Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Here's a new one (UPDATED 2X)
The AP: "A man entrusted with helping to sell a $1.3 million painting said it disappeared while he was in a drunken haze, according to a lawsuit filed by a co-owner of the canvas."
UPDATE: Jessica Pressler says: "But probably it'll all work out, now that the value of the painting has been publicized and the cabbie who has the thing in his trunk knows how important it is."
UPDATE 2: The lawsuit has been withdrawn: "[C]o-owner Kristyn Trudgeon is withdrawing her suit against James Carl Haggerty after learning her co-owner - and the person who hired Haggerty - is a convicted art scammer." Josh Duboff: "If there’s anything to be learned from all this, it's that if you hear a tale involving misplaced million-dollar paintings and wasted people, it's a good bet there's more to the story. That, and it's probably a good idea to Google your business partners before going in on famous paintings with them."
UPDATE: Jessica Pressler says: "But probably it'll all work out, now that the value of the painting has been publicized and the cabbie who has the thing in his trunk knows how important it is."
UPDATE 2: The lawsuit has been withdrawn: "[C]o-owner Kristyn Trudgeon is withdrawing her suit against James Carl Haggerty after learning her co-owner - and the person who hired Haggerty - is a convicted art scammer." Josh Duboff: "If there’s anything to be learned from all this, it's that if you hear a tale involving misplaced million-dollar paintings and wasted people, it's a good bet there's more to the story. That, and it's probably a good idea to Google your business partners before going in on famous paintings with them."
"Why on earth would anyone want to change that?"
Copyright and fashion are back in the news again. Sen. Schumer has introduced a bill that would extend copyright laws to the fashion industry for the first time. Lawprofs Kal Raustiala and Chris Sprigman are against it:
"American law does not prohibit copying fashion designs. Paradoxically, the payoff from free copying has been enormous. Copying helps set trends (you can’t know it’s a trend until it’s been copied) and then helps destroy them – once a design has been widely copied, the fashion-forward hop on to the next new thing. This is the familiar fashion cycle. What’s less obvious is that the absence of copyright makes the process possible. The fashion cycle turns faster, and the industry gets richer – and creates new designs more frequently."
Writing in Newsweek, Ezra Klein takes a similar line:
"But perhaps the strongest argument is that America’s apparel industry doesn’t seem broken—so why try and fix it? 'America is the world fashion leader,' said Steven Kolb, director of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, the lead trade group in support of the Schumer bill, 'and yet it is basically the only industrialized country that does not provide protection for fashion design.' Run that by me one more time? We’re the world leader in fashion, so we should change our policy to mimic our lagging competitors?"
Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento does not take a similar line.
Related post here.
"American law does not prohibit copying fashion designs. Paradoxically, the payoff from free copying has been enormous. Copying helps set trends (you can’t know it’s a trend until it’s been copied) and then helps destroy them – once a design has been widely copied, the fashion-forward hop on to the next new thing. This is the familiar fashion cycle. What’s less obvious is that the absence of copyright makes the process possible. The fashion cycle turns faster, and the industry gets richer – and creates new designs more frequently."
Writing in Newsweek, Ezra Klein takes a similar line:
"But perhaps the strongest argument is that America’s apparel industry doesn’t seem broken—so why try and fix it? 'America is the world fashion leader,' said Steven Kolb, director of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, the lead trade group in support of the Schumer bill, 'and yet it is basically the only industrialized country that does not provide protection for fashion design.' Run that by me one more time? We’re the world leader in fashion, so we should change our policy to mimic our lagging competitors?"
Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento does not take a similar line.
Related post here.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Van Gogh Theft Update
The investigation into the van Gogh stolen from a museum in Egypt continues. Last week, an Egyptian billionaire offered a 1-million Egyptian pound reward for information leading to its return. Turbo Paul was not impressed -- 1-million Egyptian pounds is about $175,000. Next, Egypt’s minister of culture was questioned by prosecutors for more than three hours on Sunday night. And Derek Fincham notes that "perhaps most troubling of all were the breakdowns in technology at the museum."
"Lending for compensation is not unheard of"
What repulsive Stalinist said that?
The AAM's Dewey Blanton, who tells the Brandeis Hoot that "museums usually lend their pieces for only the charge of shipping and insurance of the pieces, but that in tough economic times lending for compensation 'can be a win-win situation for the lender, who gets money, and the borrower, who gets access to new art'" (my emphasis).
Oh the shame!
The Hoot also reports that a Dec. 12 trial date has been set in the Rose lawsuit.
