After reading so many accounts of artists being stifled by copyright and trademark law, it’s a breath of fresh air to see an artist that is not only using a corporate asset in her artwork, but more so that she’s also working with the corporation to create artwork.

Not only does artist Margaux Lange use “dismembered” Barbie doll parts to create jewelry, she’s even designing an exclusive line just for Mattel. She’s not alone, so is Phillippe Starck and Jonathan Adler. This is not to say that all artists should only create with the permission or consent of another artist or corporate giant (there is after all fair use). This is only to say that if given a choice between defending a trademark and copyright lawsuit, and working with Mattel, it would take an idiot to choose the first (see Shepard Fairey).

More on Lange and Mattel here.

Charles Thomson, co-founder of the Stuckists art movement, alleges that several Hirst works – among them his medicine cabinets and spin paintings – were based on existing pieces. Hirst’s rebuttal coming soon. Hirst is no stranger to threats and allegations.

Via The BBC and The Telegraph.

An amateur artist who designed the original logo used by the Baltimore Ravens won a partial victory Thursday when a federal appeals court ruled the commercial use of game and highlight films from the Ravens’ first three seasons violates his copyright. The Ravens could appeal the Fourth Circuit’s majority decision to the full appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

Via Boston Globe

We would type-out the lyrics to that song, but you know what will happen.

Anyhow, Daniel Grant over at the WSJ has just written an article on the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, commemorating in part the statute’s 20th anniversary.

Grant asks,

[Q]uestions have arisen that were not predicted in 1990. Do artists have the right to stake out where that artwork will be permanently placed? Can artists claim that whatever they make and identify as art has to be treated accordingly? If a damaged artwork undergoes restoration and the artist doesn’t like how it was done, can the artist claim the work was “destroyed”?

Grant also wonders if “making something better actually makes it worse.” This raises a whole slew of questions and fact-finding, mainly the double-edged issue of what constitutes “better” and who gets to decide what that “better” is. Cleaning and restoration aside, under VARA, this right would belong to the artist.

Grant correctly notices that one thing VARA has provided the arts community is contractual commissioning language where the artist waives her/his moral rights. Is this bad? Not necessarily. If artists continue to educate themselves in law and artists’ rights (copyright, fair use, free speech, contracts), they will have educated themselves not only in the nuances of contractual language, but also in the art of negotiation and professional decision-making. Not every art commission is worth the trouble, and certainly no business arrangement should be one-sided.

One thing Grant notices is true: VARA decisions–particularly those at the appellate and Supreme Court level–are few and far between. Correct VARA decisions are another matter.

Two issues of note in Grant’s article:  one, Mr. Büchel did not initiate litigation against Mass MoCA. It was Mass MoCA that sued Mr. Büchel, seeking a court order granting them the right to exhibit Mr. Büchel’s work without his consent. Secondly, the District Court granted Mass MoCA permission to exhibit Mr. Büchel’s art work without his consent, so long as Mass MoCA made it apparent to viewers that what they were viewing was not the work of Christoph Büchel. [Disclaimer: I am one of the attorneys that is co-representing Mr. Büchel in this litigation].

Read Grant’s article in today’s WSJ here.

It depends.

Like all other creative individuals, bartenders are looking to get into the intellectual property field. According to The Atlantic, bartenders are increasingly seeking protection for their concoctions. One bartender, Eban Freeman–who also led the a recent symposium on IP and bartending (yes, you read that correctly)–seems to think this is a natural progression:

“In no other creative business can you so easily identify money attached to your creative property,” Freeman went on. “There is an implied commerce to our intellectual property. Yet we have less protection than anyone else.”

When asked if bartenders and creative individuals should safeguard their ideas, Freeman was adamant:

“I think all creative people at one point or another start to think about these things.”

It’s a decent article, but like many others I’ve read recently, it makes a major mistake by conflating copyright and trademark. You be the judge: read the entire article from The Atlantic here.

Rolling Stone is notoriously left-wing, but one would hope that left-wing does not necessarily mean irrational. In an attempt to prove this dictum wrong, Rolling Stone magazine ran a story last week that pins The Eagles’ Don Henley as “surprisingly conservative,” simply because he wishes to protect his songs from being used by any political party for whatever purpose.

