Sunday, June 17, 2018
 


Judge Upholds $6.75 Million in Damages Awarded to Graffiti Artists


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

 

Cultural property regime controls what you can do with your property


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.

 

 

Can you purchase a Noguchi table at Walmart?


walmart-noguchi

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

 

Graffiti artists file copyright lawsuit against sunglasses giant


oakley_copyright_graffiti

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.

 

Will this be the only lawsuit against Frieze Art Fair?


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.

 

Should dead artists continue to make art, after they’re, you know, dead?


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.

 

Why Roseanne’s Firing Is Not a Free-Speech Issue


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.

 
 
Legal

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.
 

Switch to our mobile site