Can You Have an Art Exhibition Without Art? Triple Candie Under Oath
Saturday, April 19, 2014.
Museum of Contemporary Art, Detroit
1 - 3pm
Admission: Free (Suggested $5 museum donation)
Who, or what, is Triple Candie? What does it do, and why does it exist? How can it curate art exhibitions without artists and their artworks, but rather with copies of an artist’s oeuvre? Do the two co-founders, Shelly Bancroft and Peter Nesbett, work under this non-conceptual art strategy called Triple Candie as a disguise, creating a protective veil? And if so, protection from whom, or from what? Ethical and legal conundrums, perhaps? Now comes Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento, artist and arts lawyer. On ...
Guggenheim Bilbao Censors “Offensive” Paul McCarthy and Mike Bouchet Public Artwork
[caption id="attachment_7161" align="alignnone" width="300"] Mural by Paul McCarthy and Mike Bouchet, on building in Bilbao, Spain.[/caption]
According to Artnet, the Guggenheim Bilbao is forcing the removal of a provocative and controversial Paul McCarthy and Mike Bouchet 2,000 square foot mural installation on the side of a building in Bilbao.
The billboard is an extension of an exhibition the two artists are having at the Portikus in Frankfurt. Their collaboration at Portikus includes mostly drawings, as well as a few sculptures, that, according to a press release, depict museums as “self-serving mechanisms for their board members[.]"
Now get this, the Guggenheim is employing the strong arm of the law ...
Increase to Most Copyright Office Fees
There will be an increase to most US Copyright registration fees, effective May 1, 2014.
Contemporary Art & Law: Recent Controversies and Legal Developments
I'm very happy to announce that I will be giving a lecture presentation tomorrow for the Arts Counsel Texas, in Dallas. This event was organized by my good friend, Meg Friess, and is generously hosted by the firm of Thompson & Knight.
If you're in Dallas, I'd love to see you. All info on event here.
The Securities and Exchange Commission alleges Coadum Advisers Inc. raised $30 million by promising investors returns as high as 6 percent per month. The SEC contends that these fraudulent investments financed a towering sculpture in the Maryland mountains depicting three New York City firefighters raising the US flag at Ground Zero. In hopes of repaying the defrauded investors, the 40-foot bronze statue unveiled in November 2007 at the National Emergency Training Center in Emmitsburg, Md., is for sale.
From today’s Boston Globe, a major conference to strategize the return of Nazi-looted art:
Government officials from around 49 countries, dozens of non-governmental groups and Jewish representatives will meet in Prague this week to review current practices. They are likely to sign a new agreement to step up restitution efforts.
The task of restituting Nazi-looted works is an epic one. The Nazis formed a bureaucracy devoted to looting and they plundered a total of 650,000 art and religious objects from Jews and other victims, the Jewish Claims Conference estimates.
Anyone know Danish law? The Little Mermaid has brought a bit of legal conflict to a little town in Michigan.
According to City Manager George Bosanic, the city was notified by letter from the Artists Rights Society (The ARS represents more than 50,000 artists and their copyrights) in New York City, representing the estate of Danish sculptor Edvard Eriksen, saying the statue is illegal and may have to be removed.
According to Michigan’s Daily News, Eriksen created the original “Little Mermaid” statue in 1913 as a tribute to Danish storyteller Hans Christian Andersen. Sitting at the harbor in Copenhagen, Denmark, the statue draws an estimated 1.5 million visitors a year.
The director for ARS said the managers of the estate of Eriksen want the statue to be removed since no permission was granted to create a replica, and that even if the statue may not be an exact replica of the original the pose and name are the same, showing it was at least attempting to replicate Denmark’s version.
Below is artist Chapman Kelley’s response and reply brief to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, filed on June 12, 2009, arguing that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois erred in finding that Chapman’s Wildflower Works was not protected by the Visual Artist’s Rights Act of 1990, and that the District Court should have awarded Chapman damages in finding the Chicago Park District liable for breach of contract.
I agree with Donn Zaretsky that this case, along with the Mass MoCA v. Buchel case, are of grave import to contemporary artists. In fact, two strong pro-artist rulings in both cases can simultaneously revive the nearly-gutted VARA statute and counter the Phillps v. Pembroke decision which denied VARA protection to site-specific works.
With a bit of luck Kelley could very well end up with three Seventh Circuit judges whose rationale and intellectual pin-point precision is unmatched: Richard A. Posner, Frank H. Easterbrook, and Diane P. Wood. Let’s cross our fingers!
Kelley is represented pro bono by Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
The City of Snohomish has settled with a University of Washington fine art professor arrested shortly after she was seen photographing power lines.
Scheier’s suit followed an earlier legal action filed by Bogdan Mohora, who was arrested in 2004 after being seen photographing the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks in Ballard. The City of Seattle later paid Mohora $8,000 to settle the claim.
Seems like a district court judge in Illinois is not up on his critical theory readings, particularly those of Walter Benjamin. Ruling that Kelley’s work lacked originality, the district court judge held that the Visual Artists Rights Act did not protect Kelley’s work because it lacked “originality,” a critical precursor to establishing a copyright violation (VARA is part of U.S. copyright law). This is quite odd given the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the standard for creativity is extremely low: it need not be novel, but rather possess only a “spark” or “minimal degree” of creativity to be protected by copyright. We’ll keep an eye on this one.
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.