The Law Offices of André G. Castaybert & Associates
Forms necessary for employee leave under the Paid Family Leave Law are now available online here. Forms are available for employees, employers, and insurance carriers. For employees, forms include those for bonding leave, leave for a family member’s serious health condition, and leave for assistance in connection with a military deployment.
To learn how Castaybert PLLC can assist with matters of employment law, click here.
The NLRB’s Boeing Company decision this past December marked a significant change in how the Board reviews facially neutral workplace policies that appear to interfere with rights protected under the labor relations law. In the past—as established by the Board’s 2004 Lutheran Heritage decision—policies were held unlawful if they could be reasonably construed as prohibitive of protected activity. In Boeing, the Board asserted that it would evaluate the nature and extent to which the policy in question affected employee rights against the employer’s legitimate justifications for its policy. The Board’s goal: to strike a “proper balance” between the protection of employee rights and business interests.
In Boeing, the question was whether a policy that prohibited the use of camera-enabled devices, including cell phones, on company property was contrary to the labor relations law. The Board acknowledged various business concerns that correlated with the policy, including not only the protection of proprietary information and employees’ personally identifiable information, but also national security concerns and reducing the risk of terrorist attacks. Against these “substantial and important justifications,” the Board determined that the adverse impact of the rule on employee rights was slight.
To learn how Castaybert PLLC can assist with matters of employment law, click here.
Isaac Kaplan’s article, 5 Lawsuits That Could Reshape the Art World in 2018, discusses upcoming matters with far reaching legal implications for artistic works: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Graham v. Prince et al., the Berkshire Museum lawsuits, the Guelph Treasure Case, and Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum.
1) Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
After a religious Colorado baker refused to procure a wedding cake for a gay couple, he was successfully sued under a Colorado anti-discrimination law. Now, the “cake artist” has taken the matter to the Supreme Court, claiming that the law violates his First Amendment rights by compelling him to create artistic works.
At stake: What exactly constitutes artistic expression, and at what point do concerns about freedom of expression override those about discrimination?
2) Graham v. Prince et al.
Notorious appropriation artist Richard Prince and art dealer Larry Gagosian were sued for copyright infringement after Donald Graham’s photograph appeared in Prince’s Instagram series at Gagosian gallery in 2014. Prince filed a motion to dismiss the case, citing fair use, but the court denied the motion this past summer.
At stake: If Prince is successful at trial, courts may interpret the fair use doctrine more broadly; the case could usher in a new era of appropriation art.
3) The Berkshire Museum Lawsuits
The Berkshire Museum faces multiple lawsuits after announcing its plans to auction 40 works from its permanent collection. Though this would raise an estimated $60 million for the museum, it would take many masterpieces out of the public view and has been met resistance from various groups, including the descendants of Norman Rockwell.
At stake: To what extent are museums allowed to sell its works, and what does this mean for the museum community and for industry guidelines in the future?
4) The Guelph Treasure Case
U.S. heirs of German-Jewish dealers who sold an 82-piece collection of medieval art before WWII are seeking to recover the treasure, alleging that works were forcibly sold. Though the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) has previously allowed Germany to avoid restitution lawsuits in U.S. court, the district court held that FSIA does not apply in cases such as these, where artwork is forcibly taken “in violation of international law.”
At stake: Are foreign countries subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts with respect to Nazi-looted art and other artistic properties taken “in violation of international law?”
5) Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum
Marei von Saher sued the Norton Simon Museum in 2007 for the return of two works by Lucas Cranach the Elder. The paintings originally belonged to her father, an art dealer forced to sell the works before he fled Germany. The museum argues that it holds legal title to the work. The trial court ruled that the museum could keep the paintings.
At stake: Von Saher’s appeal, if successful, could inspire a wave of restitution litigation. If she loses, however, heirs may be less likely to come forward with their restitution claims.
* * *
Art law is rapidly developing, with major implications for artists–including, potentially, cake bakers–as well as collectors, dealers, and museums. To learn how Castaybert PLLC can assist with art law matters, please click here.
Various media organizations have called upon the New York State Court of Appeals to reject Lindsay Lohan’s case against the publishers of Grand Theft Auto V. The actress alleges that a character in the game, Lacey Jonas, violates her right of publicity by copying her “image, likeness, clothing, outfits, clothing line products, ensemble in the form of hats, hair style, [and] sunglasses” without her permission. The New York Supreme Court disagreed with Lohan’s claim in 2016, holding the depiction to be satirical and therefore protected by the First Amendment.
The ten media groups who signed the amicus brief warn that this appeal, if successful, would broaden publicity law and threaten the First Amendment protection traditionally accorded to creative works. New York State’s right of publicity currently protects the use of a person’s “name, portrait, picture, or voice,” absent consent, for advertising or trade purposes. The amicus brief maintains that the right of publicity does not apply, as Lohan claims, to one’s “image,” “likeness,” or “persona,” or to any work created for compensation.
Oral arguments for the case are set for February 7, 2018. To read more, please click here.
To learn how Castaybert PLLC can assist with rights of publicity and other intangible property rights, click here.
