Immigration reform is a consistent topic of discussion that plagues Congress and splits our country down the middle. Thousands of immigrants flock to the United States. The reasons range from escaping persecution to looking for a better life for one’s family or gaining access to higher education. In 2013, an immigration reform bill entitled The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigrant Modernization Act of 2013 was introduced. Authors of the bill intended to address illegal immigrants and border security but it never ended up going anywhere even though the bill will probably be remembered as one of the defining political topics of 2013. Read on to learn about the Immigration Reform Bill, what it entailed, and the arguments for and against it.

What was the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013?

The bill’s stated purpose was to address the issues of the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living within the United States’ borders “by finally committing the resources needed to secure the border, modernize and streamline our current legal immigration system, while creating a tough but fair legalization program for individuals who are currently here.”

Overall the bill was expansive and covered a number of issues, including paths to legality for illegal immigrants, border enforcement, and aiding those illegal immigrants who did not have autonomy in breaking the law–mostly children. The bill would have instituted what were called “triggers” that essentially make sure that in order to provide resources for undocumented immigrants, enforcement also needs to be stepped up. That was to ensure that the compromise that this bill created was held up on both sides of the aisle.

The bill was widely regarded as a compromise. It was created by the “Gang of Eight“–eight leading Senators spread out over both parties: Charles Schumer (D-NY), John McCain (R-AZ), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). President Barack Obama also admitted it was very much a compromise; after it passed in the Senate he stated:

The bipartisan bill that passed today was a compromise. By definition, nobody got everything they wanted. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me. But the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform that I – and many others – have repeatedly laid out.

While the bill passed the Senate in June 2013, it didn’t pass the House of Representatives. The Republicans in the House of Representatives announced that they had no intention of voting on it. The inaction on the House’s part may be part of the reason that President Obama announced his executive actions on immigration in November 2014.

What were the arguments in favor of the bill?

It’s no secret that there are many undocumented immigrants in the United States. But many of them make substantive contributions to our nation–they pay taxes and participate in the economy just as citizens do. However, because of their undocumented status, they live in a constant state of fear. This is especially true for the children of undocumented immigrants–morally it seems wrong to punish those who were brought to this nation as children.

The pathway to becoming a legal citizen would be made easier, and the bill aimed to streamline the process out of recognition of the huge blacklog that exists when it comes to processing applications and documentation. In addition the bill would have improved our security measures, helping to further prevent influxes undocumented immigrants in the future.

Another argument in favor of the bill was that it was pretty much as good as both sides were going to get. It was a real, legitimate move toward compromise, created by leading voices from both parties. Unless something changes drastically, there are going to continue to be two parties warring for control of our government. Even though no one got everything they wanted in this bill, it was truly a compromise.

What were the arguments against the bill?

The arguments against the bill included that it rewarded people for breaking the law and entering the country illegally. They argue that providing them help now, even it it only applies to immigrants currently in the country, will encourage others to try to illegally enter American borders. In addition, there’s worry that encouraging undocumented immigrants to stay will lead to overpopulation and take jobs away from American citizens. In addition, arguments against the bill included that it didn’t go far enough, and/or made certain steps harder for undocumented immigrants.

Conclusion

Many believe that undocumented workers take away jobs from American citizens and therefore should not be allowed to acquire citizenship themselves. Others believe that illegal immigrants are a source of increased drug trafficking in our nation. However, we have always been a nation of immigrants. If we begin refusing citizenship to those people who have lived and worked in our country for years we step away from the traditions that make this country what it is and always will be, a nation where people come to build a better life.

Resources

Primary

US Senate: S. 744 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Additional

Mic: TRUST Act Gain Traction in California

Breitbart: Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) Gives Pro-Immigration Bill on Senate Floor in Spanish

Hill: Graham Predicts Breakthrough Passage of Immigration Reform Bill

Reuters: Senator Marco Rubio Still Backs Immigration Bill

ReimagineRPE: Black-Latino Coalitions Block Anti-Immigrant Laws in Mississippi

Mic: 5 Critical Amendments That Could Destroy the Immigration Reform Bill

NY Mag: The Gaffe That Could Threaten Immigration Reform

Huffington Post: Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Attempts to Add Voter ID to Immigration Reform Bill

ABC News: Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) Wants to Kill the Immigration Reform Bill

The New York Times: In Round 3, Immigration Bill Faces Sessions, Who Won Rounds 1 and 2

Fox News: Senators Rubio and Graham on Immigration Reform Bill

Washington Post: Three Amendments to Watch

CNN: Senate Votes to Begin Debate on Immigration Reform Bill

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Immigration Reform Bill of 2013: Progress That Went Nowhere appeared first on Law Street.

