[caption id="attachment_9276" align="alignnone" width="300"] Public service add advertising the need to protect indigenous rights via intellectual property, in Spanish language.[/caption] As it stands, there’s not much indigenous groups can do to protect their cultural patrimony or to keep companies from ripping off their designs. There’s currently no law granting Mayan groups control over their own intellectual property. But Mayan communities are fighting to trademark their work, and they could be paving the way for other indigenous groups in the process. Another great post on indigenous rights by online powerhouse, Remezcla.
The Art & Law Program is now accepting applications for its spring 2017 term on a Rolling Basis. The Rolling Admissions deadline is December 16, 2016. Applicants who apply through Rolling Admissions can expect to receive a decision from the Program 1 to 2 weeks after their application is received. The Program's admissions process is competitive—as each year they get many more applications than they have spaces for, so if you'd like to increase the likelihood of acceptance or need to know of an acceptance or rejection as soon as possible, obviously the sooner you apply the better it is for ...
The Art & Law Program has been listed as one of eight solid alternatives to MFA art programs. You can read more about it here and here.
[caption id="attachment_9208" align="alignnone" width="300"] Image: Detroit, Michigan (Circa 2013). Image courtesy of Sergio Munoz Sarmiento. Copyright 2013 Sergio Munoz Sarmiento. All rights reserved.[/caption] I've co-curated an ongoing exhibition with Sima Familant. Here's the scoop. In, A Place Called Motherfuckin’ Lovely, the works and artists in the exhibition are purposefully and subtly disjunctive in order to take on what we deem identifies a forgotten "America," in both its history and current manifestation – the place where dreams come true, where airplanes come to die, where racial and gender antagonisms still live large and across the nation, where privilege and violence merge in unsuspecting ways, and ...
As many of you know I teach law school and art school courses in art law and art & Law. I also give quite a few lectures and seminars on art & law. During my classes and talks, I often refer to the scholarly and artist work of some of my peers, and after these classes or talks I am always asked for their names or the names of other thinkers or writings in these fields. I've finally gotten around to writing this brief blog post to make this information more public. But I also want to use this opportunity to ...
Artist Bjarne Melgaard was stopped by Norway’s customs officials, who argued his 16 works did not constitute art. This is all too familiar after the infamous 1928 lawsuit Brancusi vs. United States, when Constantin Brancusi was stopped by customs, who did not believe the work “Bird in Space” (now on display in many major museums such as MoMA) constituted art, and thus should be taxed at customs. Similarly, Norwegian customs agents held Melgaard was subject to $153,024 in taxes to ship the works, as they fell outside of the art exception.
The main issue was that the canvases were printed, and not hand painted. NRK News reported Thorbjørn Jacobsen, chief operations officer at Norway’s airport stating: “the general public’s definition of what constitutes art does not always mesh with the definition of art in the (state) regulations… In order for a painting to be defined as a work of art, it must have been created by the hand of the artist.”
The outdated law has promptly been changed, however.
German artist, Gerhard Richter, one of the most famous living contemporary artists today, has destroyed over 89 of his own pieces. While it may sound familiar to hear of an artist completing a work and promptly painting over it, Richter destroys works that have already been exhibited and priced in the millions. Richter told Der Spiegel: “cutting up the paintings was always an act of liberation.”
Strangely, Richter takes photo documentation of his works prior to setting them ablaze. He has commented on that process saying “sometimes, when I see one of the photos, I think to myself: That’s too bad; you could have let this one or that one survive.”
Are we missing out on valuable information these destroyed works could offer critics, historians and other artists, or does the destruction itself tell us all we need to know?
Art Recovery International has launched a new database to protect and preserve cultural heritage. The database is called “Artive” and it will be the first non profit to identify issues and consolidate data on “at-risk, stolen, looted, and destroyed works of art and cultural property.” The non profit hopes to encourage a global effort to utilize the system which has been dubbed: “the most technologically advanced and agile collection management tool in the world.”
In October, Armenter ‘Bo Carter’ Chatmon filed a lawsuit claiming his work was wrongly attributed to another artist. On Eric Clapton’s 1992 album Unplugged, Clapton attributed songwriter credit for “Alberta” to Huddie Ledbetter, which Chatmon alleges is inaccurate. Chatmon is suing Clapton, asserting the melody of “Alberta” was derived from “Corrine, Corrina,” Chatmon’s 1928 song.
Chatmon is demanding unpaid royalties for use of the work. Evidence of Clapton correctly attributing the work to Chatmon at one point is being used to back the allegations. What right of attribution will Chatmon gain from the court in this pre-VARA matter?
Website, Pixsy, is now offering a service to artists in which they will secure payment for photographers from alleged infringers by esentially reverse image searching a work. The cost, in addition to any cost of joining, is 50% of the total payment collected. One artist wrote a hype piece on the service exclaiming that they “made” $2500 from a single copyright infringement, and $700 for another. It is unclear if the service sends the standard practice cease and desist letter to websites before demanding payout to drop the threat of litigation.
Do services such as Pixsy offer the opportunity for less fortunate artists to pursue small infringement issues without an attorney, or do they border on solicitation?
Switch to our mobile site