Hi everyone. I have been quite busy since January with law work, publishing, writing a book and the list goes on, welcome to the life of trial lawyers, business entrepreneurs and all around go getters. Nevertheless, I have been blogging fashion law on Ladybrillemag.com, although my analysis there is not as comprehensive as on fashionentlaw.com. So, please visit www.ladybrillemag.com for a quick fashion law fix, to stay up to date with my fashion law coverage when you miss me on www.fashionentlaw.com.

It is good to be back. My coverage, especially since my reporting is comprehensive, will most likely be once a week and should I have the extra time, I will be glad to perhaps cover some less pressing but interesting cases. By the way, I hope you all like the new layout, design and colors of fashionentlaw.com. I love design and the opportunity to play with design especially color is always exciting for me.

Okay. Let’s talk about the recent passing of the New York Child Model Laws, a significant milestone for the modeling industry, and what it means for the fashion industry at large and fashion employers.

First, as a former model I am happy with this development. I also know all of my model friends appreciate this overdue shift in the legal landscape for models. I predict the modeling industry will continue to see significant changes in the years ahead and needless to say, I intend to not only be a part of these changes but certainly take the battle to the courtrooms in helping to effectuate these needed changes. It is time and I look forward to what lies ahead.

In the meantime, let’s get back to the recent passage of legislation protecting New York Fashion Child Models.

1. Who introduced the new law/bills that has just passed? On the Senate level, Senate Co-Leader Jeff Klein and State Senate Labor Committee Chairwoman Diane Savino; and on the House of Assembly level, Assemblyman Steven Otis. For all legislators, Sara Ziff and her organization Model Alliance was instrumental in working with these legislators to introduce the bills which have now passed in both houses.

2. What was the problem that required an amendment/bills being passed?  For being a so called leader in trends and a fashion capital, New York was lacking when it came to protecting child models in the same way it protected other child performers. (According to labor and employment information made available for New York, courtesy PBS documentary, the industry employed 165,000 in 2011, generated 1.5billion in tax revenue and brought in $55billion in sales.) Child models need to be protected both from an education and financial perspective much the same way other child performers are protected. Any industry model can tell you or have heard about stories ranging from sexual abuse of child models to other aggriegious violations. In California and New York, the significant case of fashion designer Jon Anand convicted of rape, among other sex crimes against teen models, is worth referencing.

3. What is the Specific Statute that Regulates the Hiring of Minors in New York? The New York Labor Law sections 130 to 145, 150-154-A. In addition, the New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law sections 35.03 and 35.05 covered the hiring of minors.

4. What Does the Current Law Provide to Other Child Performers?

•  Under the current law, child performers enjoy the luxury of having the responsible person designated to supervise their activity and also make sure they are safe at the work place if they are under 16. It is crazy to think the modeling industry has gone for so long without such protection for our children. The idea that models are to be seen but not heard is one that should be vehemently opposed, especially in today’s 21st century.
• Other child performers also enjoy the legal mandate that their employers provide nurses with pediatric experience for them.
• The current law also mandates that other child employers be afforded teachers and a dedicated space so these child performers stay learning. Children should not have to sacrifice their education just because they want to act, sing etc. For the child model, no one cared about his/her education, at least legally speaking, when the child model was working.
• Under New York law, other child performers are entitled to a healthy and safe environment and this is done by the employer providing safety-based instruction and information to the child performer, his legal guardian/parents and any persons responsible for the child.
• Finally, other child performers enjoyed the requisite mandate that the child performer’s parent, guardian and employer transfer, at a minimum, 15% of the child’s gross earnings into a separate banking account. You can see how this plays out in my analysis on the music end with Hollywood’s Chief Keef /Interscope deal on my blog at AfricaMusicLaw.com. Again, this protection was afforded to other child performers except  the Child model performer. It sounds very Cinderella-ish doesn’t it?

5. What Does the New Law Do? Actually it is an easy fix. It simply expanded the current definition of “artistic and creative services” to include “the services of runway and print models.” It also repealed section 35.05 of the New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law because that section narrowly defined the child performer, which excluded child models.

My sense is that it would have been really tough not to get a unanimous vote on the proposed legislation(s). It is simply a no brainer; however, the modeling industry did not get up to speed with these laws until the push by Sara Ziff and her Model Alliance. So, thanks to Ziff.