The passage of voter identification laws has been a popular political fire-starter in recent years. At their core they make sense–you should have to be who you say you are in order to vote. But in practice there are significantly more nuances, problems, and historical concerns that accompany voter ID laws. Read on to learn about the complicated arguments over voter ID laws.

What is a Voter ID Law?

At its core it’s pretty much exactly what it sounds like–a law requiring that photo identification is shown before a citizen votes. It is used to confirm that the person voting is who she says she is, and that she is in fact registered to vote. Voter ID laws have taken a few different forms in the United States. The National Conference of State Legislatures delineated several different categories of these laws.

Strict voter ID laws that require photo ID: At least seven states have strict voter ID laws that require photo identification in 2014, including Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. This type of law require that a voter show some sort of government-issued photo ID, usually from a list of acceptable options provided by the state. These laws also usually allow a voter who doesn’t have an approved form of identification to cast a provisional ballot, but require the voter to take extra steps after the ballot has been cast, such as return with an ID a few days later.

Strict voter ID laws that don’t require photo ID: At least three states have strict voter ID laws not requiring photo identification in 2014, including Arizona, North Dakota, and Ohio. Although these laws don’t require a voter to show photo identification, they do require an approved ID of some sort, such as proof of address or a birth certificate. Again, these lists are curated by the states themselves; however, if that form of identification is not provided, a voter in these states would have to return with it at some point.

Less-strict voter ID laws that require photo ID: At least eight states have this level of photo ID at the polls in 2014, including Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Rhode Island, and South Dakota. While states in this category do require photo ID, there are ways around showing it. For example, some states allow a voter to sign an affidavit proving his identity, or to send a letter confirming who he is.

Less-strict voter ID laws that don’t require photo ID: At least 13 states have this level of photo ID at the polls in 2014, including Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington. Voters are required to bring some form of non-photo identification; however, if they don’t they can still vote by signing an affidavit attesting to their identities.

No ID law at all: At least 17 states do not require ID to vote, including California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Some of these states, however, have enacted or are working to enact voter ID laws for future elections.

Voter ID laws are now in 17 more states than they were in 2000. http://t.co/HaPbgUZnnz pic.twitter.com/jop0rVD8Qz

— FiveThirtyEight (@FiveThirtyEight) November 1, 2014

What is the argument for voter ID laws?

The Rock the Vote campaigns have lost a little bit of their edge as voter identification laws are increasingly enacted across the country. Supporters of voter ID laws argue that certain measures of identification are necessary to prevent voter fraud and ensure the sanctity of the election process. They also argue that requiring a government-issued ID in order to cast a ballot is not too much too ask, as everyone has some sort of government identification on his or her person at all times.

Voter ID laws have traditionally received support from conservative politicians. As Mitt Romney put it in 2011:

I find it extraordinary that [US Attorney General] Eric Holder is, one more time, making a very serious error [in challenging a South Carolina law that requires a photo ID to vote]… The idea that people should not be able to be identified as they vote so that we can know that they are not voting multiple times. I mean, that’s the purpose here of course. We don’t want people voting multiple times and you can get a photo ID free from your state. You can get it at the time you register to vote…That’s one more lawsuit I’d end if I were president of the United States.

 What’s the argument against voter ID laws?

Those against the bill argue that voter ID laws prevent college students from going to the polls and therefore suppress youth voting, which is already an issue that many organizations work to combat. College students and other young people often don’t have government-issued photo IDs that contain their current addresses, because their permanent residence is often different from where they live during college. There are also allegations that these laws are passed merely for the sake of being passed. Some of the most controversial provisions of the bills seem to be included without much thought and even go unread by those signing them into law.

Some elected officials argue that voter ID laws prevent minority and elderly voters who lack the means to comply with them. Others argue that the laws are American conservatives’ means to subtly discriminate against minority voters. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that as much as seven percent of Americans don’t have proof of citizenship, and as much as 11 percent don’t have a government-issued photo ID. The reasons for this are myriad–the Brennan Center points out that married women disproportionately don’t have anything to prove their citizenship, because they’ve changed their last names. In addition, the elderly, the poor, and those who don’t have the funds to drive are unlikely to have government-issued photo ID.

Conclusion

In a political landscape that can only possibly be described as polarized, who can vote in an election is certainly at issue. While the idea of voter ID laws makes sense in theory, there are certainly valid questions as to the actual functionality of the laws. It is as much a political issue as an ethical one–it will be interesting to see which of those two competing interests ends up winning out.

