From the website: http://www.ggcornish.com/one/flea_market/flea_market.html

Artinfo wonders what we’ve learned from the recent copyright and moral rights lawsuits involving artists. A little over a year ago I asked, “Why is copyright (suddenly) such a hot topic for artists?” and proposed the following,

The last few years have raised important copyright issues and concerns for artists. There are three main factors which have impacted – and will continue to impact – how visual artists relate to each other, to art institutions, and to other intellectual property right holders when it concerns issues of copyright.

I essentialized this phenomenon to the following three factors: economic recession, education regarding intellectual property and artists’ rights, and increase in litigation. You can read the rest of my thoughts on this here.

Yesterday, Artinfo posted a lengthy overview of recent cases involving Shepard Fairey, Chapman Kelley, Jeff Koons, and the recent Richard Prince knockout. Here’s a bit on their take,

Patrick Cariou’s victory last Friday in his copyright suit against artist Richard Prince — which determined that Prince’s work did not sufficiently transform or comment on Cariou’s original — signaled another startling development in the troubled and troubling history of fair-use rulings concerning the arts. But is it consistent with the other zany lawsuits of late that have seen artists go head to head with the laity in legal battles over supposed appropriation?

Are we seeing the tip of the iceberg? My guess is “yes,” and I would add that we’re only seeing the beginning. This is going to be a wild ride, and if the Cariou v. Prince outcome is any indication, a ride that will show how law — as both process and medium — will revolutionize how culture is produced and received.

Just when you thought it was safe to appropriate works in the public domain, along comes a case, Golan v. Holder. (10th Circuit decision here)

On March 7, The US Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments over whether or not Congress is constitutionally allowed to grant copyright protection to foreign works that are in the public domain under US Copyright law.

For visual artists in the US (and for anyone wanting to use current public domain works), this could be business as usual or a rethinking (and reworking) of what they appropriate, depending on how the Supreme Court decides this case. In a nutshell, Golan concerns freedom of expression and the right of the American people to use materials currently in the public domain, without fear the government will remove or restrict them from public use.

Take for example a sculptor who wishes to use a photograph whose copyright is currently owned by a German entity but in the public domain in the US, that depicts a three-dimensional object. The American sculptor would like to use this image to create an actual three-dimensional sculpture of the three-dimensional object depicted. If Golan is upheld, then the sculptor may be infringing on the German national’s copyright, and thus be susceptible to a copyright infringement lawsuit.

What this also means is that if Golan is upheld, artists would have to check to see if the image or text they want to use is still under copyright in a foreign country, even if the works are currently under public domain in the US.

Golan is scheduled to be heard fall of 2011.

Although this New York district court decision will most likely be appealed, it does give credence to my theory that courts are increasingly becoming agitated with this “free-for-all” mentality of certain artists when it comes to appropriating and commercializing off of other artists’ works.

I can’t comment much on this case, but I will remind the reader that a while ago photographer Patrick Cariou sued Richard Prince for copyright infringement. Why? Prince was using Cariou’s photographs without consent or compensation to Cariou to make paintings, some of which were not very transformative. Long story short, on Friday, March 18th, Judge Deborah Batts handed down her decision, finding that “the Court finds (1) that
[Richard Prince, Gagosian Gallery, Lawrence Gagosian, and Rizzoli Publications’] infringing use of [Cariou’s] copyrighted photographs was not fair use under the Copyright Act[.]”

Judge Batts also seems to be carving new ground by indicating that Gagosian’s sales of Prince’s paintings, “for a total of $10,480,000.00, 60% of which went to Prince and 40% of which went to Gagosian Gallery. Seven other Canal Zone Paintings were exchanged for art with an estimated value between $6,000,000.00 and $8,000,000.00 …was also substantially commercial, especially where the Gagosian Defendants are concerned.”

Are New York courts starting to eradicate the “fine art” vs. “commercial art” distinction they seem to hold dear?

Batts followed with this right hook to the kidney:

That Defendants [Richard Prince, Gagosian, and Rizzoli] shall within ten days of the date of this Order deliver up for impounding, destruction, or other disposition, as Plaintiff determines, all infringing copies of the Photographs, including the Paintings and unsold copies of the Canal Zone exhibition book, in their possession, custody, or control and all transparencies, plates, masters, tapes, film negatives, discs, and other articles for making such infringing copies. That Defendants shall notify in writing any current or future owners of the Paintings of whom they are or become aware that the Paintings infringe the copyright in the Photographs, that the Paintings were not lawfully made under the Copyright Act of 1976, and that the Paintings cannot lawfully be displayed under 17 U.S.C. § 109(c).