6. What do the New Laws Mean for the Fashion Industry & Fashion Employers?
Okay. Now you know what just happened. How does this translate to/and in real terms for you the fashion or entertainment business owner? With the increase in lawsuits in the fashion industry as a whole i.e. from interns to models, designers, distributors et al., you ought to be concerned about protecting your business. How do you do this?

1. Follow the law.
2. Start with consulting with a fashion attorney to review your business (labor and employment) practices.
3. Work closely with child models and their families to be clear the rules are understood and followed. For education, health and safety, and financial trust accounts, you will need to hire the right professionals to make sure they help you comply with the law.
4. Work closely with your staff and be sure there is good training and supervisory practices in place. As entrepreneurs, we are only as successful as the teams we hire. If you do not hire the right team, you will waste time dealing with lawsuits, lose sleep and also lose a lot of money. Hire slowly, fire quickly (obviously in accordance with the law when there are clear violations that could seriously jeopardize your company’s financial and legal health).
5. Cross reference and check all necessary legal documents you may need when hiring minors. I began working at 15. I was required to get a permit work to work. In New York, when hiring minors, make sure they have their permits and also be sure to be in compliance with applicable statutes as an employer including obtaining your certificate of eligibility to hire child performers/minors, among other things. (NOTE: The law will now require that any and all permits and certificates are kept on file at all times and are open to inspection by school probation officers, the State Board of Education and the Department of Education.)
6. Take the safer route i.e. hire adult models. Folks, life is tough as it is. Second, being a business owner is even tougher. If you are a manufacturer or retailer that does not need child models (models under 18) to market/advertise your products, do yourself a legal favor and skip the headache of having to deal with all the rules and compliance issues. Instead, hire adult models. For so many reasons, going with adult models makes sense i.e. diversity, more reflective of today’s woman and the list goes on. If you absolutely have to use child models, then, needless to say, the rules above should be complied with. As one who has also handled, extensively, criminal defense cases, I know it is dangerous grounds that borders criminal penalties/implications when children are involved. We don’t want any of that. Relax but don’t be too relaxed when it comes to dotting your “i’s” and crossing your “t’s” where children are concerned.

Finally,  remember fashion is fun! Models want to have as much fun as you the designer or fashion advertiser. It is no fun when they have to worry about basic issues that affects their well being at the expense of increasing your profit margins. The relationship is a two way street and should be.

All the law now requires is what can best be summed up as “mutual respect” or treating another person’s child the way you would want yours treated.

Until the next fashion law analysis, have a great week ahead fashion people!

Cheers,
Uduak

Photocredit: Weheartit.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: UC Hastings to Host Inaugural Fashion Law Panel Moderated by Fashion Lawyer Uduak Oduok

(SAN JOSE, Jan. 9th, 2013) – On Thursday January 17th, 2013, The University of California Hastings College of the Law will host the first ever Fashion Law Panel in Northern California. The free event, which also plans to provide MCLE credit for attorneys attending, will be held at 200 Mc Allister Street, Hastings campus, from 6:00-7:15pm, with a reception to follow right after.

The event, co-produced and organized by Ebitu Law Group, P.C. (ELG), will be moderated by the firm’s Partner and Hastings alumni Uduak Oduok.

“I am delighted to return to Hastings after twelve years of graduating from the school to introduce the emerging field of fashion law to students, faculty and fellow colleagues,” said Oduok whose twenty years experience in the fashion industry encompasses fashion modeling, media, publishing, fashion production, branding, public relations and law.

“Hastings which is one of the top law schools in the country is uniquely positioned to push the emerging field of fashion law in Northern California. The school is located in San Francisco where Levi’s and The Gap, two global apparel brands, are headquartered.”

Indeed Oduok is right. Hastings boasts the #1 Moot court program in the country, the school has produced more judges than any other law school in California and as of this January 2013, The National Jurist ranked UC Hastings Chancellor & Dean Frank H. Wu as the most influential dean in legal education, #3 in the nation among legal educators and advocates influencing the ongoing debate about legal education.

Joining Oduok at the Hastings Fashion Law Panel are Mariessa Terrell, an attorney at SBC Law Group and former trademark attorney for the US Patent and Trademark Office, and Staci Riordan, a Partner and Chair for the Fashion Law Practice Group at Fox Rothschild, LLP.

