Saturday, September 19, 2015
"We've also hired a lawyer to sue Shin Gallery for damages to the value of our condominiums. See you in a Court of Law."
A neighbor -- who "paid $1.3 million for my condo at 50 Orchard Street" -- is threatening to sue a Lower East Side Gallery because of the fake massage parlor they've installed at the gallery (until November). Gothamist's Lauren Evans brings the mockery.
Friday, September 11, 2015
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Is the effective altruism movement bad for the arts? (UPDATED)
Discussed here.
UPDATE: Related thoughts from two of the sharpest guys around: Adrian Ellis here, and Felix Salmon here.
UPDATE: Related thoughts from two of the sharpest guys around: Adrian Ellis here, and Felix Salmon here.
Tuesday, September 08, 2015
Tell me again about the public trust (sing louder edition)
ARTnews reports that Christie’s will be auctioning off more than 200 works from the Met's collection of English furniture and decorative arts next month.
That's more than 200 works that, having fallen under the aegis of a museum, were held in the public trust, to be accessible to present and future generations -- except now, it having been determined that they "would sing louder and better in someone’s home," are being "liberated." They are no longer part of the public trust. Voila.
You may also be concerned that future potential donors of English furniture and decorative arts might say, Why should I give this to you? What guarantee do I have that you're not going to sell this tomorrow? But don't worry: they will understand that, unlike the more than 200 works the museum is selling now, the works they are thinking of donating clearly will sing louder and better in the museum. It's easy to tell which works sing louder in which settings. And better. It's easy to tell if the work you are thinking of donating will sing better at the museum. No uncertainty about that at all. So there's nothing to worry about. It's all good.
That's more than 200 works that, having fallen under the aegis of a museum, were held in the public trust, to be accessible to present and future generations -- except now, it having been determined that they "would sing louder and better in someone’s home," are being "liberated." They are no longer part of the public trust. Voila.
You may also be concerned that future potential donors of English furniture and decorative arts might say, Why should I give this to you? What guarantee do I have that you're not going to sell this tomorrow? But don't worry: they will understand that, unlike the more than 200 works the museum is selling now, the works they are thinking of donating clearly will sing louder and better in the museum. It's easy to tell which works sing louder in which settings. And better. It's easy to tell if the work you are thinking of donating will sing better at the museum. No uncertainty about that at all. So there's nothing to worry about. It's all good.
Wednesday, September 02, 2015
Friday, August 28, 2015
"The complaint filed by Simchowitz in Central California Federal Court is eye-opening for its combination of candor, hubris, and delusion."
Greg Allen on the Stefan Simchowitz lawsuit I mentioned a couple days ago. The complaint is here. Some thoughts from Simchowitz on how he operates here.
"When is imitation in art flattery, and when is it theft?"
Interesting piece in The Economist on the Kapoor-China story.
Thursday, August 27, 2015
"I have been sacked."
The NYT: "A significant trove of modern Russian art, preserved not least by its obscure location, was engulfed in controversy on Wednesday after its longstanding director was summarily dismissed on accusations of forgery and theft."
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Simchowitz Suit
"Los Angeles dealer and artist agent Stefan Simchowitz and Dublin dealer Jonathan Ellis King have filed suit against the Ghanaian artist Ibrahim Mahama."
Simchowitz was the subject of a NY Times Magazine story last year.
Simchowitz was the subject of a NY Times Magazine story last year.
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Partly Cloudy
My friend Alfred Steiner -- who was an IP lawyer at Morrison & Foerster and is now a full-time artist -- writes in with his take on Cloud Gate-gate:
"I'd like to propose a potential solution to Donn's query whether what appears to be a copy of Anish Kapoor's famous Cloud Gate should be regarded as actionable piracy or permissible appropriation. In an article I wrote for Landslide, the American Bar Association's intellectual property publication, I argued that '[a]nyone should be able to use preexisting material to make anything, so long as he or she makes only one copy and is not engaging in blatant piracy.' I translated that proposition into more precise copyright language as follows:
"Reproducing and preparing derivative works based upon a copyrighted work for the purpose of creating, distributing, publicly displaying, or publicly performing a unique work constitutes fair use unless it would be reasonable to expect that someone would buy the unique work (or pay to see it displayed or performed) instead of buying an authorized copy of the corresponding copyrighted work or an authorized derivative work based upon such work (or paying to see it displayed or performed), assuming there is a well- established market for such derivative works (e.g., a movie adaptation of a novel).
