text:
Welcome to the MathSoft Wavelet Resources page: your site for one-stop shopping for wavelet papers. This page is a list of many preprints on the subject of wavelets and their various applications in the worlds of mathematics, engineering and physics. Many of these sources were tracked down through the Wavelet Digest which is a clearinghouse for wavelet information of all sorts. As a convenience, we now provide links to some of the tools you need to view papers in this list.
By its very nature this page is perpetually under construction. Any help you can lend in keeping this page up to date will be appreciated greatly. If there is a preprint that you are aware of that is available via anonymous ftp and does not appear here please mail wavelets@mathsoft.com and it will be added as soon as possible.
Many thanks are due to Steve Baum for compiling baum.bib, an exhaustive list in BibTex of wavelet references for both published papers and technical reports. Most of the papers in his list that are available via anonymous ftp have been added here; most of those that didn't make it to the page couldn't be found at the supplied address.
One quick plug: MathSoft develops and markets S+Wavelets, an object-oriented toolkit for advanced signal and image analysis, time series analysis, statistical signal estimation and data compression.
MathSoft is seeking an expert in wavelets and applications to participate in writing a Mathcad Electronic Book on wavelets immediately. More information will be posted as soon as possible, but we welcome inquiries.
Dl C. S. Burrus and R. A. Gopinath, "A Tutorial Overview of Wavelets, Filter Banks and Interrelationships"
Dl T. Edwards, "Discrete Wavelet Transforms: Theory and Application."
Dl E. Gootman and M. Wickerhauser, "Elementary Wavelets."
A. Graps, "An Introduction To Wavelets."
Dl C. Heil and D. Walnut, "Continuous and Discrete Wavelet Transforms."
Dl B. Jawerth and W. Sweldens, "An Overview of Wavelet Based Multiresolution Analysis". An abstract is also available.
Dl P. Schröder and W. Sweldens, "Building Your Own Wavelets at Home." An abstract is also available.
Dl G. Strang "Wavelets and dilation equations: a brief introduction."
Dl B. Vidakovic, "Wavelets for Kids," also part 2.
L. Andersson, N. Hall, B. Jawerth and G. Peters, "Wavelets on Closed Subsets of the Real Line"
Dl P. Auscher, G. Weiss and M. V. Wickerhauser, "Local Sine and Cosine Bases of Coifman and Meyer and the Construction of Smooth Wavelets"
C. Basdevant and V. Perrier, "Besov Norms in Terms of Continuous Wavelet Transforms and Application to Structure Functions."
B.E. Bassil, G.J. Dickson and D.M. Monro, "Orthonormal Wavelets With Balanced Uncertainty".
G. Beylkin and N. Saito, "Multiresolution Representations using the Autocorrelation Functions of Compactly Supported Wavelets."
Dl G. Beylkin and N. Saito, "Wavelets, their Autocorrelation Functions and Multiresolution Analysis of Signals."
G. Beylkin and B. Torrésani, "Implementation of Operators via Filter Banks, Autocorrelation Shell and Hardy Wavelets."
A. G. Bruce, H. Gao and D. Ragozin, "Non-smooth Wavelets: Graphing Functions Unbounded on Every Interval."
C. Cabrelli, C. Heil, and U. Molter, "Accuracy of Lattice Translates of Several Multidimensional Refinable Functions."
R. C. Calderbank, I. Daubechies, W. Sweldens and B. Yeo "Wavelet Transforms that Map Integers to Integers." There is also an uncompressed version.
D. Chen, "Extended Families of Cardinal Spline Wavelets."
D. Chen, "Spline Wavelets of Small Support."
D. Chen, "Characterization of Biorthogonal Cardinal Spline Wavelet Bases."
D. Chen, "Cardinal Spline Wavelets", dissertation. Also part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5 and part 6.
Dl S. Chen and D. Donoho, "Atomic Decomposition by Basis Pursuit."
A. Cohen, W. Dahmen and R. DeVore, "Multiscale Decompositions on Bounded Domains."
J. Cohen, "The Foot Problem in Wavelet Packet Splitting." A Mathematica notebook converted to Postscript.
J. Cohen, "Schauder Basis for [0,1]." A Mathematica notebook converted to Postscript.
J. Cohen, "The Littlewood-Paley-Stein Wavelet." A Mathematica notebook converted to Postscript.
J. Cohen, "Battle-Lemarie Wavelets." A Mathematica notebook converted to Postscript.
J. Cohen, "The Daubechies Minimum Phase Wavelets." A Mathematica notebook converted to Postscript.
J. Cohen, "Meyer Wavelets." A Mathematica notebook converted to Postscript.
Dl R. Coifman and M. V. Wickerhauser, "Entropy-Based Algorithms for Best Basis Selection"
Dl R. Coifman and M. Wickerhauser, "Best-adapted Wave Packet Bases."
Dl R. Coifman(?), "Numerical Harmonic Analysis."
Dl R. Coifman, Y. Meyer and M. Wickerhauser, "Size Properties of Wavelets Packets."
Dl R. Coifman and Y. Meyer, "Orthonormal Wave Packet Bases."
Dl R. Coifman and M. V. Wickerhauser, "Wavelets and Adapted Waveform Analysis"
Dl R. Coifman, Y. Meyer and M. Wickerhauser, "Adapted Wave Form Analysis, Wavelet Packets and Applications."
D. Colella and C. Heil, "Matrix Refinement Equations: Existence and Accuracy."
S. Dahlke, W. Dahmen, E. Schmitt and I. Weinreich, "Multiresolution Analysis and Wavelets on S^2 and S^3."
W. Dahmen, "Stability of Multiscale Transformations."
W. Dahmen and C. A. Micchelli, "Biorthogonal Wavelet Expansions."
Dl G. Davis, S. Mallat and Z. Zhang, "Adaptive Nonlinear Approximations."
Dl G. Davis, "Adaptive Nonlinear Approximations."
Dl G. Davis, S. Mallat and Z. Zhang, "Adaptive Time-Frequency Approximations with Matching Pursuits."
I. Daubechies and W. Sweldens, . An abstract is also available.
C. deBoor, R. DeVore and R. Amos, "On the Construction of Multivariate (Pre)Wavelets."
R. L. deQueiroz, "On Lapped Transforms."
M. Girardi and W. Sweldens, "A New Class of Unbalanced Haar Wavelets That Form an Unconditional Basis for Lp on General Measure Spaces." An abstract is also available.
C. Heil, G. Strang and V. Strela, "Approximation By Translates of Refinable Functions."
C. Heil and G. Strang, "Continuity of the Joint Spectral Radius: Application to Wavelets."
Dl B. Jawerth and W. Sweldens, "Biorthogonal Smooth Local Trigonometric Bases." An abstract is also available.
B. Jawerth and W. Sweldens, "Weighted Multiwavelets on General Domains."
M. K. Kwong and P. T. Peter Tang, "W-Matrices, Nonorthogonal Multiresolution Analysis and Finite Signals of Arbitrary Length."
G. Leaf, J. M. Restrepo and G. Schlossnagle, "Periodized Daubechies Wavelets."
J. Lippus, "Wavelet Coefficients of Functions of Generalized Lipschitz Classes."
Dl S. Mallat and Z. Zhang, "Matching Pursuit with Time-Frequency Dictionaries."
E. J. McCoy, D. B. Percival and A. T. Walden, "On the Phase of Least-Asymmetric Scaling and Wavelet Filters."
R. Piessens and W. Sweldens, "Wavelet Sampling Techniques." An abstract is also available.
J. Shen and G. Strang, "The zeros of the Daubechies polynomials."
J. Shen and G. Strang, "Asymptotics of Daubechies Filters, Scaling Functions and Wavelets."
M. J. Shensa, "An Inverse DWT for Nonorthogonal Wavelets"
W. Sweldens, "Compactly Supported Wavelets which are Biorthogonal to a Weighted Inner Product." An abstract is also available.
W. Sweldens, "The Lifting Scheme: A Custom-Design Construction of Biorthogonal Wavelets." An abstract is also available.
W. Sweldens, "The Lifting Scheme: A Construction of Second Generation Wavelets." An abstract is also available.
B. Suter and X. Xia, "Vector Valued Wavelets and Vector Filter Banks."
Dl C. Taswell, "Wavelet Transform Algorithms for Finite Duration Discrete-Time Signals."
C. Taswell, "Near-Best Basis Selection Algorithms with Non-Additive Information Cost Functions."
K. Urban, "On Divergence-Free Wavelets."
Dl M. V. Wickerhauser(?), "Entropy of a Vector Relative to a Decomposition."
Dl M. V. Wickerhauser, "Lectures on Wavelet Packet Algorithms"
Dl M. V. Wickerhauser, "Smooth Localized Orthonormal Bases"
C. Zarowski, "Notes on Orthogonal Wavelets and Wavelet Packets"
V. Zavadsky, "Multiresolution Approximations of Banach Spaces."
V. Zavadsky, "Wavelet Approximation of Sampled Functions."
J. Benedetto, C. Heil, and D. Walnut, "Differentiation and the Balian-Low Theorem."
O. Christensen and C. Heil, "Perturbations of Banach Frames and Atomic Decompositions."
D. M. Healy, Jr. and S. Li, "On Pseudo Frame Decompositions and Discrete Gabor Expansions."
S. Li, "General Frame Decompsotions, Pseudo-Duals and Applications for Weyl-Heisenberg Frames."
S. Li, "On Dimension Invariance of Discrete Gabor Expansions."
C. S. Burrus and R. A. Gopinath, "On the Correlation Structure of Multiplicity M Scaling Functions"
C. S. Burrus and R. A. Gopinath, "Wavelets and Filter Banks"
C. S. Burrus and R. A. Gopinath, "Unitary FIR Filter Banks and Symmetry"
C. S. Burrus and R. A. Gopinath, "Theory of Modulated Filter Banks and Modulated Wavelet Tight Frames"
C. S. Burrus and R. A. Gopinath, "Factorization Approach to Time-Varying Unitary Filter Bank Trees and Wavelets"
C. Herley, "Boundary Filters for Finite-Length Signals and Time-Varying Filter Banks."
P. Steffen, P. Heller, R. A. Gopinath and C. S. Burrus, "The Theory of Regular M-Band Wavelets"
D. E. Ashpis and J. Lewalle, "Transport in bypass transition: mapping the active time scales using wavelet techniques"
D.E. Ashpis and J. Lewalle, "Demonstration of wavelet techniques in the spectral analysis of bypass transition data"
Dl C. Basdevant, V. Perrier and T. Philipovitch, "Wavelet Spectra Compared to Fourier Spectra."