Resources

Primary

US House of Representatives: House Bill 589 – Voter Information Verification Act

Additional 

Guardian: Felon Voting Rights Have Bigger Impact Than Voter ID Laws

The New York Times: States Rush to Enact Voting Laws

The New York Times: Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

CNN: Civil Rights Struggle Far From Over

Philly: Voter ID’s Fate Now In Judge’s Hands

Brennan Center: Citizens Without Proof

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Voter ID Laws: Are They Necessary? appeared first on Law Street.

We’ve all expected our exes to come running back to us, but not all of us can say it’s with a lawsuit in hand after we’ve won a $338 million Powerball jackpot. This is exactly the case with Pedro Quezada and his ex-girlfriend, Inez Sanchez.

It’s true that Inez Sanchez lacks valid legal claim here, despite the fact that the couple have a child together, were in a relationship for 10 years, and jointly own a business. This is solely because the couple were never married and the laws of equitable distribution do not apply. Also, New Jersey is not a common law marriage jurisdiction.

In common law marriages, you do not necessarily need a marriage license in order to receive all the benefits of having a spouse. As long as you can show that you have treated your significant other in every capacity as a spouse, common law will recognize a common law marriage. Some elements needed to prove this arrangement include financial dependence and shared residence.

Ms. Sanchez’s attorneys are claiming that the ticket was purchased with their shared earnings from the grocery store. Maybe — although, I think that could simply be defeated by the Buckwheat defense.

On a more serious note, Ms. Sanchez attempted to have a judge freeze the lottery winnings while Mr. Quezada’s attorneys attempted to have the lawsuit dismissed entirely. Superior Court Chancery Judge Margaret Mary McVeigh refused to dismiss the lawsuit and denied Ms. Sanchez’s request.

Although Mr. Quezada received approximately $152 million after taxes, Ms. Sanchez’s attorneys claim that he has allegedly begun to dissipate assets by shipping $57 million to the Dominican Republic, spent $300,000 on the Clifton home the two shared together until Ms. Sanchez moved out, given away $5 million (expensive gift!) and there is another $20 million that has yet to be found.

Now although we hope that Mr. Quezada will settle this case amiably with the mother of his child, it is more likely that we will see this case go to trial. Although she lacks valid claims to an equitable share of the winnings, she may have a decent case to readjust the child support payments according to the change in the cost of living, according to the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines. Therefore, a child has the right to share in the financial good fortune of a parent.

So if Ms. Sanchez chooses to fight the good fight and attempt to get her equitable share of the $152 million (or whatever is left) of Mr. Quezada’s Powerball winnings, her chances are very slim. However, it is likely that she may be able to amend any current child support payments through a court order or mutual agreement.

Earlier this year, Mr. Quezada paid a $30,000 child support settlement, and Ms. Sanchez filed a domestic violence claim against him. It should be interesting to see how this all turns out.

And of course we can’t finish without Kanye West’s musings on this topic.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [401(K) 2012 via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I Ain’t Sayin’ She’s A Gold Digger… appeared first on Law Street.

More than 20 percent of women in the armed forces have experienced sexual misconduct in the military. Due to fear of backlash, this statistic is significantly under reported. In the last year, however, reported sexual assaults in the military increased an unprecedented 46%.

Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have truly made bi-partisan efforts to shed light on this national travesty. Sen. Gillibrand recently predicted that the current Military Sexual Assault Bill, which would remove sexual assault cases from the chain of command, will receive the necessary votes to pass.

The efforts of Sen. Gillibrand and others fighting for reform, particularly to take military oversight of sexual assault cases out of military hands, is increasingly gaining attention and steam. The Invisible War, a groundbreaking documentary directed by Kirby Dick, helped make waves on the road to reform, expanding awareness of the critical issue. Two of the women featured in the film, attorney Susan L. Burke and former Airman First Class Jessica Nicole Hinves, joined the Forum on Law, Culture and Society at Fordham Law School for the Forum Film Festival to discuss the issues raised by the film and the steps needed for reform and to pass the Military Sexual Assault Bill. Moderator Thane Rosenbaum, film executive producer Maria Cuomo-Cole, and Rear Admiral Susan J. Blumenthal rounded out the panel.

(All statistics in the film are from U.S. Government Studies)

The Invisible War addresses the rampant under-reporting of sexual harassment in the military. Female soldiers are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than be killed in action. In addition, women who have been raped in the military have a higher rate of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than men who have been in combat.