The AAM's Dewey Blanton, who tells the Brandeis Hoot that "museums usually lend their pieces for only the charge of shipping and insurance of the pieces, but that in tough economic times lending for compensation 'can be a win-win situation for the lender, who gets money, and the borrower, who gets access to new art'" (my emphasis).
Oh the shame!
The Hoot also reports that a Dec. 12 trial date has been set in the Rose lawsuit.
"The canvas now has far more commodious digs—almost its own mini-chapel"
More on the tragic deaccessioning of "The Gross Clinic," which "until a few years ago was off-the-beaten trail at the Jefferson Memorial Hospital."
Friday, August 27, 2010
"The sharing proposal, increasingly popular with galleries and museums across the globe, ..."
". . . is an innovative arrangement that is clearly in the best interest of Fisk, Tennessee, and the South."
Fisk issues a statement. The problem is, the Court has ruled the interests of Fisk don't matter at all.
Fisk issues a statement. The problem is, the Court has ruled the interests of Fisk don't matter at all.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Proposed New CA Statute of Limitations for Stolen Art Claims
In my Journal of Art Crime column last year, I wrote about the Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum case, in which the Ninth Circuit struck down the California legislature's attempt to extend the statute of limitations on Holocaust-era art claims on the ground that it represented an impermissible infringement of the federal government’s power "to make and resolve war." I noted then that "the implication of the decision seems to be that, if California had extended its statute of limitations for all stolen property claims (or for all claims of stolen artwork in particular), then the claim would have survived."
Now comes news that they're doing just that. Assembly Bill 2765, currently making its way through the California Legislature, would extend the statute of limitations for stolen art claims -- all stolen art claims -- against museums, auctioneers, and galleries. A legislative analysis of the bill is here. I can't find any commentary online, but Simon Frankel and John Freed of Covington & Burling have a piece entitled "Statute Without Limits?" Here's how they summarize the bill:
"AB 2765 would dramatically expand the time in which claims to 'works of fine art' can be brought against museums, auctioneers, and galleries. In its current form, a party who claims to have lost such a work through theft would have six years from actual discovery of the whereabouts of the work to institute a claim. The bill also specifies that 'actual notice' requires knowledge of the identity and whereabouts of the work, and '[f]acts sufficient for the claimant to reasonably believe that he or she has a claim' to the work. So the statutory period would only begin to run when the claimant actually knew all this information, not when he or she could have learned such through reasonable diligence."
And they conclude:
"Ultimately, AB 2765 is a legislative solution in search of a problem. It will likely lead to more costly and drawn out lawsuits over works of art now held in museums, which will subject such taxpayer - and donor - funded institutions to more burdensome litigation."
Now comes news that they're doing just that. Assembly Bill 2765, currently making its way through the California Legislature, would extend the statute of limitations for stolen art claims -- all stolen art claims -- against museums, auctioneers, and galleries. A legislative analysis of the bill is here. I can't find any commentary online, but Simon Frankel and John Freed of Covington & Burling have a piece entitled "Statute Without Limits?" Here's how they summarize the bill:
"AB 2765 would dramatically expand the time in which claims to 'works of fine art' can be brought against museums, auctioneers, and galleries. In its current form, a party who claims to have lost such a work through theft would have six years from actual discovery of the whereabouts of the work to institute a claim. The bill also specifies that 'actual notice' requires knowledge of the identity and whereabouts of the work, and '[f]acts sufficient for the claimant to reasonably believe that he or she has a claim' to the work. So the statutory period would only begin to run when the claimant actually knew all this information, not when he or she could have learned such through reasonable diligence."
And they conclude:
"Ultimately, AB 2765 is a legislative solution in search of a problem. It will likely lead to more costly and drawn out lawsuits over works of art now held in museums, which will subject such taxpayer - and donor - funded institutions to more burdensome litigation."
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Further on Fisk (UPDATED)
Following up on my post last night, a couple of additional points re Fisk:
1. For those rooting against the Crystal Bridges deal (which would bring Fisk $30 million in exchange for a half-interest in the collection), here's what the Court found regarding Fisk's financial condition:
"[T]wo degree programs [--] dramatic speech and dance, and philosophy and religion [--] have been eliminated. In the last two years, every faculty member has taken a 5% salary reduction, and Administration salary cuts range from 7 to 15%. Fisk has suspended its contributions to pension plans and vacation accrual. All of the buildings are mortgaged. Unrestricted endowment is zero dollars. Endowment has declined from $4.27 million to $3.7 million. Accounts payable total $2 million. Fisk ... regularly runs a two million dollar deficit annually."
In short, the university is "on the brink of closing."
