1
00:00:03,120 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,400 --> 00:00:12,959
Speaker 1: One of the team captains, one of the leaders, one

3
00:00:13,000 --> 00:00:16,200
Speaker 1: of the great special teams players in all of the NFL.

4
00:00:16,760 --> 00:00:26,599
Speaker 1: Please welcome Chris Maragos, Yo, Philly. Hey. Chris Maragos was

5
00:00:26,640 --> 00:00:29,720
Speaker 1: the captain of the Philadelphia Eagles when he injured his

6
00:00:29,800 --> 00:00:33,360
Speaker 1: knee in a game with the Carolina Panthers in twenty seventeen.

7
00:00:33,840 --> 00:00:37,880
Speaker 1: He never played in an NFL game again. Maragos says

8
00:00:37,960 --> 00:00:40,839
Speaker 1: it was the medical team's failure to properly treat his

9
00:00:40,920 --> 00:00:45,400
Speaker 1: knee that ended his career, and a jury agreed awarding

10
00:00:45,440 --> 00:00:48,839
Speaker 1: Maragos forty three point five million dollars in a medical

11
00:00:48,880 --> 00:00:52,800
Speaker 1: malpractice lawsuit joining me is Harry Nelson of Nelson Hardeman.

12
00:00:53,000 --> 00:00:57,000
Speaker 1: Harry described the allegations here. He suffered an on field

13
00:00:57,040 --> 00:00:59,600
Speaker 1: injury and that was when there was a diagnosis by

14
00:00:59,600 --> 00:01:04,360
Speaker 1: the POD of this posterior appreciate ligament injury. But the

15
00:01:04,400 --> 00:01:07,200
Speaker 1: basis of this jury verdicure was that these doctors either

16
00:01:07,240 --> 00:01:10,080
Speaker 1: misagnosed or didn't take seriously enough this issue of a

17
00:01:10,120 --> 00:01:12,600
Speaker 1: meniscule care at the same time they were treating the

18
00:01:12,640 --> 00:01:15,440
Speaker 1: other ligament. And I virtue of missing that and sort

19
00:01:15,440 --> 00:01:18,319
Speaker 1: of advancing Moragos and giving him a green light to

20
00:01:18,640 --> 00:01:22,200
Speaker 1: start to practice and play again. They basically let that

21
00:01:22,360 --> 00:01:24,800
Speaker 1: meniscus care get much much worse and get to a

22
00:01:24,840 --> 00:01:27,880
Speaker 1: point that it ended his playing careers. The doctors the

23
00:01:27,920 --> 00:01:32,160
Speaker 1: defendants who oversaw his rehabilitation said that they were aware

24
00:01:32,200 --> 00:01:35,120
Speaker 1: of the meniscus issue, but deemed that the tissue was

25
00:01:35,200 --> 00:01:38,360
Speaker 1: stable and that surgery would have caused more harm than good.

26
00:01:38,640 --> 00:01:42,520
Speaker 1: The defendant, James Bradley, who's been the head orthopedic surgeon

27
00:01:42,640 --> 00:01:46,880
Speaker 1: for the Pittsburgh Steelers for about thirty years, testified that

28
00:01:46,920 --> 00:01:49,880
Speaker 1: if Marigos had needed a second surgery, he would have

29
00:01:49,960 --> 00:01:52,880
Speaker 1: done it. Quote, I'm a surgeon. That's what I do.

30
00:01:53,240 --> 00:01:55,800
Speaker 1: If I had to operate on that, I'd operate on

31
00:01:55,880 --> 00:01:59,600
Speaker 1: that in a heartbeat. The general kind of message that

32
00:01:59,640 --> 00:02:03,440
Speaker 1: you get from orthopedic surgeons and orthopods in general is

33
00:02:03,680 --> 00:02:06,000
Speaker 1: that the miniscus will heal itself on its own, and

34
00:02:06,040 --> 00:02:09,240
Speaker 1: that surgery is not the number one option as opposed

35
00:02:09,240 --> 00:02:11,480
Speaker 1: to certain kinds of knee injuries that are definitely not

36
00:02:11,560 --> 00:02:14,320
Speaker 1: going to heal themselves like apls classically. So I think

37
00:02:14,360 --> 00:02:16,760
Speaker 1: there's a little bit of a division of opinion here,

38
00:02:17,240 --> 00:02:20,520
Speaker 1: and it sounds like the advice that was given was

39
00:02:20,760 --> 00:02:23,840
Speaker 1: very common but most people would get And the question

40
00:02:24,160 --> 00:02:26,800
Speaker 1: is whether a professional athlete, you know, who was going

41
00:02:26,840 --> 00:02:29,960
Speaker 1: to be putting a different level of strain on his meniscus,

42
00:02:30,000 --> 00:02:32,560
Speaker 1: should have gotten different advice than you know, the sort

43
00:02:32,600 --> 00:02:36,320
Speaker 1: of weekend warrior or whatever. Is there any indication that

44
00:02:36,600 --> 00:02:39,320
Speaker 1: the doctors were being pressured to get him back on

45
00:02:39,360 --> 00:02:42,280
Speaker 1: the field. I guess the feeling that was in the background,

46
00:02:42,280 --> 00:02:45,280
Speaker 1: but it wasn't explicitly part of this case. But it

47
00:02:45,360 --> 00:02:49,080
Speaker 1: clearly seems that was the message that Chrismarrogus's attorney was making,

48
00:02:49,280 --> 00:02:53,000
Speaker 1: and one that presumably the jury bought into. Frankly, I

49
00:02:53,080 --> 00:02:55,799
Speaker 1: worry about whether a jury of lay people is that's

50
00:02:55,800 --> 00:02:58,560
Speaker 1: our system, but whether that's the best way to get

51
00:02:58,600 --> 00:03:02,720
Speaker 1: a complex diagnostic and treatment issue like this decided by

52
00:03:02,760 --> 00:03:04,040
Speaker 1: the way. One of the things that a lot of

53
00:03:04,080 --> 00:03:07,080
Speaker 1: people are questioning is, you know, how this decision was

54
00:03:07,120 --> 00:03:10,720
Speaker 1: made without There was no orthopedic surgeon who testified for

55
00:03:11,000 --> 00:03:13,120
Speaker 1: the plantiff in this case. It was a trauma surgeon,

56
00:03:13,160 --> 00:03:16,280
Speaker 1: somebody who's in a totally different specialty who they relied upon.