In fact, about 80% of sexually assaulted men and women do not report. Yes, I said men and women, as male victims comprise approximately one percent, or 20 thousand cases, of all military sexual trauma.

A study by the United States Navy included in the film asserts that 18 percent of incoming recruits have attempted or committed rape before entering the military. An alarming statistic considering that we hold our military to such high standards and expect a certain degree of oversight. Twenty-five percent of women do not report rape because their commanding officers are the rapists. Due to the chain of command disciplinary system, prosecution of these attacks is entirely at the discretion of the military and the commanding officers are in charge. Although Congress has the power to exercise congressional oversight over these military sexual misconduct situations, few members have chosen to become involved until recently.

Susan Burke suggested that the military justice system is flawed and must be modernized. “Put the adjudicatory power in the hands of the prosecutors – not the commanders,” she stated.

The problems with sexual misconduct in the military is not new. As the film points out, in 1991, the Navy dealt with sexual misconduct issues with regard to the Tailhook Convention in which approximately 200 Navy and Marine airmen participated in “The Gauntlet”. This involved men roaming the halls in search of women to assault. “The Gauntlet” ending with the sexual assaults of hundreds of women.

The embarrassing events that took place at the Tailhook Convention in 1991 are absolutely unacceptable; however, such conduct did not end there. In 1996, the Army dealt with sexual misconduct at the Aberdeen Proving Ground involving the rape and sexual harassment of 30 women. In 2003, the Air Force dealt with sexual misconduct within their Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Most recently, there was a scandal involving the rape of a Marine stationed at the Marine Barracks in D.C., a very reputable place to be stationed due to its proximity to the U.S. Capitol building.

Many of the resulting lawsuits and prosecutions in these sexual misconduct cases often end in a form of insignificant justice. In Jessica Nicole Hinves’ case, the man who was under investigation actually received a promotion. Many of these lawsuits end poorly, partially due to the Feres Doctrine which states that the U.S. government is not liable for injuries sustained during service (including rape, apparently).

Additionally, a December 2011 lawsuit was dismissed because the court claimed that sexual harassment is “an occupational hazard of military service.” This seems outlandish, outrageous and absolutely upside-down. Since when is rape and sexual misconduct part of the job description when enlisting in the military to serve our nation and protect our freedom? What’s next, barcodes on every American citizen’s neck as a residential hazard of living in the United States?

Even with bills such as the STOP Act aimed at rectifying the many injustices our service people endure when it comes to sexual assault, many still wonder if it will be enough. According to, Jessica Nicole Hinves, this type of moral erosion is a national security issue, as military feminism is looked down upon by higher ranking commanders.

Holding servicemen accountable for the sexual misconduct they perpetrate is essential in order to maintain the respectable and cohesive nature of our military. Resistance to oversight legislation aimed at removing military sexual assault cases from the chain of command is at odds with the military’s insistence that in order to maintain good order and discipline, commanders need to maintain leadership, control and power.

The panel suggested that military justice can and must be effected through civilian control, encouraging audience members to tell their Congressional representatives that commanders must be held accountable and that higher ranks do not put people in a position to make legal determinations about sexual assault. Countries such as England, Australia and Israel have taken the oversight out of military hands. Therefore, perhaps it is time the United States follows suit.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Army IMCOM via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Forum Film Festival Series: Part 2 – The Invisible War appeared first on Law Street.

Now that you’ve come of with a story, done the illustrations, and become an expert at protecting your comics, the hard part is over,  right? Well, actually getting your work published often takes even more effort. Many comic book creators find that they are out of their element when it comes to meeting and negotiating with publishers (especially some of the bigger names as seen below). Well, the panelists at Comic Con have some tips and tricks to help get you started.

Meeting and Negotiating with Publishers

Alan Robert and David Gallaher took the lead on this topic, which was only fair since they have first-hand experience of what it is like meeting and negotiating with publishers as comic book creators.

First off, it’s essential to understand the three types of comic ownership:

1. Publisher Owned – Such as Marvel or DC Comics
2. Creator Owned – You own and distribute yourself
3. Creator Driven – You and the Publisher share ownership

The type of ownership you have is determined by the publishing deal you develop, including licensing and which specific rights you wish to retain, and can differ depending on the type of media used (such as comics versus television or movies). The publishing deal will also determine the expected delivery date and expected deliverables (cover art, first draft, final draft, etc.). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the deal will hammer out the copyright ownership  and the royalty rates in each media form.