“I am proud to be a part of the growth of the Fashion Law Movement and honored to be a part of this historic panel at UC Hastings College of the Law,” said Riordan. Riordan, who is also a former apparel industry executive, professor and descendant of a long line of garment makers, prepares to teach the first fashion law course at the newly formed fashion law program at Loyola Marrymount School of Law this January, a first in California.

Also joining the panel is San Francisco’s leading fashion designer Brian Scheyer of gr.dano. “It’s both exciting and promising that the Bay Area’s fashion community has grown to the level that it now warrants a discussion on Fashion Law,” said Scheyer who will provide the much needed perspective and insight on the fashion industry for attorneys and law students looking to work with fashion designers in the future.

For more information, visit www.ebitulawgrp.com.

###

About Ebitu Law Group, P.C.
Founded in 2012, Ebitu Law Group (ELG), a Professional Corporation, is an experienced firm committed to the pursuit of legal excellence and client service. The firm remains uncompromising in delivering quality, compassionate and affordable solutions to its clients’ legal problems. The firm offers legal services in several practice areas including Fashion and Entertainment Law, Business Law and Litigation.

Contacts
Ebitu Law Group, P.C.
Uduak Oduok, Esq.
916-361-6506
(uduak@ebitulawgrp.com)
www.ebitulawgrp.com.

Ebitu Law Group, P.C.

In Association with

U.C Hastings College of the Law Entertainment & Communications Law Journal

Presents
The First Ever Northern California Fashion Law Panel

Date: January 17th, 2013
Time: 6:00pm-7:15pm

Location: 200 McAllister Street
San Francisco, California 94102

Cost: FREE

Event Description: Fashion Law is an exciting and emerging field slowly gaining the attention of the legal industry, the media and the fashion world. But, what exactly is fashion law? What do fashion lawyers do? What about fashion designers? What situations in the operation of a fashion design business require the services of fashion lawyers? How can law students and lawyers interested in fashion law gain entrance into the field? Come listen to our experienced panelists answer these questions and more!

Moderator
Uduak Oduok, Fashion Model Turned Attorney/Partner at Ebitu Law Group, P.C

Panelists
Staci Riordan, Partner and Chair of Fashion Law Practice Group at Fox Rothschild, LLP

Brian Scheyer, Fashion Designer of Leading San Francisco Fashion Brand Gr. Dano

Mariessa Terrell, IP Attorney & Founder SBC IP Law Group, Founder Fashion Law and Policy Center

NOTE: Reception to follow.

Ebitu Law Group, P.C.

In Association with

U.C Hastings College of the Law Entertainment & Communications Law Journal

Presents
The First Ever Northern California Fashion Law Panel

Date: January 17th, 2013
Time: 6:00pm-7:15pm

Location: 200 McAllister Street
San Francisco, California 94102

Room: TBD/Coming Soon

Cost: FREE

Event Description: Fashion Law is an exciting and emerging field slowly gaining the attention of the legal industry, the media and the fashion world. But, what exactly is fashion law? What do fashion lawyers do? What about fashion designers? What situations in the operation of a fashion design business require the services of fashion lawyers? How can law students and lawyers interested in fashion law gain entrance into the field? Come listen to our experienced panelists answer these questions and more!

Moderator
Uduak Oduok, Fashion Model Turned Attorney/Partner at Ebitu Law Group, P.C

Panelists
Staci Riordan, Partner and Chair of Fashion Law Practice Group at Fox Rothschild, LLP

Brian Scheyer, Fashion Designer of Leading San Francisco Fashion Brand Gr. Dano

Mariessa Terrell, IP Attorney & Founder SBC IP Law Group, Founder Fashion Law and Policy Center

NOTE: Reception to follow.

*******

OFFICIAL FLYER & MORE DETAILS COMING SOON!

“It pays to be beautiful, but it may not pay as much as it should. That’s the contention in a $20 million class-action suit against some of New York’s top modeling and advertising agencies, including Ford Models, Next Management and Wilhelmina.

The suit, filed on behalf of 31-year-old American model Louisa Raske and other unnamed male and female models, claims that the modeling agencies failed to provide accurate account statements and concealed money received on the models’ behalf.

“We’ve alleged that the modeling agencies are unjustly enriching themselves by using money interest-free that belongs to the models,” Skip Taylor, lead counsel for Raske, told ABC News.

The main problem, the suit asserts, is that the agencies mix their own funds with the money held on the model’s behalf, which allows them to use that money on their own behalf, with “little fear of being discovered,” the suit alleges.
Another issue is that models aren’t represented by the same agency for their entire careers. Typically, a contract lasts about three years, and then the model moves on to another management company.