J.P. Bonnet, J. Lewalle and M.N. Glauser, "Coherent Structures: Past, Present and Future."
G. Buresti, J. Lewalle and P. Petagna, "Wavelet statistics and the near-field structure of coaxial jets"
Dl C. S. Burrus and R. A. Gopinath, "Wavelet-Based Lowpass/Bandpass Interpolation"
C. S. Burrus, R. A. Gopinath and J. E. Odegard, "Design of Linear Phase Cosine Modulated Filter Banks for Subband Image Compression"
Dl S. Cabrera, V. Krienovich and O. Sirisaengtaksin, "Wavelets Compress Better Than All Other Methods: A 1-D Theorem."
Dl S. Cabrera, V. Krienovich and O. Sirisaengtaksin, "Wavelet Nerual Networks are Optimal Approximators for Functions of One Variable."
R. Carmona, W. L. Hwang and B. Torresani, "Characterization of Signals by the Ridges of Their Wavelet Transforms."
R. Carmona, W. L. Hwang and B. Torresani, "Multi-Ridge Detection and Time-Frequency Reconstruction."
R. Coifman, "Adapted Multiresolution Analysis, Computation, Signal Processing and Operator Theory"
Dl R. Coifman, Y. Meyer, S. Quake and M. Wickerhauser, "Signal Processing and Compression with Wave Packets."
Dl . Coifman, Y. Meyer and M. V. Wickerhauser, "Wavelet Analysis and Signal Processing"
P. Crane, H. Higuchi and J. Lewalle, "On the structure of two-dimensional wakes behind a pair of flat plates"
M. Goldburg, "Applications of Wavelets to Quantization and Random Process Representations." About 1.1 MB.
D. M. Healy, Jr., J. Lu and J. B. Weaver, "Signal Recovery and Wavelet Reproducing Kernels."
D. M. Healy, Jr., J. Lu, J. B. Weaver and Y. Xu, "Noise Reduction With Multiscale Edge Representation and Perceptual Criteria."
D. M. Healy, Jr. and J. Lu, "Contrast Enhancement via Multiscale Gradient Transformations."
W. Hwang and S. Mallat, "Singularity Detection and Processing with Wavelets."
Dl B Jawerth, Y. Liu and W. Sweldens, "Signal Compression with Smooth Local Trigonometric Bases." An abstract is also available.
M. M. Lankhorst and M. D. van der Laan, "Wavelet-Based Signal Approximation with Genetic Algorithms."
J. Lewalle, K. Read and M. T. Schobeiri, "Effect of unsteady wake-passing frequency on boundary layer transition --- experimental investigation and wavelet analysis"
J. Lewalle, S.J. Murphy and F.W. Peek, "Wavelet analysis of olfactory nerve response to stimulus"
J. Lewalle, "Wavelet analysis of experimental data: some methods and the underlying physics"
G. Strang, "Eigenvalues of (!2)H and convergence of the cascade algorithm."
Dl G. Strang, "Creating and comparing wavelets."
A. R. Tate, "Pattern Recognition Analysis of in vivo Magnetic Resonance Spectra"
G. Uytterhoeven, "Design and Implementation of Compression Algorithms using Multiwavelets."
E. Adelson and E. Simoncelli, "Subband Image Coding with Three-tap Pyramids."
E. H. Adelson, W. T. Freeman, D. J. Heeger and E. P. Simoncelli, "Shiftable Multi-Scale Transforms."
E. H. Adelson and E. P. Simoncelli, "Subband Transforms."
V.R. Algazi, R.R. Estes and J. Lu, "Comparison of wavelet image coders using the Picture Quality Scale (PQS)."
M. Bhatia, W. C. Karl, and A. S. Willsky, "A Wavelet-Based Method for Multiscale Tomographic Reconstruction."
M. Bhatia, W. C. Karl, and A. S. Willsky, "Using Natural Wavelet Bases and Multiscale Stochastic Models for Tomographic Reconstruction."
A. Bijaoui, B. Lopez, C. Perrier and J. L. Stark, "Image Reconstruction by the Wavelet Transform Applied to Aperture Synthesis."
A. Bijaoui, F. Murtagh and J. L. Stark, "Image Restoration with Noise Suppression Using a Wavelet Transform and a Multiresolution Support Constraint," with figures.
A. Bijaoui, F. Murtagh and J. L. Stark, "Restauration des Images Multi-Echelles par l'Algorithm a Trous." Be forwarned: this is 4 MB.
A. Bijaoui, F. Murtagh and J. L. Stark, "Multiresolution Support Applied to Image Filtering and Restoration."
A. Bijaoui, F. Murtagh and J. L. Stark, "Multiresolution and Astronomical Image Processing."
A. Bijaoui, F. Murtagh and J. L. Stark, "Image Restoration with Noise Suppression Using a Multiresolution Analysis Support."
A. Bijaoui, F. Murtagh ,J. L. Stark and W. Zeilinger, "Object Detection Using Multiresolution Analysis."
R. A. Carmona, R. D. Frostig and W. L. Hwang, "Wavelet Analysis for Brain Function Imaging."
H. Chao and P. Fisher, "An Approach of Fast Integer Reversible Wavelet Transforms for Image Compression."
B. Deng, B. D. Jawerth, G. Peters and W. Sweldens, "Wavelet Probing for Compression Based Segmentation". An abstract is also available.
J. Fan and A. Laine, "An Adaptive Approach for Texture Segmentation by Multi-Channel Wavelet Frames.".
A. Grzeszczak, M. K. Mandal, S. Panchanathan and T. Yeap, "VLSI Implementation of Discrete Wavelet Transform."
O. Guleryuz, M. T. Orchard and Z. Xiong, "A DCT-based Embedded Image Coder."
D. M. Healy, Jr., J. Lu and J. B. Weaver, "Contrast Enhancement of Medical Images Using Multiscale Edge Representation."
C. Heil, P. N. Heller, G. Strang, V. Strela, and P. Topiwala, "Accuracy of Lattice Translates of Several Multidimensional Refinable Functions."
C. Herley, M. T. Orchard, K. Ramchandran and Z. Xiong, "Flexible Tree-structured Signal Expansions for Compression Using Time-Varying Filter Banks."
M. L. Hilton, B. D. Jawerth and A. Sengupta, "Compressing Still and Moving Images with Wavelets" with figure.
P. Kovesi, "Image Features from Phase Congruency"
B. Lin, "Wavelet Phase Filter for Denoising Tomographic Image Reconstruction"
M. Louys, F. Murtagh and J. L. Stark, "Astronomical Image Compression Using the Pyramidal Median Transform." Also summary version.
M. K. Mandal, T. Aboulnasr and S. Panchanathan, "Image Indexing Using Moments and Wavelets."
M. K. Mandal, E. Chan, X. Wang and S. Panchanathan, "Multiresolution Motion Estimation Techniques for Video Compression."
M. K. Mandal, S. Panchanathan and T. Aboulnasr, "Choice of Wavelets for Image Compression."
D.M. Monro and B.G. Sherlock, "Psychovisually Tuned Wavelet Fingerprint Compression".
D.M. Monro and B.G. Sherlock, "Optimised Wavelets for Fingerprint Compression".
P. Moulin, "A Multiscale Relaxation Algorithm for SNR Maximization in 2-D Nonorthogonal Subband Coding."
F. Murtagh and J. L. Stark, "Multiresolution Image Analysis Using Wavelets."
F. Murtagh and J. L. Stark, "Image Restoration with Noise Suppression Using the Wavelet Transform," with figure 1, "figure 2, figure 3, figure 4, figure 5a, figure 5b, figure 6, and figure 7.
M. T. Orchard, Z. Xiong and Y. Zhang, "A Simple Deblocking Algorithm for JPEG Compressed Images Using Overcomplete Wavelet Representations."
M. T. Orchard, K. Ramchandran and Z. Xiong, "Wavelet Packets Image Coding Using Space-Frequency Quantization."
M. T. Orchard, K. Ramchandran and Z. Xiong, "Space-frequency Quantization for Wavelet Image Coding."
H. Pan, "Uniform Full-Information Image Matching Using Complex Conjugate Wavelet Pyramids", with figures.
H.Pan, "General Stereo Image Matching Using Symmetric Complex Wavelets," presented at SPIE Conference: Wavelet Applications in Signal and Image Processing, VI. Denver, August 1996, Published in SPIE Proceedings, vol. 2825.
P. Schröder and W. Sweldens, "Spherical wavelets: Efficiently representing functions on the sphere." An abstract is also available.
P. Schröder and W. Sweldens, "Spherical Wavelets: Texture Processing." An abstract is also available.
J. A. Solomon, J. Villasenor, A. B. Watson and G. Y. Yang, "Visual Thresholds For Wavelet Quantization Error."
V. Strela, P. Heller, G. Strang, P. Topiwala and C. Heil, "The application of multiwavelet filter banks to signal and image processing."
G. Weiss, "Time-Frequency and Time-Scaling Methods in Signal and Image Processing"
M. Wickerhauser, "Picture Compression by Best-Basis Subband Coding."
M. V. Wickerhauser, "High-Resolution Still Picture Compression"
Z. Xiong, "Representation and Coding of Images Using Wavelets."
J. N. Bradley and C. M. Brislawn, "Proposed First-Generation WSQ Bit Allocation Procedure"
J. N. Bradley and C. M. Brislawn, "The Wavelet/Scalar Quantization Compression Standard for Digital Fingerprint Images."
J. Bradley, C. Brislawn and T. Hopper, "WSQ Gray-Scale Fingerprint Image Compression Specification."
J. Bradley, C. Brislawn and T. Hopper, "The FBI Wavelet/Scalar Quantization Standard for Gray-Scale Fingerprint Image Compression" with figures.
C. M. Brislawn, Classification of Nonexpansive Symmetric Extension Transforms for Multirate Filter Banks"
C. M. Brislawn, "Fingerprints Go Digital"
C. M. Brislawn, "Preservation of Subband Symmetry in Multirate Signal Coding."
"The FBI Wavelet/Scalar Quantization Fingerprint Image Compression Standard."