57
00:03:16,680 --> 00:03:20,040
Speaker 1: So it's not like the orthopedic community was divided over

58
00:03:20,080 --> 00:03:23,640
Speaker 1: this case. I'm wondering if, too, if the jury was

59
00:03:23,680 --> 00:03:27,680
Speaker 1: a little bit star struck because there was a star

60
00:03:27,800 --> 00:03:31,000
Speaker 1: studded witness list, at least a star studded football player's

61
00:03:31,080 --> 00:03:34,720
Speaker 1: witness list. His former teammates Nick Foles, Trey Burton, and

62
00:03:34,840 --> 00:03:39,760
Speaker 1: Jordan Hicks testified and he testified, and I wonder how

63
00:03:39,840 --> 00:03:43,160
Speaker 1: much that had to do with the verdict. I think

64
00:03:43,160 --> 00:03:47,040
Speaker 1: it's a fair question, clearly, you know, I think the

65
00:03:47,160 --> 00:03:50,120
Speaker 1: jury got kind of a window into this world of

66
00:03:50,200 --> 00:03:54,240
Speaker 1: sports celebrity. My sense is that that a jury made

67
00:03:54,240 --> 00:03:57,000
Speaker 1: a decision, you know, on the basis of a lot

68
00:03:57,000 --> 00:04:00,520
Speaker 1: of sympathetic testimony from people who, you know, who they

69
00:04:00,520 --> 00:04:03,560
Speaker 1: may have been excited to hear from, but it didn't

70
00:04:03,560 --> 00:04:07,920
Speaker 1: really get the on point medical insight from a true

71
00:04:08,000 --> 00:04:10,800
Speaker 1: expert on this procedure. Not to take away anything away

72
00:04:10,800 --> 00:04:13,080
Speaker 1: from trauma surgeons, but they work in a very different

73
00:04:13,120 --> 00:04:16,400
Speaker 1: environment with a very different set of choices. That's what

74
00:04:16,520 --> 00:04:20,680
Speaker 1: makes me question the reasonableness of this decision. Now, the

75
00:04:20,800 --> 00:04:24,120
Speaker 1: jury took less than three hours to deliberate after a

76
00:04:24,120 --> 00:04:27,719
Speaker 1: two week trial that had reams of doctors notes, MRIs

77
00:04:27,880 --> 00:04:31,920
Speaker 1: medical charts, A video of the surgery and medical testimony.

78
00:04:32,240 --> 00:04:34,279
Speaker 1: There's a lot to worry about here. I will not

79
00:04:34,360 --> 00:04:37,960
Speaker 1: be shocked if this decision get modified or reversed on appeal.

80
00:04:38,400 --> 00:04:40,320
Speaker 1: It seems like there was a kind of a rush

81
00:04:40,360 --> 00:04:43,800
Speaker 1: to judgment here. What kind of a pellet issue do

82
00:04:43,839 --> 00:04:46,719
Speaker 1: you see? Though? It's an unusual case because obviously the

83
00:04:47,000 --> 00:04:51,400
Speaker 1: you know, forty million dollars in plus millions is all

84
00:04:51,480 --> 00:04:55,920
Speaker 1: economic laws. So I think the question of the reasonableness

85
00:04:55,960 --> 00:05:00,359
Speaker 1: of the Trier fact relying upon a surgeon was not

86
00:05:00,400 --> 00:05:02,960
Speaker 1: as specialist, and the decision of the judge let that

87
00:05:03,000 --> 00:05:05,440
Speaker 1: issue go to the jury is to me a question

88
00:05:05,480 --> 00:05:08,400
Speaker 1: that is likely to come up on appeal. As far

89
00:05:08,440 --> 00:05:12,400
Speaker 1: as the verdict itself, eight year career, which is more

90
00:05:12,440 --> 00:05:15,920
Speaker 1: than double the average NFL career. He's thirty one at

91
00:05:15,920 --> 00:05:19,480
Speaker 1: the time, and a financial analyst told the jury that

92
00:05:20,000 --> 00:05:22,960
Speaker 1: having his career cut short cost him at least eight

93
00:05:23,000 --> 00:05:27,000
Speaker 1: point seven million dollars in future NFL earnings had he

94
00:05:27,040 --> 00:05:30,040
Speaker 1: been able to play through twenty twenty two. The award

95
00:05:30,200 --> 00:05:32,680
Speaker 1: was five times that amount. Where do you think that

96
00:05:32,800 --> 00:05:35,120
Speaker 1: number came from? I'm not sure how they got to

97
00:05:35,200 --> 00:05:37,960
Speaker 1: such an inflated number. By the way, I think that's

98
00:05:38,000 --> 00:05:41,560
Speaker 1: also a legitimate basis for an appeal and a reason

99
00:05:41,600 --> 00:05:44,480
Speaker 1: this could get cut down. Honestly, I think the suggestion

100
00:05:44,520 --> 00:05:47,400
Speaker 1: that the jury got excited to be brought into the

101
00:05:47,400 --> 00:05:50,080
Speaker 1: middle of this sort of sect the case, you know,

102
00:05:50,160 --> 00:05:53,480
Speaker 1: with major sports celebrities, it certainly is plausible here and

103
00:05:53,880 --> 00:05:57,120
Speaker 1: a good reason why an appellate court should consider sort

104
00:05:57,160 --> 00:05:59,719
Speaker 1: of cutting this down to size if the verdict stands

105
00:05:59,720 --> 00:06:04,039
Speaker 1: at all. And also, this is a Philadelphia jury, a