Generally, in a royalty pool, a comic’s royalties are shared as follows:

• 35% – Plotters/Scriptwriters
• 35% – Artists/Pencillers
• 15% – Colorists
• 15% – Inkers

However, in creator-driven projects, the royalties are paid to the creators and collaborators only after the publishing company recoups all the money it expended for the project. These recoupable expenses may include:

• Production, printing and advertising
• Agency fees
• Taxes and bad debts
• Returns for credit
• Lawyer fees (Yes, even lawyer fees for negotiating the publishing deal)

One of the biggest points the panelists emphasized is the need for promotion. Comic book entrepreneur Alan Robert shared with the audience his tips and tricks to getting your work published and highlighted three aspects of promotion:

Creating the Pitch – The pitch is a crucial part of any campaign. According to Mr. Robert, your pitch should include a logline, which lays out the summary of and realistic aspirations for your concept.

Using Social Media – Mr. Roberts testified to the use of social media to build relationships from first-hand experience. He received his first publishing deal through Twitter. This part of promotion includes following the leaders (people you like and admire), partnering with peers (building relationships with like-minded creators), and using marketing tips from companies like Issuu and Animoto. He also mentioned to get reviews of your work by hiring publicists and reaching out to journalists. Finally, he stressed the need to stay positive, expressing that this business requires persistence and thick skin.

Networking – Mr. Roberts compared this to “Working the Long Con” (as in Comic Con). Comic book creators look at Comic Con as a business convention above all else. The goal is to identify, contact, and meet and greet publishers who attend the convention. He stressed the importance of setting up meetings with publishers before the show even begins.

Preparing for Your Meetings – Once you’ve scored your big meeting you still need to do your homework.

• Have an agenda and move forward with it – Know what you are going to speak about with the publishers and execute that agenda the best you can.
• Dress nicely – This is a job interview. Remember, Comic Con is a business convention and you are a comic book creator.
• Bring business cards – This makes you look professional.
• Only bring published material – Mr. Roberts emphasized that is his most important tip. Don’t bring any ideas, spec scripts, or anything similar to meetings with these publishers. If you have previously published something then that is what you should show them.
• Follow up in a timely fashion – You want to remind the publishers of who you are, what you discussed, and maintain contact with them.

Not everyone may be able to get their first publishing deal via Twitter like Alan Robert, but some publishers accept online submissions of material. Marvel Comics does not accept any online submissions, however, its counterpart, DC Comics, accepts submissions via its Entertainment Talent Search program. IDW Publishing accepts online submissions from artists and colorists only. Dark Horse Comics accepts all types of online submissions.

Finally, Mr. Roberts gave us his tips and tricks specifically for working with publishers:

1. Hit you deadlines – Don’t bite off more than you can chew.
2. Plan ahead – Have solicitation materials ready early.
3. Be flexible – Publishers may have marketing ideas about your project to attract wider audiences.
4. Expectations – Know that publishers have priorities other than just you.
5. Plan your next idea – Stay in the game. Continue creating comic books and staying involved in the industry.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [numb – Hey Man Nice Shot via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC Comic Con: You’ve Protected it, Now it’s Time to Publish appeared first on Law Street.

As thousands flocked to the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center for the 2013 New York City Comic Con, Law Street Media was there to capture all the fandom, releases, and professional panels. But the most important part, of course, were the costumes.

From infamous duos…

To beautiful women dressed to impress the inner-geek in all of us.

Day one of Comic Con featured a professional panel designed to help up-and-coming comic book artists and writers protect and publish their work. So today’s blog is a step-by-step tutorial for all of you artists and copyright enthusiasts out there to protect your creations.

Creating and Protecting Your Comic Book Property

Part one of the panel focused on protecting the intellectual property of comic book creators, with particular emphasis on different copyright objectives that comic book creators need to take into consideration when taking on new projects. For example, the difference between an independent work and work-for-hire and various types of authorships.

First and foremost, comic book creators need to take into consideration whether or not their work is of sole authorship or a collaboration. Panelists warned against the dangers of working with your friend and what they called “collaboration sabotage,” or one person doing all the work.

Copyright law does not favor the person who does the most work or the person who comes up with the idea; therefore, a written contract ensures that working with your friends doesn’t turn them into your enemies. By default, copyright law will see any collaboration as a joint authorship, which means everything is 50/50, unless there is a collaboration agreement. This means equal pay, equal shares, and equal licensing rights since most publishers often want the exclusive rights to works that they purchase.

