Archives for July 2016

On July 13, 2016, the firm’s principal, Andre Castaybert, attended the Midsummer Dinner to raise funds for SHORE (Sheltering the Homeless Is Our Responsibility, Inc,) and honoring the work of Joan Arnold and St. Augustine Church in Larchmont, where Andre is a member of the Parish Council.  

 

SHORE is an all-volunteer, interfaith, not-for-profit housing organization in central Westchester County, NY founded in 1985 when a half-dozen churches and temples joined forces and opened their doors to provide overnight shelter for nineteen single, homeless adults. In the years since, SHORE has expanded its mission to include other housing-related programs, primarily permanent, affordable rental homes for homeless families.  SHORE has constructed 14 new affordable units in White Plains for 7 first-time homeowners and 7 formerly homeless families. In 2010 SHORE completed the construction of a new 2-family home in Ardsley, NY.  SHORE also manages a 2-family home in Sleepy Hollow, NY.   In 2012 SHORE initiated a project to acquire 3 additional 2-family homes and merge the operation of I CARE (Interfaith Council for Affordable Residence) in the Larchmont and Mamaroneck communities.

 

To learn more about SHORE’s good works, visit their website at www.shelteringthehomeless.org.

The New York Appellate Division Third Department determined Supreme Court properly withheld from disclosure both tax returns and documents which reflect information included in tax returns: ” ‘The policy behind the [tax] secrecy provisions is twofold: to protect personal privacy interests in the information on a return, which may reveal information concerning a person’s activities, associations and beliefs, and to encourage voluntary compliance with the tax laws by preventing use of return information to harm the reporting taxpayer”’… . The statute prohibits the disclosure of ‘any particulars’ by any person who ‘is permitted to inspect’ a return, receives ‘any information contained in any [return]’ or who ‘in any manner may acquire knowledge of the contents of a [return]’ (Tax Law § 211 [8] [a]). By its terms, the confidentially required by the statute necessarily extends to any document that reflects information included in a return. If we were to construe the statute to only protect the secrecy of the return, the purpose of the statute would not be served . . . , and we find, in particular, that Tax Law § 211 (8) (a) prohibits the Department from releasing an agreement made with another taxpayer (see Tax Law §§ 171 [18]; 210-A [11]). … Contrary to petitioner’s arguments, where, as here, a document is exempt from disclosure pursuant to state statute, it may not be subjected to redaction …’. 

Matter of Moody’s Corp. & Subsidiaries v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05612, 3rd Dept 7-21-16

A group of freelance photographers contracted to shoot NFL games may press forward with a claim that they were forced to enter into unconscionable licensing agreements that cost them their ability to sell higher-value commercial licenses.

The seven photographers brought a lawsuit in 2013 against The Associated Press, the National Football League, Replay Photos and Getty Images alleging the licensing agreements violated antitrust and copyright laws. Those claims were dismissed in 2015 by Southern District Judge Robert Sweet. The photographers filed a second amended complaint that included a claim alleging the licensing agreements were unconscionable because of a lack of equal bargaining power.  Last week, Judge Sweet denied a motion brought by the AP, the NFL and Replay to dismiss the unconscionability claims ruling that the alleged high-pressure “take or leave it” tactics and deception used to sway the photographers into entering the agreements suggested unequal bargaining power between the parties.

Judge Sweet granted a motion by Getty to compel arbitration, but opened the door for the photographers to make an unconscionability claim against Getty later finding that the photographers had pointed to an “inequality of bargaining power” after the AP secured an exclusive agreement with the NFL, increasing AP’s leverage. The photographers also alleged that they had proposed several changes to their license contracts during a negotiation call and that their proposed changes were rejected. The AP told plaintiffs the terms were “take-it-or-leave-it,” Sweet wrote.  That would be a violation, if backed by evidence, because “there were no other opportunities for plaintiffs to engage in their livelihood of photographing NFL football games other than to accept the contributor agreements with the AP, which was their primary source of income,” Sweet wrote in Spinelli v. National Football League, 13-cv-7398.  Judge Sweet added that not signing with the AP would have led to the photographers losing access to all the NFL photos they had already taken, because the AP had a retroactive exclusive license over all NFL photographs.

Tiffany Tibbot writes on the topic of The Basics of Patent Protection for Design on Maker’s Row reviewing how to protect your designs.
Tibbot’s number one lesson: fashion design cannot be protected but the pieces that make up the design can be. Things to consider should be what parts of your design are original and how can you make an impact at the entry level.

What you can do to protect your prototypes:

• Non-Disclosure/Confidentiality Agreements
• Exclusive Rights Agreements regarding a particular fabric, materials or technology
• Shared or partner Asset Agreement
Ways you can protect your inventions include: Brand Trademarks, Provisional Patent vs. Patent and International Intellectual Property Protection.

To read Tibbot’s full article, click here.

contact