"How does this apply to the allegedly infringing sculpture (the 'Oil Drop')?
"Assuming that there is only one Oil Drop and that it is a copy of Cloud Gate (more on that below), the pertinent question here is whether it would be reasonable to expect that someone would buy the Oil Drop instead of buying an authorized copy of Cloud Gate. And it seems pretty clear to me that many people in the position of buying a large, elaborately produced public sculpture might opt to purchase the Oil Drop instead of an authorized copy of Cloud Gate. Developers and park planners want something that viewers will come to see, and they know that most viewers will care less about who made the sculpture than how huge and shiny it is.
"So I would find infringement here. Or would I? Well, I would assuming, as I did above, that the Oil Drop is a copy of Cloud Gate. But frankly I can't be sure based on the photographs I've seen online. As Ma Jun, the section chief of the local tourism bureau suggests, Kapoor cannot expect to prevent the production of all round, shiny sculptures. So it is essential that we know how similar the two sculptures are. In other words, if the blob of Oil Drop is shaped somewhat differently than the Cloud Gate blob, I might not find infringement. While I believe Kapoor's work warrants copyright, I think the copyright is relatively narrow, and should not extend to all round, shiny blob sculptures.
"If we ask the same question of Richard Prince's appropriation of the Suicide Girl's Instagram posts, I think we get a different result. I don't think someone who wants to buy a photograph from the Suicide Girls would be likely to want a canvas print in Instagram format, with the associated comments including those of Prince himself. Prince's added comments, while visually negligible, change the meaning of the work significantly. Among other things, the Suicide Girls represent the idea that women should be able to control the way their sexuality is depicted. A male artist appropriating the images with his own added commentary is anathema. Of course, one could argue that someone who just wants a naked picture of a punk rock girl could reasonably be expected to buy a Prince instead (if we ignore the exorbitant price differential), and that argument is not without merit. But in my mind the balance weighs in favor of Prince."
"I'd like to propose a potential solution to Donn's query whether what appears to be a copy of Anish Kapoor's famous Cloud Gate should be regarded as actionable piracy or permissible appropriation. In an article I wrote for Landslide, the American Bar Association's intellectual property publication, I argued that '[a]nyone should be able to use preexisting material to make anything, so long as he or she makes only one copy and is not engaging in blatant piracy.' I translated that proposition into more precise copyright language as follows:
"Reproducing and preparing derivative works based upon a copyrighted work for the purpose of creating, distributing, publicly displaying, or publicly performing a unique work constitutes fair use unless it would be reasonable to expect that someone would buy the unique work (or pay to see it displayed or performed) instead of buying an authorized copy of the corresponding copyrighted work or an authorized derivative work based upon such work (or paying to see it displayed or performed), assuming there is a well- established market for such derivative works (e.g., a movie adaptation of a novel).
"How does this apply to the allegedly infringing sculpture (the 'Oil Drop')?
"Assuming that there is only one Oil Drop and that it is a copy of Cloud Gate (more on that below), the pertinent question here is whether it would be reasonable to expect that someone would buy the Oil Drop instead of buying an authorized copy of Cloud Gate. And it seems pretty clear to me that many people in the position of buying a large, elaborately produced public sculpture might opt to purchase the Oil Drop instead of an authorized copy of Cloud Gate. Developers and park planners want something that viewers will come to see, and they know that most viewers will care less about who made the sculpture than how huge and shiny it is.
"So I would find infringement here. Or would I? Well, I would assuming, as I did above, that the Oil Drop is a copy of Cloud Gate. But frankly I can't be sure based on the photographs I've seen online. As Ma Jun, the section chief of the local tourism bureau suggests, Kapoor cannot expect to prevent the production of all round, shiny sculptures. So it is essential that we know how similar the two sculptures are. In other words, if the blob of Oil Drop is shaped somewhat differently than the Cloud Gate blob, I might not find infringement. While I believe Kapoor's work warrants copyright, I think the copyright is relatively narrow, and should not extend to all round, shiny blob sculptures.