Collaboration agreements, as the panelists suggested, should be created at the very beginning before work begins on the project. This way you can agree with your collaborator on things like:

1. Business Formation – Partnership or Limited Liability Company (must be filed with the state).
2. Intellectual Property Ownership – Who owns the art, the story?
3. How are expenses paid?
4. How are the profits split?
5. Who has licensing rights and are they limited?
6. What is the work schedule and division of duties?
7. Can collaborators create derivative works (works based off of the original project)?
8. If things do not work out with the collaborators, how do you dissolve and continue the project?
9. How do you decide when a breach of the collaboration occurs and what viable remedies should be sought?

In addition to collaborating on a single project, there may come a time when you and your collaborator need to hire extra help, perhaps in the form of hiring more artists, inkers, or pencillers. Panelist Thomas Crowell suggested knowing specifics of service contracts and the difference between work-for-hire and independent contractors.

When hiring artists, the first consideration is whether you are hiring them as employees or independent contractors. This specific job description is important in order to determine work ownership. Work-for-hire is defined in Section 101 of the Copyright Act (found in Title 17 of the U.S. Code) as work by an employee under the scope of employment. If a work is made for hire, the copyright is owned by the hiring party. A work-for-hire hinges on who has more control over the creation of the work (i.e: hiring practices, type of compensation, work schedule, etc.).

If the artist you are hiring insists on working as an independent contractor, Crowell suggests that you ensure a services contract is signed, securing your ownership in the copyright of the work. A services contract may dictate how the intellectual property ownership is decided, how royalties are paid, the page rates, and a potential kill fee (the price you pay for artwork even if you choose to not use it). The panelists suggested that you have the independent contractor sign this contract before work begins (otherwise you’re bound to run into a major headache regarding IP ownership). Finally, it is important to include language in the contract that specifically dictates, despite the artist’s independent contractor role, that the work they create for you is a work made for hire.

Here are some of the panelists’ rules of thumb when it comes to creating and protecting your comic book property:

1. Register your work.

2. Establish your copyright — it’s the foundation of your legal power, so exercise it.

3. Put everything on paper — there’s no protection of ideas.

4. If you have collaborators create a collaboration agreement.

5. If you have a trademark, don’t just register it with the US Patent and Trademark Office, but actually use it.

And so we have covered the “protect it” part of the panel. Stay tuned for part two of our Comic Con coverage in order to learn how to “publish it.”

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [DowntownTraveler.com via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC Comic Con: Protect It and Publish It appeared first on Law Street.

The world we live in today makes it hard for any twenty-something to find a decent-paying, full-time job. Although we may search and search, many of us retreat back to school, taking on more debt while seeking higher education.

Even so, we have all accepted unpaid internships with the hope that there is a sliver of a chance that we may be hired as a full-time employee. Despite working for free, we expect to be treated along the same lines as any other employee, entitled to certain rights such as lunch breaks, vacation days, and freedom from sexual harassment, right? WRONG!

David Yamada reported that a New York Federal District Court held that an unpaid intern could not bring a sexual harassment claim against her employer, Phoenix Satellite Television US, Inc., under NYC Human Rights Law. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, Liuhuan Wang sustained injuries as a result of quid pro quo sexual harassment and sexual harassment in the form of a hostile work environment created by her supervisor Zhengzhu Liu.

As a 22-year-old student at Syracuse University, Ms. Lihuan claims that during her four weeks at Phoenix Satellite US, Mr. Liu had almost complete supervisory authority in the New York and D.C. bureaus. Ms. Lihuan’s complaint alleges that Mr. Liu had a history of sexual harassment throughout his employment with Phoenix Satellite and he would prey on female employees just starting their career in America and lure them to his hotel room where he would grope and kiss them, and attempt to have sex with them. He is accused of insinuating that in order to have a successful career, female employees and interns at Phoenix would have to submit to his unwanted sexual desires.

Ms. Lihuan claimed that Mr. Liu had similarly invited her back to his hotel after treating her and several co-workers to lunch when he was in town. After asking her to stay behind to “talk about her job performance,” Mr. Liu guided Ms. Lihuan back to his hotel room, under the guise of an work-related issue, and attempted to grope and kiss her, forcing Ms. Lihuan to push him back and leave the room immediately.

Her grievance is due to the fact that she believes her refusal of Mr. Liu’s sexual advances is the reason she was denied full-time employment. The complaint also mentions that a fellow Syracuse student, Qian Chen, worked for Phoenix and was also sexually propositioned by Mr. Liu. Perhaps Mr. Liu and the people over at Phoenix Satellite need a visit from this guy.