You can read more on this over at APhotoEditor.

UPDATE: March 22, 2010:

I’ve had some people e-mail me asking why I side with Prince. I don’t. I believe Judge Batts was correct — and on-point — on her analysis of this case, and that Prince did infringe Cariou’s copyrights. This is a good decision for visual artists, especially those that have their work “lifted” by other artists with a more direct connection to the art market. I hope this is clear enough.

Spanish police have published a catalog of high value stolen art and precious objects in the hope of reuniting them with their rightful owners. You can view the catalog here (in Spanish). Picasso is in there, page 6.

Via The Seattle Times.

From their website:

A group of leading artists, curators, writers, and others launched a boycott of Guggenheim Abu Dhabi today over the exploitation of foreign migrant workers building the museum on Saadiyat Island, the United Arab Emirates.

More than 130 international artists, curators, writers and others have signed a boycott to end all cooperation with the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi and are demanding that the Guggenheim Foundation and its Abu Dhabi partner take immediate and meaningful steps to safeguard the rights of the workers constructing the new branch museum on Saadiyat Island. Some of the artists who have signed the appeal have also decided to boycott other Guggenheim locations around the world until this issue is resolved.

“Artists should not be asked to exhibit their work in buildings built on the backs of exploited workers,” said Walid Raad, one of the artists boycotting the Guggenheim. “Those working with bricks and mortar deserve the same kind of respect as those working with cameras and brushes.”

Among those calling for the boycott are prominent artists Emily Jacir, Walid Raad, Yto Barrada, Mona Hatoum, Shirin Neshat, Akram Zaatari, Rirkrit Tiravanija, Janet Cardiff, Willie Doherty, Hans Haacke, Alfredo Jaar, Barbara Kruger, Antonio Muntadas, and Paul Pfeiffer.

Read more here. You can also sign the petition here. View all the press they’ve gotten in two days here.

UPDATE: March 23, 2011

The Guggenheim’s Richard Armstrong and Nancy Spector reply to the artists’ petition. In brief:

We believe that the progress made [to protect workers’ rights] thus far is more than ceremonial. In fact, it signals fundamental changes in the emirates’ decades-long labour practices

Read their entire letter here.

Just four days ago I mentioned that the Associated Press had sued Obey Clothing (Shepard Fairey’s clothing company) and three clothing retailers for unauthorized use of AP photographs.

Well, today, the AP and Obey Clothing agreed to settle their copyright infringement lawsuit over Obey Clothing’s sale and distribution of apparel and other merchandise bearing the image of Barack Obama in the 2008 Obama Hope poster. The settlement also amicably resolves claims that the AP filed last week against three retailers who sold T-shirts and other apparel distributed by Obey Clothing.

Here are their respective comments:

“The Associated Press is pleased to have reached a settlement of our lawsuit against Obey Clothing,” said Tom Curley, president and CEO.  “This settlement marks the final resolution of the disputes over our rights in the AP’s photograph of Barack Obama.  While it was a long road with many twists and turns along the way, the AP is proud of the result and will continue to vigorously defend its copyrighted photographs against wholesale copying and commercialization where there is no legitimate basis for asserting fair use.  The AP is particularly gratified that this settlement will benefit the AP’s Emergency Relief Fund, which helps AP staff and families worldwide cope with catastrophes and natural disasters.”

Don Juncal, president of Obey Clothing, said: “The Associated Press has an impressive archive of work provided by talented photographers.  We look forward to working with those photographers, as part of our long-standing relationship with Shepard Fairey, to produce and market apparel with the new images that will be created.  We have collaborated with other photographers and artists in the past, and hope that will be a successful endeavor for all parties.”

Yes, free culture extraordinaire Lawrence Lessig is a bit upset that Louis Vuitton has successfully obtained a court order forcing artist Nadia Plesner from exhibiting her painting or posting an image of her painting on her website (check out Lessig’s twitter post: “ugh”). The painting contains a designer bag similar to a Louis Vuitton. If she doesn’t oblige, Plesner faces minimum penalty fines of $7,000 (5,000 euros) per day.

You may remember Plessner from a while back. Louis Vuitton and Plesner were involved in another lawsuit, which eventually settled.

Media Report has an update: Nadia will start summary proceedings against Louis Vuitton to have the court order against her lifted. The court hearing will take place on March 30 at The Hague. Good luck!