"If we ask the same question of Richard Prince's appropriation of the Suicide Girl's Instagram posts, I think we get a different result. I don't think someone who wants to buy a photograph from the Suicide Girls would be likely to want a canvas print in Instagram format, with the associated comments including those of Prince himself. Prince's added comments, while visually negligible, change the meaning of the work significantly. Among other things, the Suicide Girls represent the idea that women should be able to control the way their sexuality is depicted. A male artist appropriating the images with his own added commentary is anathema. Of course, one could argue that someone who just wants a naked picture of a punk rock girl could reasonably be expected to buy a Prince instead (if we ignore the exorbitant price differential), and that argument is not without merit. But in my mind the balance weighs in favor of Prince."
Monday, August 24, 2015
"If there's a moral to this legal incident, it's this: know the terms of your licensing before you agree to use it."
Via Techdirt, an unsuccessful lawsuit by a photographer who posted a photo under a Creative Commons license ... and then regretted it. Story here. Decision here.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
What if they called it appropriation art? (UPDATED)
So there's a new public artwork in China that seems to be a blatant ripoff of Anish Kapoor's famous "Cloud Gate" sculpture in Chicago. It raises lots of interesting art law questions, one of which is captured in the title of this post: what if we think of this as a work of appropriation art? Remember the open letter Patrick Cariou wrote regarding Richard Prince's use of his work:
"I urge you to stand by my side and fight plagiarism. I feel compelled to ask what other businesses and innovators ... have had their copyrighted material stolen in a similar way? ... Creativity in all walks of life is hard won. It is incorrect to accept that we should allow for it to be undermined or stolen and therefore give it little or no value. ... We cannot let this happen."
Wait, that wasn't Cariou at all. That was Kapoor, in a letter to Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who had responded to the news thusly: "Imitation is the greatest form of flattery is what I would say. And if you want to see original artwork ... like the Bean, you come to Chicago."
So the first question about the case (and I hope to have more) is: how do we distinguish this from other cases of appropriation, where the conventional wisdom seems to run in the other direction? Do the SuicideGirls count as other innovators who have had their copyrighted material stolen in a similar way? Is it correct to accept that we should allow their creativity to be stolen? Can we let that happen?
I'm not suggesting the two cases are the same. I'm asking how we account for the difference. What is the theory, the principle, that makes the one case okay and the other not?
UPDATE: Here's one attempt at an answer, from Nicholas O'Donnell.
UPDATE: Here's one attempt at an answer, from Nicholas O'Donnell.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
"[I]t’s hard to imagine how anyone can look at a piece of art like that and just want to paint it out." (UPDATED)
VARA suit in Oakland.
UPDATE: Here's another, similar case in Santa Cruz. The initial claim was for $375,000. They settled for $30,000 and an apology.
UPDATE: Here's another, similar case in Santa Cruz. The initial claim was for $375,000. They settled for $30,000 and an apology.
"I think it’s a nitpicky thing to dwell on. The tax doesn’t even begin to compare to the value of the painting I’m going to give away."
That's Elaine Wynn, quoted in this article by Jori Finkel this weekend, on the tax loophole she "inadvertently called attention to" last year.
"The film suggests that his deception was enabled by the skewed economic incentives of the art world, where the authentication of a painting has the potential to reap financial rewards."
Well, yeah. New documentary out about the art forger Beltracchi. New York Times review here.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Speaking of mischief ...
... while I was away last week, the authorities cracked the biggest case of art-related mischief of them all: the Gardner Heist.
Okay, maybe they didn't, but they did release, after 25 years, some video from the night before the theft, for whatever that's worth.
Relatedly, at Slate.com: Why Is Stolen Art So Hard to Find?
Okay, maybe they didn't, but they did release, after 25 years, some video from the night before the theft, for whatever that's worth.
Relatedly, at Slate.com: Why Is Stolen Art So Hard to Find?
Monday, August 17, 2015
"This is the latest in a still small string of cases in which graffiti artists are asserting their copyright in US courts." (UPDATED)
Laura Gilbert in The Art Newspaper: Brooklyn street artist sues over Katy Perry's graffitied Met gala gown.
Who knew that street artists were such strong believers in property rights?
UPDATE: "Outlaws asserting their property rights."