106
00:06:04,120 --> 00:06:07,680
Speaker 1: trial happening at about the same time the hometown Eagles

107
00:06:07,720 --> 00:06:10,360
Speaker 1: were making a run to the super Bowl. It sort

108
00:06:10,400 --> 00:06:14,280
Speaker 1: of adds to the pizzazz. Yeah. Look, I think Moragos

109
00:06:14,320 --> 00:06:17,560
Speaker 1: made a sympathetic case to the story that he would

110
00:06:17,560 --> 00:06:18,920
Speaker 1: have been out there. He would have been out there

111
00:06:18,920 --> 00:06:21,800
Speaker 1: playing on Sunday in the Super Bowl, you know, had

112
00:06:21,839 --> 00:06:25,920
Speaker 1: it not been for doctors making new this decision. So yeah,

113
00:06:25,960 --> 00:06:29,880
Speaker 1: it definitely seems that this is not a decision that

114
00:06:30,040 --> 00:06:35,120
Speaker 1: has hallmarks of kind of careful reason dispassionate thinking. And

115
00:06:36,040 --> 00:06:39,040
Speaker 1: you know, as sympathetic as I am to Chris Maragos

116
00:06:39,040 --> 00:06:42,000
Speaker 1: that he should get the appropriate care and diagnosis, I

117
00:06:42,080 --> 00:06:45,160
Speaker 1: do worry that this one does not seem to be

118
00:06:45,560 --> 00:06:48,360
Speaker 1: a decision that was made with a lot of care

119
00:06:48,480 --> 00:06:51,680
Speaker 1: for forgetting it exactly right. Let me ask you this.

120
00:06:51,800 --> 00:06:56,520
Speaker 1: Neither the NFL nor any NFL team was a defendant

121
00:06:56,720 --> 00:07:00,159
Speaker 1: in this lawsuit. And if there was this push to

122
00:07:00,200 --> 00:07:03,919
Speaker 1: get him back before the time when he should have

123
00:07:04,000 --> 00:07:09,480
Speaker 1: been physically, why wouldn't the team be also liable. It's

124
00:07:09,480 --> 00:07:11,720
Speaker 1: a great question, you know, obviously there are all kinds

125
00:07:11,760 --> 00:07:16,360
Speaker 1: of contractual provisions about players having the final decisions. It's

126
00:07:16,400 --> 00:07:20,560
Speaker 1: certainly a big question what the potential liability of a

127
00:07:20,600 --> 00:07:23,840
Speaker 1: sports team is if it pushes somebody back too hard.

128
00:07:24,200 --> 00:07:26,960
Speaker 1: I know that these issues come up in the contracts

129
00:07:26,960 --> 00:07:29,800
Speaker 1: and in the negotiations, and you know, our issues that

130
00:07:29,840 --> 00:07:31,800
Speaker 1: are covered by lots of insurance, but I think it's

131
00:07:31,840 --> 00:07:34,800
Speaker 1: a it's a good point that these kinds of decisions

132
00:07:34,840 --> 00:07:37,840
Speaker 1: seems have to be very very careful about making sure

133
00:07:37,840 --> 00:07:40,600
Speaker 1: players take the time that they need. Obviously, we've seen

134
00:07:40,600 --> 00:07:43,040
Speaker 1: the NFL step in in areas like traumatic brain injury

135
00:07:43,040 --> 00:07:47,000
Speaker 1: and concussion watch and imposed external requirements just to make

136
00:07:47,000 --> 00:07:50,040
Speaker 1: sure that there's no you know, taking of liberties on that.

137
00:07:50,120 --> 00:07:53,600
Speaker 1: But I think this case raises hard questions about how

138
00:07:53,680 --> 00:07:56,840
Speaker 1: these decisions get made, and honestly, if I was a

139
00:07:56,920 --> 00:07:59,520
Speaker 1: doctor treating an NFL players, I would definitely be a

140
00:07:59,520 --> 00:08:02,640
Speaker 1: little more worried than I was before this Sivertic Well

141
00:08:02,720 --> 00:08:06,320
Speaker 1: Marigo said, I hope this decision sends a message to

142
00:08:06,400 --> 00:08:11,400
Speaker 1: team's medical staffs that players are people, not just contracts.

143
00:08:11,600 --> 00:08:15,040
Speaker 1: And his attorney said, this case and this jury may

144
00:08:15,040 --> 00:08:18,160
Speaker 1: have changed the course of history by now forcing these

145
00:08:18,200 --> 00:08:21,240
Speaker 1: team doctors and trainers to stop worrying about when a

146
00:08:21,280 --> 00:08:24,240
Speaker 1: player might return to play and start thinking about the

147
00:08:24,280 --> 00:08:27,120
Speaker 1: next fifty years of a player's life. So do you

148
00:08:27,160 --> 00:08:30,200
Speaker 1: think that they're right. I think that's very harsh, and

149
00:08:30,360 --> 00:08:33,000
Speaker 1: I think that hyperbole. You know, I've been involved in

150
00:08:33,040 --> 00:08:37,600
Speaker 1: some legal issues around professional sports team around like prescribing

151
00:08:37,840 --> 00:08:41,840
Speaker 1: and medication, and it's a very complex environment with these

152
00:08:41,920 --> 00:08:47,760
Speaker 1: incredibly high level athletes and very serious medical trainers and physicians.

153
00:08:47,800 --> 00:08:50,560
Speaker 1: And the suggestion that people are just sort of, you know,

154
00:08:50,640 --> 00:08:55,120
Speaker 1: putting patient concerned patient health second, in the interest of

155
00:08:55,120 --> 00:08:57,360
Speaker 1: getting players back on the field, to me, is just

156
00:08:57,440 --> 00:09:00,720
Speaker 1: not consistent with any of the fessionals that I know

157
00:09:00,760 --> 00:09:03,000
Speaker 1: in this area or in the way this business works.

