Now for the real question: Will the graffiti artists buy art with the motherload?

Canada’s Cultural Property Export Review Board is preventing the shipment of a French Impressionist painting.

In its decision, the review board said an object can be of “national importance,” even if it or its creator has no direct connection to Canada.

More here.

Apparently it looks like a Noguchi, and neither the Isamu Noguchi Museum or Herman Miller are very happy about it.

Graffiti artists Donald “KEPTIONE” Robbins and Noah “DJ RAKUS” Daar have filed a lawsuit against Oakley for using the artists’ work in campaign materials without the artists’ knowledge or consent.

Luxottica, who owns Oakley, argues that the graffiti artists’ works lack creativity and thus are not “original” as per the U.S. Copyright Act.

More here.

Chicago’s Shane Campbell Gallery has filed suit against the Frieze art fair, alleging that Frieze “was grossly negligent in preparing” its recent New York edition for temperatures that exceeded 90 degrees Fahrenheit. The suit, which was filed this past Friday in New York’s Southern District Court, notes that “Frieze was aware of the problem but took no action to correct it.”

More here.

But for artists who have already passed away, [Loretta Wurtenberger] said, the decision should be made “not on copyright issues, not on market issues—it should only be based on what the artist wanted[.]“

More here.

The First Amendment protects us from facing consequences from the government over our speech, not consequences from our peers or our employers. Yes, what Barr said, although abhorrent, absolutely was constitutionally protected speech, and, of course, it should be.

More here.