Two signed Damien Hirst works of art worth $50,000 have been stolen from a gallery in London, police have said. The pieces were taken from the Exhibitionist Gallery in Notting Hill, between  3a.m. on Monday.

But, does it even matter? The Guardian’s Jonathan Jones doesn’t think so.

But even if you find Hirst’s series of paintings with grids of multicoloured circles on a white background attractive, they occupy a very small place in the history of art. In the great adventure that was 20th-century abstraction, the arrival of these coolly planned and professionally executed paintings near the century’s end was a cynical epilogue that replaced the tragic visions of a Rothkowith self-mocking sitcom farce.

Apparently not.

Nicholas O’Donnell gives an overview here, and he believes GoldieBlox’s use of the Beastie Boys’ Girls song is fair use. I disagree.

So, is this lawsuit just a logistical error. I don’t think so. I’ve mentioned smart lawyering before, and this makes me think it was a tactical move by the Beastie Boys in order to put GoldieBlox on the defensive. I’m guessing the Beastie Boys got a bit tired of GoldieBlox’s “holier-than-thou” mentality and they want to make sure no one else uses their copyrighted work for commercial purposes, regardless of the product and its content. Plus, it doesn’t help that GoldieBlox got cute by trying to cloak the commercial use of a copyrighted song to sell a product under parody.

Question is, who’s gonna blink first?

Cady Noland, “Cowboys Milking” (1990)

What is a collector to do when he owns a work of art but it’s been de-authored (yes, I’m inventing this word) by the artist? What does he own?

Speaking about the Cady Noland and Christie’s lawsuits against Marc Jancou, art historian and critic Martha Buskirk explains,

But the money issue is ever-present, since Noland’s declaration abruptly propelled the object from high-value work of art to … some sort of eternal limbo. Jancou still has the object in question (for which he paid $106,500 in 2011), and there is nothing to prevent him from hanging it up and enjoying it in the privacy of his own home. It seems very unlikely, however, that he owns a work of art by Cady Noland that he can display or sell as such.

In theory there’s nothing wrong with owning a work of art that a collector once initially purchased, presumably, for the aesthetic value and that now carries a financial value of, let’s say, zero. He can still hang it in his living room or vacation home…or homes. He just can’t sell it, again, presumably, as a Cady Noland. But as we know, collectors don’t just buy art for its aesthetic value; they’re investments.

Again, Buskirk,

But it would be dangerous to overlook Jancou’s motivation, since this was, first and foremost, a business transaction: his resistance to Noland’s assessment of the aesthetic condition of her own work was clearly motivated by the very real threat to his potential auction profits. Noland is strikingly uninterested in playing the art-world game, other than her behind-the-scenes efforts to protect the integrity of her work. Perhaps her most telling indictment of the current state of affairs, however, can be found in the fact that she has pretty much ceased communicating about her art except through her lawyers.

So, the answer is, yes, this is a work by Cady Noland; you can’t de-author something you haven’t allegedly authored. However, this work does not have the financial value of a Cady Noland. Chalk it up to the force of law.

The money issue in art has come up quite a bit recently. The question is whether anything of substance will actually come of it. This is a good start.

If you’re like me, you have many friends that are either art lawyers, artists and/or art or law students. In this holiday season, what to get them, you ask? Well, here are 13 recommendations that are sure to make them happy and get you in the sack (with them, we hope). And why 13, you ask? That’s our lucky number!