J. Berger, "The Center for Studies in Music Technology" at Yale.
E. Wesfreid and M. V. Wickerhauser, "Adapted Local Trigonometric Transforms and Speech Processing"
M. Wickerhauser, "Acoustic Signal Compression with Wavelets Packets."
G. Beylkin, "On Wavelet-based Algorithms for Solving Differential Equations."
B Jawerth and W. Sweldens, "Wavelet Multiresolution Analyses Adapted for the Fast Solution of Boundary Value Ordinary Differential Equations." An abstract is also available.
P. Monasse and V. Perrier, "Ondelettes sur l'Intervalle pour la Prise en Compte de Conditions aux Limites."
A. Rieder, "Semi-Algebraic Multi-level Methods Based on Wavelet Decompositions I: Application to Two-Point Boundary Problems"
W. C. Shann and J. C. Xu, "Galerkin-wavelet Methods for Two Point Boundary Value Problems."
A. Averbuch, G. Beylkin R. R. Coifman and M. Israeli, "Multiscale Inversion of Elliptic Operators."
E. Bacry, S. Mallat and G. Papanicolaou, "A Wavelet Based Space-Time Adaptive Numerical Method for Partial Differential Equations"
G. Beylkin and N. Coult, "A Multiresolution Strategy for Reduction of Elliptic PDE's and Eigenvalue Problems."
G. Beylkin and J. H. Keiser, "On the Adaptive Numerical Solution of Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations in Wavelet Bases."
D. M. Bond and S. A. Vavasis, "Fast Wavelet Transforms for Matrices Arising From Boundary Element Methods."
T. Chan, W. Tang and W. Wan, .
P. Charton and V. Perrier, "Factorisation sur Bases d'Ondelettes du Noyeau de la Chaleur et Algorithmes Matriciels Rapides Associes."
P. Charton and V. Perrier, "Towards a Wavelet Based Numerical Scheme for the Two-Dimensional Navier-Stokes Equations."
P. Charton and V. Perrier, "A Pseudo-Wavelet Scheme for the Two-Dimensional Navier-Stokes Equations."
S. Dahlke and A. Kunoth, "Biorthogonal Wavelets and Multigrid."
S. Dahlke and I. Weinreich, "Wavelet-Galerkin Methods: An Adapted Biorthogonal Wavelet Basis."
S. Dahlke and I. Weinreich, "Wavelet Bases Adapted to Pseudo-Differential Operators."
W. Dahmen and A. Kunoth, "Multilevel Preconditioning."
W. Dahmen, A. Kunoth and K. Urban "A Wavelet-Galerkin Method for the Stokes-Equations," also full version with pictures.
R. Glowinski, T. Pan , R. O. Wells, Jr. and X. Zhou, "Wavelet and Finite Element Solutions for the Neumann Problem Using Fictitious Domains"
R. Glowinski, A. Rieder, R. O. Wells, Jr. and X. Zhou, "A Wavelet Multigrid Preconditioner for Dirichlet Boundary Value Problems in General Domains."
R. Glowinski, A. Rieder, R. O. Wells, Jr. and X. Zhou, "A Preconditioned CG-Method for Wavelet-Galerkin Discretizations of Elliptic Problems"
F. Heurtaux, F. Planchon and M. V. Wickerhauser, "Scale Decomposition in Burgers' Equation"
J. H. Keiser, "On I. Wavelet Based Approach to Numerical Solution on Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations and II. Nonlinear Waves in Fully Discrete Dynamical Systems."
A. Kunoth, "Multilevel Preconditioning -- Appending Boundary Conditions by Lagrange Multipliers."
G. Leaf and J. M. Restrepo, "Wavelet-Galerkin Discretization of Hyperbolic Equations."
J. Lewalle, "Wavelet Transforms of some Equations of Fluid Mechanics"
J. Lewalle, "Energy Dissipation in the Wavelet-Transformed Navier-Stokes Equations"
J. Lewalle, "On the effect of boundary conditions on the multifractal statistics of incompressible turbulence"
J. Lewalle, "Diffusion is Hamiltonian".
J. Lewalle, "Gaussian Wavelets as Green's functions".
D. Lu, T. Ohyoshi and L. Zhu, "Treatment of Boundary Conditions in the Application of Wavelet-Galerkin Method to a SH Wave Problem"
P. Monasse and V. Perrier, "Orthonormal Wavelet Bases Adapted for Partial Differential Equations with Boundary Conditions."
A. Rieder and X. Zhou, "On the Robustness of the Damped V-Cycle of the Wavelet Frequency Decompositions Multigrid Method"
A. Rieder, R. O. Wells, Jr. and X. Zhou, "A Wavelet Approach to Robust Multilevel Solvers for Anisotropic Elliptic Problems."
A. Rieder, R. O. Wells, Jr. and X. Zhou, "On the Wavelet Frequency Decomposition Method"
K. Urban, "A Wavelet-Galerkin Algorithm for the Driven-Cavity-Stokes-Problem in Two Space Dimensions."
R. O. Wells, Jr. and X. Zhou, "Wavelet Solutions for the Dirichlet Problem"
R. O. Wells, Jr. and X. Zhou, "Wavelet Interpolation and Approximate Solution of Elliptic Partial Differential Equations"
R. O. Wells, Jr. and X. Zhou, "Representing the Geometry of Domains by Wavelets with Applications to Partial Differential Equations"
R. O. Wells, Jr., "Multiscale Applications of Wavelets to Solutions of Partial Differential Equations"
G. Beylkin, R. Coifman and V. Rokhlin, "Fast Wavelet Transforms and Numerical Algorithms I."
G. Beylkin, "On the Representation of Operators in Bases of Compactly Supported Wavelets."
G. Beylkin, "On the Fast Algorithm for Multiplication of Functions in the Wavelet Bases."
G. Beylkin, "Wavelets and Fast Numerical Algorithms." Lecture notes for an AMS short course, 1993.
G. Beylkin, "Wavelets, Multiresolution Analysis and Fast Numerical Algorithms." Draft of INRIA lectures, May 1991.
G. Beylkin and M. E. Brewster, "A Multiresolution Strategy for Numerical Homogenization."
P. Charton and V. Perrier, "Produits Rapides Matrices-Vecteur en Bases d'Ondelettes: Application a la Resolution Numerique d'Equation aux Derivees Partielles."
P. Charton, "Produits de Matrices Rapides en Bases d'Ondelettes: Application a la Resolution Numerique d'Equation aux Derivees Partielles."
N. H. Getz, "A Fast Discrete Periodic Wavelet Transform." An associated toolbox of Matlab routines is also available.
L. Jameson, "On the Spline-Based Wavelet Differentiation Matrix."
L. Jameson, "On the Differention Matrix for Daubechies-Based Wavelets on an Interval."
L. Jameson, "On the Daubechies-Based Wavelet Differentiation Matrix."
L. Jameson, "On the Wavelet Optimized Finite Difference Method."
E. Kolaczyk, "Wavelet Methods for the Inversion of Certain Homogeneous Linear Operators in the Presence of Noisy Data," with fig 5.1, figs 5.2, fig 5.4, fig 5.5, figs 5.6, figs 5.8, fig 5.10, figs 5.11, fig 5.13, and figs 5.14.
R. Piessens and W. Sweldens, "Quadrature Formulae and Asymptotic Error Expansion of Wavelet Approximations of Smooth Functions." An abstract is also available.
R. Piessens and W. Sweldens, "Asymptotic Error Expansion of Wavelet Approximations of Smooth Functions II." An abstract is also available.
W. C. Shann, "Quadratures Involving Polynomials and Daubechies' Wavelets."
W. Sweldens, "Construction and Application of Wavelets in Numerical Analysis."
M. Wickerhauser, "Nonstandard Matrix Multiplication."
M. V. Wickerhauser, "Computation with Adapted Time-Frequency Atoms"
M. V. Wickerhauser, "Wavelet Approximations to Jacobians and the Inversion of Complicated Maps"
E. H. Adelson and E. P. Simoncelli, "Noise Removal via Bayesian Wavelet Coring."
A. G. Bruce, D. L.Donoho, H. Gao and R. D. Martin, "Denoising and Robust Non-linear Wavelet Analysis."
A. G. Bruce and H. Gao, "WaveShrink: Shrinkage Functions and Thresholds."
A. G. Bruce and H. Gao, "WaveShrink with Semisoft Shrinkage."
A. G. Bruce and H. Gao, "Understanding WaveShrink: Variance and Bias Estimation."
A. G. Bruce, H. Gao and D. Ragozin, "S+WAVELETS: An Object-Oriented Toolkit for Wavelet Analysis."
A. G. Bruce and H. Gao, "S+WAVELETS: Algorithms and Technical Details."
J. Buckheit and D. Donoho, "WaveLab and Reproducible Research."
R. Coifman and N. Saito, "Local Discriminant Bases."
R. Coifman and F. Majid, "Adapted Waveform Analysis and Denoising."
R. Coifman and D. Donoho, "Translation-Invariant De-Noising."
A. Davis, A. Marshak and W. Wiscombe, "Wavelet-Based Multifractal Analysis of Non-Stationary and/or Intermittent Geophysical Signals." with figures.
B. Deylon and A. Juditsky, "Wavelet Estimators. Global Error Mesures Revisited."
D. Donoho, "Nonlinear Solution of Linear Inverse Problems by Wavelet-Vaguelette Decomposition"
Dl D. Donoho, "Smooth Wavelet Decompositions with Blocky Coefficient Kernels"
Dl D. Donoho, "De-noising by Soft Thresholding"
D. Donoho, "Interpolating Wavelet Transforms"
D. Donoho, "Unconditional Bases are Optimal Bases for Data Compression and for Statistical Estimation"
Dl D. Donoho and I. Johnstone, "Adapting to Unknown Smoothness by Wavelet Shrinkage"
Dl D. Donoho and I. Johnstone, "Ideal Spatial Adaptation via Wavelet Shrinkage"
Dl D. Donoho and I. Johnstone, "Minimax Estimation via Wavelet Shrinkage"
Dl D. Donoho and I. Johnstone, "Minimax Risk over l_p Balls"
D. Donoho, I. Johnstone, G. Kerkyacharian and D. Picard, "Density Estimation via Wavelet Shrinkage"
Dl D. Donoho, I. Johnstone, G. Kerkyacharian and D. Picard, "Wavelet Shrinkage: Asymptopia?"
