The U.S. Supreme Court will resolve this circuit split: Whether it’s on receipt of application or when the Copyright Office accepts and files the registration.

I wrote a lengthier take on Sir Anish Kapoor’s lawsuit against the NRA for copyright infringement, up now at Hyperallergic.

I’ve said this from the beginning: The NRA’s de mimimis use of Anish Kapoor’s sculpture is fair use. As much as Kapoor–or others, for that matter–may despise the NRA’s appropriation of his artwork for political reasons, U.S. Copyright law does not take into consideration the appropriator’s political ideology when assessing fair use. It’s understandable Kapoor would feel the need to “stand up” to the NRA and their “divisive and hate-filled campaign,” but one cannot help but see this as a symbolic stand that under law has no merit.

The NRA’s use of images of Kapoor’s work is pure political speech, the most protected form of speech under The First Amendment. The use of the artwork is also minimal, and not used and targeted for commercial reasons. In fact, and again, as much as some may oppose it, the NRA’s use of Kapoor’s artwork in their video is to give an overview of what is the United States, to them. We’ll keep an eye on this one.

I haven’t read the complaint (19154585-0–19332) yet, so more thoughts on that later.

Now for the real question: Will the graffiti artists buy art with the motherload?

Canada’s Cultural Property Export Review Board is preventing the shipment of a French Impressionist painting.

In its decision, the review board said an object can be of “national importance,” even if it or its creator has no direct connection to Canada.

More here.

Apparently it looks like a Noguchi, and neither the Isamu Noguchi Museum or Herman Miller are very happy about it.

Graffiti artists Donald “KEPTIONE” Robbins and Noah “DJ RAKUS” Daar have filed a lawsuit against Oakley for using the artists’ work in campaign materials without the artists’ knowledge or consent.

Luxottica, who owns Oakley, argues that the graffiti artists’ works lack creativity and thus are not “original” as per the U.S. Copyright Act.

More here.