obtain copyright protection.

Use of notice is still important because it informs the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year that it was first sold or distributed to the public.  i.e. © 2008 TheWhole9.com.

 

How do I know if I have it “fixed in a tangible form”? 

If you can show it off at a later date, it is probably fixed.  If it is on a CD-ROM or DVD, then it is fixed.  Images that appear on a computer screen may be fixed, to the extent they are recorded on an electronic medium.  A live musical performance is not copyrighted unless it is recorded.

You being videotaped at an orgy is copyrighted – and probably available somewhere on the Internet.

 

Can I copyright anything?

Facts and ideas can’t be copyrighted – originality” does require some “creative spark,” even if the requirement is minimal.

An ordinary list, such as the names in your little black book, is generally not sufficiently creative to be protected under copyright law.

 

What rights are included in a copyright?

The right to make copies of your work; distribute copies of your work; perform your work publicly (like plays, film, dances or music); display your work publicly (like artwork, or stills from audiovisual works, or any material used on the Internet or television); and make “derivative works” (making modifications, adaptations or other new uses of a work, or translating the work to another media).

These are your exclusive rights; no one else can do any of them without your permission.

 

How long does my copyright last?

A long, long, time; due, in part, to Sonny Bono.  Some people seem to need the royalties even when they are dead.

Thanks to Salvatore Phillip “Sonny” Bono, your copyright will now last 70 years after you die.  So if you create your “masterpiece” this year, at the age of 30, and you die when you are 90; your copyright will not expire for 130 years.  (Did you follow the math?  You die in 2068 + 70 years = 2138 – 2008 = 130.)

 

What happens to my copyright after that?

When your copyright expires, the work falls into what’s called the “public domain.”  When a work is in the public domain anyone can copy it and use it without permission.

This is why artists like Van Gogh and writers like Dickens and composers like Vivaldi (and in 130 years, you) can be copied at will.

 

What if I created something for my job?

If the work you created is in the scope of your employment, then the employer owns the copyright, absent any agreement to the contrary.  This is also true if you are an independent contractor.  These works are called “works for hire.” An artist can, of course, assign some or all rights under the copyright to someone else, as authors often do in exchange for royalties when they sign contracts with publishers.

So if your boss asks you to write a screenplay as part of your job, the company you work for gets all the copyright protection that would otherwise have been available to you.  Fear not,  you can still stand on stage and accept the Oscar.

 

I created a work of “art” with my lover but, alas, we are no longer lovers.  Who owns the copyright?

When two or more people create a work together, each of them is an author: they are called “joint authors” and the work is called a “joint work.” Joint authors are co-owners of the copyright in the work, unless they agree otherwise.

So at the time you and your lover covered each other with paint and frolicked on the canvas, each of you became a joint author and a copyright owner.  In this case, the perfect remedy is available:  you cut the “painting” in half and you can both take a half.  The value will not be affected.  The videotapes will be trickier.

 

I like to be all legal-like:  how to I register my work?

We don’t have time for that here, but those friendly, knowledgeable people at the copyright office can help you there.  

 

Well, what legal rights do I get if I register with the copyright office?

If you register your work with the copyright office, it establishes a public record of the copyright.  Moreover, if you register your work within 3 months after selling or distributing your work to the public or prior to an infringement of the work, you will be eligible for Statutory Damages - available if you sue and win.  Good luck!

 

What is “fair use”?

“Fair use” (“fair dealing” in Canada and some other nations) is not an exemption to copyright law. The concept of “fair use” is a defense, which presumes that an infringement has already occurred.

“Fair use” generally encompasses areas such as criticism, comment, news reporting, or teaching.  However, a use that falls into any of those categories doesn’t automatically qualify as “fair use.”

You must also look at how much you use, and which parts you use.  Normally, the less you use (such as a quote from a movie in a review of that movie), the more likely the use falls under the category of fair use. However, what was used counts as much as how much was used. If you use the core of the work, even a small amount of copying may violate fair use.

Finally, consider the effect of the use on the author’s “potential market.” If you copied a work so that you didn’t have to buy additional copies of the original, or if you did so to avoid having to pay a license fee to the author, it’s unlikely to qualify as fair use.