Who knew that street artists were such strong believers in property rights?
UPDATE: "Outlaws asserting their property rights."
"By the end of 'The Art of Forgery,' you realize that forgeries are everywhere."
Mischief everywhere!
"Once you’ve been clued in to the world of art forgery and recovered from the excitement of a good caper, you’re left with an itch in the back of your brain. You start thinking about all of the incredible works you’ve seen in museums around the world, and you can’t help but ask yourself, 'But was it real?'"
"Once you’ve been clued in to the world of art forgery and recovered from the excitement of a good caper, you’re left with an itch in the back of your brain. You start thinking about all of the incredible works you’ve seen in museums around the world, and you can’t help but ask yourself, 'But was it real?'"
"Gasiunasen has two pending lawsuits related to monetary disputes over consigned art."
More (alleged) financial mischief: Former Palm Beach art dealer sued.
Thursday, August 06, 2015
Tuesday, August 04, 2015
Held in the public trust (UPDATED)
"A Picasso worth $[27.4 million] and considered a cultural treasure by Spanish authorities who had barred it from being exported has been seized from a boat docked at Corsica, according to French authorities."
Related developments here.
UPDATE: More here on the proposed cultural property law in Germany. Derek Fincham thinks the piece "seems alarmist to say the least."
Related developments here.
UPDATE: More here on the proposed cultural property law in Germany. Derek Fincham thinks the piece "seems alarmist to say the least."
Saturday, August 01, 2015
Friday, July 31, 2015
Not an authentic authentication issue
Been meaning to comment on the recent hubbub about Gerhard Richter deciding to exclude certain early works from his forthcoming catalogue raisonne. Some people are talking about this as if it were another "authentication" issue, but I don't think that's quite right. There's no question that these works -- made from 1962 to 1968, when he apparently "experimented with a realistic, figurative painting style" -- were painted by Richter. There's no question of their "authenticity"; they are not fakes. He just doesn't think they're any good, or worthy of consideration as part of his development. It seems to me he has every right to make that judgment ... and collectors and others who like the work have every right to disagree. Who knows -- the market may, someday, side with them. But in any case it's not a question of authenticity.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
The shouldn't charge for admission and they shouldn't sell anything ever ...
. . . and they shouldn't have anything to do with "commercialization." Instead they should go to the Magic Money Tree and get the funding they need. Simple as that; just ask the Deaccession Police for directions.
Tyler Cowen on Germany's proposed new "public trust" law
He notes that "so far the proposed policy is not working out well. Collectors are rushing to take their loans off museum walls and get them out of the country, or hold them incognito."
Also: "Apparently Gerhard Richter is a hard-core libertarian, like most other painters, because he asserted: 'No one has the right to tell me what I do with my images.'"
Also: "Apparently Gerhard Richter is a hard-core libertarian, like most other painters, because he asserted: 'No one has the right to tell me what I do with my images.'"
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
"A grandiose argument that imagines the existence of a unsullied ivory tower of independent and un-corruptible museums that simply has never existed in the United States"
I think it's fair to say The Art Market Monitor did not find Christopher Knight's recent piece on the "relentless commercialization" of museums that convincing.
Monday, July 20, 2015
Isn't this just what happens when you take the notion of "public trust" seriously?
Germany's culture ministry is proposing legislation that "would give regional authorities the power to designate specific artworks as protected national treasures if they are more than 50 years old and valued at more than 150,000 euros. Regional boards would then have the power to approve or deny export licenses for those works."
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Bubbling Up
Peter Schjeldahl had some thoughts on the state of the art market earlier this week.
The Art Market Monitor wasn't impressed: "It’s always sad to see a smart and perceptive writer struggle with concepts that are unfamiliar and irrelevant to his work." Ed Winkleman had some thoughts here (check the comments too).
The Monitor also says "we’ve known the art market isn’t a bubble and won’t crash for five years now." On that point, Tim Schneider disagrees.
The Art Market Monitor wasn't impressed: "It’s always sad to see a smart and perceptive writer struggle with concepts that are unfamiliar and irrelevant to his work." Ed Winkleman had some thoughts here (check the comments too).
The Monitor also says "we’ve known the art market isn’t a bubble and won’t crash for five years now." On that point, Tim Schneider disagrees.
