Naked, by Jeff Koons. French court found this sculpture to infringe copyright. A French court held that the Koons's company, Jeff Koons LLC, and the Pompidou Centre in Paris, where his work was due to be displayed, must together pay 20,000 euros (~$22,000) to French artist Jean-Francois Bauret's family. More here.
From the, "What in the hell is this?" department comes this gem. I ask, is this a law review article or an undergrad comparative literature paper? It's no wonder Justice Roberts wonders, “If the academy wants to deal with the legal issues at a particularly abstract and philosophical level, that’s great and that’s their business. But they shouldn’t expect that it would be of any particular help or even interest to members of the practicing bar or judges." He continues to ask, "Is this area of research going to be of help to anyone other than other academics?” The answer, ...
After decades of railing against censorship in the arts, some liberals have now fully embraced it. Statues of Southern generals and Christopher Columbus are already passé. There’s a disturbing new development in art criticism among the elites, and it has nothing to do with whether Renoir was sexist in his personal life. Now, it’s not enough to critique unethical artists or their "problematic" subjects. You must also stand against depictions of bad things — because we are supposedly unprepared to see them. By Madeline Frye.
It’s tempting to assume that Trump’s judicial appointees share the goonish incompetence of the man who placed them on the bench, but this assumption could not be more wrong. His picks include leading academics, Supreme Court litigators, and already prominent judges who now enjoy even more power within the judiciary. He’s filled the bench with some of the smartest, and some of the most ideologically reliable, men and women to be found in the conservative movement. Via Vox.
Listed in no particular order, these lucky stories and disputes certainly caused a bit of controversy in the art industry. One can also say that this abridged list is a testament to the growing number of lawsuits and legal issues in the art industrial complex. Overall I think this list pretty much covers the top legal issues without rehashing the usual suspects and disputes (read: copyright and appropriation). There's a little estate law, speech, public space, moral rights, and gifts, but also a bit of "woke" propaganda, labor, resale royalties, contracts, and yes, even a little copyright. If you think ...
Sotheby’s, Christie’s and Phillips were invited to submit proposals to sell the collection of Harry and Linda Macklowe, two octogenarians in the middle of a bitter divorce. A judge ordered the couple’s 65 most valuable works to be sold and the proceeds split.
More here.
This essay focuses on the efforts of an enterprising art gallerist, Leo Castelli, to aggressively promote his stable of Pop artists through the development of several financial structures, including some designed to leverage the relatively generous income tax deductions and anemic enforcement regime of the time. In doing so, Castelli not only seeded the ground for the international ascendance of American visual art, but also engineered financial arrangements that fostered the development of a lucrative and resilient art market that endures to this day. With the aim to provide insights into both the legal-political and the art historical registers, this essay describes a tax law framework that provides a key piece missing from the art historical puzzle.
Looking forward to reading this new article.
Some Harvard Law students opt out of applying for coveted federal clerkships because certain federal judges hold ideological and political beliefs opposed to the students (not to mention that these judges were also appointed by President Trump). But, according to the Boston Globe, “some legal scholars worry that the reluctance of students at one of the nation’s premier law schools to clerk for Trump-appointed judges, first reported by Bloomberg Law, could further polarize the legal profession and do the country more harm than good.”
Babson College: “Based on the results of the investigation, the staff member is no longer a Babson College employee. As we have previously stated, Babson College condemns any type of threatening words and/or actions condoning violence and/or hate.”
Maybe they should hire Dave Chappelle.
More here.
A French court held that the Koons’s company, Jeff Koons LLC, and the Pompidou Centre in Paris, where his work was due to be displayed, must together pay 20,000 euros (~$22,000) to French artist Jean-Francois Bauret’s family.
More here.
From the, “What in the hell is this?” department comes this gem. I ask, is this a law review article or an undergrad comparative literature paper? It’s no wonder Justice Roberts wonders, “If the academy wants to deal with the legal issues at a particularly abstract and philosophical level, that’s great and that’s their business. But they shouldn’t expect that it would be of any particular help or even interest to members of the practicing bar or judges.” He continues to ask, “Is this area of research going to be of help to anyone other than other academics?” The answer, my friends, resides in Michael Anthony Hall’s notable quip from 1985…“I can answer that right now, sir. That’d be ‘no, no’ for me…”
Clancco, Clancco: The Source for Art & Law, Clancco.com, and Art & Law are trademarks owned by Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento. The views expressed on this site are those of Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento and of the artists and writers who submit to Clancco.com. They are not the views of any other organization, legal or otherwise. All content contained on or made available through Clancco.com is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed, nor is anything submitted to Clancco.com treated as confidential.
Website Terms of Use, Privacy, and Applicable Law.