We don’t license our songs for political purposes, just as we don’t license them for commercial uses. We don’t write these songs for the purpose of selling products or people.

Why Rolling Stone would pigeonhole Henley as a “conservative” simply because he doesn’t give away his livelihood is beyond comprehension (or, maybe it isn’t). They’re probably more upset because he didn’t have the lyin’ eyes, or make the usual political distinction “free culture”individuals usually do (fair use for liberals; strict copyright enforcement for conservatives). Henley is pretty clear about their music: they don’t make their property for Obama or McCain, Palin or Pelosi. Period.There will be a heartache tonight!

His views on the Copyright Office are just as critical and blunt:

[T]he U.S. Copyright Office clearly has not been a strong enough advocate for copyright owners, particularly when you look at its most recent decisions. …Because the Copyright Office is a part of the Library of Congress, and the mission of a library is to provide free access to the public, there is an inherent conflict of interest. Perhaps the time has come to separate these institutions so that they are not at cross-purposes. …[S]ince U.S. music, film and other creative copyrights comprise one of our country’s most lucrative sectors, here and abroad, moving the Copyright Office under Commerce Department’s umbrella might be the most effective way of enforcing the law.

It is so refreshing and welcoming to finally have a famous artist speak out on behalf of artists, their property, and their copyrights. Check out Henley’s other views on copyright, the DMCA, file-sharing, and music here.

Got wind of this story via our good friend and artist Ruben Verdu.

It seems another ad agency, Ogilvy & Mather located in Jakarta, has taken the work of NY sculptor Ryan Johnson and used it to promote not just themselves, but the shipping company UPS. The website, Co.Design, has their take:

Now, you might still think that there’s no way a bunch of ad hacks from Jakarta could have seen the work of a relatively obscure artist in New York. But Johnson’s work has been extremely prominent on sites such as DesignBoom and Ffffound (which in particular, as any designer will tell you, has become a first-reference for creatives looking for “inspiration”).

If you take a look at both images, there’s such an obvious similarity that the UPS sculpture ads seem derivative works of Johnson’s sculptures. What do you think? I’m not so sure that an apology from Ogilvy would be enough. According to Co.Design, both UPS and Ogilvy have commented on this coincidence (as they call it). Both deny any wrongdoing.

Two men who sold fake Banksy prints were given a 12-month suspended sentence in July, at Kingston Crown Court, in west London. Both men pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud. They were also banned from selling anything on the internet for five years and ordered to undertake 240 hours of community service. Via The Art Newspaper.

With dismal and one-sided reporting, such as this little nugget of tears by Ezra Klein, it’s no surprise that Newsweek magazine is on the brink of extinction. Klein takes on the proposed Schumer bill which will extend copyright protection to fashion designs.

On Aug. 5, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) introduced S.3728: the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act. He’s got 10 cosponsors—including three Republicans—and a big idea: to extend copyright protections to the fashion industry, where none currently exist. That’s right: none. I—well, not I, but someone who can sew—can copy Vera Wang’s (extremely expensive) dress and sell it to you right now (for much less), and Wang can’t do a thing about it.

Why the hell does it matter that three Republicans are for this bill? Setting that absurdity aside for a second and one notices a rehashing of an extremely tired argument:

Too often, copyrights are used not to protect consumers by making sure they have access to new products, but to protect the profits of producers.

Yes, copyright only helps strengthen large corporations and line the pockets of their shareholders. Blah, blah, blah. What about unknown or small-business fashion designers? Klein argues that they won’t have the monetary power to pursue litigation, but in fact, this is radically changing, and not just for fashion designers. Visual artists, musicians, and filmmakers–particularly those in the New York City area–have discovered that pro bono attorneys can certainly help in this regard. Perhaps pro bono attorneys will be there for these fashion designers as well. Make up  your own mind after reading Klein’s article here.

Get ready to rumble. The thrilla in Gothamilla. USC vs. Texas. Argentina vs. Brasil. Yankees vs. Dodgers. Manchester United vs. Barcelona.

U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said Monday that the selection of eight jurors for the Shepard Fairey vs. Associated Press three-week trial will start March 21 in New York.

For those needing citations, New York Post on it here; Seattle Times on it here. Don’t get too excited. Word on the street has it that settlement looms.