According to the College Art Association's report released last week, it's made a difference, but not as much as hoped for. By and large, and as expected, patterns documented in a 2013 survey remained in place in the few months after the CAA Code was launched. The great majority of visual arts professionals still default to permissions, even though they have some experience of fair use when permissions processes fail. That choice is often costly. About a third of the respondents continue to report problems with avoiding projects, abandoning existing projects, and serious delays of more than three months, because of ...
The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act of 2016, H.R. 5757, proposes the creation of a small claims board to adjudicate copyright claims of minimal monetary value, capping damages at $15,000 per infringement, and $30,000 per single action. Recently presented to the House of Representatives, the amendment would “establish an alternative dispute resolution program for copyright small claims.” While the act may be helpful in that independent artists have greater access to defend themselves against infringers stealing their work, ultimately it may simply ease the obstacles of large content companies going after those same artists. Fortunately, while federal litigation is ...
The owner of a painting attributed to Peter Doig is suing Doig for claiming he did not create the work. The owner claims he knew Doig over 40 years ago, forcing Doig to recount his whereabouts at that time. Doig says he does not recognize the work and that it is certainly not his, while a Sotheby’s specialist said it was “rare to see such a complete and highly resolved early painting by Doig.” Similar works by Doig have sold for more than $25 million, making the attribution of this particular work incredibly important to the market price. While issues of ...
Without question, social media has transformed how many artists interact with the public, how they brand themselves, and the very nature of how they disperse their work. But where social media opens avenues for reaching new, arguably larger audiences, in turn it forces stricter boundaries on them. Not only are works confined to the rectangle of a phone screen, they are more abstractly restrained to “Community Guidelines” or “Terms of Service” within the social media platforms. Instagram’s “Community Guidelines” for example bans nudity, and states “always follow the law.” When social media platform subscriptions overpower museum visitation and become the main ...
[caption id="attachment_6226" align="alignnone" width="185"] Siegelaub's "Artist's Reserved Rights..." Agreement.[/caption] Asks Isaac Kaplan. I'm quoted in this article on artists' rights, the art market, contracts and moral rights. Is authorship something that can be revoked at will? Under what authority can an artist disavow one of his or her works? How do artists exert control over their work long after it ceases to be their property? Check it out!
Enrico Navarra, a French art dealer, is suing New York’s Marlborough Gallery with a suit charging it mounted a “smear campaign” against his business. Navarra’s Manhattan federal court filing accuses Marlborough of “attempted monopolization,” false advertising and defamation.
Via The New York Post.
Wow! And the arts community thinks artists are getting carried away with copyright lawsuits.
From the seven-inch tongued bass player himself:
The record industry doesn’t have a f*cking clue how to make money. It’s only their fault for letting foxes get into the henhouse and then wondering why there’s no eggs or chickens. Every little college kid, every freshly-scrubbed little kid’s face should have been sued off the face of the earth. They should have taken their houses and cars and nipped it right there in the beginning. Those kids are putting 100,000 to a million people out of work.”
Make sure your brand is protected, be litigious, sue anybody — take their homes, their cars, DON’T LET ANYBODY CROSS THAT LINE.
You can read more on this over at Techdirt, as well as view Simmons in video explaining his business and litigating process.
Paddy Johnson, over at Art Fag City, posted quite an interesting story today dealing with copyright and the increasing theft by some visual artists of other artists’ works. Johnson notes that not only did artist Rob Pruitt directly appropriate a unique image of a panda from artist AJ Dimarucot, but that Pruitt also accepts the fact that he did so. Shameless, unethical, illegal, or publicity stunt, you make the call.
Of interest in Johnson’s blog post is NY Times art critic Randy Kennedy’s use of art history as a legal defense. Read it, and keep this in mind: Kennedy’s argument is tantamount to a sculptor arguing that in order to fulfill the concept of human skulls as sculpture he had to go out, decapitate, and scalp human beings as part of his artistic process. Sure, one can certainly call that exercise art, but once can certainly also call that illegal. I’m interested to see what, if anything, Dimarucot does via legal means. Dimarucot’s anger over this theft here.
The Demetra Mavis, president and founder of Front Page News Entertainment Group Worldwide, takes a strong stance against copyright infringers and asks,
Where are our referees for creative justice? Who wins the prize money for original expressions, games, jewelry designs, music, novels, cartoons or even bumper stickers? Whatever happened to the idea of a gracious request for permission to use or reproduce the original owner’s creative content? Have we become a society driven by aimless conduct, frolicking in an environment driven by unfair competition?
Mavis’ answer? Get permission or, better yet, have congress take a stronger stand against infringement:
The U.S. Supreme Court asked the U.S. Solicitor General, who represents the federal government in Supreme Court cases, to weigh in on the question of whether Holocaust victims and their heirs should be bound by a statute of limitations deadline when suing California museums for the return of Nazi-looted artworks.
Via The LA Times.
The law always seems to find me. Copyright law that is. Even when I try to get away from it I manage to run into something art and copyright related. While in San Francisco this past weekend I came across an article that hasn’t received much attention on the East Coast. The article concerns copyright law and media use in the “digital age.”
Pamela Samuelson, professor of law and director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology at UC Berkeley School of Law, has convened a group of legal experts over the past three years to draft 25 reforms to U.S. copyright law. Her article, Copyright Law Needs a Digital-Age Upgrade, appeared in last Sunday’s SF Chronicle, and argues for a rethinking of US copyright laws given the internet age.
Among the proposed changes: modernize copyright office, refine scope of exclusive rights, limit damage awards, reform judicial infringement tests, limit orphan works liability, and create “safe harbors.”
The 68-page draft, The Copyright Principles Project: Directions for Reform, can be accessed via pdf format here. Samuelson’s article in the SF Chronicle can be accessed here. The draft lists the other “legal experts” consulted, and I must admit it is impressive and seemingly diverse (Disney, Warner Bros, IBM, and a host of law schools with liberal bents). I only wish visual and performing artists–or those that represent their interests–had been asked to contribute. Don’t get me wrong, I’m ok with Disney and Warner Bros in the mix, but not all artists thrive on million dollar incomes. Word of warning: be careful what you do with the draft though, as it’s copyrighted to The Copyright Principles Project. Property…God bless it!
Switch to our mobile site