Heavy metal’s all-time greats Iron Maiden are suing video game company 3D Realms over the game Ion Maiden, which Maiden describes as an “incredibly blatant” infringement on their intellectual property.

When one reads the description of what 3D is appropriating one can’t help but wonder what the hell 3D was thinking. [Disclaimer: I’m a big Maiden fan and have seen them live countless times. I also own most of their albums and several of their concert t-shirts.]

According to Artforum, oppressed and aggrieved audience members that called for the destruction of Beau Stanton’s mural included “Christine Y. Kim, associate curator of contemporary art at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, and Kibum Kim, associate director and head of art business at the Sotheby’s Institute of Art Los Angeles.”

In order to avoid the destruction of his artwork, Stanton, who calls himself an “artist,” has decided to “compromise” by modifying his artwork.

Why bother with moral rights when so-called “artists” are more than willing to do the modifications and destruction all on their own.

Here’s an idea: Why don’t we just create government-run identity committees to which all artists shall submit their ideas for approval, or if rejected, with mandatory changes and edits. For example,

“Dear Mexican, Mexican-American, Latino, Latina, Latinx, and every other brown folk group with direct and/or indirect ties south of the border:

I am an artist who wishes to use the sombrero in my painting, which may or may not be shown, sold and/or auctioned near a Spanish-speaking neighborhood and/or community which may or may not include brown-skinned people. May I have permission to do so? If not, please do e-mail me jpgs instructing me on the proper way to display a sombrero.
Yours, – Artist”

Picked this up via Donn Zaretsky. Case out of Puerto Rico concerning, once again, the question of whether site-specific art is afforded moral rights.

“In a matter of first impression, the District of Puerto Rico held that the PRMRA [Puerto Rico Moral Rights Act], like VARA, does not explicitly mention site-specific works, and therefore legislators did not intend to grant any protection to site-specific art.”

Regarding VARA, most artists, certainly those who accept commissions, design and conceptualize their work according to some architectural dimensions (studio, gallery, museum, etc.). Does this make every artwork site-specific?

Again, under VARA, it seems to me that this case is not so much about site-specificity as it is about whether or not the artwork can be removed.

More here. For Spanish readers, the PRMRA is available here.

Judge K. Michael Moore on a copyright claim,

“Plaintiff does allege that this scene involves a unique expression–namely, an intimate encounter that involves a revolver. While copyright protection does not extend to ideas it is plausible that Defendants infringed on Plaintiff’s expression with respect to this scene.”

More on the Netflix’s Narcos lawsuit here.

Jennifer Rothman on New York’s ongoing and confusing attempt to update its current right of privacy law,

Although filled with many good intentions, there were clearly many cooks in the kitchen, which has led to a complicated, confusing, and at times seemingly contradictory new version of the bill. It is certainly the most difficult statute or bill to parse that I have ever encountered on the right of publicity. The proposed statutory language raises so many questions about what it would do, that I can’t help but wonder what would happen if it passed in its current form. I suspect the litigation just to figure out what it means would take decades to work its way through the courts.

Major corporation allegedly taking from artist. Artist doesn’t like it. “Such corporate bullying plunders the fruit of others’ labor, intimidates individuals attempting to enforce their rights, and shows contempt for humanitarian and ethical behavior,” Ai Weiwei wrote.

More here.

Jeff Koons will testify under oath in a lawsuit over the non-delivery of an $8-million sculpture.