So, if for example, an advertising agency wants to continue to use a model’s photo on a particular product after she has left the modeling company, the modeling company will simply forge her signature or pretend that it had contacted the model and was “legally allowed to move forward with the business transaction,” the suit alleges. And since models aren’t aware that their image is being used again, they might not know that they are owed more money and so they “never demand or receive payment.”

ABC has the full story.

In case you missed it, check out my appearance on ALJAZEERA’s “Reshaping Beauty” Show.

Topic: “Reshaping Beauty”

“They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but based on Western media portrayals a beautiful woman is usually 180 centimetres and weighs 50 kilograms. As women and men on the covers of magazines become thinner, eating disorders become bigger. So, do you associate being overweight with being ugly? And does this standard dictate non-Western perceptions of the ideal body?”

Cheers,
Uduak

Photocredit: Arun Nevader

Hi Folks,

I have been quite busy hence my limited entries on fashion law topics here on fashionentlaw.com. I do have updates from some of the fashion law events I have spoken at, including Delta College’s ‘Meet the Fashion Industry Insiders’ and the Sacramento Fashion Week Model Workshop where I spoke about modeling and the law.

In the meantime, in a few hours, I will be on Aljazeera discussing the definitions of the standard of beauty,  fashion models and the law and invite you all to please check it out as it streams online. Details follow:

“On Monday, October 22, at 19:30 GMT / 3:30 PM EST:

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but based on Western media portrayals a beautiful woman is usually 180 centimetres and weighs 50 kilograms. As women and men on the covers of magazines become thinner, eating disorders become bigger. So, do you associate being overweight with being ugly? And does this standard dictate non-Western perceptions of the ideal body?

In this episode of The Stream, we speak to:

Dana Edell @SPARKsummit
Executive Director, SPARK Movement
sparksummit.com

Uduak Oduok @uduaklaw
Fashion lawyer and ex-model
ebitulawgrp.com

WATCH HERE at 3:30pm EST  - http://www.stream.aljazeera.com/story/reshaping-beauty “

I shared this case with you all last week but it gets even more interesting by the moment. THR,Esq. does an excellent job with the legal analysis and reporting so there is no need for me to go into much details here. Read excerpt below:

“Just when the controversy over Innocence of Muslims could hardly get more interesting, it has. The film already has set off riots in the Middle East and North Africa, free speech debates around the world and, after actress Cindy Lee Garcia sued the creators of the film and YouTube, a controversy over the rights of movie producers.

Garcia was unsuccessful last week in getting a California state court judge to order YouTube to take down the controversial film, but that hasn’t ended things. Garcia refiled her case in federal court Wednesday, asserting even more claims that she did the first time around, her lawyer says.

On top of fraud, unfair business practices and libel — among other causes of action — she’s now asserting copyright claims.

In doing so, Garcia aims to make some history. She wants to prove that actors are entitled to a piece of the copyright when “authoring” their performances on film. Further, she continues to fight YouTube, this time asserting that the video-sharing giant cannot lean on the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act because it failed to expeditiously remove the video at the behest of a copyright owner — namely, her.

And if all that isn’t sufficiently compelling, Garcia also is suing the individuals who have reposted the video on YouTube.

THR,Esq. has the full story.

-Uduak
@uduaklaw

Photocredit: Thenewstribe.com/CC Image

The article below a is a good one that talks about the growing litigation involving copyright infringement of fabric prints/designs.

“Colorholic is a Los Angeles business that designs and develops artwork used on T-shirts, blouses, pants, skirts dresses and vests.

Sometime last year, the owner of Colorholic, In Ja Kim, said he noticed that Forever 21; its sister store, Forever XXI; and its online e-commerce site allegedly were selling hundreds of thousands of pieces of clothing that employed at least 10 of his copyrighted artwork pieces on dresses, tops and tunics.

Kim, in a lawsuit filed in August in U.S. District Court, is now seeking damages from Forever 21 for copyright infringement, false designation of origin and unfair business practices.

Forever 21’s lawyers have yet to file a response to the lawsuit. Colorholic’s case is just one of dozens of legal actions filed against Forever 21 for copyright infringement. But other major retailers—including Target, Abercrombie & Fitch and Charlotte Russe—are also in the hot seat.