Dl D. Donoho and I. Johnstone, "Ideal Denoising in an Orthonormal Basis Chosen From a Library of Bases."
H. Y. Gao, "Choice of Thresholds for Wavelet Shrinkage Estimate of the Spectrum."
P. Goel and B. Vidakovic, "Wavelet Transformations as Diversity Enhancers"
I. Johnstone, "Minimax Bayes, Asymptotic Minimax and Sparse Wavelet Priors"
I. M. Johnstone and B. W. Silverman, "Wavelet Threshold Estimators for Data with Correlated Noise."
A. Juditsky, "Wavelet Estimators. Adapting To Unkown Smoothness."
A. Juditsky and F. Leblanc, "Computing Wavelet Density Estimators for Stochastic Processes."
G. Katul and B. Vidakovic, "Partitioning eddy motion using Lorentz wavelet filtering."
P. Moulin, "Wavelet Thresholding Techniques for Power Spectrum Estimation."
G.P. Nason and B. W. Silverman, "The Discrete Wavelet Transform in S."
G.P. Nason and B. W. Silverman, "the Stationary Wavelet Transform and some Statistical Applications."
G.P. Nason, "Wavelet Regression by Cross-Validation"
A. B. Owen, "Monte Carlo Variance of Scrambled Equidistribution Quadrature."
D. B. Percival, "On the Estimation of the Wavelet Variance."
A. Pinheiro and B. Vidakovic, "Estimating the Square Root of a Density Via Compactly Supported Wavelets."
N. Saito, "Local Feature Extraction and Its Appplications Using a Library of Bases."
N. Saito, "Simultaneous Noise Supression and Signal Compression using a Library of Orthonormal Bases and the Minimum Description Length Criterion."
B. Vidakovic, "A Note on Random Densities via Wavelets"
B. Vidakovic, "Nonlinear Wavelet Shrinkage with Bayes Rules and Bayes Factors."
A. T. Walden, D. B. Percival and E. J. McCoy, "Spectrum Estimation by Wavelet Thresholding of Multitaper Estimators."
M. V. Wickerhauser, "Fast Approximate Factor Analysis"
S. A. Greenblatt, "Wavelets in Economics: An Application to Outlier Testing."
M. J. Jensen, "Wavelet Analysis of Fractionally Integrated Processes."
M. J. Jensen, "OLS Estimate of the Fractional Differencing Parameter Using Wavelets Derived From Smoothing Kernels."
C. Jones, 2-D Wavelet Packet Analysis of Structural Self-Organization and Morphogenic Regulation in Filamentous Fungal Colonies.
J. Lewalle, "Wavelet Transforms of the Navier-Stokes Equations and the Generalized Dimensions of Turbulence"
W. Hwang and S. Mallat, "Characterization of Self-Similar Multifractals with Wavelet Maxima."
J. Dill and A. R. Lindsey, "Wavelet Packet Modulation: A Generalized Method for Orthogonally Multiplexed Communication."
R. Learned, H. Krim, B. Claus, A. S. Willsky, and W. C. Karl, "Wavelet-Packet-Based Multiple Access Communication."
A. R. Lindsey, "Multidimensional Signaling via Wavelet Packets."
A. R. Lindsey, Generalized Orthogonally Multiplexed Communication via Wavelet Packet Bases, chapter 1, chapter 2, chapter 3, chapter 4, chapter 5, chapter 6. Also with appendix and references.
M. Cohen, S. Gortler, P. Hanrahan and P. Schröder, "Wavelet Radiosity." With figure 12 and figure 14 .
M. Cohen, S. Gortler, P. Hanrahan and P. Schröder, "Wavelet Projections for Radiosity."
A. Dreger, M. H. Gross R. Koch and L. Lippert, "A New Method to Approximate the Volume Rendering Equation using Wavelet Bases and Piecewise Polynomials," with figures 5-6, figures 7-10, and figures 11-13. Also abstract available. Technical Report No. 220, Computer Science Department, ETH Zürich, 1994.
A. Fournier, "Wavelets and their Applications in Computer Graphics." This is 2.5 MB compressed.
M. H. Gross and L. Lippert, "Fast Wavelet Based Volume Rendering by Accumulation of Tranparent Texture Maps." With figure 6, figure 7, figure 8, figure 9, figure 10 and figure 11. Also abstract available. Technical Report No. 228, Computer Science Department, ETH Zürich, 1995.
M. H. Gross and R. Koch, "Visualization of Multidimensional Shape and Texture Features in Laser Range Data using Complex-Valued Gabor Wavelets."
M. H. Gross and L. Lippert, "Ray-tracing of Multiresolution B-Spline Volumes." Also abstract available. Technical Report No. 239, Computer Science Department, ETH Zürich, 1996.
P. Hanrahan and P. Schröder, "Wavelet Methods for Radiance Computations." With figure 8, figure 9 left, figure 9 right, figure 10, figure 10 top left and figure 10 top right.
C. Herley, "Exact Interpolation and Iterative Subdivision Schemes."
P. Schröder, W. Sweldens and D. Zorin, "Interpolating Subdivision for Meshes with Arbitrary Topology". An abstract is also available.
C. Best and A. Schäfer, "Variational Description of Statistical Field Theories using Daubechies' Wavelets."
G. Beylkin, J. Dunn and D. Gines, "Order N Static and Quasi-Static Computations in Electrodynamics using Wavelets."
Dl J. C. Cohen and T. Chen, "Fundamentals of the Discrete Wavelet Transform for Seismic Data Processing."
A. Fournier, "Wavelet Analysis of Observed Geopotential and Wind: Blocking and Local Energy Coupling Across Scales."
A. Fournier, "Wavelet Multiresolution Analysis of Numerically Simulated 3d Radiative Convection."
A. Fournier, "Wavelet Representation of Lower-Atmospheric Long Nonlinear Wave Dynamics, Governed by the Benjamin-Davis-Ono-Burgers Equation."
F. Hermann, "A scaling medium representation, a discussion on well-logs, fractals and waves." An abstract is also available.
I. Pierce and L. Watkins, "Modelling optical pulse propagation in nonlinear media using wavelets."
W. C. Shann, "Finite Element Methods for Maxwell's Equations with Stationary Magnetic Fields and Galerkin-wavelet Methods for Two Point Boundary Value Problems," with separate abstract and table of contents.
L. R. Watkins and Y. R. Zhou, "Modelling Propagation in Optical Fibres using Wavelets."
Dl R. O. Wells, "Adaptive Wave Propogation Modelling."
L. Zubair, "Studies in Turbulence using Wavelet Transforms for Data Compression and Scale-Separation."
J. Fridman and E. S. Manolakos, "On Linear Space-Time Mapping for the 1-D Discrete Wavelet Transform."
J. Fridman and E. S. Manolakos, "Distributed Memory and Control VLSI Architectures for the 1-D Discrete Wavelet Transform."
J. Lu, "Computation of 2-D Wavelet Transform on the Massively Parallel Computer for Image Processing."
Copyright © 1997 MathSoft, Inc. All rights reserved.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


Party Name: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zvi ROSENTHAL, Amir Rosenthal, Ayal Rosenthal, Oren Rosenthal, Efrat Rosenthal, Rivka Rosenthal, Defendants-Appellants, Aragon Capital Management, LLC, Aragon Partners, LP, Noga Delshad, Defendants.
Judge Panel: Before: SACK, KATZMANN, and CHIN, Circuit Judges.
Aragon Capital Management, LLC, Aragon Partners, LP, Noga Delshad, Defendants.
for Defendants-Appellants Zvi, Amir, and Ayal Rosenthal.
Robert Knuts, Park & Jensen LLP, New York, N.Y., for Defendants-Appellants Oren, Efrat, and Rivka Rosenthal.
Tracey A. Hardin, Senior Counsel (David M. Becker, General Counsel; Mark D. Cahn, Deputy General Counsel; Jacob H. Stillman, Solicitor; Randall W. Quinn, Assistant General Counsel, on the brief), Securities & Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before: SACK, KATZMANN, and CHIN, Circuit Judges.
Defendants-Appellants Amir and Ayal Rosenthal (" Amir" and " Ayal" ; collectively " defendants" ) appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Maas, Mag. J. ), entered on February 1, 2010, granting the motion of Plaintiff-Appellee Securities and Exchange Commission (" SEC" ) for partial summary judgment, ordering disgorgement, granting injunctive relief against Zvi and Amir Rosenthal, and imposing penalties on Zvi, Amir, and Ayal Rosenthal. In this opinion, we consider Amir and Ayal's challenge to the imposition of penalties on them pursuant to section 21(d)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (" Exchange Act" ), 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3), for their insider trading violations. 1 We hold that civil monetary penalties for insider trading are not available under section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act. For the reasons stated herein and in the accompanying summary order, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part and VACATED in part.
The following factual recitation, which is not in dispute, is limited to those facts that are necessary to the resolution of the issue addressed in this opinion.
Zvi and Rivka Rosenthal are the parents of Amir, Ayal, Oren, and Efrat Rosenthal. In June 2003, Amir formed Aragon Partners LP (" Aragon" ), a limited partnership, to pool and trade funds on behalf of the Rosenthal family members. Amir contemporaneously founded Aragon Capital Management LLC, which he controlled and in the trading account of which he placed all Aragon trades.
In April 2005, in the course of his employment as an accountant at Ernst & Young, David Heyman, a Rosenthal family friend, learned of the proposed acquisition of a public company by a second company that was an Ernst & Young client. Heyman disclosed this proposed transaction to Amir, who sold the target company's " put" options through the Aragon account (" Project AA trades" ). Amir, who was at that time an associate at a large law firm, also passed the tip on to his supervisor, who purchased " call" options. The acquisition ultimately did not occur, and Amir's Project AA trades did not result in any profits or permit him to avoid losses.
target company's put options through the Aragon account (" Project Victor trades" ) and tipped his supervisor, who again bought call options. Ayal later informed Amir that the merger would not occur, and Amir liquidated Aragon's position. Neither Ayal nor Amir generated profits or avoided losses from the Project Victor trades.
