Some artists opt to use famous people and celebrities in artworks. There are of course rights of publicity that attach to live and at times dead celebrities. This pretty much depends on each state within the U.S., and of course abroad we’re talking a whole new ball game. What’s more interesting regarding a recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision is how (1) the internet affects the liability for using a celebrities name, likeness or image, and (2) how some states in the U.S. grant property interests in the use of one’s name, image, and likeness.

Dan McGowan explains via the Experience Hendrix v. HendrixLicensing.com case.

Apparently there is a new “Starbucks” in LA…Dumb Starbucks, that is.

They’re flying under the flag of parody. Let’s see how long before Starbucks unleashes their legal hounds.

Consumer confusion? Let’s see how it plays out…

So asks arts writer, Daniel Grant.

As we all have seen, artwork can generate big money, and where money goes, lawyers and litigation follow. More recent lawsuits, though, are defining what art is, how it can be bought and sold, how literally to follow a donor’s wishes. The meaning of the legal term “due diligence” is far more debated these days than the Abstract Expressionist theory of “push-pull,” particularly when speaking about Abstract Expressionists.

Unfortunately, with so many artists willingly ceding interpretations to critics and lawyers, it’s no surprise ill-equipped judges are making determinations as to what is art.

Worth a read (and not just because I’m quoted).

Jill Magid, Woman With Sombrero, 2013. Installation view at Art in General. Image courtesy the artist and Art in General. Photography by Steven Probert.

At a time when global exchanges are de rigueur, the Vera List Center for Art and Politics at The New School, in collaboration with The Art & Law Program, presents a conversation on intellectual property, local culture, and international commerce between Vera List Center fellow Jill Magid and artist and art lawyer Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento, facilitated by VLC director Carin Kuoni.

The conversation is anchored by artist Jill Magid’s current project, The Barragán Archives, a long-term multimedia examination of the legacy of Luis Barragán (1902–1988), one of Mexico’s most influential architects and the second winner of the prestigious Pritzker Prize (1980)—often labeled the “Nobel of Architecture.” Along with the vast majority of his architecture, Barragán’s personal archive remains in Mexico while his professional archive, including the rights to his name and work, was acquired in 1995 by Swiss furniture company Vitra, under the auspices of the newly founded Barragan Foundation. In the distance alone between archive and work arises the potential for conflict.

Framed by a discussion of the relationship between art, law, and cultural property, Magid and Muñoz Sarmiento examine the repercussions of the privatization of an artist’s (or architect’s) life work. Does private ownership, often softened by well-funded infrastructures, facilitate public access to an artist’s work or, conversely, does it restrict access? What are the legal “fictions” and cultural stories—such as Magid’s project—facilitated by such proprietary structures, and what significance and impact do they have in regards to the physical objects? Can personal and private interests align with commercial and legal agendas in ways that are productive and beneficial to a general public?

Participants
Carin Kuoni, director/curator, Vera List Center
Jill Magid, artist and 2013–2015 Vera List Center Fellow
Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento, artist and art lawyer, founder Art & Law Program

TUE 18 FEB 2014 6.30PM-8.30PM
The New School
Alvin Johnson/J.M. Kaplan Building
66 West 12th Street, Room 510
New York City

Free Admission

In early 2014, Congressman Jerry Nadler will introduce a revised bill for the Equity for Visual Artists Act, which would enact a resale royalty for certain artists in the United States, including painters, illustrators, sculptors and photographers.  This bill succeeds a 2011 version that stalled in Congress.

More here.

Metallica was also not quite happy that their music was being used to torture Guantanamo prisoners. The metal band Skinny Puppy is also not very keen on having their music used by the US Government to torture Guantanamo prisoners. So instead of asking the government to stop using their music, they simply invoiced them for the use. When asked how they felt about such use, band member cEvin Key noted, “Not too good. We never supported those types of scenarios. … Because we make unsettling music, we can see it being used in a weird way. But it doesn’t sit right with us.”

So here’s a question to our readers: Is the US Government’s use of copyrighted music to torture prisoners fair use?

The publication, Copyright, Permissions and Fair Use among Visual Artists and the Academic and Museum Visual Arts Communities: An Issues Report, is available here.

It’s a 90-page report, and in my (very) brief overview the report seems one-sided (surprise!), arguing that artists and art historians now live in permission culture hell.

There are a lot of problems with the College Art Association (I’ve blogged about this one before), but what’s more pernicious is how this nonprofit arts organization continues to champion the poverty and ignorance of artists, all while putting the blame on this thing called copyright law. To boot, they add this language, quotations from artists, as persuasive language in the defense of theft.

Artists often also expressed impatience or disregard for the niceties of copyright; some believed that knowing more would inhibit their own creative impulses. “Steal whatever youwant [during the creative process] — you do have to worry about the legal parts later,” said one. “For me to understand copyright law derails me. I shouldn’t have to know everything about this — it would hurt my work,” said another.

Pass the buck I say. Continue to perpetuate the artist as ignorant bohemian dumbass ideology, and while doing so don’t forget to keep charging these same artists membership fees and access to irrelevant art panels that only the desperate attend. Go West, young CAA!