158
00:09:03,080 --> 00:09:06,040
Speaker 1: There are hard choices, but I think for many players,

159
00:09:06,120 --> 00:09:08,840
Speaker 1: because they themselves are pushing and the doctors are the

160
00:09:08,840 --> 00:09:11,520
Speaker 1: ones telling them to slowdowns. I understand that Chris Morago

161
00:09:11,679 --> 00:09:14,680
Speaker 1: feels very wrong here and that his lawyer the fully

162
00:09:14,720 --> 00:09:16,760
Speaker 1: in sported that, but I don't think it aligns with

163
00:09:16,960 --> 00:09:20,280
Speaker 1: the reality on the ground where where doctors really are

164
00:09:20,400 --> 00:09:24,040
Speaker 1: and trainers are working hard to not take risks in

165
00:09:24,080 --> 00:09:26,920
Speaker 1: a sport that is just imposing enormous health risks on

166
00:09:27,360 --> 00:09:30,520
Speaker 1: people just for being out there on the field every Sunday.

167
00:09:30,520 --> 00:09:32,880
Speaker 1: Is it unusual that this case got to trial or

168
00:09:32,960 --> 00:09:35,839
Speaker 1: these the kinds of cases that are usually settled. No,

169
00:09:35,920 --> 00:09:38,120
Speaker 1: it's a great point, first of all, in general medical

170
00:09:38,200 --> 00:09:41,160
Speaker 1: man practice cases that'll I think it's well over a

171
00:09:41,280 --> 00:09:44,680
Speaker 1: ninety flips, So it was an unusual case. I think

172
00:09:44,720 --> 00:09:48,640
Speaker 1: that whenever you have these economic damages that are kind

173
00:09:48,679 --> 00:09:51,480
Speaker 1: of lost economic opportunity on the part of Chris Morago

174
00:09:51,960 --> 00:09:54,840
Speaker 1: or a person who's a real high earner, it creates

175
00:09:55,000 --> 00:09:58,800
Speaker 1: very difficult, unusual situations because for most of us, you know,

176
00:09:58,840 --> 00:10:01,520
Speaker 1: the impact, the economy impact of a knee injury like

177
00:10:01,559 --> 00:10:05,440
Speaker 1: this would not come anywhere close to tens of millions

178
00:10:05,440 --> 00:10:08,200
Speaker 1: of dollars. So I think it's an unusual case, clearly

179
00:10:08,360 --> 00:10:12,600
Speaker 1: on the insurance company and the defense side, they had

180
00:10:12,640 --> 00:10:14,480
Speaker 1: this one back, they would have kind of bitten the

181
00:10:14,520 --> 00:10:17,760
Speaker 1: bullet and taken an extensive settlement if that was available.

182
00:10:17,760 --> 00:10:19,600
Speaker 1: I don't I don't know how that really went, but

183
00:10:20,200 --> 00:10:22,200
Speaker 1: I certainly think the future cases there'll be a lot

184
00:10:22,280 --> 00:10:24,720
Speaker 1: more pressure to settle, both on the defense council and

185
00:10:24,760 --> 00:10:27,560
Speaker 1: on the insurance companies as a result of this verdict. Harry,

186
00:10:27,600 --> 00:10:30,440
Speaker 1: do you think this verdict will bring changes before the

187
00:10:30,520 --> 00:10:34,480
Speaker 1: injury happens. I think it's a very tough environment. Look,

188
00:10:34,520 --> 00:10:36,760
Speaker 1: I think to focus on the traumatic brain injuries and

189
00:10:36,800 --> 00:10:40,400
Speaker 1: in general, on the pounding that these guys take on

190
00:10:40,440 --> 00:10:42,920
Speaker 1: their on their bodies, you know, in the scent to

191
00:10:43,000 --> 00:10:46,960
Speaker 1: which so many x NFL people have trouble walking, you know,

192
00:10:47,200 --> 00:10:51,600
Speaker 1: have major major physical consequences down the road for their

193
00:10:51,600 --> 00:10:54,280
Speaker 1: playing careers. Is a huge, huge issue that needs more

194
00:10:54,320 --> 00:10:57,559
Speaker 1: attention than Honestly, if this case does one good thing

195
00:10:57,600 --> 00:11:01,480
Speaker 1: in terms of calling calling attention to beyond brain injuries

196
00:11:01,520 --> 00:11:03,480
Speaker 1: to the ways in which we need to be worried

197
00:11:03,520 --> 00:11:06,080
Speaker 1: about the limits of how far people can go in

198
00:11:06,120 --> 00:11:08,800
Speaker 1: professional sports, and you know, I think that would be

199
00:11:08,800 --> 00:11:11,200
Speaker 1: a good thing. Maybe all of that was playing in

200
00:11:11,240 --> 00:11:16,079
Speaker 1: the subconscious of the jurors. You know all the revelations

201
00:11:16,120 --> 00:11:19,800
Speaker 1: about concussions in the NFL. Yeah, yeah, I think, and

202
00:11:19,840 --> 00:11:21,640
Speaker 1: I think it's a good thing. I remember I was

203
00:11:21,679 --> 00:11:24,720
Speaker 1: in law school thirty years ago. I remember hearing Lee Steinberg,

204
00:11:24,760 --> 00:11:26,800
Speaker 1: who was one of the early super agents. He was

205
00:11:26,840 --> 00:11:29,480
Speaker 1: talking twenty five years ago about and people focus on

206
00:11:29,520 --> 00:11:32,440
Speaker 1: the high salaries these guys get for playing professional football,

207
00:11:32,720 --> 00:11:35,440
Speaker 1: but in fact his description was of people who really

208
00:11:35,520 --> 00:11:38,920
Speaker 1: sacrifice their bodies and taked for it with pain and

209
00:11:38,960 --> 00:11:41,760
Speaker 1: with really lost mobility and the rest of their lives

210
00:11:42,120 --> 00:11:44,360
Speaker 1: in many cases. So I think it's a good thing

211
00:11:44,760 --> 00:11:47,800
Speaker 1: that we're calling attention to that. And if this leads