On February 8, 2007, Amir, Ayal, and Heyman pleaded guilty to a one-count criminal information alleging that they had conspired to commit securities fraud. Amir admitted to trading on material, nonpublic information and to tipping others. Heyman and Ayal also admitted to tipping Amir.
The SEC instituted this civil enforcement action in February 2007 and filed an amended complaint on March 22, 2007, which alleged that, inter alia, Amir, Ayal, and Heyman violated section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 by engaging in insider trading. The parties consented to proceeding before Magistrate Judge Frank Maas. On October 1, 2008, the SEC moved for partial summary judgment on the basis of the guilty pleas in the criminal case. On November 24, 2009, the district court granted summary judgment against Amir and Ayal with respect to the Project Victor trades and against Amir with respect to the Project AA trades and imposed " third tier" civil penalties 2 in connection with those trades pursuant to section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3). The court imposed the statutory maximum penalty of $600,000 on Amir for his five violations— trading on one tip from Heyman and two tips from Ayal and twice tipping his law firm supervisor— and imposed a penalty of $120,000 on Ayal for his two tips to Amir. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(B)(iii); 17 C.F.R. § 201.1002.
We review de novo the district court's interpretation of a federal statute. See, e.g., United States v. Fuller, 627 F.3d 499, 503 (2d Cir.2010).


ETHICAL DILEMMAS FOR TODAY’S ADJUSTER AND HOW TO AVOID LEGAL CONSEQUENCES.
Kristen Tajak of Cole, Scott & Kissane’s Appellate Group successfully obtained a reversal of the trial court’s order denying the Defendant’s motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees pursuant to a proposal for settlement in the matter of RTG Furnitre v. Franklin Coates and Lorie Coates.
On the 45th day before the trial start date, the Defendant served a proposal for settlement on the appellees, which they did not accept. Following a successful trial result in favor of the Defendant, and the trial court entered final judgment for the Defendant. The Defendant then filed a motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the proposal for settlement that was never accepted.
The trial court denied the Defendant’s motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees, concluding that the 45th day before trial was one day short of being timely under rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the trial court decided that the Defendant was not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees, although costs were awarded.
On appeal of the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held, in a 7-page opinion, that the plain and ordinary meaning of rule 1.442 is that the deadline for serving a proposal for settlement is the 45th day before the date set for trial; in other words, the 45 days includes the date of service of the proposal for settlement, but does not include the trial date. Because the Defendant’s proposal for settlement was served on the 45th day before the date set for trial, the proposal was timely under rule 1.442, and the Fourth District held that it was reversible error for the trial court to conclude otherwise. This is a significant ruling concerning the application and interpretation of rule 1.442 in that there are no other appellate court decisions addressing this issue.
Trevor Hawes and Blake Cole of Cole, Scott & Kissane’s Jacksonville office obtained a Dismissal of Plaintiff Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the matter of Alida Benson v. Power Service Concepts, Inc. and James Miley.
Defendants argued in their Answer Brief, among other things, that the Fifth District Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction as a result of Plaintiff’s untimely Petition. Defendants argued that Motions for Reconsideration and Motions for Rehearing of non-final orders are not authorized by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and, therefore, did not toll the thirty day time period for Plaintiff to file her Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Defendants emphasized that the time constraints for appealing a non-final order are strict and plainly stated in the applicable rules.
The Fifth District agreed and Plaintiff/Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed.
Jessica Arbour of Cole, Scott & Kissane’s Miami office successfully tried an administrative case in the matter of Boffelli v. Kent Security Services, Inc. The Claimant alleged he was discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, believing he was terminated because of his medical condition and the needs to accommodate it. Employer’s position is that he was terminated after falling asleep at his post multiple times, and that it had no knowledge of the Claimant’s medical condition at the time of his termination.
At the conclusion of the Claimant’s case before the Miami-Dade Office of Human Rights, Jessica moved for dismissal supported by her cross examination of the Claimant, in which she established the Claimant had no proof that he notified Kent Security of his disability nor that similarly-situated individuals were treated better than he was. The motion was unanimously granted by the three member panel.
Edward S. Polk and Justin D. Siegwald of Cole, Scott & Kissane’s Miami office obtained a defense verdict in the matter of Hernandez v. Alexim Trading Corp. The Plaintiff claimed that he was terminated in retaliation for reporting OSHA safety violations in the workplace. The employer responded that there were no actual violations, and that the employee had been terminated for legitimate business reasons arising from his conduct on the job. The jury deliberated only 36 minutes before returning a defense verdict.
Sport Waiver, a sport risk consulting firm, cites Nina Conte’s article: Right Waiver? No Problem. Wrong Waiver? Problem., recently published in the CSK’s Litigation Quarterly (Spring 2012 issue) as “a well-researched article pointing out some important aspects of Florida waiver law.” See http://www.sportwaiver.com/a-look-at-florida-waiver-law/.
Benjamin M. Esco and Giancarlo V. Nicolosi of Cole, Scott & Kissane’s Miami office obtained a summary judgment in this dog bite/premises liability case.
The Plaintiff filed suit against our clients for negligence alleging they owned, controlled, and possessed a Great Dane dog, which attacked the Plaintiff. Our client was the owner of the home that was being rented out to the tenant/Co-Defendant, who owned the subject dog. Defense counsel argued that our clients were not liable for alleged injuries as our clients were not the owners of the subject dog under Fla. Stat. §767.04 and did not have control or dominion over the subject dog. In addition defense counsel argued that our clients did not have knowledge of the subject dog’s propensity for viciousness. The court agreed and granted our motion for summary judgment. Finally, as a result of timely filing a proposal for settlement, we are entitled to recovery of our attorney’s fees and costs.


Home > Medical & Other Leaves > FMLA & Medical Certification: When Does An Employer Have A “Reason to Doubt”?
FMLA & Medical Certification: When Does An Employer Have A “Reason to Doubt”?
Given the financial and administrative costs that FMLA continues to impose upon employers, HR managers are consulting with counsel to determine what tools are available to ensure that those who truly need FMLA leave are able to get it. One commonly used tool is to obtain second opinions to verify the accuracy of an initial medical certification.
The FMLA in 29 U.S.C. § 2613(c) and its regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 825.307(b) and (c), permit employers to obtain additional medical opinions regarding the certification of an employee’s “serious health condition.” An employer’s ability to obtain these opinions is limited, however, as the employer must have some “reason to doubt the validity” of the initial opinion, whether it is the validity of the certification itself or whether the contents of the certification are internally inconsistent. See 29 C.F.R. §825.307(b); Smith v. Hope School, 560 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2009) (affirming the grant of summary judgment to employer where employee added a condition to her certification that her doctor did not diagnose, thereby altering the FMLA certification that her doctor had already completed); Miller v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 2013 WL 5425420, at *10-11, 26-27 (D. Minn. Sept. 27, 2013) (granting summary judgment on FMLA entitlement claim where employer sought second opinion regarding a certification that presented conflicting information regarding the employee’s condition, namely that the employee could work full-time but would need up to 20 hours per week of leave).
There is little case law explaining specific circumstances that constitute a sufficient reason to doubt the validity of a medical certification. Many cases simply quote the text of the statute and implementing regulations without providing further explanation or guidance on what the FMLA and the regulations contemplate as a sufficient “reason to doubt the validity of the certification.” Appearing to go against the grain of most cases, however, the court in Albert v. Runyon, 6 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D. Mass. 1998), held the employer to a higher standard, as the employer was criticized (and ultimately received an adverse judgment) for failing to show a “specific” reason that it suspected that the initial medical opinion that the employee could return to work was unworthy of credence. Id. at 64-65.
Although neither the FMLA nor its regulations state that a “reason to doubt the validity” of a certification needs to rise to the level of actual fraud by the employee (as in Smith), if an employer wishes to require a second opinion, employers would do well to document the specific reasons that they have to question the initial certification before doing so. In the case of intermittent leave, a pattern of Monday and Friday absences could justify a second medical opinion. In this way, employers can ensure that FMLA leave does not become more than what was intended at the time Congress passed it.


James R. HOFFA et al.
Petitioners were convicted of various counts under a 28-count indictment charging mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The United States claimed, and the jury apparently found that petitioners conspired to defraud, and did defraud, the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, with the prime objective of financially rehabilitating Sun Valley, Inc., a real estate enterprise in which certain of the petitioners had important interests. For reasons which follow, we do not reach, one way or the other, any of the contentions urged by petitioners in support of their petition for a writ of certiorari.
In response to the petition, the Solicitor General sua sponte has advised the Court that on December 2, 1963, some six months after the indictment in this case, a conversation between petitioner Burris and one Benjamin Sigelbaum, not a defendant in this prosecution, was overheard by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a result of electronic eavesdropping. The eavesdropping equipment had been installed in Sigelbaum's office, by trespass, some 12 months before this conversation, and thereafter had been maintained in operation. We are informed by the Solicitor General that the recorded conversation was concerned both with the proposed transfer to Sigelbaum of Burris' interest in Sun Valley, and with the conduct of the defense to this prosecution. The Solicitor General has indicated that the contents of the recording were available to government attorneys involved in this prosecution, but adds that the recording was only 'peripherally relevant to the charges underlying (Burris') conviction.'* We are, moreover, advised by him that the information obtained through this electronic eavesdropping was not introduced into evidence at trial, that it was never the basis of any investigative lead, and that it was in part already known, through Burris' own statements, to government attorneys. Unlike the situations in Black v. United States, 385 U.S. 26, 87 S.Ct. 190, 17 L.Ed.2d 26, and O'Brien v. United States, 386 U.S. 345, 87 S.Ct. 1158, 18 L.Ed.2d 94, there was apparently no direct intrusion here into attorney-client discussions. In these circumstances, we find no 'adequate justification,' Black v. United States, supra, 385 U.S. at 29, 87 S.Ct. at 192, now to require a new trial of Burris or of any of the other petitioners; the more orderly and appropriate procedure is instead to remand the case to the District Court for a hearing, findings, and conclusions on the nature and relevance to these convictions of the recorded conversation, and of any other conversations that may be shown to have been overheard through similar eavesdropping. United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co., 355 U.S. 233, 78 S.Ct. 245, 2 L.Ed.2d 234.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari as to each of the petitioners, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In such proceedings, the District Court will confine the evidence presented by both sides to that which is material to questions of the content of this and any other electronically eavesdropped conversations, and of the relevance of any such conversations to petitioners' subsequent convictions. The District Court will make such findings of fact on these questions as may be appropriate in light of the further evidence and of the entire existing record. If the District Court decides, on the basis of such findings, that the conviction of any of the petitioners was not tainted by the use of evidence thus improperly obtained, it will enter new final judgments as to such petitioners based on the existing record as supplemented by its further findings, thereby preserving to all affected parties the right to seek further appropriate appellate review. If, on the other hand, the District Court concludes after such further proceedings that the conviction of any of the petitioners was tainted, it would then become its duty to accord any such petitioner a new trial. See United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co., supra, at 245—246, 78 S.Ct., at 253—254; see also Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 371 U.S. 341, 83 S.Ct. 448, 9 L.Ed.2d 357.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Judgment of Court of Appeals vacated and case remanded to the District Court.
