Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Cady Noland copyright, moral rights lawsuit continues

Update here.


NY State considering post-mortem right of publicity

The 40-year post-mortem right could also be bequeathed to heirs. In addition, the proposed bills would also remove New York’s domiciliary requirement from the law, meaning that a party who doesn’t live in New York would be able to assert their right to publicity for an act that occurs in New York State.

More via NY Law Journal.


A brief overview of right of publicity in art

Artsy’s Isaac Kaplan,

Laws regarding the right of publicity vary from state to state, but generally they allow people to have commercial control over their persona and likeness. The logic is simple enough: Only you should get to profit from your image, and others shouldn’t be able to use it for economic gain without your permission. There are exceptions, notably instances in which the use of an image is in the public interest, such as in a newspaper.

More here.


H&M files lawsuit arguing graffiti not protected by copyright law


According to The Fashion Law blog,

The retailer responded to Williams’ letter with a lawsuit, asking a federal court in Brooklyn on Friday to declare that it is not on the hook for copyright law or unfair competition because, for one thing … Williams’ work “was unauthorized and constitutes vandalism,” and is, thereby, not protected by copyright law.

This case will be very interesting to watch, if it doesn’t settle and goes all the way.

UPDATED (March 15, 2018): According to a statement from H&M, ”H&M respects the creativity and uniqueness of artists, no matter the medium. We should have acted differently in our approach to this matter. It was never our intention to set a precedent concerning public art or to influence the debate on the legality of street art.  As a result, we are withdrawing the complaint filed in court. We are currently reaching out directly to the artist in question to come up with a solution. We thank everyone for their comments and concerns, as always, all voices matter to us.”


Contracts may fix a lot, but…


With the increase in use of contracts in contemporary art–both as binding documents and as medium–this article on Hollywood’s “inclusion riders” piqued my interest. How are these agreements similar to Seth Siegelaub and Robert Projansky’s contract? Better yet, will use of these agreements help alleviate or actually impede correcting alleged inequities in the art industry? Hopefully the use of contracts in the art industry doesn’t turn out to be “this season’s hottest accessory.”



Russia officially recognizes contemporary art

Meant to impact import duties, but also access to contemporary art.

Russia, by law, now recognises [sic] contemporary art as art. Previously, valuable works of art created fewer than 50 years ago were officially treated as “luxury goods” and subject to 30% import dues. This changed on 29 January with the passing of a new law that is part of a radical revision of Russian art import-export regulations aimed at opening up the Russian art scene to the world.

More here.


“Mattel does not have the proper authorization to use the image of Frida Kahlo”

So alleges Mara Romeo, Kahlo’s grand-niece.


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.

Switch to our mobile site