The U.S. District Court judge, Judge Kevin P. Castel, ruled that Ms. Lihuan could not bring a valid claim of sexual harassment under New York City Human Rights Law against her employer because her lack of compensation rendered her unable to meet the employee status required by the statute.

Using federal and NY case law, the district court determine that unpaid interns are not employees as defined under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or NYC Human Rights Law. The district court stated that remuneration or the absence of remuneration is an essential element to determining the existence of “the employer-employee relationship.”

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) supports the U.S. District Court’s position that sexual harassment laws don’t cover interns unless they receive “significant remuneration,” according to an EEOC spokesperson, Joseph Olivares.

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Phoenix denies that Ms. Lihuan ever applied for a position and Mr. Liu is no longer with the company. This wasn’t the first case, and it surely will not be the last. Although the workplace dynamic for unpaid interns is already changing, maybe it’s time to take another look at the rights unpaid interns are entitled to while working. Perhaps something slightly more than a video at orientation.

And no live demonstrations are necessary.

And remember, its not just women who suffer from sexual harassment in the workplace.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Melissa Gira via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tragedy of the Unpaid Intern: No Money – No Rights appeared first on Law Street.

A Brooklyn woman, Jessica Krigsman, asserted her right to be topless in public last July at Calvert Vaux Park in Gravesend; however, two police officers still arrested her and she is now suing NYC for the arrest. While sitting topless on a park bench, Ms. Krigsman was approached by two officers who instructed her to put her shirt back on based on a complaint that they received. She promptly informed them that it has been legal to be topless in public since 1992, eliciting the response from the officers to “stop mouthing off” or be arrested.After refusing again and pointing out that such an arrest would be illegal, the cops handcuffed her and threw a shirt over her head (roughly, she claims). Although the charges were dropped in October, it apparently did not make up for the five hours Ms. Krigsman spent sitting in a jail cell on charges of “obstructing a sitting area.” She is seeking unspecified damages for civil rights violations, in addition to claiming assault and battery and malicious prosecution. Ms. Krigsman’s lawyer, Stuart Jacobs, attributes this behavior towards topless women in public to a knee jerk reaction to nudity. He claims that police wrongfully harass women who choose to be topless in public based on an instinct that a topless woman in public is instinctively wrong. So he is pretty much saying that if you tell a cop you have a right to walk around topless in public, they have this reaction:

Sad to say this hasn’t been the only nudity-related injustice in the Big Apple. In 2008, sun bather Phoenix Feeley was arrested twice for being topless (the second time was leaving the county jail, shirtless, in protest of her first arrest). She was eventually fined $816; however, she was recently arrested again due to her failure to pay the fine.

Sir Ben Kingsley has a point. Although we can applaud Ms. Feeley’s Rosa Parks-esque stand for topless women everywhere, she should have just paid the fine. However, the cops who arrested Ms. Krigsman went against NYPD orders to stand down on arrests of women for “merely exposing their breasts in public.” This should be an interesting case to follow, however I remain skeptical about what damages she actually suffered in those five hours she was detained. Let’s get the Keep A Breast organization on this with their “I Love Boobies” campaign.

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Right to be Topless in Public – Clothes Are Optional NYC appeared first on Law Street.

Are you missing some excitement in your love life? Do you and your significant other look for different ways to bring that excitement back into your lives? Well if you are thinking about having sex on top of railroad tracks, think of something else.

In an attempt to spice up their sex life, a middle-aged Ukrainian couple decided to make love on top of some railroad tracks near central Ukraine. Aside from giving a whole new meaning to “working on the railroad,”the couple decidedthat reaching their sexual climax was more important than moving out of the way of an oncoming train. A switcher locomotive ran over the couple in the city of Zaporozhye in the early morning of Saturday, September 28, 2013. The woman died instantly and the man lost both of his legs. The man claimed that he and his girlfriend simply wanted to, “…experience an extreme sensation near the railroad tracks,” since they had, “failed to overcome their natural passion.”

It is completely understandable that couples who have been together for a long period of time want to find new ways to experience each other and find “extreme sensations,” (Trojan gets it) but you should be able to do so without risking life and limbs. Are the vibrations of the oncoming train worth losing your life? What do I know, maybe they thought they were dreaming within a dream.

The story unfortunately does not end there. The man could be facing trespassing charges for being on the tracks. It is unlikely that the man has a viable legal defense to the trespassing charges but it made me wonder about the penalties for the same crime elsewhere. In the United Kingdom, trespassing on railway tracks is considered a criminal offense and carries with it a penalty in the form of a fine for £1,000. They go on to explain why it is never a good idea to hop onto the train tracks. For example, they tell you that trains do not stop quickly (DUH!), that by simply standing near a train as it passes the wind turbulence could drag you under the wheels, and that the train runs on electricity and is never switched off (and if you touch it you will be frozen to it).