But who cares, right? The important thing is that the intent behind O'Keeffe's 60-year old gift -- or, more precisely, what we think her intent was; we actually have no idea what she would have wanted had she known Fisk would end up in the condition it's in -- is preserved. Obviously she would have preferred a year-round "condominium" arrangement at the Frist Center to a collection-sharing agreement with Crystal Bridges that would allow the works to remain at Fisk for six months out of every year. Who could doubt it? We're so certain that was her intention that we're prepared to let Fisk go under as a consequence.
2. The headlines reporting the decision tend to say the Court "rejected" the Crystal Bridges deal. (See, e.g., here, here, and here.) It's worth noting that that isn't entirely true. It rejected it for now, but if the Tennessee Attorney General doesn't present a better proposal (in just 20 days), then "the only available alternative is for [the] Court to attempt to rework the Crystal Bridges Agreement to more closely approximate Ms. O'Keeffe's intent." As I said last night, I fully expect the AG to come up with a plan that works (it's a pretty low bar), but, if there's one thing this case has taught us, it's that you never know.
UPDATE: Related thoughts from Lee Rosenbaum.
1. For those rooting against the Crystal Bridges deal (which would bring Fisk $30 million in exchange for a half-interest in the collection), here's what the Court found regarding Fisk's financial condition:
"[T]wo degree programs [--] dramatic speech and dance, and philosophy and religion [--] have been eliminated. In the last two years, every faculty member has taken a 5% salary reduction, and Administration salary cuts range from 7 to 15%. Fisk has suspended its contributions to pension plans and vacation accrual. All of the buildings are mortgaged. Unrestricted endowment is zero dollars. Endowment has declined from $4.27 million to $3.7 million. Accounts payable total $2 million. Fisk ... regularly runs a two million dollar deficit annually."
In short, the university is "on the brink of closing."
But who cares, right? The important thing is that the intent behind O'Keeffe's 60-year old gift -- or, more precisely, what we think her intent was; we actually have no idea what she would have wanted had she known Fisk would end up in the condition it's in -- is preserved. Obviously she would have preferred a year-round "condominium" arrangement at the Frist Center to a collection-sharing agreement with Crystal Bridges that would allow the works to remain at Fisk for six months out of every year. Who could doubt it? We're so certain that was her intention that we're prepared to let Fisk go under as a consequence.
2. The headlines reporting the decision tend to say the Court "rejected" the Crystal Bridges deal. (See, e.g., here, here, and here.) It's worth noting that that isn't entirely true. It rejected it for now, but if the Tennessee Attorney General doesn't present a better proposal (in just 20 days), then "the only available alternative is for [the] Court to attempt to rework the Crystal Bridges Agreement to more closely approximate Ms. O'Keeffe's intent." As I said last night, I fully expect the AG to come up with a plan that works (it's a pretty low bar), but, if there's one thing this case has taught us, it's that you never know.
UPDATE: Related thoughts from Lee Rosenbaum.
"Then he lowers the boom: little things don't seem quite right, and Biro is revealed as a con man"
Still more praise for David Grann's New Yorker article on Peter Paul Biro.
Is the art market unregulated?
Writing at the NY Times Opinionator Blog, William Cohan says yes, it's "utterly unregulated." The Art Market Monitor begs to differ:
"This handy art world cliche is silly. The art world is governed by all the rules and regulations of the commercial code. . . . The authenticity of art is regulated by a vast network of scholars and museums. The case of the Norsigian negatives is a terrific example of how well the system works with a hive of experts appearing instantaneously to dismantle claims and offer a convincing alternative theory."
Speaking of the Norsigian negatives, the NYT reports today that "The Ansel Adams Publishing Trust, which controls the licensing rights to Adams’s work, filed a federal trademark infringement suit Monday in San Francisco as part of an effort to block the sale of prints by Rick Norsigian, a Fresno contractor who bought the negatives 10 years ago for $45. The suit argues that Mr. Norsigian and a consulting firm run by his lawyer, Arnold Peter, have 'acted knowingly, willfully and with malice' in marketing the negatives as Adams’s work."
Finally, in related, and breaking, news: Why You Can't Always Trust Art Dealers.
"This handy art world cliche is silly. The art world is governed by all the rules and regulations of the commercial code. . . . The authenticity of art is regulated by a vast network of scholars and museums. The case of the Norsigian negatives is a terrific example of how well the system works with a hive of experts appearing instantaneously to dismantle claims and offer a convincing alternative theory."
