According to a removal notice posted by the artist to Instagram last week, the video posted by Leckey was deleted by Google following a copyright claim from the distribution company Fremantle Media, Inc. What, exactly, the company claimed as its own property remains unclear. YouTube did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Via Artnews. UPDATE: July 20, 2018 Apparently it's back up!
[caption id="attachment_9936" align="alignnone" width="300"] The Art & Law Program seminar room at Cornell University's AAP in New York City.[/caption] ANNOUNCEMENT: The Art & Law Program is now moving to a fall term starting this year, 2018. Applications for the fall 2018 term are now being accepted. The fall 2018 term will run from early September to mid-December 2018. Application and application instructions available here. The Art & Law Program is a seminar-colloquium that focuses on the study of law as a linguistic system, institutional force, and power structure, with a particular focus on how the discourses and practices of law and visual culture ...
[caption id="attachment_6904" align="alignnone" width="300"] Original on Left; Davidson's on right.[/caption] Some of you may remember the Gaylord v. U.S. copyright infringement case, where the U.S. Post Office used an image of a Vietnam memorial on postage stamps without the artist's consent. Now we have more good news for tax-payers: The same U.S. Post Office lost another copyright infringement case for using, get this, the wrong image of the Statue of Liberty. To add salsa to your Cheerios, this one's gonna cost us more than $3.5 million. Opinion available here. Background, going back to 2013, here.
WSJ's Daniel Grant, When it comes to public displays of art, many cities are deciding that shorter is better. Some cities are finding that temporary contracts—renting an artist’s work instead of buying it—make it possible to cut costs, compared with the expense of purchasing and maintaining, say, a statue for permanent display. Short-term agreements can also help avoid controversy that modern art sometimes inspires. More here (WSJ, so probably paywall).
Copyrights provide a limited monopoly over original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Attempts to extend this monopoly beyond the protection of the Copyright Act through “copyright misuse”—including anti-competitive behavior, restrictive license agreements, and abusive litigation tactics—may render a valid copyright temporarily unenforceable.
More here.
From this:
To this, “The Performance Artist Who Went To Impossible Extremes.” Guess what all the hoopla was about. Here’s the Twitter thread. Here’s the article.
We don’t know the terms of settlement, but regardless, it is interesting that H&M settled this claim, given that they had, and have, a very strong “anti-copyrightability” argument. Perhaps goodwill and public relations won in the end?
Painted in 1985 by an artist named Jose Mesa V. and an ensemble of East Side youth, the intricate wall art depicted the history of Chicano people, from the Aztecs of old to the laborers led by Cesar Chavez. The detailed pictorial covered the side of Payless ShoeSource at Story and King roads, the epicenter of the low-rider movement and the civil rights marches that spawned the United Farm Workers union. “Mural de la Raza” is gone now.
Interesting article on cultural appropriation and intellectual property in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal, by the NYU Professor, Kwame Anthony Appiah.
In this article Appiah opines on exploitation and whether a rich American pop star should compensate poorer artists who taught him a certain type of music. He concludes,
The harder task will be to give up the ideology of cultural ownership, to resist the temptation to cast every practice as a piece of intellectual property and every affront as a property crime. The rhetoric of ownership is alluring and potent, but when we’re describing the quicksilver complexities of culture, it just isn’t appropriate.
Article here (available with subscription).
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals opines on this impossibility.
Daniel Ballard says, “The 3rd Circuit’s opinion explains steps and nuances in the #copyright infringement analysis that are too often conflated or ignored altogether. Useful read.”
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.