Saturday, October 21, 2017

Why Is a Law Firm Investigating the Walker’s Handling of the Sam Durant Fiasco?

Does anyone else think it’s odd that the Walker Art Center has hired a law firm to investigate how the Walker’s executive director, Olga Viso, handled the Sam Durant fiasco?

Has anyone even addressed the potential moral rights claims yet?


“Wrapping an Instagram heading around somebody else’s photograph, I don’t see how that is transformative.”

Images in question in the Graham v. Prince copyright infringement case.

Images in question in the Graham v. Prince copyright infringement case.

Another article on Richard Prince and his appropriation practice. Not much new here, except perhaps to those as yet uninitiated (or bored).


Tired of Monkeying Around, Copyright Dispute Settled

The Naruto-Slater circus act has been settled.


“And then I started asking myself, what kind of person wants to have the same identical job for 35 years?”

Judge Richard Posner on his recent retirement. If you’re an art lawyer or interested in art and law, this is one book co-authored by Judge Posner that you must read.


“Richard Prince’s working methods…apparently not an ‘aesthetic alteration’”

Images in question in the Graham v. Prince copyright infringement case.

Images in question in the Graham v. Prince copyright infringement case.

We noted last month that the copyright infringement suit against Richard Prince is moving forward.

Here’s an interesting article co-authored by copyright guru, Bob Clarida (and Robert Bernstein), on the strategic aspect of Prince asking the court to dismiss Donald Graham’s claim because Prince’s use Graham’s copyrighted photograph was outright fair use. The court declined to do so, and Clarida and Bernstein note the court’s 27-page opinion. [Note: article isn't free]

In part, they conclude with this: “But the appropriated nature of the Prince work—the “transformative context” it allegedly occupies by virtue of Prince’s working methods—is apparently not an ‘aesthetic alteration’ that the Graham court was willing to credit at all.”

Apparently, and certainly at this stage of litigation, a few words added to an appropriated image is not enough. This doesn’t bode well for those that argue that change of context–i.e., taking a photo from a magazine and putting it within the walls of an art museum–is, per se, fair use.


Gerhard Richter Painting Part of Major Lawsuit

The Richter [up for auction at Phillips last November] had been guaranteed for $24 million by 28-year-old Beijing businessman and art collector Zhang Chang. But Zhang has so far refused to pay.

Zhang’s refusal to make good on his guarantee has resulted in an increasingly tangled series of lawsuits. The dispute has also ensnared a significant piece by Francis Bacon, which Zhang acquired in a separate sale, using borrowed funds he never repaid.

Via Artsy.


The Status of Fair Use in the Jeff Koons Era

Jeff Koons, Fait d'Hiver (1988) Photo: Courtesy Christie's via artnet Price Database

Jeff Koons, Fait d’Hiver (1988)

Interesting article on the five lawsuits brought against Jeff Koons for his appropriation of copyrighted works. Depending on who you ask, the doctrine of fair use has either been clarified or muddled. One thing the ’80s could not have foreseen was the ubiquity of the internet, and how it facilitated access to images and content. Given this technological invention, it is becoming clear to courts of law, and ipso-facto, to artists, that “intent” plays a major role in deciding whether a use of a copyrighted work is “fair.”

The concept of “intent,” along with licensing, might be the two areas that define appropriation art today. As a side note, one thing we have noticed in the last ten years (during panels and lectures on copyright and appropriation) is how artists have radically shifted their views on appropriation. In the late 2000s, artists were about 90% in favor of appropriation regardless of need or intent. Today, that tide has turned to about 90% against appropriation without intent or permission.


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