Law School for Visual Artists

October 5, 12, 19 and 26 and November 2, 2011
All classes 4pm to 6pm

VLA Auditorium: 1 East 53rd Street, 6th floor, NY

Free to visual artists

Legal issues can be overwhelming for many visual artists: relationships with galleries, appropriation practices, damaged artwork, art world employment practices, and collaborations with other artists are just some of the issues visual artists face.

With this in mind, Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts has initiated a course for contemporary visual artists that will make legalese comprehensible and manageable, while giving visual artists an introduction to legal issues necessary to protect themselves and their art projects. This 5-week lecture series is free to visual artists and will cover intellectual property (copyright and trademarks); contracts, consignment agreements, and licensing agreements; basic business models (non-profit and for-profit corporations, LLC’s); employment issues with studio and gallery assistants; artist websites; as well as issues in public art and commissioning agreements.

Participants who complete the entire 5-week series will also have access to one of two VLA legal clinics, where participants will meet with a pro bono attorney regarding any specific issues they may have regarding their work and projects. These clinics are also free to these participants.

The classes will be taught by Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento, Esq., VLA’s Associate Director and artist.

This class series is open to visual artists only, and includes class materials.

For more information as well as registration requirements, please click here.

Last March, 2010, we posted about a lawsuit by artist Derek Seltzer against Green Day, Warner Bros. Records, and others for misappropriating his copyrighted work, Scream Icon, which Seltzer had put on posters and stickers and displayed on public spaces around Los Angeles.

Well, last month, a federal judge from the Central District of California agreed with Green Day et al., finding that “the different visual elements [their designer] added, including graffiti, a brick backdrop, and (especially) the large red cross over the image, considered in connection with the music and lyrics of East Jesus Nowhere, ‘add something new, with a further purpose or different character’ than Plaintiff’s original work.”

In other words, the secondary use was transformative, and thus fell squarely within fair use. We already know that artists have to be critically aware of how, and why, they appropriate. There is another lesson in this case to be learned by artists; careful what you say about the defendant’s use of your copyrighted work. The quote below from plaintiff Seltzer:

“[T]ainted the original message of the image and […] made it now synonymous with lyrics, a video, and concert tour that it was not originally intended to be used with….. I make an image, I produce it, I tailor it to my needs, the concept, the content, and then someone comes along, defaces the image, puts a red cross on it. I mean, maliciously devalues the original intent and then shows it to thousands upon thousands of people.”

It seems the judge took this as an affirmative explanation by the original artist that Green Day’s appropriation was in fact transformative.

A good day for copyright schizophrenics!

Via the Hollywood Reporter. Background here.

Artinfo reports today that the lawsuit against the Gagosian Gallery for “shock, debasement, fright, fear, humiliation, embarrassment, psychological and emotional trauma, physical and mental injury, pain and suffering” has been dismissed. Last May, Judge Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the suit against Gagosian, alleging that the gallery could not be held responsible for the excessive force used by police.

From IBM, UPS, and Ford, to Wal Mart, Shell, Apple, and BP.

Via Inc. magazine.

Courtesy of Brain Pickings.

This is an interesting example of idea vs. expression. Did the Polish journal, Przekrój, infringe Israeli illustrator Noma Bar’s design? Przekrój’s version was designed by Daniel Horowitz, who allegedly did not obtain permission from Bar. We can certainly see a strong argument that Horowitz’s version is a derivative of Bar’s, and thus not fair use (at least under U.S. Copyright law). What do you think?

Via Brain Pickings.

Since 2005, Richter attempts to represent September 11th.

Via the Daily Beast.

A United States District Court in Washington has rejected Hungary’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against it and its museums and a university for artworks looted from the heirs of the Jewish banker and renowned collector Baron Mor Lipot Herzog.

Via the paper of record.