Thursday, March 28, 2024
 


Centennial of Cinema Under Copyright Law


A hundred years ago, a new category of work became subject to copyright protection: motion pictures. The Townsend Amendment to the U.S. copyright law took effect Aug. 24, 1912, copyright law took effect Aug. 24, 1912, creating one class for dramatic motion pictures and one class for newsreels and similar material.

Via Library of Congress.

 

Can US Museums Exhibit Foreign Art? Supreme Court to Decide


Here’s a nice recap of the background story via Alison Keeley.

Supap Kirtsaeng came to the United States from Thailand in 1997 to study at Cornell.  Kirtsaeng financed his education in part by having relatives in Thailand purchase and ship textbooks to the United States.  He would then sell the textbooks on Ebay and other websites, repay his relatives in Thailand, and keep the profits.

Kirtsaeng brought in up to $1.2 million in revenue. Smart kid; probably why he’s a Cornell math grad and USC math PhD (disclaimer, yours truly attended Cornell Law School). So, you may ask, what’s the big deal, and what does this have to do with foreign art and US museums? The art part concerns the exhibiting, lending and selling of foreign-made artworks. The law part comes in under one of our favorite legal doctrines, US Copyright law; in particular, the so-called “first sale doctrine.”

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Kress Foundation Awards CAA Grant for Fair Use in the Visual Arts


This just in via our good friend, Nate Harrison.

The Samuel H. Kress Foundation has awarded the College Art Association a start-up grant to support the development of a Code of Best Practices for Fair Use of Copyrighted Images in the Creation and Curation of Artworks and Scholarly Publishing in the Visual Arts. According to CAA, the project will address all areas of the visual arts and involve participants from the fields of art history, studio art, print and online publishing, art museums and related areas.

I’m curious to see what comes out of this. Seriously. I may be mistaken, but I see that they have curators, professors, and lawyers on the task force, but completely fail to include at least one visual artist that has an actual practice of appropriation. A few artists of this kind would bring, in my opinion, a very welcome — and hopefully diverse — perspective.

 

What’s the Latest on the Gagosian-Perelman Lawsuit?


Perelman’s lawsuit, Gagosian alleges, is merely a “desperate attempt” to change the terms of the contract. That, and to publicly drag Gagosian through the mud.

Via Artinfo.

 

The Double-Edged Sword of Appropriation


As some of you may know, I was on a panel last Friday at the P.S.1 NY Art Book Fair on copyright and appropriation. THe panel was organized by Frick Library curator, Stephen Bury, the Andrew W. Mellon Chief Librarian at the Frick Art Reference Library, and included artists Eric Doeringer and Greg Allen (yes, the Greg Allen who published the court documents to the Cariou v. Prince case).

It was a standing room only crowd with great presentations by Doeringer and Allen, not to mention rigorous questions from the crowd. I made a few points, and interestingly enough, one of them concerned the ethics of appropriation. I posed the following hypothetical question: what if an artist appropriated and used an image in one of his artworks that depicted a lifestyle of a private individual, and where the individual was clearly identifiable in the image? Now imagine this image being posted on the website of the institution exhibiting the artists’ work. What if the individual depicted in the image wanted that image removed, as he, or she, did not want that their lifestyle made public for personal and/or family reasons? What should the artist and the art institution do?

The point of my question was of course to question whether appropriation is an all-or-nothing act? In other words, should one allow appropriation by only certain individuals and not others, and for certain political-ideological beliefs and not others?

As luck would have it, later that day I came across the following article, Anti-Gay Group Sued for Using Gay Couple’s Wedding Photo in Attack Ad, where the Southern Poverty Law Center is suing an anti-gay group—called the Public Advocate of the United States—for using a gay couple’s wedding photograph without permission. According to The Advocate, here’s the gist of the claim:

The suit alleges that the Public Advocate of the United States, an SPLC-designated antigay hate group, misappropriated the couple’s likeness and personalities, and as a result the couple suffered harm, including mental distress and anguish. The suit also alleges that Public Advocate made unlawful use of an image copyrighted by photographer Kristina Hill.

So, apparently, there’s more to copyright than monetary damages. What do you think should happen? Should appropriation have its ethical limits? Should appropriation be restricted to artists only? Liberals? Democrats? Pro-love but not hate-speech?

 

Insane Clown Posse Sues the FBI


Yes, it does seem like today is loco-rocker day. Gawker reports that the Insane Clown Posse, aka ICP, is suing the Federal Bureau of Investigation for labeling their fans a “loosely-organized hybrid gang.”

 

Axl Rose Hits L.A. Art Show With Cease-and-Desist


Yes, the temperamental Guns ‘n’ Roses bandleader is at it again. This time causing headaches of a different kind; a legal kind. Seems ol’ Axl Rose has sent a cease-and-desist letter to an LA-based gallery making certain demands. According to Spin magazine,

The letter demands that Gleason [the gallery curator] post an apology and retraction on the gallery’s website and cancel London’s show. The letter also demands that Gleason “refrain from further defaming Axl Rose” and “remove the defamatory remarks from your website.

Welcome to the jungle.

 
 
Legal

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.
 

Switch to our mobile site