In the last seven years, the number of copyright-infringement cases filed in Los Angeles involving clothing companies and print designers has mushroomed to hundreds of cases. . .”

Apparelnews.net has the full story.

-Uduak
@uduaklaw

Okay! Industry! The Maybelline lawsuit story has been floating on the web for some days now and it was just a matter of getting to it. Now I am ready. So, let’s talk about it folks.

A group of women are suing Maybelline for false advertising because they say a brand of lipstick Maybelline promises last for hours, does not.

They have sued in a Manhattan Federal court for claims that they say are “misleading, inaccurate and deceptive.” The lip gloss does not last for hours but instead “wear off and fade after only a few hours of wear.”

According to them, “Maybelline overstates and misrepresent the staying power of its Super Stay products as a means to induce consumers to purchase the product.”

What do they want?

They want to turn this case into a class action i.e. find have a large group of women who are dissatisfied with the lip gloss join them in suing Maybelline. There is power in numbers, not so? The of course also want monetary damages for the alleged false advertising claim.

FASHIONENTLAW.com COMMNENTARY

I recall using a lipstick that lasted for hours, way back in the days, when the color stay concept was first introduced. I can’t remember which brand it was. I just knew, after my first experience, I would never do so again. Why? It seemed enticing at the time but when I thought about it, it made no sense why I would want a chemical product that may or may not be harmful to me, in the future, on my lips for over 10hours. It really made no sense. I am still of the same opinion today. We women are already competing with so many chemicals we introduce into our bodies that we learn, much later, are cancer causing: from our hair sprays to deodorants, and the list goes on. I am not sure I want to deal with a study a decade or two down the line that may suggest harmful effects of wearing such long lasting lipsticks. So, I choose, as a practical matter, to avoid such products.

Independent of worrying about the future implications of a health issue that may or may not surface, I must say I enjoy Maybelline products, the non-color stay products, that is. I believe it was in 2009 when I was at New York Fashion Week wearing my other hat as a Journalist that I really got hooked on the brand. MAC Cosmetics had been the official makeup sponsor for Mercedes Benz New York Fashion Week for years. All of a sudden, Maybelline showed up. I walked past the Maybelline booth and did a double take. The models were wearing  the sexiest red lipstick color I had ever seen. What was even more exciting was that they were models of various shades and colors, from Black to White fashion models, and they all looked VERY hot. They handed out a sample of their VERY Cherry red lipstick and I have been sold on that ever since. I continue to get lots of complements when I rock that lipstick. It’s a yum color and ladies, I suggest you check it out.

Maybelline also continues to be the official makeup sponsor at Mercedes Benz Fashion, enjoying more exposure and publicity.

Okay, enough on that. Let’s get to the legal claim of false advertising.

What is False Advertising?

When you make untrue or misleading statements in connection with the marketing and promotion of your goods and services, you are essentially engaging in false advertising.

What Law Governs?

1. Federal Trade Commission Act

2. False Advertising State Laws

3. Federal Unfair Competition Laws

4. The Lanham Act

Let’s hone in on the Federal Trade Commission Act listed above.

What does the FTC Act Say?

The gist of the relevant parts we care about are as follows:

1. When you advertise, you gotta tell the truth and it cannot be deceptive.

2. If you make claims, you gotta have the evidence to back up your claims; and

3. Your advertising cannot be unfair.

For California, here is what the Unfair Business Competition law section 17500 says: “It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or indirectly to . . . to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper or other publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry or proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatever, including over the Internet, any statement, concerning that real or personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, or concerning any circumstance or matter of fact connected with the proposed performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading, or for any person, firm, or corporation to so make or disseminate or cause to be so made or disseminated any such statement as part of a plan or scheme with the intent not to sell that personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, so advertised at the price stated therein, or as so advertised. Any violation of the provisions of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by both that imprisonment and fine. .  .”

Notice California even makes it a misdemeanor crime. Finally, you have probably heard of puffery. Puffery is different from making an express claim that a lipstick will stay on for 14hours. Puffery could be, “wear Maybelline lipstick and you will glow in the dark.” No one truly believes such a statement. It is puffery.

Maybelline vehemently denies the allegation by the Plaintiffs and have sworn to fight this case vigorously. We will see how it all shakes out in this lipstick case.

-Uduak
@uduaklaw
Photocredit: Maybelline lip gloss promotional ad