I would listen to these two discuss their grocery lists ...
... so this Slate podcast between Felix Salmon and Amy Adler is self-recommending. Art, pornography, and a really interesting discussion of Richard Prince's recent Instagram series.
I haven't really been following the Danh Vo lawsuit in Rotterdam ...
... because it's hard enough keeping up with developments under U.S. law. But his recent proposal to collector Bert Kreuk is too good not to pass along.
Michael Heizer's "City" is now a national monument
Details here.
Greg Allen says "it's as if Heizer has out-Earthworked all the Earthwork artists with the biggest Earthwork on Earth."
Greg Allen says "it's as if Heizer has out-Earthworked all the Earthwork artists with the biggest Earthwork on Earth."
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
"Ann Pellegrini, a professor of performance studies at New York University, called the case a classic example of 'performance becoming performative' ...'"
"...an act that questions 'the relationship between actor, audience and enactment.'"
Performance artist Joe Gibbons sentenced to a year in prison for his bank robbery piece.
Performance artist Joe Gibbons sentenced to a year in prison for his bank robbery piece.
Thursday, July 09, 2015
Yielding to Outrage (UPDATED)
The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, is no longer inviting visitors to try on a replica kimono. But they may "touch and engage with" them.
UPDATE: More from the Boston Globe.
UPDATE: More from the Boston Globe.
Wednesday, July 08, 2015
"A complicated system of financing in which third-party money is used by Christie’s to offset risk but not in the form of a traditional 'guarantee'"
The Art Newspaper's Charlotte Burns on third-party "partners" vs. third-party "guarantors." (I'm quoted.)
The Art Market Monitor has some thoughts.
The Art Market Monitor has some thoughts.
Saturday, July 04, 2015
"Trumped by a Stifled Voice"
Holland Cotter on the Havana Biennial. The stifled voice is Tania Bruguera's:
"As soon as she announced her intentions, the police took her into custody on charges of disrupting public order. The authorities confiscated her Cuban passport and threatened to bring her to trial. If she ventures beyond the city limits, she has been warned, she can be expelled from the country and prevented from returning. Her case has gone nowhere since."
"As soon as she announced her intentions, the police took her into custody on charges of disrupting public order. The authorities confiscated her Cuban passport and threatened to bring her to trial. If she ventures beyond the city limits, she has been warned, she can be expelled from the country and prevented from returning. Her case has gone nowhere since."
Friday, July 03, 2015
"Proving substantial similarity is a thorny issue. It isn’t enough for her work and Starbucks’ campaign to look alike."
Wired has a piece on artist Maya Hayuk's lawsuit against Starbucks. It's the old idea vs. expression problem once again.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
More on that bill to protect art authenticators (UPDATED)
Which -- once again -- has not yet been enacted and probably won't have much of an effect if and when it does. Anyway, the latest from artnet is here.
UPDATE: More here from Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento. The bottom line: "It is doubtful the amendment in its current form will convince experts to return to the market."
UPDATE: More here from Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento. The bottom line: "It is doubtful the amendment in its current form will convince experts to return to the market."
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Apparently there's another graffiti lawsuit involving 5Pointz
Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento and Nicholas O'Donnell have you covered. On the earlier round of litigation, see here.
Friday, June 26, 2015
"Just because he is a well-known artist does not take away the fact that he is also a vandal."
The NYT this morning:
"The artist Shepard Fairey is a wanted man in Detroit. Police there issued a warrant for his arrest on Friday, charging that Mr. Fairey, the street artist-who-turned-legit, had illegally tagged multiple buildings in May, causing more than $9,000 worth of damage. He is charged with two counts of malicious destruction of property, The Detroit Free Press reported, felonies 'which carry a maximum penalty of five years in jail, plus fines that could exceed $10,000.'"
"The artist Shepard Fairey is a wanted man in Detroit. Police there issued a warrant for his arrest on Friday, charging that Mr. Fairey, the street artist-who-turned-legit, had illegally tagged multiple buildings in May, causing more than $9,000 worth of damage. He is charged with two counts of malicious destruction of property, The Detroit Free Press reported, felonies 'which carry a maximum penalty of five years in jail, plus fines that could exceed $10,000.'"