Speaking of the Norsigian negatives, the NYT reports today that "The Ansel Adams Publishing Trust, which controls the licensing rights to Adams’s work, filed a federal trademark infringement suit Monday in San Francisco as part of an effort to block the sale of prints by Rick Norsigian, a Fresno contractor who bought the negatives 10 years ago for $45. The suit argues that Mr. Norsigian and a consulting firm run by his lawyer, Arnold Peter, have 'acted knowingly, willfully and with malice' in marketing the negatives as Adams’s work."
Finally, in related, and breaking, news: Why You Can't Always Trust Art Dealers.
The Stolen Van Gogh
The latest on the Van Gogh stolen from a Cairo museum over the weekend is . . . it's still missing. There were some reports that it had been recovered, but they seem to have been "based on faulty information." A "top official in Egypt’s culture ministry" and "several" museum guards have been arrested. For more news and commentary, Art Theft Central is a good place to start ("Why are certain national collections not as well protected as others? Who, in addition to the thief, is responsible for the theft? Is the government at fault for failing to protect and secure the public's collections?"). Turbo Paul is worth following as well.
Monday, August 23, 2010
More Fisk Follies
So Judge Lyle issued her decision in the Fisk case on Friday. She resolved one of the two remaining issues in the case; the other she kicked down the road a bit.
First, some background. Last summer, the Tennessee Court of Appeals sent the case back to Judge Lyle with instructions to perform a two-step analysis:
First, to figure out whether "the change of circumstances subsequent to the gift [has] render[ed] literal compliance with the conditions [of the gift] impossible or impracticable."
And second, if the answer to the first question is yes, then "to fashion a form of relief that most closely approximates Ms. O'Keeffe's charitable intent."
In Friday's decision, Judge Lyle ruled that the answer to the first question was in fact yes: "It is impracticable for a struggling university on the brink of closing to literally comply with Ms. O'Keeffe's plan."
So we move on to the second question -- how best to approximate O'Keeffe's intent -- and here things get a little wacky again. The Court of Appeals had already defined what that intent was: i.e., "to make the Collection available to the public in Nashville and the South" (emphasis, as I said here, importantly in the original). I had interpreted this at the time to be a nod towards the pending Crystal Bridges deal. But Judge Lyle is here to inform us that, if you think about it, Arkansas isn't really part of the South:
"Through the testimony of sociologist Dr. Amey the Attorney General established that Bentonville, Arkansas, is 555 miles driving distance from Nashville. That is the same distance as it is from Nashville to Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh. ... Nashville is more racially diverse and has a lower average household income [than Bentonville]. Using the U.S. Census Bureau's definition of the 'Southern' states, Nashville is closer to more Southern states than Bentonville."
With that out of the way, Judge Lyle invites the Tennessee Attorney General "to submit a proposal" (within 20 days) for "a sharing arrangement in Nashville or ... an institution in Nashville capable and willing to permanently house and maintain the Collection to replace Fisk." There's lots of talk in the decision about a "condominium" arrangement at the Frist Center for the Visual Arts, but, presumably, any institution in Tennessee that steps forward and says "we'll take the work" will get it over the (non-Southern) Crystal Bridges Museum.
What's missing, of course, is any consideration of the interests of Fisk. The $30 million they would get for sending the works out of the South to Arkansas for six months each year is completely irrelevant because, as Judge Lyle states, the Court of Appeals "made no finding of a dual intention by Ms. O'Keeffe that includes perpetuating the existence of Fisk." In other words, the intent behind the gift to Fisk was not to benefit Fisk; it was simply -- and only -- to make the Collection available to the public in Nashville and the (true) South.
But, as the Charity Governance Blog's Jack Siegel says, this is ridiculous: "O'Keeffe must have believed the collection benefited Fisk and wanted those benefits to accrue to Fisk. ... We have no doubt that if she knew that the [sales proceeds] could save Fisk from closure, she would authorize the sale. ... We suspect that O'Keeffe will do a few spins in her grave if the collection is displayed in the Frist Center without any dollars accruing to Fisk."
As I've said before, I'm at a loss to understand why people would rather see Fisk hand over the entire collection to Museum A and get nothing back in return, than see it give up a half-interest in the collection to Museum B (or CB) in exchange for $30 million that it so desperately needs.
First, some background. Last summer, the Tennessee Court of Appeals sent the case back to Judge Lyle with instructions to perform a two-step analysis:
First, to figure out whether "the change of circumstances subsequent to the gift [has] render[ed] literal compliance with the conditions [of the gift] impossible or impracticable."
And second, if the answer to the first question is yes, then "to fashion a form of relief that most closely approximates Ms. O'Keeffe's charitable intent."
