Friday, March 22, 2019

Dirty Words and Fleeting Expletives Revisited

This past week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review decency regulations as they apply to television and radio, specifically, “fleeting” or accidental use of expletives in live broadcasts. In effect, to review the 30 year-old ruling of FCC v. Pacifica Radio (whether a broadcast of patently offensive words dealing with sex and excretion may be regulated because of its content). The Pacifica case specifically dealt with George Carlin’s “seven dirty words”: S**t, P**s, F**k, C**t, C**ks****r, Mother*****r and T**s.

Regarding the “fleeting” expletives and accidental use, The First Amendment Center writes: “for most of the 30 years since, broadcasters have felt generally unthreatened when a prime-time expletive escaped from an entertainer’s mouth. That changed after the seemingly spontaneous use of the F-word by Cher in 2002 and both the F-word and the S-word by Nicole Richie in 2003 on Fox broadcasts of the Billboard Music Awards. In accepting an award, Cher said critics had counted her out for decades, and she added, ‘So f— ‘em. I still have a job, and they don’t.’”

The case is FCC v. Fox Television Stations.


Death of the Art Critic

The Guardian’s Adrian Searle has an interesting article on the uselessness of criticism and art critics today (including on Dave Hickey, Jerry Saltz, and Donald Duck). Nothing in this article touches on law, but being that Clancco does partake in online writing and criticism we felt the need to comment. Although Searle makes some interesting and on-point observations, we feel he neglects some other pertinent issues, such as the role played in the death of relevant (and interesting) criticism by the redundant and moribund theories still being kicked around universities and art schools. Perhaps if critics accessed other discourses more relevant to our times and dispensed with the laundry list of canonical writers, more people would not only read their criticism but actually “take them seriously.”

Read the rest of this entry »


Is Cleavage Copyrightable?


(ex-Governor Spitzer’s friend, Kristen)

A very interesting story comes our way via Donn Zaretsky’s Artlaw Blog concerning Governor Spitzer’s, excuse us, ex-Governor Spitzer’s friend, Kristen (and her cleavage). It seems Kristen’s lawyer is a bit upset that media sources are using photos obtained from her Myspace page without permission. Some think this is fair use, and we agree. As a side note, in-house counsel at Clancco has decided that if Kristen sues us for copyright infringement we will seek vigorous steamroller representation—Mr. Spitzer himself. Enjoy!


Rogers v. Koons All Over Again?

Art Law Blog: A district court in Illinois has concluded that “a photograph of a three dimensional toy is a derivative work under copyright law,” therefore anyone photographing the three-dimensional object without consent is infringing the three-dimensional author’s copyright.

To those familiar with Rogers v. Koons, this may seem like a logical conclusion. However, copyright scholar William Patry disagrees, arguing that photographs of three-dimensional objects, sans any tranformative effect, are depictions and not derivative works, thus granting the photographing party a copyright in the depiction of the object.

The case is Schrock v. Learning Curve. More on this here.


Google Banned from Mapping Military Bases

From the BBC: “The US defence department has banned the giant internet search engine Google from filming inside and making detailed studies of US military bases. Close-up, ground-level imagery of US military sites posed a “potential threat” to security, it said. Among the popular mapping services offered by Google are Street View, which allows web users to “drive” along virtual US landscapes with ground-level views, and Google Earth, which offers detailed satellite and 3D images of locations around the world. In this case, it was imagery offered on Street View that caused the concern. But both have provoked complaints – from individuals depicted in the images and from governments concerned that satellite images could compromise security.”

The BBC has more on this.


Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Wikileaks

Today, the Bank Julius Baer & Co. asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit it had filed against Wikileaks on February 20th, claiming Wikileaks displayed stolen documents revealing confidential information about the accounts of the bank’s clients.

From the New York Times: “The judge’s action drew a flurry of media attention and a barrage of legal filings by media and other organizations arguing that the order violated the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.”

“After a hearing on Friday, Judge White withdrew that order, saying that he was worried about its First Amendment implications and that he thought it might not be possible to prevent viewing of the documents once they had been posted on the Web anyway.”

Proving once again that not unlike infuriated skunks, e-mails can leave distinct foul scents.

Here, a quick sniff from an email from the Bank’s lawyers to Wikipedia:

“> This is your final warning — if you desire to resolve this matter

> without the necessity of litigation, your counsel may contact the

> undersigned within twenty-four hours.


> You act at your own peril.


> Govern yourselves accordingly.”

Wikileaks has posted its e-mail correspondence with Bank Julius Baer here.


Concealment and Law in the Work of Carey Young

Carey Young’s art projects–invoking legal language and procedures–highlight the connection between law and visual culture without divorcing themselves from art historical discourses. Young’s work revolves around the role of categorization, narrative, and rhetorical/linguistic contestations. In particular, Young’s work seeks to elucidate how these three modes of linguistic production function not only within legal frameworks, but also how they in turn frame and are framed by other cultural discourses.

Read the rest of this entry »


Clancco, Clancco: The Source for Art & Law,, 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 They are not the views of any other organization, legal or otherwise. All content contained on or made available through is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed, nor is anything submitted to treated as confidential.

Website Terms of Use, Privacy, and Applicable Law.

Switch to our mobile site