Brief for the United States in Opposition 70.


text:
Jennifer Langen is a Partner at Adams Stepner Woltermann & Dusing, PLLC. She practices in the firm’s Civil Litigation and Government Practice groups.
A gifted legal analyst and strategist, Jennifer’s forte is written legal argument at both the trial and appellate levels. She excels at positioning cases for resolution by summary judgment, and often succeeds in securing victory for her clients before trial ever starts. In addition, Jennifer is a talented litigator and appellate advocate. She handles a broad range of legal issues, including, but not limited to, those that arise in the areas of federal civil rights, insurance coverage disputes, municipal law, employment and housing law, planning and zoning, and general tort law.
Jennifer is admitted to the practice of law in both Ohio (1998) and Kentucky (1999), as well as the United States Supreme Court, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the federal district courts for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the Western District of Kentucky, and the Southern District of Ohio.
Jennifer resides in Cincinnati with her husband, David, and sons, Louis and Jack.
Ms. Langen has been a member of the firm’s litigation team since 1998. Her practice is primarily dedicated to the defense of governmental bodies and officials in all types of cases, the defense of employers in employment law litigation, and the areas of civil rights litigation, zoning, ERISA denial of benefits cases, insurance coverage, and commercial litigation. Ms. Langen has experience at all stages of litigation, including pre-litigation investigation, alternative dispute resolution, pretrial discovery, motion practice, trial, and appeal. She has been involved with both civil jury trials and bench trials, and practices in both state and federal courts in Kentucky and Ohio.
Prepared numerous responses to charges of discrimination for submission to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Kentucky Human Rights Commission on behalf of both public and private employers.
Negotiated a nuisance value settlement on behalf of a county in a construction litigation case.
Won summary judgment for an employer on a plaintiff’s age discrimination claim. Otto v. City of Newport, E.D.Ky. Case No. 12-00019-DLB-CJS.
Obtained summary judgment on a property owner’s claim that the Planning Commission and its officials violated his constitutional rights and committed state law torts by adopting a zoning ordinance that prevented the property owner from opening a fireworks store at a certain location. Lewis v. Boone County Planning Commission, E.D.Ky. Case No. 2:12-90-WOB.
Secured defense verdict in a jury trial on four plaintiffs’ claims that two police officers had used excessive force against them. Gonzalez v. City of Covington, E.D.Ky. Case No. 2:10-CV-142-DLB.
Obtained summary judgment for a police detective on a claim that she violated the Fourth Amendment and committed various state law torts in connection with the prosecution of a man for child abuse. Robison v. Watson, E.D.Ky. Case No. 2:10-CV-00211-WOB-CJS.
Secured decision at trial and appellate levels upholding a planning commission’s decision to deny a zone change. Backer v. Woodford County, Ky. Ct. App. Case No. 2009-CA-358.
Ms. Langen has been part of the firm’s governmental law practice since 1998. As part of that practice, she provides legal guidance, support and litigation services for state and local governmental bodies, as well as individual government officials.
Ms. Langen has also worked as an Assistant City Solicitor in the General Counsel Division of the City of Cincinnati’s Law Department. In that role, she provided legal advice to a number of departments and officials in city government.
Attending public meetings of local governmental bodies and addressing legal issues that arise at those meetings.
Advising local governments on a wide range of topics, including, but not limited to, open records requests, open meetings issues, HIPAA compliance, employment and labor law, the legal ramifications of proposed ordinances, taxation, annexation, and eminent domain.
Drafting numerous ordinances and resolutions.
Assisting in the development of, and drafting, various policies, procedures and protocols.
Handling pre-litigation claims against the government.
Litigating claims on behalf of the government.
Ms. Langen has been advising both public and private employers in all facets of employment law since 1998. In her employment practice, Ms. Langen has helped clients successfully deal with discrimination, retaliation and harassment issues, leave entitlement and accommodation requests, wage and hour laws, and a variety of other employment-related topics. She has defended numerous lawsuits and administrative charges brought under both state and federal law, and has drafted multiple employment and non-competition agreements. And, Ms. Langen has helped employers develop and draft employment policies, procedures, and handbooks.
Ms. Langen’s forte is appellate law, which she has been practicing since 1998. She has been tremendously successful before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Kentucky Supreme Court, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals. She has experience in all facets of the appeal process, including preserving legal issues for appeal, helping clients secure appeal bonds, drafting appellate motions and briefs, and giving oral argument.
Dawson v. Dorman, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 12-6163. Court upheld the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to three police officers and a city on a plaintiff’s Fourth, Eighth and Eighteenth Amendment claims.
Spencer v. City of Catlettsburg, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 11-5832. Court upheld the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to a mayor and city on a plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim.
Frodge v. City of Newport, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 11-5458. Court upheld the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to police officers in a Fourth Amendment false arrest claim.
Burden v. Paul, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 11-6278. Court upheld the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to police officers on all of the plaintiff’s federal constitutional and state-law tort claims.
Madison County Fiscal Court v. Ky. Labor Cabinet, Kentucky Supreme Court Case No. 2010-SC-000322-TG. Drafted amicus curie brief on behalf of the Kentucky League of Cities on the issue of municipal law immunity.
Triple Crown Subdivision Homeowners’ Association v. Oberst, Kentucky Supreme Court Case No. 2006-SC-000934-DG. Convinced Kentucky Supreme Court to reverse an unfavorable decision of the Kentucky Court of Appeals in a case regarding the enforceability of restrictive covenants.
Jerauld v. Carl, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 09-5714. Court upheld the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to a psychiatrist, deputy jailer, and jail nurse in a case alleging the failure to provide adequate psychological treatment to an inmate who attempted suicide.
Robinson v. Kenton County Detention Center, Kentucky Court of Appeals Case No. 2011-CA-1095-MR. Court upheld the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to jail officials in a case alleging that jail officials were negligent in hiring a deputy jailer who sexually assaulted the two plaintiffs.
Jerauld v. Kroger, Kentucky Court of Appeals Case No. 2010-CA-1429-MR. Court upheld trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to jail psychologist on plaintiff’s state-law negligence claim.
Gardner v. Kenton County, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 13-5096. Court upheld trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to individual jail officials in a case alleging they had improperly classified an inmate who killed another inmate.
Scheffey v. City of Covington, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 12-5019. Court upheld trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to several police officers who were accused of using excessive force in subduing mentally ill subject.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


§ 285-1 When certain exemptions effective.
§ 285-2 Tax exemption for solar heating and cooling systems and renewable energy sources.
§ 285-3 Special taxing district for Parking Authority.
§ 285-4 Additional property tax assessment exemption for qualified veterans.
§ 285-4.1 Property tax exemption for Gold Star parents and spouses.
§ 285-5 Exemption for handicapped vehicles.
§ 285-5.1 Property tax abatement for eligible members of Manchester Fire Department, Eighth Utilities District.
§ 285-5.2 Property tax exemption for buildings used in farming.
§ 285-6 Home Equity Leveraging Program (H.E.L.P.); purpose.
§ 285-8 Benefits for property.
§ 285-9 Filing of application for tax deferral benefits.
§ 285-10 Computation of tax deferral.
§ 285-11 Proration of tax deferral benefits.
§ 285-12 Implementation of provisions; ascertainment of qualifying income; confidentiality.
§ 285-14 Reduction of credit due to conveyance.
§ 285-14.1 Alternate tax credit.
§ 285-15 Tax exemption for the Odyssey Community School, Inc.
§ 285-15.1 Board of Assessment Appeals.
§ 285-15.2 Waiver of penalty regarding income and expense report filings.
§ 285-18 Powers of the district.
§ 285-19 Boundary of the district.
§ 285-20 Procedures for referendum establishing district.
§ 285-21 District organization and operations.
§ 285-22 Annual budget and tax levy for the special services district.
§ 285-23 Municipal service agreements.
§ 285-24 Dissolution of district.
§ 285-25 Relationship of special services district to special taxing district; Parking Committee.
§ 285-26 Abatement of Town property.
§ 285-27 Authority to assess property taxes.
§ 285-28 Determination of value.
§ 285-29 Written agreement required.
§ 285-30 Authority to assess property taxes.
§ 285-31 Written agreement required.
Authority to lay and collect taxes — § 1-3(58).
Assessment and collection of taxes generally — See § 5-23.
Taxation — See C.G.S. Title 12.


text:
Law Office of Joshua L. Gordon, of Concord (Joshua L. Gordon on the brief and orally), for the petitioner, Deborah C.
Paul J. Bennett & Associates, P.C., of Manchester (Laura J. Brevitz on the brief and orally), for the respondent, Ernest L.
HORTON, J. The respondent, Ernest L., appeals an order of the Hillsborough County Probate Court (Cloutier, J.) terminating his parental rights over his daughter, Brittany L. We affirm.
Except for an initial period in the New Hampshire State Prison, Ernest L. has been incarcerated on a drug-related offense in various federal penitentiaries across the country since November 1990. Brittany L. was nine months old when her father was first incarcerated and has been mostly under the care of her mother, Deborah C., since birth. In May 1996, Deborah C. filed a petition to terminate Ernest L.'s parental rights, alleging that from the time Brittany L. was born he had negligible contact with his daughter and showed no concern for her welfare. In a series of motions to the superior and probate courts that were ultimately unsuccessful, Ernest L. sought to be transported from an out-of-state prison to attend the termination hearing. Alternatively, he requested permission to participate in the hearing by telephone conference. The probate court subsequently decided to allow Ernest L. to testify by telephone.