1. Piracy, by Adrian Johns. A thoroughly researched book on the history and underpinnings of piracy. In this day and age, and whether your loved ones are for or against piracy, this is a sure bet that will keep them reading and their mouth shut for a month or so. About $15 on Amazon.
2. Protocolo Tempranillo wine from La Mancha, Spain. This very inexpensive bottle of wine (averages $8 a bottle) is a one-two punch; great price and phenomenal flavor. When you have to bring a bottle to a holiday party or buy a few for your favorite artists, you can’t go wrong with this baby. Hit it.
3. Alvarez Gomez. For that handsome or gorgeous person in your life, or for that gorgeous or handsome person you want in your life, you can’t go wrong with these Spanish colognes, perfumes, soaps and scents. The only thing missing is sitting at a cafe in Madrid.
4. Dia Beacon. This is every conceptual artists playground, so why not bring your favorite artist, lawyer or curator up to this lovely town to witness some hard core cerebral shit. Imi Knoebel, Blinky Palermo, Joseph Beuys, On Kawara, Bruce Nauman, Sol Leweitt, and Robert Ryman, all under one roof. Bring a bottle of that Protocolo and sit outside and chill, all while pondering why today’s boobs think recent Richard Prince works are worthy of being called art.
5. Mike Kelley: Educational Complex Onwards 1995-2008: This lush catalogue details Kelley’s magnum opus. The essays will guide the reader through Kelley’s thoughts and complex combinations, which can be mentally accessed through the numerous color images, sketches and diagrams in the catalogue. If your fave person has a bookshelf, this must go on it.
6.  Moleskin black pencil set. Trust me, you give this gift to that certain someone and it is guaranteed to engrave your face in their memory, if not a used napkin from the local pub (and goes great with a Moleskin 3-sketchbook pack). About $15 on Amazon.
7. Silver skull ring. I ask you, who doesn’t want a silver skull ring? And by this I mean a real silver skull ring, not some cheap knock-off from the Lower East Side. The Great Frog has outfitted a rocker or two, and they’re not cheap, but hey, if you want to hang with an artist lawyer and drink great wine at a Madrid cafe, this will get you noticed.
8. Justin Cowboy boots. Need I say more? Enough of this Keds bullshit kids are wearing today (including kids in their 30s). This pair of bad boys will outlast every appropriation artist out there, including inclement weather and NYC dogpoop. $205 via Justin Boots.
9. Old No. 7. When the Protocolo just won’t do, pull out Jack Daniels’ ol’ No.7. But be warned: if you’re listening to any Merle Haggard, Morrisey or Lucinda Williams, make sure no loaded firearms or sharp instruments are lying around. Just sayin’.
10. The Artist’s Reserved Rights Transfer And Sale Agreement. For the cheap skate out there, send this link to your favorite artist and make sure they understand the nature of artists’ rights, the role of an artist’s contract, and the history behind Seth Siegelaub’s powerful conceptual gesture. Check it!
11. Reconsidering the Object of Art: 1965-1975. This catalogue is a wrecking ball…a monster. Ann Rorimer and Ann Goldstein arrange a curatorial argument that today’s artistic generation sorely needs to read: the purpose of art and why it is through art that one expresses oneself. With a shot of Jack or a glass of Protocolo, always a good read. About $250.
12. Leather. As in black leather jacket. Let me reassure you that these bad boys never go out of style. Just imagine your favorite art & law dude or dudette wearing one of these, and the pleasure of taking it off of them (or putting it back on with nothing else) and, well, you get the idea. Makes a great combo with the Justin Boots, silver skull ring and bottle of Jack.
13. T-shirts. But not just any t-shirt will do. You have to go with the tried and true black t-shirt or the old school rock concert shirt. Just make sure they won’t be given or worn in or with irony or they will make your loved one’s arms fall off.

So, there you have it. Let me know what you think!

Artist James Dupree is fighting Philadelphia’s dubious efforts to condemn his studio in order to transfer it to a new private owner that would build a supermarket and parking lot on the site. In November 2012, the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority (PRA) was authorized to acquire 17 properties to build a supermarket in Mantua.

Is this a good idea? Not quite, says Ilya Somin,

Especially when you factor in the cost of $2.75 million in taxpayer subsidies, this looks to be one of the many economic development takings that destroy more economic value than they create.

Dupree originally bought the building for $200,000 and spent considerable amount of time and money renovating it and making it into a viable and successful art center.

Transforming a broken-down garage and warehouse into a top-notch art studio was no easy feat.  “When I purchased the property, it was basically condemnable,” he said.  The roof leaked when it rained.  The plumbing and electrical were “next to nil.”

“I invested everything I owned into this property…I was basically broke,” Dupree remarked.  The property itself cost a little under $200,000.  Installing new electrical and plumbing: $60,000.  Fixing the roof was another $68,000.  Thousands more were spent on renovations, furnishings and appliances.

All of those investments paid off.  What was once a dilapidated building is now a pillar of the local community and worth $2.2 million.  His studio demonstrates what private redevelopment can accomplish.

And now, Philadelphia wants to steal it, offering at most $640,000.

Dupree,

“These eminent domain laws have been changed where they can go into these communities, seize their property, relocate the tenants for next to nothing, and then sell that land back to a private developer for a profit, under the guise of ‘the good of the community.’  I find this totally un-American.”

So, what’s a successful artist to do when a city wants to disregard the cultural and economic value of art and an art center, purchase his property for pennies and then turn it into a shopping mall and parking lot?

Fight, of course, both in and out of court.  To raise awareness, he’s partnering with the Institute for Justice and building coalitions to press the city to return his deed.  In one month, a petition on change.org has already garnered almost 2,000 signatures.

Nick Sibilla, of the Institute for Justice, has more here.