212
00:11:47,800 --> 00:11:51,680
Speaker 1: to more conservative decision making by teams, by doctors, I

213
00:11:51,760 --> 00:11:54,600
Speaker 1: personally think that's a good thing. Thanks Harry. That's Harry

214
00:11:54,679 --> 00:11:59,679
Speaker 1: Nelson of Nelson Hardeman. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals

215
00:12:00,080 --> 00:12:03,200
Speaker 1: is deciding whether Vermont Law School will be allowed to

216
00:12:03,280 --> 00:12:08,120
Speaker 1: permanently cover murals depicting the underground Railroad without violating an

217
00:12:08,200 --> 00:12:11,960
Speaker 1: artist rights law. Artist Samuel Kerson argued that the school

218
00:12:12,080 --> 00:12:15,880
Speaker 1: hiding his two nineteen ninety four murals behind bolted in

219
00:12:16,080 --> 00:12:20,960
Speaker 1: acoustic panels violates the Visual Arts Rights Act or Vera,

220
00:12:21,000 --> 00:12:23,280
Speaker 1: but the school says it complied with the law when

221
00:12:23,280 --> 00:12:26,680
Speaker 1: it hid murals that students complained about for decades as

222
00:12:26,760 --> 00:12:31,480
Speaker 1: cartoonish depictions of slaves and promotion of the white savior complex.

223
00:12:31,800 --> 00:12:35,640
Speaker 1: The dispute raises questions regarding how far via limits the

224
00:12:35,720 --> 00:12:38,800
Speaker 1: property right of owners of physical art. Joining me is

225
00:12:38,840 --> 00:12:42,080
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law reporter Kyle Janner. Kyle tell us a little

226
00:12:42,080 --> 00:12:45,200
Speaker 1: about these murals and the fight over them. The mural

227
00:12:45,559 --> 00:12:49,160
Speaker 1: is actually two large panels that were put up in

228
00:12:49,320 --> 00:12:53,360
Speaker 1: the Vermont School of Law in nineteen ninety four, and

229
00:12:53,600 --> 00:12:58,000
Speaker 1: they're kind of be really colorful depictions of various aspects

230
00:12:58,000 --> 00:13:01,160
Speaker 1: of you know, I guess, the underground railroad and slavery,

231
00:13:01,160 --> 00:13:05,560
Speaker 1: and you know, nominally to depict Vermont's involvement in the

232
00:13:05,640 --> 00:13:10,640
Speaker 1: underground railroad. Apparently for decades students have complained that the

233
00:13:11,160 --> 00:13:15,000
Speaker 1: pictions of those slaves are quite cartoonish, and that it

234
00:13:15,080 --> 00:13:17,840
Speaker 1: also kind of portrays kind of a white savior complex.

235
00:13:18,240 --> 00:13:20,960
Speaker 1: There's kind of the message, so that the schools wanted

236
00:13:21,000 --> 00:13:23,800
Speaker 1: to take it down. The problem is that there's this

237
00:13:24,120 --> 00:13:28,199
Speaker 1: Visual Artist Rights Act that allows artists to protect their

238
00:13:28,240 --> 00:13:31,160
Speaker 1: work from being altered to you know, make their art

239
00:13:31,240 --> 00:13:33,400
Speaker 1: not what they wanted it to be, and also to

240
00:13:33,640 --> 00:13:36,000
Speaker 1: not have it destroy kind of without any notice or

241
00:13:36,000 --> 00:13:40,520
Speaker 1: their consent. It's got some pretty strong wording in some places.

242
00:13:40,520 --> 00:13:44,040
Speaker 1: But also the school gave him notice, offered him as

243
00:13:44,040 --> 00:13:47,640
Speaker 1: the artist, a chance to remove the painting, and he

244
00:13:47,679 --> 00:13:50,000
Speaker 1: said there's no way to possibly do it without destroying

245
00:13:50,000 --> 00:13:52,880
Speaker 1: the murals. So they said, well then we're going to

246
00:13:53,120 --> 00:13:55,200
Speaker 1: cover him over or something at this point, and he

247
00:13:55,280 --> 00:13:56,960
Speaker 1: really kind of fought the truth and nail, and then

248
00:13:57,280 --> 00:13:59,640
Speaker 1: they came down on a solution of bolting these large

249
00:13:59,679 --> 00:14:02,240
Speaker 1: pan that you know, completely covered them, so they didn't

250
00:14:02,280 --> 00:14:05,080
Speaker 1: destroy the art, but they make it impossible for them

251
00:14:05,160 --> 00:14:08,319
Speaker 1: to be seen. And they said they have no intention

252
00:14:08,360 --> 00:14:11,600
Speaker 1: of ever taking down the panels. So the artist sue

253
00:14:11,640 --> 00:14:13,960
Speaker 1: and saying that's, you know, it's the same thing as

254
00:14:14,160 --> 00:14:18,719
Speaker 1: you know, destroying them. The counter argument has included things like,

255
00:14:19,000 --> 00:14:21,400
Speaker 1: if a museum decides to put a painting into a closet,

256
00:14:21,400 --> 00:14:23,760
Speaker 1: the arts can't sue them or taking it out of

257
00:14:23,800 --> 00:14:26,320
Speaker 1: public views, so this really shouldn't be that much different.

258
00:14:26,360 --> 00:14:28,400
Speaker 1: They they don't have a right to protect the art

259
00:14:28,680 --> 00:14:31,640
Speaker 1: and force it to be seen when it's you know,

260
00:14:32,000 --> 00:14:35,760
Speaker 1: on someone else's property, So it's gotten up to this point.