“Fair use” is there to let a film critic include a clip from a film in her review to illustrate a point.  Since negative critics would never get permission to do this, the fair use exemption exists to stop copyright law from being used to stifle criticism.

This means that if you are doing things like commenting on a copyrighted work, making fun of it, teaching about it or researching it, you can make some limited use of the work without permission.   However, “fair use” is not a wholesale license to copy just because you don’t charge or you are in education.

The best course of action is simply to seek permission for all copied material you intend to use.

 

But aren’t things different on the Internet?

No!  Just because works are available on the Internet does not mean they are in the “public domain.”  Works published on the Internet enjoy the same copyright protection as other works, and copying a copyrighted work from the Internet without permission of the author still constitutes infringement.

 

I find this subject so stimulating; where can I get more info?

Please feel free to peruse the following in your spare time:  the  US Copyright Office; the Australian Copyright Act; the Canadian Intellectual Property Office; and, the UK Intellection Property Office.

************************

So, there you have it: enough information to bluff your way through a cocktail party.  But, keep this warning from Alexander Pope in mind:

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.

Please Stay Sober!

Me, myself, personally; I need a drink.

 

comments

Wow…what a post! I may need two drinks after that…and a cigarette. Quick question (scenario): You’re out and about and come across a street musician or busker who’s improvising some tunes and lyrics, and he/she is not being recorded via camera etc. Are those lyrics/tunes (in whole or part) then up for grabs? As long as they aren’t previously written down somewhere?

Yes; as long as the act has not been recorded and the lyrics and music have not been written down, then it is all “up for grabs.”
This is how the old blueswo/men “lost” their music – they were buskers. They did not write is down (most didn’t read music) and no one had bothered to go down to the Delta to record it. Thus, it was “up for grabs.”

THE SHIELD AS A SWORD.

As first reported over a year ago in the Vail Daily; Van Halen, Led Zeppelin, AC/DC and others sued a local business owner for copyright infringement for allowing cover bands to play their songs without permission.

I would like to hear your opinions on this lawsuit – and the many like it.

However, please first consider this: the bands named above “borrowed” many of their “riffs” from the old southern blues musicians – and made a lot of money doing it.

The originators? They got little; if anything.

So, how do you feel about this?

Greaat post – thre’s always a practicallity with these things. I have a newspaper client who routinely abuses my copyright. If I even raise the issue I know they won’t commission me again so whatever the law says, might is right. Did you ever have to deal with that situation?

Legal Self-Help: Kind of, sort of, like self-medication.

OK, I know it is dreadfully boring, and butt ugly, but you really should know some of the rules upon which you operate your business.

You wouldn’t go to Las Vegas – sit at the Blackjack table and bet a grand on your hand – if you didn’t know the rules? Would you? (“I thought that was an ‘eleven.’ Yes, it is an ‘eleven’; but it is also a ‘one.’ Damn!”)

Even if you can afford a lawyer to come to your rescue when you screw up, you will certainly save time and money by educating yourself in the law – well, as much as possible.

The business of “Art” is not really much different from all the other businesses. (Oh yeah, how did that sound? Just another business?) If there is an opportunity to make some money, and you have talent, then you can be sure that some dirt bag is looking to screw you. In the “Art” industry, getting ahead often means taking advantage of “artists,” who usually aren’t experienced in the law. However, if you understand the basics of the law, there is less of a chance that the dirt bag will screw you. Now if you like getting screwed by dirt bags then read no further; when your time comes, you can, as they say, “lay back and enjoy it.”

It would do me good, to do you good. In other words: know the basics of the law; to minimizing the screwing. (Again, those of you who enjoy the screwing can pour yourself another drink or fire up another bowl and go watch “America’s Got Talent” – or the ilk.)

Okay, if you are still with me, the first and most important step in running your “Art” business is to accept the fact that it is a business.

Producing “Art” is your creative work and selling that “Art” is a business. Are you interested in selling your “Art”? Then legal knowledge is essential to your success.