The termination hearing was held in May 1997, with Ernest L. testifying first because of his prison's schedule of telephone availability. Limited by resources, the probate court conducted the telephone conference in three separate rooms on three telephones connected to one line. While the court and Deborah C.'s attorney each had use of a telephone, Ernest L.'s attorney and the guardian ad litem (GAL) appointed to represent Brittany L. shared a phone in the third room. Ernest L. testified on direct and cross-examination, as well as in response to questions from the court. At the conclusion of his testimony, although it is unclear from the record, communication with Ernest L. was apparently terminated, and the hearing proceeded with live witnesses. Following the hearing and submission of memoranda of law by the parties, the probate court terminated Ernest L.'s parental rights.
On appeal, Ernest L. contends that: (1) the hearing procedure violated his federal and State due process rights; (2) his absence from the hearing, either physically or by telephone, violated his federal and State constitutional right to confront witnesses; (3) there was insufficient evidence to support the probate court's decision to terminate parental rights based on abandonment; and (4) the probate court erred in refusing to admit testimony of Deborah C.'s intent to lie during the hearing.
First, Ernest L. argues that the telephone procedure implemented to allow his testimony violated his procedural due process rights by preventing him from participating meaningfully in the hearing. Deborah C. contends that Ernest L. failed to preserve this issue for appeal. We agree. In his notice of appeal, Ernest L. refers specifically to only one constitutional issue, his "right to confront witnesses against him" and cites no due process cases to support his position. Due process with respect to the hearing procedure is nowhere mentioned in his notice of appeal. See Sup. Ct. R. 16(3)(b). We therefore deem the issue waived. See State v. Summers, 142 N.H. 429, 434, 702 A.2d 819, 822 (1997).
Ernest L. next argues under the State and Federal Constitutions that he "was improperly deprived of his right to confront witnesses and evidence against him, by the probate court's use of a telephonic hearing."
The Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution guarantees that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. CONST. amend. VI. The Sixth Amendment is expressly limited to criminal defendants. See In re Brock, 499 N.W.2d 752, 756 (Mich. 1993). See generally Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015-1020 (1988). An action to terminate parental rights is a civil proceeding; therefore, the Sixth Amendment confers no right of confrontation on Ernest L. in this case. See People in Interest of C.G., 885 P.2d 355, 357 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994); Matter of Adoption of J.S.P.L., 532 N.W.2d 653, 660 (N.D. 1995).
Under the State Constitution, "[e]very subject shall have a right . . . to meet the witnesses against him face to face." N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 15. Whether the Confrontation Clause of Part I, Article 15 applies to civil actions has not been decided by this court, and Ernest L. does not address this question in his brief. Hence, we decline to decide that question now. Cf. State v. Alosa, 137 N.H. 33, 37, 623 A.2d 218, 221 (1993).
Next, Ernest L. disputes the probate court's finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he abandoned his daughter. See RSA 170-C:5, I (1994) (grounds for abandonment); In re Jessie E., 137 N.H. 336, 339, 627 A.2d 591, 594-95 (1993) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt). The probate court ruled that Ernest L.'s "sporadic contact" was negligible and showed an intent to abandon the child. Abandonment is a factual issue to be determined by the probate court, and we will not disturb that determination "unless it is unsupported by the evidence or plainly erroneous as a matter of law." In re Sheena B., 139 N.H. 179, 181, 651 A.2d 7, 9 (1994).
A parent abandons his or her child when the parent's conduct evinces "a settled purpose to forgo all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child." Id. (quotation omitted). Considering the totality of the circumstances, see In re Jessie E., 137 N.H. at 342, 627 A.2d at 595, the probate court may find abandonment if it determines that the parent has made "only minimal efforts to support or communicate with the child," In re Sara S., 134 N.H. 590, 593, 593 A.2d 1166, 1168 (1991) (quotations omitted), or shown only a mere "flicker of interest" in the child, id.
During the hearing, Deborah C. testified that Ernest L. had physically abused her during her pregnancy and had spent very little time with his daughter after she was born, preferring instead to go out with his friends. She testified that while in prison, he never contributed to Brittany L.'s financial support and demonstrated no concern over his daughter's well-being on the few occasions he called Deborah C. Deborah C.'s fiance also testified that in three-and-one-half years, he knew of only five calls from Ernest L. to Deborah C., and none directed toward Brittany L. There was testimony that Ernest L. occasionally sent cards and gifts to Brittany L. on her birthday and major holidays, but it is unclear when he started doing so. Lastly, on the basis of information obtained from several visits to Brittany L.'s home and conversations with the relevant parties, the GAL recommended that Ernest L.'s parental rights be terminated. The GAL noted Ernest L.'s lack of interest in his daughter until the petition to terminate his parental rights had been filed.
While much of the evidence is disputed by other witnesses, including Ernest L., the evaluation of witness credibility is within the probate court's sound discretion. See In re Angel N., 141 N.H. 158, 163, 679 A.2d 1136, 1139 (1996). "We accord considerable weight to the trial court's judgments on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given testimony." In re Estate of Washburn, 141 N.H. 658, 659, 690 A.2d 1024, 1026 (1997). The trial court is "not compelled to believe even uncontroverted evidence." In re Buttrick, 134 N.H. 675, 676, 597 A.2d 73, 75 (1991) (quotation omitted). We conclude from the record before us that there is sufficient evidence to support the probate court's determination that Ernest L. abandoned his daughter under the terms of RSA 170-C:5, I.
Q. At any point, did [Deborah C.] make a statement to you that she didn't want [Ernest L.] up here because if [Ernest L.] was up here, she couldn't lie?
Toward the end of the proceedings, Ernest L.'s attorney offered to call his paralegal as a witness to testify that David C. disclosed to him a statement allegedly made by Deborah C. that she would be unable to lie to the court if Ernest L. were present at the hearing. The probate court denied the request.
"[T]he admissibility of evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge," and we will not disturb its ruling unless there has been an abuse of discretion. State v. Hopkins, 136 N.H. 272, 275, 616 A.2d 916, 918 (1992). To demonstrate abuse of discretion reversible on appeal, Ernest L. must show that the trial court's ruling "was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case." Simpkins v. Snow, 139 N.H. 735, 741, 661 A.2d 772, 777 (1995) (quotation and brackets omitted).
As neither party raises a question concerning the applicability of the rules of evidence to these termination proceedings, for the purpose of this appeal, we assume they apply and accordingly proceed with our analysis. But cf. RSA 170-C:10 (1994) (allowing admission of "relevant and material information of any nature"). Because both the evidentiary rules of hearsay and impeachment are implicated by Deborah C.'s alleged statement, we address each issue in turn. Further, because the relevant New Hampshire Rules of Evidence are identical to the Federal Rules of Evidence, we will look to cases interpreting the federal rules to guide us. See State v. Ross, 141 N.H. 397, 400, 685 A.2d 1234, 1236 (1996); N.H. R. Ev. 607, 613(b), 801(c), (d), 803.
"Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." State v. Hennessey, 142 N.H. 149, 159, 697 A.2d 930, 937 (1997) (quotation omitted); see N.H. R. Ev. 801(c). Hearsay within hearsay is inadmissible unless "each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule." N.H. R. Ev. 805. Here, Deborah C.'s alleged out-of-court statement to her brother qualifies as an admission of a party-opponent, which is not hearsay. See N.H. R. Ev. 801(d)(2). Admissions of a party-opponent are generally admissible for both substantive and impeachment purposes. See United States v. Porter, 544 F.2d 936, 938 (8th Cir. 1976) Contrary to Deborah C.'s assertion, generally any statement by a party used against it may be an admission, see id., and is subject primarily to the requirements of Rule 403, see State v. Lesnick, 141 N.H. 121, 129-30, 677 A.2d 686, 693 (1996).
Turning to David C.'s out-of-court statement to the paralegal, we note that if it were offered through testimony of the paralegal to prove the truth of the matter asserted -- that Deborah C. disclosed to her brother an intent to lie during the hearing -- it would be barred as hearsay not falling under any exception. See N.H. R. Ev. 803. The entire chain of hearsay within hearsay would be inadmissible.
Ernest L. argues, however, that he was entitled to present his paralegal to testify to the prior statement made by David C. to show its inconsistency with David C.'s in-court testimony. In effect, Ernest L. intended to impeach his own witness. See N.H. R. Ev. 607. Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is admissible only after the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and the opposing party is given an opportunity to question the witness regarding the statement. N.H. R. Ev. 613(b). The rule does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent. Id.
Because David C. was not a party, the exception under Rule 613(b) for the admission of a party-opponent did not apply. Thus, Ernest L. could not properly offer the paralegal's testimony as extrinsic evidence of David C.'s prior statement until he had provided David C. with an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement. Our review of the transcript shows that Ernest L. did not afford David C. any opportunity to explain or deny his prior statement to the paralegal, and therefore he could not present the paralegal's testimony to prove the prior statement. Because Ernest L. advances no other arguments to support the admission of the paralegal's testimony, we need not proceed further. We conclude that under these circumstances the probate court acted within its discretion by refusing to hear the paralegal's testimony.
Because of our disposition of the sufficiency of evidence issue, we deny Deborah C.'s motion to strike. Deborah C. additionally requests we award her reasonable attorney's fees and costs associated with this appeal under Supreme Court Rule 23. We cannot say, however, that Ernest L.'s appeal was either frivolous or in bad faith and therefore deny her request. See Sup. Ct. R. 23.

matches:
v.
v.
art. 15
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.


text:
When the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) back in 2014 issued its decision in Deckmyn, C-201/13, it clarified the meaning of 'parody' but also raised further doubts [Katposts here - NOTE TO BELGIAN READERS: DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW AND WHETHER THE CASE CONTINUED AFTER RETURNING FROM LUXEMBOURG?].
Now, after exactly 2 years, the German Federal Court of Justice has decided its first post-Deckmyn case, as Katfriend Rike Maier (Humboldt University of Berlin) explains.
