Monday, March 4, 2024

$6.75M moral rights ruling upheld

Big news. Probably the biggest moral rights news since the Mass MoCA v. Christoph Buchel case back in 2010 (does anyone remember?).

2nd Circuit rules that plaintiff graffiti artists should get their $6.75M in damages that the lower court originally granted. Big news? I think so. And I think developers, in fact, any commissioning party commissioning an art work by an artist should be processing right about now.

Donn Zaretsky seems to agree, “But the idea that significant statutory damages can be awarded in a VARA case even where actual damages can’t be proven could be a big deal.”

What’s the probability that this case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court? That I don’t know, but I do know that this is one case that I’d love to see the Supremes take up and either uphold or swat back. The reasoning–and politics–would certainly be worth a read.

Also worth a read is why 2nd Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr. decided to edit his comments on Claude Monet. Seems that even slight criticism–even of the positive kind–upsets some art snowflakes.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,


No comments so far.

Clancco, Clancco: The Source for Art & Law,, 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 They are not the views of any other organization, legal or otherwise. All content contained on or made available through is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed, nor is anything submitted to treated as confidential.

Website Terms of Use, Privacy, and Applicable Law.

Switch to our mobile site