The United States has similar laws to the UK and the fines are just as expensive if not more. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) takes railroad safety and trespassing prevention seriously. They claim that over 430 trespassing fatalities and nearly as many injuries occur each year. They offer a workshop to address Right-of-Way fatalities and trespass prevention. They even offer this fact sheet to explain why it’s a very bad idea to trespass on railroad tracks. I guess they forgot to send it to this kid.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Lorenzo Gaudenzi via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Have You Ever Had Sex on Railroad Tracks? Well Don’t! appeared first on Law Street.

Mayor Bloomberg has caught a lot of heat in the past few months with his efforts regarding the large soda ban, which ultimately failed. However, he has risen from the ashes as techie superhero.

In addition to introducing free Wi-Fi hotspots around New York City, the mayor of this great city announced his plan to keep the Big Apple ahead of the curve and establish its supremacy as an innovative tech hub.

With the infamous drummer of the roots, Questlove, by his side, Mayor Bloomberg announced his plans for the Made in NY Media Center, a space where “storytellers, creative professionals and entrepreneurs across multiple disciplines…can gather and create,” pretty much whatever they want as long as it bolsters NY’s image as an innovative techie paradise.

New York has been called the “business capital of the world“, the “fashion capital of the world“, and now Mayor Bloomberg hopes it will become the “global media capital of the digital age.” Made in NY will be creating over 3,000 jobs and will be an innovative hub where ideas come to life. See for yourself.

With Questlove as Made in NY’s first “Artist in Residence”, Made in NY looks like it will begin to thrive down on 30 John Street in DUMBO. NYC is currently the second-most funded tech hub next to Silicon Valley, however NYC is a place where the possibilities are endless. With techie start-ups for new media, mobile gaming and other forward-thinking companies popping up out of the woodworks to make a name for themselves in NY, this city is becoming the place to go to turn an idea into a reality.

Made in NY promotes the film and television industries that provided much needed revenue to New York City for years, bringing in over $400 million in tax revenue. It is definitely an exciting time to be in NYC and it should be interesting to watch as the Made in NY Media Center grows and evolves.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Scott Beale via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Made In NY” – A Techie’s Paradise appeared first on Law Street.

What were you doing Saturday night? Whatever it was, it couldn’t have been anywhere near as cool as 19-year-old Alex Schlaferman’s massive dance party held on the Manhattan Bridge walkway.

Alex Xander, as he calls himself considers himself as, “the Great Gatsby, when it comes to stuff like this” and promotes his flash mob/dancy party events via Xandernation. The party went on from 9 p.m. until 1 a.m. when police finally decided that the party must come to an end. Still, a 4-hour party on the Manhattan Bridge is a story waiting to find an ear, but was it worth getting arrested for? Alex Xander says that it was well worth it and he shows no intention to stop putting on events such as the Manhattan Bridge Dance Party.

Where will you be when the next Xandernation event hits NYC. NYC rules require apply for a Street Activity Permit issued by the Mayor’s Street Activity Permit Office (SAPO). However, in their permitted events they lack anything close to which Xander’s event could be classified, except maybe Special Event. Therefore, maybe Xander’s best course of action next time, to avoid getting arrested is to take some time and fill out an online permit application (yes, you can apply online) via E-Apply. After all, Gatsby never got arrested at his parties.

New York News

Check outGothamist for more pictures and videos.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Thomas Hawk via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Manhattan Bridge “Flash Nightclub” appeared first on Law Street.

Name: Robert S. Khuzami

Born: August 2, 1956

Position: Partner

Place of Occupation: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.

Current Salary: $5,000,000/year

Former Notable Positions:

• Head of Enforcement Division at Securities Exchange Commission (SEC)
• U.S. Federal Prosecutor – Chief of Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force
• General Counsel at Deutsche Bank AG (DBK)

Law School: Boston University School of Law, Class of 1983

Links:

• Robert Khuzami – Kirkland & Ellis LP Profile Page
• Robert Khuzami – Wikipedia page
• Ex-SEC Enforcement Chief Joins Kirkland & Ellis for $5 Million a Year
• Under Khuzami, SEC Filed More Than 150 Cases Related to Financial Meltdown
• A Legal Bane of Wall Street Switches Sides

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Donald W Reynolds via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Robert Khuzami Jumps to Big Law for $5 Million appeared first on Law Street.