"Last Friday the German Federal Court of Justice published a decision in a case concerning the parody of a photograph. This decision is remarkable, because it is the first one since the CJEU’s Deckmyn decision on the EU exception for parodies (Art. 5(3)(k) InfoSoc Directive). In Germany, a parody is lawful, if it meets the general requirements of free use, which is stipulated in Article 24 of the German Copyright Act (GCA). The CJEU’s 2014 decision in Deckmyn, however, established that 'parody' is an autonomous concept of EU law and must thus be interpreted uniformly throughout the EU.
The definition of 'parody that the CJEU gave did not exactly align with the requirements of free use as established by German courts over time. A lot of issues around parodies thus remained unclear after the CJEU decision. Because Germany doesn’t have a proper exception for parodies, but allows them as part of free use – would German courts even (have to) follow the CJEU definition? Also, the CJEU definition of a lawful parody was criticized for being too broad and too narrow at the same time and for taking into consideration interests that, under German law, traditionally concern moral rights. European law does (or should?) not harmonize moral rights and it was uncertain how German courts would fit the CJEU parody definition into the German copyright system.
The Court then went on to explain that it is necessary to strike a fair balance between “the interests and rights” of the rights holders on the one hand, and “the freedom of expression of the user of a protected work” on the other hand. This, according to the CJEU, requires national courts to take “all the circumstances of the case” into account and decide whether a fair balance is struck or whether the rights holder has a legitimate interest to prohibit the use of his work for the parody. Because the case at hand in Deckmyn concerned a potentially racist message, the CJEU referred to the principle of non-discrimination based on race, colour and ethnic origin (which was defined in another European directive that is not related to copyright) and hinted that this may be a case where the rights holder has a legitimate interest to forbid the parodist’s use of his work.
For one, some commentators were worried that the CJEU parody definition was too broad because a parodist does not have to make a statement about the work that he uses but can basically use any work to make a joke about something entirely different. The concern was that this could possibly allow him to exploit unfairly the work of someone else without adding much creativity.
Most importantly, some critics were concerned that the CJEU effectively asked national courts to control the content of the parodist’s message for political correctness. This appeared worrisome, because copyright law is not supposed to be an instrument to censor silly, offensive, untruthful or similarly unwanted messages so long as the new use does not infringe the copyright holder’s moral rights (which remain unharmonised at the EU level).
The case before the German Federal Court concerned a photograph of an actress that someone changed in such a way that the person in the photo appeared to be overweight. All this had happened for an online contest – “Promis auf fett getrimmt” – that asked participants to change photos of celebrities to make them “look fat”.
The photographer sued, because he claimed that his photograph had been distorted.
· Even though free use covers more types of uses than parodies and is considered by many scholars to be an inherent limitation of copyright rather than an exception, the Federal Court argued convincingly that the way German courts handle parodies has the same effects that a proper parody exception would have. EU law is thus applicable to Art. 24 German Copyright Act as far as it relates to parodies.
· The Court changed its jurisprudence on parodies to adopt the EU definition. It gave up the requirement that the parodic use must constitute an original (copyright protected) work (para 28). It also let go of the condition that the parody must subvert the meaning of the original work and make a (likely critical) comment about the original work itself (para 34). The Court thus found that the new picture fulfilled the CJEU definition of a parody, being noticeably different while still evoking the original work and also mocking the portrayal of celebrities in the media.
· Especially interesting is the way the Court dealt with the balancing of different interests.
o First, it considered that the fact that the new use is a distortion of the original work (Art. 14 GCA) should be weighed in favour of the original photographer (para 38). Thus, the Court explicitly (and, for a national court convincingly) considered moral rights.
o Second, it found that the parodist’s free speech argument would have been stronger had he made a direct comment about the original work itself. In a way, the Court thus re-imported its former free use parody requirement via the balancing of interests. In this case (the court here drew upon the lower court’s analysis) the parody only used the original work to make a broader, implicit comment about the sexualized portrayal of women in today’s media (paras 35, 38). Thus, freedom of expression did weigh in favour of the parodist, though less strongly than if he had criticized the original photograph itself (it remains a little unclear how that could have been achieved).
o Third, the Court investigated whether the rights of third parties that lie outside of copyright law may have been infringed by the parody, and whether the rights holder might have a legitimate interest in not being associated with the use. However, the court also stressed that freedom of speech is essential for social welfare and that the balancing of interests must not be confused with a general “political-correctness-control” (para 39). The photographer could only have a legitimate interest in not being associated with possible personality rights violations of the actress, if the manipulation of the photograph had been hidden. Interestingly, the question whether the message of the new use can reasonably only be attributed to someone other than the author of the original work is another aspect of the traditional free use test that the court managed to keep through the balancing of interests.
The Federal Court did not end up deciding whether the balancing of interests should lead to the parody being unlawful or not, but remanded back to the lower court that previously had incorrectly applied the old (national) free use test. Overall, the Federal Court embraced the EU definition of parody. At the same time, it made use of the leeway the CJEU left national courts to keep the parody exception close to the traditional free use test and thus implicitly addressed some of the concerns voiced by critics of the CJEU decision.
Likely, free use’s primary field of application are parodies, but it also allows other creative uses. For example, the German Constitutional Court recently decided that (under certain conditions) it may also allow the sampling of short snippets of music. This, of course, raises the question of whether certain applications of free use effectively serve as an exception that is not provided for in the EU Directives and is thus prohibited. The relationship between the German free use exception and EU copyright law will therefore likely remain a hot topic."
Thanks so much Rike for this great analysis of such an important decision!
As a Belgian, I nearly spit out my waffle laughing at the idea of a Belgian Court of Appeal issuing a decision within 2 years.
I checked out all Belgian legal databases to be sure, but I'm afraid my compatriot is right. Even in the unlikely event a decision was ruled, it will at least take another year or so for it to get published. Meow.
A question for Rike, if she is reading. Is this whole field of law now completely removed from Articles 5(1) and even more 5(3) German Constitution, i.e. freedom of art, especially as regards satire/parody?
@Birgit Clark. That is a really good question. So far, I think, courts have only ever referred to German fundamental rights (e.g. in citation or parody cases) but that could change soon. In its recent sampling decision (para 115 et seq.) the German Constitutional Court said generally that if there is no discretion for member states in how they implement directives, European fundamental rights are applicable and said that it is the job of the BGH and lower courts to figure this question out in each specific case.
Coincidentally, wondering myself whether the Deckmyn case might have been quietly settled (which I would have found surprising) I decided to call the Court of Appeal of Brussels earlier this week. It appears the case is indeed still on the docket. More than that I did not find out. I guess we will have to wait and see.
Could anyone please give me the name of the German case?
the German decision is I ZR 9/15 of 28 July 2016 "auf fett getrimmt". Link to the decision is the first link in the guest post (http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&nr=75832&pos=0&anz=1).
FYI: I called the registry of the Brussels Court of Appeal today on the Deckmyn case (under n° AR 2011/AR/914). Still no news. The case is on the docket, but not even scheduled on the waiting list for a fixed date, that in turn has a 2-3 years waiting period. This means that parties involved did not start/are ready with their written pleadings before the case can be put on the waiting list.
Many thanks for the update. Could this mean that a settlement is on the way?

matches:
CJEU
CJEU
CJEU
CJEU
CJEU
CJEU
CJEU
CJEU
Art. 24
CJEU
CJEU
CJEU


text:
This post is co-authored with Professor Paul M. Schwartz.
This post is part of a post series where we round up some of the interesting news and resources we’re finding. For a PDF version of this post, and for archived issues of previous posts, click here.
We became quite busy after the last update, so we’re a bit backlogged. We are catching up on developments late last year and we have a lot of material. We will release the next issue soon, as there is too much material to fit into this issue.
For a PDF version of this post, click here.
You can follow Professor Solove on his blog at LinkedIn, where he is an “LinkedIn Influencer.” He blogs about various privacy and data security issues. His blog has more than 600,000 followers.
Professor Solove is active on Twitter and posts links to current privacy and data security stories and new scholarship, cases, and developments of note.
Sign up for our newsletter where Professor Solove provides information about his recent writings and new training programs that he has created.
In 2012, the media erupted with news about employers demanding employees provide them with their social media passwords so the employers could access their accounts. This news took many people by surprise, and it set off a firestorm of public outrage. It even sparked a significant legislative response in the states.
I thought that the practice of demanding passwords was so outrageous that it couldn’t be very common. What kind of company or organization would actually do this? I thought it was a fringe practice done by a few small companies without much awareness of privacy law.
The frequent use of social media by employees has created a new domain of risk for employers – employees who reveal confidential or sensitive information or who otherwise say things that damage their institution’s reputation or create strife with their colleagues.
For example, in the healthcare context, in a number of widely-publicized incidents, employees revealed confidential information about patients on their blogs and social network profiles. For example, according to a Boston Globe story, an emergency room physician posted data online about the patient. The physician thought that it was safe to post about as long as she did not include the patient’s name. But others could identify the patient. There are numerous recent cases where hospital staff have posted photos and other information about patients online.
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided NASA v. Nelson, reversing the 9th Circuit 8-0. My thoughts about the case are here and here, and as I predicted, the Court rejected the 9th Circuit holding that the government employment background check questionnaires violated the constitutional right to information privacy. Fortunately, the Court kept its opinion narrow and didn’t use it as an opportunity to wipe out the constitutional right to information privacy, a right that the Court mentioned just a few times but that has taken on more of a life in the circuit courts.
I blogged about City of Ontario v. Quon a few days ago, and I want to raise another important issue in the case, one my colleague Orin Kerr has astutely pointed out. The case is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme from the 9th Circuit: Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., Inc., 529 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2008). The case involves whether employees at a police department have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of their text message communications made from pagers while on the job. In my previous post, I addressed this issue, which involves how to interpret the city’s monitoring policy (it had a general written policy for computer use but a set of informal practices for texting that were different).
The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in City of Ontario v. Quon, an important Fourth Amendment case involving the privacy of electronic communications in the workplace.
The United States v. Ziegler case I wrote about in a previous post brings to mind a radical employment law case decided last December in New Jersey. [Thanks to Charlie Sullivan and Timothy Glynn for bringing the case to my attention]. The case is Doe v. XYC, 887 A.2d 1156 (N.J. Super. 2005). Since I couldn’t find a version of it online, I’ve posted a copy here.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v.