Wednesday, April 1, 2015
 


The End of the Image at Triple Canopy

Schematic drawing for a replica of an antique basin stand, by furniture maker Frank B. Rhodes, included in Triple Canopy's Pointing Machines (Basin Stands), 2014.

Schematic drawing for a replica of an antique basin stand, by furniture maker Frank B. Rhodes, included in Triple Canopy’s Pointing Machines (Basin Stands), 2014.

The advent of 3D imaging and printing allows for the effortless production of objects, including cultural objects, based on coded, changeable data.  This technology confronts the legal definition of the image and original expression, traditionally protected under the law.

On Friday, April 10, 2015, Triple Canopy will host a conversation titled The End of the Image where Edward Lee, professor of law at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, Jennifer L. Roberts, Elizabeth Cary Agassiz Professor of the Humanities at Harvard University, Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento, artist and art lawyer, and Allyson Vieira, New York artist, moderated by Triple Canopy editor Alexander Provan, will probe the intersection of intellectual property, art, originality and the law in the context of emerging technologies.

The talk, which the public can attend for a $7 fee, will take place at 155 Freeman Street, Brooklyn, NY at 6:30pm.

 

FBI Continues Search for Gardner Museum Art Thief

The FBI has never come close to finding the paintings – despite supposedly promising leads last May – and there remains a $5million reward for information leading to their return.

 

Want a Perfect Fake? Ask a Robot

Using computers, “Taylor and his colleagues planned to use the unique signatures they found to make a Jackson Pollock fake good enough to dupe art experts. ‘However, we concluded that to generate this work would represent the dawn of a new and unwanted era,’ Taylor told me in an email. ‘So we shelved the plan.’”

Via The Atlantic.

 

In Copyright Case, French Court Rules Against Artnet

A French court has ruled that a French photographer of furniture for auction house catalogs has a claim for damages against artnet … for violation of copyright with regard to photographs of furniture, owned by third parties, sold at auction and reproduced along with sales results in the artnet price database, the world’s most popular and comprehensive database for art, decorative objects and antique sales.

Via Artnet News.

 

A Call for Authentic Experts

There will always be conflicts of interest somewhere, just as there will always be those who say that authorship is irrelevant. No system for establishing authenticity can be perfect. But new discoveries are the engine of art history, and if we continue to rely on a diminishing pool of inexpert experts, our subject will soon grind to a halt.

Via The Artnewspaper.

 

On Gifts of Art to Family and Friends

On January 1, 2015, the gift and estate tax exemption increased to $5.43 million per person and to $10.86 for a married couple.  Artists who hope to take advantage of the increased exemption face unique challenges when making gifts to family and friends of visual art they have created.

Via The National Law Review.

 

Art and Law In Dire Need of Relevancy

Slide image, The Legal Medium, Sergio Munoz Sarmiento (2015).

Slide image, The Legal Medium, Sergio Munoz Sarmiento (2015).

I’ve been meaning to jot down some thoughts on last weekend’s art and law conference at Yale Law School. This morning I read Colby Chamberlain’s remarks via Artforum, and I must say he is seriously on-point. The ramblings of lawyers (Hoffman), the aloof super-star panelists (Goldsmith and Balkin), and the branding of the conference are all quite true.

I must add though (and if you’re interested in art and law you should be paying attention here), that there is much, much more to art and law than copyright and fair use, and there are artists other than Richard Prince and Jeff Koons in need of legal and scholarly support (where were all the pro-appropriationists when Lauren Clay came around?).

Given that the gap between art and law is already wide enough and in need of some serious bridging, the real issue for us art and law folk to address is one of relevancy. What does it mean to be relevant? What topics are and are not relevant? What can we do, collectively, to address pressing and timely issues to not only further cultural production, but to humanize the practice and study of law?

Let me give you one example. The fact that artists and art critics always apologize for “not being lawyers” but the converse is rarely true (legal scholars always feel free to opine on art and art history, albeit usually with the household brands Duchamp, Pollock, and Warhol) says much about the amount of work yet to be done in this nascent field. And when lawyers and legal scholars (Hoffman and Balkin, respectively) drone on about inconsequential issues (strict scrutiny) or impart their knowledge in a patronizing and condescending manner, artists and art scholars are sure to turn a deaf ear–and who would blame them?  Balkin, a First Amendment scholar, delivered a pompous diatribe on rights of publicity that could not have come at a worst–or more irrelevant–moment. How out-to-lunch do you have to be, even up in New Haven, to not notice that we’re currently living in a world where media and artistic censorship and self-censorship are at an all-time high?

I’m working on a text piece that will elaborate a bit more on this. For now, let’s just end with this: this conference was good; the next one will be better. Stay tuned!

 
 
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