In Friday's decision, Judge Lyle ruled that the answer to the first question was in fact yes: "It is impracticable for a struggling university on the brink of closing to literally comply with Ms. O'Keeffe's plan."
So we move on to the second question -- how best to approximate O'Keeffe's intent -- and here things get a little wacky again. The Court of Appeals had already defined what that intent was: i.e., "to make the Collection available to the public in Nashville and the South" (emphasis, as I said here, importantly in the original). I had interpreted this at the time to be a nod towards the pending Crystal Bridges deal. But Judge Lyle is here to inform us that, if you think about it, Arkansas isn't really part of the South:
"Through the testimony of sociologist Dr. Amey the Attorney General established that Bentonville, Arkansas, is 555 miles driving distance from Nashville. That is the same distance as it is from Nashville to Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh. ... Nashville is more racially diverse and has a lower average household income [than Bentonville]. Using the U.S. Census Bureau's definition of the 'Southern' states, Nashville is closer to more Southern states than Bentonville."
With that out of the way, Judge Lyle invites the Tennessee Attorney General "to submit a proposal" (within 20 days) for "a sharing arrangement in Nashville or ... an institution in Nashville capable and willing to permanently house and maintain the Collection to replace Fisk." There's lots of talk in the decision about a "condominium" arrangement at the Frist Center for the Visual Arts, but, presumably, any institution in Tennessee that steps forward and says "we'll take the work" will get it over the (non-Southern) Crystal Bridges Museum.
What's missing, of course, is any consideration of the interests of Fisk. The $30 million they would get for sending the works out of the South to Arkansas for six months each year is completely irrelevant because, as Judge Lyle states, the Court of Appeals "made no finding of a dual intention by Ms. O'Keeffe that includes perpetuating the existence of Fisk." In other words, the intent behind the gift to Fisk was not to benefit Fisk; it was simply -- and only -- to make the Collection available to the public in Nashville and the (true) South.
But, as the Charity Governance Blog's Jack Siegel says, this is ridiculous: "O'Keeffe must have believed the collection benefited Fisk and wanted those benefits to accrue to Fisk. ... We have no doubt that if she knew that the [sales proceeds] could save Fisk from closure, she would authorize the sale. ... We suspect that O'Keeffe will do a few spins in her grave if the collection is displayed in the Frist Center without any dollars accruing to Fisk."
As I've said before, I'm at a loss to understand why people would rather see Fisk hand over the entire collection to Museum A and get nothing back in return, than see it give up a half-interest in the collection to Museum B (or CB) in exchange for $30 million that it so desperately needs.
"Forget it, I'm done, they can have the image. I just want to get back to my life"
The big news in the Shepard Fairey lawsuit is that Mannie Garcia has dropped out of the case because it had "taken a toll on him personally and professionally." It's not a settlement: "the AP is pleased that Mr. Garcia voluntarily withdrew without any payment or consideration of any kind." More here from Photo District News. Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento comments here.
The NYT's Randy Kennedy also reports that the judge has set a March trial date in the remaining claims between Fairey and the AP.
The NYT's Randy Kennedy also reports that the judge has set a March trial date in the remaining claims between Fairey and the AP.
I take a break from blogging for a couple of days ...
. . . and all hell breaks loose. A decision in the Fisk case. Big news in the Shepard Fairey lawsuit. A Van Gogh is stolen. More on all of these later in the day (I hope).
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
New Trial for Park West
The judge has thrown out the $500,000 jury verdict Fine Arts Registry got against Park West Galleries in April. The Detroit Free Press reports that the judge ruled that FAR "repeatedly violated his orders during a 5 1/2 -week trial ... by mentioning a supposed federal probe, critical newspaper articles and lawsuits by disgruntled customers." As I mentioned at the time of the verdict, Park West still has to deal with eight other lawsuits seeking more than $20 million in damages, most of which were consolidated into a multi-district federal lawsuit in Seattle.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
"It's impractical, your honor, and it's going to become impossible unless something is done to right this ship"
The Fisk trial has wrapped up. Judge Lyle says she will issue her decision on Friday. Will there be a little joy in Fiskville?
Linkage (playing catch-up edition)
- Sotheby's selling vegetables.
- Original fakes.
- Art theft in Sydney.
- Henry Moore sketch stolen.
- Victorian statue stolen.
- Suit over NYC Parks Department drawings.
- Photography is not a crime.
- Another Salander verdict.
- Artist sues gallery owner.
- Chelsea Art Museum closes . . . for the summer.
- VARA suit in Pennsylvania.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)