Yes, my friends, very little is as intellectually stimulating as property law. If you’d like to sign the petition in favor of Dupree, you may do so here.

Well, I think it’s pretty clear.

My good friend, Nate Harrison, penned some good arguments a couple of weeks ago, here and here, as to why GoldieBlox’s use of the Beastie Boys’ “Girls” song is fair use. Nate focuses on the parody argument, arguing that the Campbell case established this as fair use.

That’s true, Campbell did establish that, but it left two key questions open. One, they remanded the case back to the trial court in order for the trial court to assess whether Two Live Crew had appropriated too much of Roy Orbison’s song. The case was settled, so we don’t have an answer to this first question. Two, the Supreme Court did not address whether parody, regardless of use or intent, is always fair use. This is the key question regarding the GoldieBlox v. Beastie Boys dilemma.

What does question #2 mean? It means that it would be a bit absurd to assume that the use of any copyrighted song by another party — under the alleged rubric of parody — to sell a product, where the product is not the original copyright song, is always fair use.

Think about the absurdity of this. This would mean that all a commercial appropriator would have to do is make a slight twist to the lyrics and/or music of the original and claim that it was a parody of it, and so, under the guise of “we’re making a commentary/critique on the original song, they get to use it, without permission or financial compensation to the copyright owner, to sell their product.” This would basically mean that GoldieBlox could hire Weird Al Yankovic to “rework” a copyrighted song for the purposes of promoting a commercial product. In fact, wouldn’t this also mean that Weird Al could simply license out his version of a so-called “parody”? That would be one absurd outcome: the owner of the song would be left empty handed while Weird Al would be allowed to profit from his parody of a copyrighted song. Huh?

I know no one likes to talk about artistic intent anymore because somehow we’ve all become appropriating automatons, but the problem is, as you may have gathered, that GoldieBlox alleges, incorrectly, that their appropriation of the Beastie Boys song was to critique the song’s alleged “sexism” (I say “alleged” because I’m not convinced the Boys wrote their lyrics in earnest), and that their use of the “parodic” version to sell a product was incidental. I don’t think so. Nope, this is some very smart lawyering; the kind that only deep pockets can buy. So, the answer to the headline question is, because the alleged parody is being used to sell a commercial product, for profit, and not intended to solely critique the song, “Girls.”

Interviewed by Salon, musician and frontman David Lowery agrees,

A parody has to be about the song — like, say, if you’re parodying a song, then the parody is about the song — that’s the sole point of it. Not to sell a commercial product for a for-profit company. So you don’t take a parody of a song and sell Shell Oil, or you don’t parody a song to, for instance, advocate some position that maybe the Koch brothers want to advocate or that George Soros wants to advocate. It has to be specific. The parody has to be about the song.This is a commercial use of a song to sell a product, which — like I said — even the Pirate Party, with their limited view of copyright, that is where they say copyright comes into effect.

If you’re still here and not bored to tears by this debate, there’s this good overview regarding the above by Lori Werderitch, where she distinguishes satire from parody, indicating, it seems to me, that GoldieBlox’s use was more satire than parody, and thus making their fair use argument much more difficult.

And finally, here’s The Economist’s version, and a groovy remix via Fisher & Fiebak.

It appears they’ve been taken down, but as of yesterday WalMart still thought it has not achieved greatness, prompting them to sell prints of a Banksy image and an almost-Banksy without permission.

This Salon article quotes the website, Death and Taxes, as stating that WalMart can do so because Banksy “doesn’t copyright his work.” Not so sure about that; under US law the “copyrightability” attaches the moment the work has been fixed in a tangible medium of expression (read: once the graffiti paint has hit the wall).

I think what Death & Taxes really meant was that Banksy may not police his works and enforce his copyrights. That’s a different story.

To add insult to injury, WalMart also misattributed another image to Banksy that was actually produced by Eddie Colla. The image in question is quite notorious, and some of our followers may remember it (it goes something like this…drum roll, please: “If you want to achieve greatness, stop asking for permission.”) According to Salon, Colla plans on suing the beloved WalMart.

Just in: WalMart just released a statement regarding these screw-ups.

Wal-Mart has These items are sold through our Marketplace third-party sellers Wayfair and PlumStruck. We’ve taken action to disable the one item in question by Callo, and it will be unpublished later tonight around midnight PT.

We will also instruct Wayfair and Plumstruck to review their artwork to ensure the descriptions are accurate. They’ve provided great products and experiences to our customers and are contracted to comply with product copyright, safety, testing and certification requirements. We’ll work closely with them on the review.

They may want to work closely with them a bit more often.