261
00:14:35,840 --> 00:14:38,240
Speaker 1: I don't think it certainly didn't seem like the Second

262
00:14:38,280 --> 00:14:42,360
Speaker 1: Circuit judges were all that intent on reversing the decisions

263
00:14:42,440 --> 00:14:45,680
Speaker 1: to say that the Vermont Law School didn't have to

264
00:14:45,720 --> 00:14:48,280
Speaker 1: take down the panels or didn't create any violations by

265
00:14:48,320 --> 00:14:50,800
Speaker 1: putting them up. So I think, to the average person

266
00:14:51,280 --> 00:14:54,560
Speaker 1: who's seen, you know, monuments come down and all kinds

267
00:14:54,560 --> 00:14:58,120
Speaker 1: of things come down as society has changed and what's

268
00:14:58,160 --> 00:15:02,520
Speaker 1: acceptable has changed, this scene kind of odd. In twenty

269
00:15:02,560 --> 00:15:04,680
Speaker 1: twenty one, how did the District Court rule? What did

270
00:15:04,680 --> 00:15:08,800
Speaker 1: it base its decision on? The District Court said that

271
00:15:09,080 --> 00:15:12,440
Speaker 1: the law doesn't cover hiding work even though you know

272
00:15:12,480 --> 00:15:15,360
Speaker 1: both party degree that it'll be impossible to remove them.

273
00:15:15,480 --> 00:15:18,360
Speaker 1: It says that VARA is mainly designed to protect the

274
00:15:18,400 --> 00:15:20,720
Speaker 1: integrity of works, but not necessarily the right to be

275
00:15:20,720 --> 00:15:24,240
Speaker 1: publicly visible. As they said, So mural is still there

276
00:15:24,320 --> 00:15:28,560
Speaker 1: and it still exists. It's not destroyed, it just can't

277
00:15:28,560 --> 00:15:32,920
Speaker 1: be seen. And VARA wasn't designed to have every piece

278
00:15:32,960 --> 00:15:36,000
Speaker 1: of art that's visible, you know, in control of another party. Again,

279
00:15:36,040 --> 00:15:37,760
Speaker 1: as you know, we're talking about art that is not

280
00:15:37,960 --> 00:15:40,640
Speaker 1: in the possession of the artist anymore. They don't have

281
00:15:40,680 --> 00:15:43,120
Speaker 1: the right to, you know, make them show it everywhere

282
00:15:43,240 --> 00:15:46,120
Speaker 1: and forever. So n Core came down that way, and

283
00:15:46,240 --> 00:15:47,800
Speaker 1: you know, it is an interesting area of law. There's

284
00:15:47,800 --> 00:15:50,160
Speaker 1: been a lot of cases in the past, including a

285
00:15:50,240 --> 00:15:53,520
Speaker 1: giant mural that got painted over in New York City.

286
00:15:54,000 --> 00:15:55,800
Speaker 1: It was a kind of a graffiti art that the

287
00:15:55,840 --> 00:15:59,120
Speaker 1: owner of the building painted over. That led to a

288
00:15:59,160 --> 00:16:02,680
Speaker 1: second circuit. Was the question whether graffiti's art or what

289
00:16:02,840 --> 00:16:05,920
Speaker 1: was the question? The second circuit affirmed a six point

290
00:16:05,960 --> 00:16:10,040
Speaker 1: five million dollars award. Actually in that case, Queensland developer

291
00:16:10,440 --> 00:16:12,800
Speaker 1: you know, has paid the graffiti artist because of the

292
00:16:12,800 --> 00:16:16,040
Speaker 1: BISI Artist Rights Act. Even though the graffiti wasn't necessarily

293
00:16:16,600 --> 00:16:20,120
Speaker 1: intended to be permanent. The property owner was looking to

294
00:16:20,160 --> 00:16:23,440
Speaker 1: demolish the buildings to the luxury apartments. The artists sued

295
00:16:23,920 --> 00:16:28,440
Speaker 1: to protect the graffiti, and Brooklyn District Court denied their

296
00:16:28,600 --> 00:16:31,560
Speaker 1: motion for a preliminary injunction, but it said it would

297
00:16:31,920 --> 00:16:35,560
Speaker 1: issue an opinion shortly after. And then the property owner

298
00:16:35,560 --> 00:16:39,640
Speaker 1: painted over the artwork in between the court's denial of

299
00:16:39,720 --> 00:16:43,480
Speaker 1: injunction and a court opinion after that. A jury later

300
00:16:43,600 --> 00:16:47,760
Speaker 1: determined that the property owners violated the law by Washington graffiti,

301
00:16:48,160 --> 00:16:50,640
Speaker 1: and the judge a ward of the damages. Actually, so

302
00:16:51,160 --> 00:16:53,600
Speaker 1: in the second circuit to upheld that. So I think

303
00:16:54,480 --> 00:16:57,520
Speaker 1: we're always back dependent. But yeah, it's this all sends

304
00:16:57,640 --> 00:17:00,400
Speaker 1: kind of from in Europe. There was all was in

305
00:17:00,520 --> 00:17:03,760
Speaker 1: a pretty strong moral rights that are a little bit

306
00:17:03,800 --> 00:17:07,000
Speaker 1: different than copyright. There's kind of a more equitab view

307
00:17:07,160 --> 00:17:10,640
Speaker 1: of you know what an artists rights over their creation.

308
00:17:11,280 --> 00:17:14,359
Speaker 1: And as part of the Burn Convention, which is in

309
00:17:14,400 --> 00:17:18,920
Speaker 1: a national tree, countries agree to certain standards on intellectual

310
00:17:19,000 --> 00:17:21,840
Speaker 1: property law. The US was required to do a little

311
00:17:21,880 --> 00:17:24,480
Speaker 1: bit of something on that front, and Vara was kind

312
00:17:24,480 --> 00:17:27,280
Speaker 1: of the answer to that. So, um, we again can

313
00:17:27,280 --> 00:17:30,480
Speaker 1: incorporate some aspects of moral rights. So I think they're

314
00:17:30,480 --> 00:17:33,680
Speaker 1: a little bit more robust in Europe and some all

315
00:17:33,720 --> 00:17:36,919
Speaker 1: the places. But Varro is still there and gives at

316
00:17:37,000 --> 00:17:39,680
Speaker 1: least limited rights. You generally have to give notice, and

