[caption id="attachment_9500" align="alignnone" width="185"] Tulips, by Jeff Koons, permanently installed outside Guggenheim museum, Bilbao.[/caption] Is Paris getting a "free" Jeff Koons? Possibly, although it seems not all is well between the city of romance and Jeff Koons. But more interestingly is what French art critic, Judith Benhamou-Huet, calls "superconceptual": the idea that what an artist is selling is only the idea. The purchaser, or in this case, the "donee," has to foot the bill for production of the artwork. Is Koons on to something? Made-to-order art? Just-in-time? Could be, and could be the reason Koons has laid off some of his painting ...
[caption id="attachment_9490" align="alignnone" width="185"] Courtesy of Joe Mabel, via Wikipedia.[/caption] Didn't this already happen once to Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, like in 2004? Yes, you can read my thoughts about that lawsuit here (around page 3). But this is a new copyright infringement claim filed also against SOM, in the Southern District of New York, on June 14th of this year. You can read more about it and the complaint here.
[caption id="attachment_9485" align="alignnone" width="185"] The author giving us the heavy metal horns. Infringing?[/caption] Here's three reasons why Gene Simmons will fail (generic, association, and enforcement), via the LA Times. If you're looking for more laughs, read Wendy Dio's and Nikki Sixx's thoughts on Simmons' trademark extremism.
The appellate oral arguments for Naruto v. Slater are set for July 12, 2017, at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The briefs are available here. Dan Ballard points out an interesting fact: "Neither party cited 1 USC §8." The defense maintains that PETA is just monkeying around. PETA keeps to their argument that Naruto is the author of the photographs in question, and thus the lawful copyright holder under U.S. copyright law. More background on case here.
Columbia Law student, Amy Lehrburger, reviews the College Art Association's Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for the Visual Arts. From her intro: This Note argues that the Code of Best Practices is a problematic hybrid of descriptive and aspirational recommendations, instructive for artists only in terms of compliance with community norms, not with legal doctrine. Rather than offering recommendations for a better Code, I will suggest that none is needed for visual artists, in part because of their unique disposition as copyright users. Lehrburger concludes, Perhaps the better Best Practices is no Best Practices at all. There is little evidence that visual artists suffer the ...
University of Chicago law professor and legal scholar, Geoffrey Stone, provides a wide overview of sex and the U.S. Constitution as well as his new book, Sex and the Constitution: Sex, Religion, and Law from America’s Origins to the Twenty-First Century, in this FIRE podcast.
Stone covers the Ninth Amendment, obscenity, the word “penis,” and funding for the arts. Great listen on an hour-long commute.
The appellate oral arguments for Naruto v. Slater are set for July 12, 2017, at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The briefs are available here. Dan Ballard points out an interesting fact: “Neither party cited 1 USC §8.”
The defense maintains that PETA is just monkeying around. PETA keeps to their argument that Naruto is the author of the photographs in question, and thus the lawful copyright holder under U.S. copyright law.
More background on case here.
Columbia Law student, Amy Lehrburger, reviews the College Art Association’s Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for the Visual Arts. From her intro:
This Note argues that the Code of Best Practices is a problematic hybrid of descriptive and aspirational recommendations, instructive for artists only in terms of compliance with community norms, not with legal doctrine. Rather than offering recommendations for a better Code, I will suggest that none is needed for visual artists, in part because of their unique disposition as copyright users.
Lehrburger concludes,
Perhaps the better Best Practices is no Best Practices at all. There is little evidence that visual artists suffer the same chilling effect that the permissions culture has allegedly had on other areas of production. Notably, not a single interviewee reported asking for permission for use of copyrighted materials. The question posed by the CAA’s hypothetical—whether [the fictitious artist] Dieter needs to ask permission before incorporating copyrighted elements into his installation—seemed absurd to most visual artists interviewed: of course he does not. If visual artists are already emboldened to take freely, a Code of Best Practices intended to educate and empower them is superfluous.
I penned a few thoughts on this CAA booklet a while back (as in, last August), which you can read here. As you can see, I agree with Lehrburger that we don’t really need a little book of how to do good when appropriating. I specifically agree with her admonition that the visual arts have not witnessed the same “chilling effect” that other areas of production have, which makes one wonder why certain folks in the arts and law sectors continue to propagate this lie.
In the end, the best practice is to have self-awareness of why one is appropriating. I suppose we can call this “intent.” Otherwise, if an artist truly feels (and I use that word intentionally) that she need not ever ask for permission, then there’s not much any book–or copyright attorney–can ever say to her that would ever have any notable impact.
The CAA book was well-meant, but ultimately one has to believe that the financial resources could have been put to better use. Lehrburger seems to agree,
The artists who exercise their fair use right most widely and bravely are not necessarily the ones who understand the law most clearly; they are artists who are not scared of a cease and desist letter. In response to the “take now, apologize later” attitude that pervades the visual arts, a more useful tool would be a document that explains the appropriate way to respond to a claim of infringement, to assess potential liability in dollar amounts, and when to consult a lawyer.
The never-boring Hyperallergic on Le Corbusier designed furniture and pornography.
What to do with $27 million dollars when you can’t expand your museum? Maybe blame it on “those people.”
“We welcome and value the input of the public and have participated in multiple forums over the years to gather feedback from the community.” says the Portland Art Museum Director, but apparently only to the extent that the input is something they want to hear.
West Coast. East Coast. VARA is all over the place.
Clancco, Clancco: The Source for Art & Law, Clancco.com, 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 Clancco.com. They are not the views of any other organization, legal or otherwise. All content contained on or made available through Clancco.com is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed, nor is anything submitted to Clancco.com treated as confidential.
Website Terms of Use, Privacy, and Applicable Law.