Tuesday, July 23, 2019

When collectors promise to donate art but flip it instead

Happens quite often. And probably will continue.


Ferrari recognized as work of art

Image courtesy of Motohide Miwa.

An Italian commercial tribunal in Bologna has recognized the Ferrari 250 GTO car not only as a classic, but as a work of art that is entirely original and fully protected by intellectual property rights.

Given that only 36 of these GTOs were produced between 1962 and 1964 (with one selling last year at auction for $48.4 million), another company in the northern city of Modena thought it a good idea to produce 250 replicas. Obviously that’s not gonna happen.

Does anyone remember that interesting, and wrongly decided, moral rights case in Texas some 9 years ago?

Story here.


Warhol’s use of Prince image fair use

Images at issue.

The artwork did not violate the photographer Lynn Goldsmith’s copyright, according to a ruling that sided with the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts.

Haven’t had time to read the opinion, but if not appealed will certainly be controversial. More here. Background here.


“sometimes the legalities were: ‘Don’t talk about it, we don’t really know the answer!’”

On land art,

Purchasing and leasing land, figuring out what the legalities were; sometimes the legalities were: ‘Don’t talk about it, we don’t really know the answer!’ To build these objects was always an exercise in working in fields well outside of the visual arts. To maintain them, to steward them now, continues to be that.”

More here.


“Why Harvard Was Wrong to Make Me Step Down”

NY Times op-ed by Harvard Law School professor, Ronald S. Sullivan Jr.


Supremes say FUCT is cool

In a win for advocates of free speech, the Supreme Court struck down a ban on trademarking words and symbols that are “immoral” or “scandalous.”

NPR here.


A Texas state appeals court ruled that Texas can infringe upon copyright without risking punishment under the state’s or federal government’s “takings” clause.

After Olive sued the university, the university pushed for the case to be dismissed because the public institution has sovereign immunity, which protects state government entities from a variety of lawsuits. Olive’s side responded by arguing that the copyright infringement was an unlawful “taking” under the state’s constitution, which prohibits the government from taking private property without adequately compensating the owner.

So it appears a Texas court doesn’t think copyright infringement is a taking. I think the “takings” argument will convince a U.S. court in the near future. Until then, here’s another interesting article via Reason.com on qualified immunity (“which essentially allows public officials to violate a constitutional right as long as the right has not yet been clearly established in the courts.”).


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