Monday, August 20, 2018

French Court Slams eBay (Update)

Louis Vuitton just can’t stay out of court. Yesterday, a French court slammed eBay with judgment to pay Louis Vuitton roughly $63.1 million in damages for auctioning fake goods. Word from the Wall Street Journal is that there may have been some French kissing going on (i.e.- preferential treatment by the French for the French). According to a WSJ commenter, “Too bad eBay isn’t a German company. Then the French company would have lost the battle.”

LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton and sister company Christian Dior had accused eBay of not taking the necessary steps to ensure that the accessories sold on its Web site weren’t counterfeit. “It is a major first, because of the principles that it recognizes and the amount sought,” said Pierre Gode, an aide to LVMH president Bernard Arnault. The amount is a significant upward departure from the 20,000 euro judgment that Hermes — another French retailer — won against eBay earlier this month for facilitating the sale of fake Hermès products.

Read the rest of this entry »


London Stalling

Seems that in order to get a sculptural work in London one must pass strict scrutiny of the Westminster Public Art Advisory Committee. The committee has banned works from Anthony Caro, Banksy, and a bronze statute of Ronald Reagan on the Berlin Wall.

The influential panel deals in the high numbers of public art applications. Its members are drawn from institutions such as the Royal Academy of Art. A negative view usually forces artists to review their plans or kill them altogether.

One wonders if an Olafur Eliasson leaking pipe would pass muster. After all, it’s only $15 million and it comes with lights, fireworks, tourists and hot dogs!


Scalia Cites Artist in Second Amendment Opinion

In his Wall Street Journal Blog, Dan Slater notes of a curious event. In the recent and controversial Second Amendment opinion, Justice Scalia footnotes a first year associate at Sullivan & Cromwell. As if this is not good enough, the Associate, NYU Law grad and Whitney Biennial Alumnus Brian Frye, is also a filmmaker and film theorist with an MFA from the San Francisco Art Institute.

At page 51, Justice Scalia, writing for the court, cited a law review article entitled, “The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller,” which appeared this year in the NYU Journal of Law and Liberty. At Volokh Conspiracy, Professor Eugene Volokh, whose work was also cited in the Court’s Heller opinion, writes, “Citations to such articles by people who aren’t academics, and who aren’t solidly established in their field . . . are especially rare, and especially worth noting.”

Unfortunately, this rare event has elicited some harsh bitterness from aesthetically deficient eunuchs. Cheers to Brian for his avid use of his left and right side of his brain! More info on Brian can be seen here.


He Said He Said: Malanga vs. Chamberlain

In today’s NY Times, a story on a lawsuit brought by Gerald Malanga (ex-Warhol studio assistant) against sculptor John Chamberlain. Malanga claims that a painting Chamberlain claims was a Warhol, and sold as such, is a fake, and that it doesn’t even belong to Chamberlain. The painting is “315 Johns.”

Malanga claims “he and two friends cranked out the Chamberlain canvases themselves in 1971 in a studio in Great Barrington, Mass., as a homage to Warhol a year after Mr. Malanga left Warhol’s Factory in Manhattan.”


Louis Vuitton Sued for Murakami Prints

It was bound to happen. Bad karma has hit Louis Vuitton. The LA Times reports today that a California art collector has sued LV for failure to abide by California law (Murakami and MoCA have (so far) been spared a suit). It seems that LV sold quite a few Murakami prints in its boutique during Murakami’s exhibition at LA’s Museum of Contemporary Art.

Since 1970, California law has required dealers who sell limited-edition prints of artists’ work to disclose an array of information supporting the prints’ authenticity. The suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by lead plaintiff Clint Arthur says that because Louis Vuitton North America failed to provide sufficient information, 500 Murakami prints that were on sale for an average of $8,000 lacked the ironclad certification required, making them less valuable for resale. …The California law allows triple damages for violations, exposing Louis Vuitton to a potential multimillion-dollar liability.

Read the rest of this entry »


Is Copyright Maternal?

If you are one of those individuals that wondered why copyright, or intellectual property for that matter, was not doused with a bit of critical theory or CLS (better known as Critical Legal Studies), well, this is your lucky day. William Patry comments on the gendering of copyright as well as the problematic of birthing metaphors and binaries (pateral vs. maternal; body v. mind) via a few law review articles (which interestingly are from either the late 1980s, the height of the CLS movement, or within the last two years, the rebirth of CLS?).

Read the rest of this entry »


“They stole this from me! Well, I’m going to steal it right back.”

fvogue.jpgRichard Prince makes headlines again. Although we covered the photo dispute concerning some of Prince’s appropriated images exhibited at the Guggenheim last year (as well as artists upset over other artists appropriateing their work), this time it seems it is Prince himself who is a bit pissed that someone else is copying his aesthetic proclivities.

Read the rest of this entry »


Clancco, Clancco: The Source for Art & Law,, 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 They are not the views of any other organization, legal or otherwise. All content contained on or made available through is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed, nor is anything submitted to treated as confidential.

Website Terms of Use, Privacy, and Applicable Law.

Switch to our mobile site