317
00:17:39,920 --> 00:17:42,920
Speaker 1: you know, it's not all encompassing. There's not You're not

318
00:17:43,040 --> 00:17:46,080
Speaker 1: completely stuck as a property owner in a lot of cases,

319
00:17:46,119 --> 00:17:48,480
Speaker 1: but you do have to you know, jump through through

320
00:17:48,560 --> 00:17:51,520
Speaker 1: some hopes. So at the second circuit, one of the

321
00:17:51,640 --> 00:17:54,960
Speaker 1: judges said, what about taking down art and putting it

322
00:17:55,160 --> 00:17:58,520
Speaker 1: in a closet. So that's allowed taking down art and

323
00:17:58,600 --> 00:18:00,920
Speaker 1: putting it in the closet, But you can't cooperate out

324
00:18:00,920 --> 00:18:04,320
Speaker 1: I mean the artist if you, because otherwise the museum

325
00:18:04,359 --> 00:18:07,280
Speaker 1: could never change which arts are out on display in

326
00:18:07,359 --> 00:18:09,680
Speaker 1: a museum. So you know, it's you're not destroying the

327
00:18:09,720 --> 00:18:11,760
Speaker 1: instegrity of the work. You're just deciding, oh, I'm going

328
00:18:11,800 --> 00:18:14,159
Speaker 1: to put this piece out today, and then this pis

329
00:18:14,240 --> 00:18:16,800
Speaker 1: out tomorrow, or this week's out in January, and then

330
00:18:17,600 --> 00:18:21,439
Speaker 1: in February, we've got a special exhibit coming in from

331
00:18:21,480 --> 00:18:23,280
Speaker 1: out of town, and this stuff will go in the closet.

332
00:18:23,600 --> 00:18:26,160
Speaker 1: The VART doesn't protect your right to have your work

333
00:18:26,680 --> 00:18:30,520
Speaker 1: displayed where it is right now forever. If you have

334
00:18:30,600 --> 00:18:33,760
Speaker 1: the Mona Lisa, and you know, as someone takes your

335
00:18:33,840 --> 00:18:36,280
Speaker 1: art and then paint and paints over, like you know,

336
00:18:36,320 --> 00:18:38,359
Speaker 1: her picking your nose or something, then that would kind

337
00:18:38,400 --> 00:18:42,760
Speaker 1: of speak to the integrity of the work. I would

338
00:18:42,800 --> 00:18:45,359
Speaker 1: be kind of damaged there, and you know that's the

339
00:18:45,480 --> 00:18:48,000
Speaker 1: kind of thing, or just any other kind of destruction

340
00:18:48,240 --> 00:18:52,760
Speaker 1: or mutilation of the work. It becomes an issue at

341
00:18:52,840 --> 00:18:54,840
Speaker 1: that point. But like I said, it's not necessarily a

342
00:18:54,920 --> 00:18:58,960
Speaker 1: display right. But these cases get complicated when it's a

343
00:18:59,119 --> 00:19:02,200
Speaker 1: mural or a at you that's not really movable. It's

344
00:19:02,240 --> 00:19:04,480
Speaker 1: a clearer case when it's a painting, but when it's

345
00:19:04,480 --> 00:19:06,800
Speaker 1: something that you know, property owner might want to use

346
00:19:06,840 --> 00:19:08,399
Speaker 1: that walk or something, or property in or want it,

347
00:19:08,600 --> 00:19:10,800
Speaker 1: might want to tear down the building. So they at

348
00:19:10,880 --> 00:19:13,000
Speaker 1: least have to give a chance to the artists to

349
00:19:13,760 --> 00:19:15,400
Speaker 1: take the art away, to reserve it to the extent

350
00:19:15,480 --> 00:19:18,359
Speaker 1: that they can, but it doesn't give the artists the

351
00:19:18,480 --> 00:19:21,199
Speaker 1: permit right over the building. Was one of the questions

352
00:19:21,280 --> 00:19:24,600
Speaker 1: at the second circuit whether this and I understand that

353
00:19:24,720 --> 00:19:27,520
Speaker 1: the piece of plywood or whatever that's covering it is

354
00:19:27,560 --> 00:19:30,320
Speaker 1: not actually touching it. They've been really careful not to

355
00:19:30,440 --> 00:19:34,359
Speaker 1: actually touch the mural. Whether that's a modification, and the

356
00:19:34,520 --> 00:19:38,320
Speaker 1: artist was arguing that just putting that up was a modification.

357
00:19:38,720 --> 00:19:42,560
Speaker 1: Did that get any traction judges? It didn't seem to

358
00:19:42,960 --> 00:19:44,680
Speaker 1: from what I could tell from the judges. I think

359
00:19:45,160 --> 00:19:48,560
Speaker 1: one of the judges was kind of grappling it, you know,

360
00:19:48,800 --> 00:19:51,199
Speaker 1: like it seemed more of kind of an equitable concerning,

361
00:19:51,320 --> 00:19:53,159
Speaker 1: kind of a more of a moral concern of what

362
00:19:53,320 --> 00:19:55,480
Speaker 1: the rights of this artists should could or should be.

363
00:19:56,280 --> 00:19:58,640
Speaker 1: But he even he himself was like, you might lose

364
00:19:58,720 --> 00:20:01,280
Speaker 1: this on the merits, but why exactly did you do

365
00:20:01,359 --> 00:20:05,119
Speaker 1: what you did to the Law school council, And you know,

366
00:20:05,320 --> 00:20:07,280
Speaker 1: the council said, you know, we gave him, you know,

367
00:20:07,400 --> 00:20:10,760
Speaker 1: every chance. We said you can remove it, and you said,

368
00:20:10,800 --> 00:20:12,639
Speaker 1: we said, you know, we're not going to destroy it.

369
00:20:12,800 --> 00:20:15,040
Speaker 1: And we considered a curtain, but we felt like that

370
00:20:15,240 --> 00:20:17,159
Speaker 1: was going to be a distraction on top of everything.

