Story on the vandalism of William Kentridge’s Rome mural.
[caption id="attachment_9411" align="alignnone" width="247"] Image courtesy of Sebastian Alvarez. Via Wikipedia and Creative Commons License.[/caption] Does an artist have the legal right to protect her work from the encroachment of another artist's artwork? That’s the question facing Arturo Di Modica, creator of Wall Street’s iconic bronze Charging Bull, which last month was joined by another, more diminutive bronze called Fearless Girl. Di Modica argues the addition—which stares down his bull—changes the message of his work and violates his copyright and moral rights. On this Artsy Podcast episode, two art lawyers—Yayoi Shionoiri, Senior Counsel at Artsy, and Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento, art lawyer, professor, ...
[caption id="attachment_9411" align="alignleft" width="264"] Image courtesy of Sebastian Alvarez. Via Wikipedia and Creative Commons License.[/caption] There's been so much coverage of the Charging Bull-Fearless Girl controversy that it's hard to keep track. So, what we'll do here, in pure shameless self-promotion, is highlight two articles that quote our very own Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento. Both articles (Artsy and the Christian Science Monitor) question whether an artist can "control the meaning" of her/his artwork. Although this is how recent media attention is spinning this dispute, we're not so sure it's about "control" so much as it's about whether or not there are legitimate legal ...
[caption id="attachment_9407" align="alignnone" width="201"] From the complaint.[/caption] Yes, you read right. Usually appropriation artists are the ones getting sued first. But the law allows the soon-to-be-defendant the option to strike first. That's what the Andy Warhol Foundation has done. They've filed suit in the Southern District of New York against photographer Lynn Goldsmith arguing that Warhol's use in 1984 of Goldsmith's photograph is fair use and that Goldsmith knew about Warhol's use since 1984, making her claim time-barred. Here's the complaint via Eriq Garner of the Hollywood Reporter. It's an interesting read. Aside from the statue of limitations argument, the Warhol Foundation ...
During the opening at the Geffen Contemporary at MOCA in Little Tokyo of “Carl Andre: Sculpture as Place, 1958-2010,” some protesters distributed postcards with an image of Mendieta and the text: “Carl Andre is at MOCA Geffen. ¿Dónde está Ana Mendieta?” (Where is Ana Mendieta?). The two images seen here were provided to Clancco by a source wishing to remain anonymous. More via the LA Times.
[caption id="attachment_9394" align="alignnone" width="300"] Running Fence, Sonoma and Marin Counties, California, 1972-76.[/caption] Colby Chamberlain on artist Luis Camnitzer's offer to President Trump to build that wall, albeit a different type of wall. Luis Camnitzer: “Dear President Donald Trump: Please use this golden opportunity to commission US artist Christo with the creation of a new version of his Running Fence to separate the US from Mexico. His first project in Sonoma was completed in 1976 with great success. Though only 24.5 miles long then, in full-length today it would transform a racist project into a public art event, and help improve the image ...
Story on the vandalism of William Kentridge’s Rome mural.
Apparently the Pompidou wanted the Koons exhibition so bad it agreed to all of Jeff Koons LLC’s contractual demands, including the obligation to exhibit a work that turned out to infringe a third-party’s copyright. In-house counsel?
French court clarifies who pays the artist’s resale royalty (at least for now). Christie’s auction house will appeal.
In a 6-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held last week that designs on cheerleading uniforms were protected by U.S. Copyright law.
You can read the opinion and Justice Breyer and Justice Kennedy’s dissent here. Art law nerds might find it interesting to scroll to the last page, where one will notice an image of Marcel Duchamp’s 1915 snow shovel as art object, better known as In Advance of the Broken Arm. Breyer cites Duchamp’s art work as an example of industrial design that, although could be thought of as an work-of-art, should not necessarily obtain copyright protection.
If only they had used Fountain instead of a snow shovel.
Zahr Said has just posted her 2015 law review article on copyright’s fixation requirement and conceptual art on SSRN.
Via his abstract, Said argues,
This Essay argues that copyright illogically excludes conceptual art from protection on the basis of fixation, given that well-settled case law has interpreted the fixation requirement to reach works that contain certain kinds of change so long as they are sufficiently repetitive to be deemed permanent. While conceptual art may perhaps be better left outside the scope of copyright protection on the basis of its failure to meet copyright’s other requirements, this Essay concludes that fixation should not be the basis on which to exclude conceptual art from protection. There are of course both normative and descriptive questions around the copyright-ability of conceptual art; this Essay addresses itself primarily to the descriptive question of fixation, and whether works of art that contain change, by design, must be excluded.
Worth a read.
Here are eight reasons why they should. Not saying we necessarily agree.
Keep in mind that in the U.S., only visual artists currently get moral rights protection, and only for certain types of art works.
Apparently forever. Or at least from 209 BCE to the present.
Unfortunately this article via The Art Newspaper mixes trademark, copyright and patent IP protections, but that may not be their fault. The problem is most likely caused by the inability of the Emperor Qin Shihuang Mausoleum Site Museum in north-central China to figure out just how the heck they are going to argue that they own the intellectual property rights (or all rights) to the famous Terracotta Warriors.
As the rock band Genesis once said, there must be some misunderstanding.
Switch to our mobile site