Hopefully, you will come to find that taking care of your business actually involves creativity and may not be quite as boring as you once thought (well, maybe not). You might even get turned on to the fact that there is power that comes with understanding the law. (OK, maybe that is really a stretch but give me a little leeway with the hyperbole here – it sounds sexy.)

You do not need to do all the legal work yourself but it is important, especially at the beginning, that you understand basic legal principles in order to make the “right” decisions and avoid the chasms of failure (and, thus, the proverbial screwing).

At the very least, I hope I can dispel any apathy (i.e. “I don’t know and I don’t care”).

And don’t even think of sending me an e-mail to tell me that you “just cannot understand legal principles.” If you have the cognitive skills to create “Art,” believe me, you have the skills to understand the law.

I will attempt to dispense with the legal jargon or “legalese” and talk in a language you understand but I will need you to hold my feet to the fire on this one. (I just love the lingo!)

Are we on the same page? Everything is copacetic? OK, your first assignment is to check out the Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts Website and really take a good look around – it is a great resource. I will follow its syllabus: copyrights; trademarks; contracts; and entity formation. Please leave me a comment with any question you may have on these subjects, poste haste, in order that I may address them in the appropriate post.

Finally, I leave you with this from B. Russell: “A chicken may have been fed by a certain man throughout its life, and have come to look to him confidently for food; but one day he wrings its neck instead. It would have been better for the chicken if its inductive inferences had been less crude.”

Don’t be a chicken. Please.

comments

Yup – Couldn’t have said it better myself – but I don’t connect with the title – ? – I beg to differ that legal self-help is impossible – it’s akin to self-defense tactics. I myself have fought my way out of the preliminary stages of legal entanglements of a minor sort on my own with the help of the (self-help legal) Nolo Press! I recommend them. Knowledge is power, esp. in the legal arena.

Ah, I like this blog already. I can’t wait to read more about the ins and outs of creative legalities.

Here’s a broad-but-all-important question that I’ve recently looked into but come across many divergent answers for: how would you interpret Fair Use as it applies to an artist, illustrator or designer creating something for a client on a work-for-hire basis who then wants to use said work in a portfolio for self-promotional purposes?

I’ve seen arguments that say something along the lines of ‘whomsoever owns the copyright shall set all the standards forthwith’ and others that (perhaps quixotically) declare that Fair Use allows for the creator of the work to use the work for self-promotion, regardless of who owns the copyright (and if they give permission or not).

I know this is a hot and touchy issue, especially with all the tinder the Internet has added to the fire, but I’m all ears as to how it all works out.

Thanks!

I didn’t mean to infer that it was impossible, pamphyila, with the reference to self –medicating in the title. What I meant to convey was that we all seem to be able to take care of our own minor ailments with over-the-counter drugs (and sometimes with a prescription written for someone else) without too much difficulty. My argument is that we should be doing the same with “everyday” legal issues.
However, it would be foolish to act as your own doctor if you broke your leg. (Booze, combined with your friend’s leftover OxyContin is not a sound (long term) treatment plan; in my humble opinion. Of course, you should consult with your physician and check if that plan is right for you.)
Likewise, if you are pulled over on the freeway by a State Trooper and in your trunk of your car he finds several bricks of Peruvian flake you might want to seriously consider hiring a lawyer.

Colin (that is your name; is it not?):

The concept of “fair use” has to the most misconstrued.

It is not an exemption. It is a defense; and a fairly narrow one.

That means an infringement must have occurred first and then you can use the defense.

Suffice it to say that if you “use said work in a portfolio for self-promotional purposes,” you will be infringing upon a copyright; unless you had an agreement to the contrary with the owner of the “work-for-hire.”

I will address these issues more fully in my next post.

Robert

BUK BUK BUKAAAAWWWWW !

I concurr and recommend Lawyers for the Arts perusal. That said, an ounce of prevention will help you sleep nights. II have has sleepless nights through a few harrowing experiences relating to service mark. All on the defensive, having CAREFULLY, PRESCIENTLY minded my p’s and q’s. Astonishing really. Robert, are you any kind of specialist in service marks, or perhaps a fan of a collegue you may like to recommend. = : ) ~