371
00:20:17,320 --> 00:20:19,119
Speaker 1: So they wanted to say a little bit more permanent.

372
00:20:19,640 --> 00:20:21,840
Speaker 1: So and they said, you know, in the panels in

373
00:20:21,880 --> 00:20:25,159
Speaker 1: theory could be removed if a different administration decided to

374
00:20:25,200 --> 00:20:27,680
Speaker 1: take a different view. But no, there's no plans the

375
00:20:27,720 --> 00:20:30,879
Speaker 1: current administration at all to to remove the panels at

376
00:20:30,920 --> 00:20:34,160
Speaker 1: any points. At the oral arguments, was there a discussion

377
00:20:34,200 --> 00:20:38,040
Speaker 1: about why the law school was doing this, about how

378
00:20:38,160 --> 00:20:41,680
Speaker 1: students had been complaining about the mural and its depictions.

379
00:20:42,440 --> 00:20:45,200
Speaker 1: There was mentioned about the student complaints, but it wasn't

380
00:20:45,200 --> 00:20:47,359
Speaker 1: you know, they kind of focused in more on the

381
00:20:47,480 --> 00:20:50,000
Speaker 1: legal aspects of it. They're trying to figure out kind

382
00:20:50,000 --> 00:20:52,200
Speaker 1: of where these definitions are, and they talked about things

383
00:20:52,280 --> 00:20:55,040
Speaker 1: like have does the passage of time? For example, and

384
00:20:55,560 --> 00:20:58,120
Speaker 1: if you if you put this art in this situation,

385
00:20:58,359 --> 00:21:01,679
Speaker 1: and I think the law either explicitly in a case

386
00:21:01,760 --> 00:21:04,920
Speaker 1: law says, you know, passage of time doesn't really count

387
00:21:05,040 --> 00:21:07,359
Speaker 1: as a modification, or you know a threat to it

388
00:21:07,560 --> 00:21:09,800
Speaker 1: having it out on display and you over time it

389
00:21:09,880 --> 00:21:12,800
Speaker 1: gets dusty or gets aided or something like that. That

390
00:21:12,920 --> 00:21:16,080
Speaker 1: kind of thing isn't covered by the law. There's limits. So,

391
00:21:16,560 --> 00:21:19,919
Speaker 1: like most laws of this type, there's you know, exceptions,

392
00:21:20,080 --> 00:21:24,080
Speaker 1: there's waivers, there's um, you know, limit durations of right.

393
00:21:24,680 --> 00:21:26,560
Speaker 1: In these cases, there's always a munch of facts that

394
00:21:26,600 --> 00:21:29,040
Speaker 1: come into play. So the judges were kind of harping

395
00:21:29,080 --> 00:21:31,199
Speaker 1: on some of those and just kind of prodding if

396
00:21:31,240 --> 00:21:34,800
Speaker 1: there was any other avenues where this law either does

397
00:21:34,920 --> 00:21:37,320
Speaker 1: or does reply. So, Kyle, do you have an idea

398
00:21:37,320 --> 00:21:39,960
Speaker 1: how you think the second Circuit will rule. I think

399
00:21:40,040 --> 00:21:43,760
Speaker 1: it's going to be a pretty straightforward decision. I would

400
00:21:44,080 --> 00:21:46,440
Speaker 1: be pretty surprised based on the way the orals went,

401
00:21:46,600 --> 00:21:48,720
Speaker 1: which is always kind of a lawyer, I'll tell you

402
00:21:48,800 --> 00:21:51,479
Speaker 1: that dangerous thing to do is rely on the oral arguments.

403
00:21:51,520 --> 00:21:53,720
Speaker 1: But at the same time, sometimes it seems pretty clear,

404
00:21:53,760 --> 00:21:58,160
Speaker 1: and I think he's judges seems pretty ready to affirm.

405
00:21:58,280 --> 00:22:00,720
Speaker 1: For the most part. It's funny because part of the

406
00:22:00,840 --> 00:22:03,840
Speaker 1: law basically says, you know, if they sign a contract

407
00:22:03,920 --> 00:22:05,880
Speaker 1: that does the law doesn't apply, then the law doesn't apply,

408
00:22:05,960 --> 00:22:07,520
Speaker 1: which you would think. It kind of goes to that thing.

409
00:22:08,040 --> 00:22:10,320
Speaker 1: It basically he spells out that, hey, you can also

410
00:22:10,520 --> 00:22:12,760
Speaker 1: just you know, contract these rights away to the property arms.

411
00:22:12,800 --> 00:22:14,680
Speaker 1: In other words, telling the propaguinnery is that, hey, you

412
00:22:14,720 --> 00:22:17,280
Speaker 1: want to avoid this headache just to get this down

413
00:22:17,320 --> 00:22:19,080
Speaker 1: in writing that you know, I can do with my

414
00:22:19,680 --> 00:22:21,680
Speaker 1: wall what I want to do with the wall. Yeah,

415
00:22:21,720 --> 00:22:25,320
Speaker 1: and that's the terms for me commissioning you to paint

416
00:22:25,359 --> 00:22:27,840
Speaker 1: on this wall. As with most areas of while they

417
00:22:27,880 --> 00:22:30,320
Speaker 1: get really contentious, a lot of these situations can be

418
00:22:30,440 --> 00:22:32,720
Speaker 1: headed off in advance. Thanks so much for being on

419
00:22:32,760 --> 00:22:36,639
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Last Show, Kyle. That's Bloomberg Law Reporter Kyle Janner,

420
00:22:36,920 --> 00:22:39,240
Speaker 1: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

421
00:22:39,600 --> 00:22:42,080
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news honor

422
00:22:42,119 --> 00:22:46,240
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

423
00:22:46,480 --> 00:22:51,440
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

424
00:22:51,880 --> 00:22:54,480
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

425
00:22:54,560 --> 00:22:58,000
Speaker 1: week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June

426
00:22:58,040 --> 00:22:59,919
Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloom