Monday, August 21, 2017

Copyright Infringement Suit Against Richard Prince Marches Strong

Here’s Judge Stein’s opinion, Graham_v_Prince_7 18 2017 (via PDF format).

In essence, here’s Judge Stein’s reasoning:

Screen Shot 2017-07-19 at 3.35.00 PM


Photog Sues Procter & Gamble for Copyright Infringement

Screen Shot 2017-07-18 at 2.10.44 PM

Mainly alleging that Procter & Gamble did not stick to their licensing deal, Cincinnati-based photographer, Annette Navarro, is suing P&G for copyright infringement.

According to, “An expert retained by the attorneys in the case has estimated P&G could be liable for more than $75 million.”



Monkey Copyright Arguments in 9th Circuit

Oral arguments in the “Monkey Copyright Case”, aka, Naruto v. Slater, were held yesterday at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Here’s the video of the oral arguments (starts at 1:45). And here’s an article on how Slater feels after all this litigation. As the saying goes, litigation is like going in as a pig and coming out as sausage.


Can false accusations of copyright infringement be defamatory?

Very interesting read. Make sure you read the entire article.


Street Artists File Suit Against Fashion Designer


A group of New York-based graffiti artists is suing fashion brand Vince Camuto for alleged misappropriation and infringement of their mural work after it was used in a recent marketing campaign for the label’s Spring/Summer 2017 line. The complaint, filed July 5 in US District Court, Central District of California, Western Division, seeks unspecified damages, restitution, and injunctive relief.

Via Artnet.


Background on “Seated Ballerina” Artist and Koons License

The artist’s “grandson, Maxim Lozovoy, told Ukrainian media that representatives of Koons acquired rights to two works in September 2010. One is the inspiration for Seated Ballerina; the other is the statuette on which Koons’s Ballerinas (2010-14) is based (showing a crouching dancer tying the laces of another; an edition is currently on display at the Gagosian Gallery in Beverly Hills).”

Via The Artnewspaper.


Dead or Alive, Artists Want Control

As they should.

Two interesting stories on artistic intent and control. One on Edward Albee and the other on David Mamet. Why is it that if an artist wants to control her artistic property or, god forbid, destroy it, the general public seems obliged to shriek and criticize the artist? Why is it that this public thinks they know better than the artist as to the artwork’s fate and, more so, that they have some “right” to read or view it?

It’s just “art,” people, just art. The world has more than enough creativity, and if you feel that your world would be sorely worse off without that one novel, painting or play, then you must have one very small world.


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