Monday, June 22, 2015
"An ugly word for an ugly deed"
Fintan O'Toole has an anti-deaccessioning piece in The Irish Times, pegged to the proposed sale of paintings from the Beit collection at Russborough House in County Wicklow.
It's of course nicely written, and he takes the position that "[t]he guiding truth on this whole issue should be that laid down by Susan Taylor, president of the Association of Art Museum Directors in the US: 'The principle for us is that works of art shouldn’t be considered liquid assets to be converted into cash. They’re records of human creativity that are held in the public trust.'"
But nowhere in the piece does he mention the inconvenient fact that the Association of Art Museum Directors in the US is perfectly happy to consider works of art liquid assets and convert them into cash ... just so long as the proceeds are used to buy more art. In that case, they somehow cease to be records of human creativity that are held in the public trust.
Look, there are two coherent positions on this whole issue.
One is the one O'Toole sketches out here: works of art should not be converted into cash. They are records of human creativity that are held in the public trust. To sell them is an ugly deed.
That's a coherent position. It needs, in my view, to reckon with the kinds of counterargument that Michael O'Hare, for example, makes against it here. But it's not an irrational stance to take.
The other coherent position is O'Hare's: yes, these are enormously valuable things, and generally worth holding onto, but sometimes, depending on the circumstances, the benefits of selling one may exceed the costs. You may not agree with it, you may make a different value judgment, but it's clearly not an irrational view.
But what's not a coherent position is the one the AAMD (and the rest of art world establishment) takes -- that works of art are records of human creativity held in the public trust and cannot be converted for cash, except when the museum wants to use the proceeds for one particular purpose (out of the hundreds of possible purposes), in which event they somehow cease to be held in the public trust and suddenly can be converted into cash without controversy.
Or, put even more simply (and to sum up thousands and thousands of words I've written on this issue at the blog): they're either held in the public trust or they're not.
And, as I've also argued repeatedly, the museums themselves, by their own actions (routinely selling off works from their collections), tell us the answer is they're not.
It's of course nicely written, and he takes the position that "[t]he guiding truth on this whole issue should be that laid down by Susan Taylor, president of the Association of Art Museum Directors in the US: 'The principle for us is that works of art shouldn’t be considered liquid assets to be converted into cash. They’re records of human creativity that are held in the public trust.'"
But nowhere in the piece does he mention the inconvenient fact that the Association of Art Museum Directors in the US is perfectly happy to consider works of art liquid assets and convert them into cash ... just so long as the proceeds are used to buy more art. In that case, they somehow cease to be records of human creativity that are held in the public trust.
Look, there are two coherent positions on this whole issue.
One is the one O'Toole sketches out here: works of art should not be converted into cash. They are records of human creativity that are held in the public trust. To sell them is an ugly deed.
That's a coherent position. It needs, in my view, to reckon with the kinds of counterargument that Michael O'Hare, for example, makes against it here. But it's not an irrational stance to take.
The other coherent position is O'Hare's: yes, these are enormously valuable things, and generally worth holding onto, but sometimes, depending on the circumstances, the benefits of selling one may exceed the costs. You may not agree with it, you may make a different value judgment, but it's clearly not an irrational view.
But what's not a coherent position is the one the AAMD (and the rest of art world establishment) takes -- that works of art are records of human creativity held in the public trust and cannot be converted for cash, except when the museum wants to use the proceeds for one particular purpose (out of the hundreds of possible purposes), in which event they somehow cease to be held in the public trust and suddenly can be converted into cash without controversy.
Or, put even more simply (and to sum up thousands and thousands of words I've written on this issue at the blog): they're either held in the public trust or they're not.
And, as I've also argued repeatedly, the museums themselves, by their own actions (routinely selling off works from their collections), tell us the answer is they're not.
Friday, June 19, 2015
"The power of Richard Prince’s art is that he has led us to this conversation in a way that mere words rarely can."
Interesting take from NYU's Chris Sprigman on the latest Richard Prince controversy.
More on 1031 exchanges of art
Brooklyn Law's Bradley Borden has a good summary here. The punchline:
"Owners of art and collectibles should ... be concerned, however, because many such transactions may not satisfy the technical requirements of the tax law. Owners of art and collectibles must tread carefully when claiming tax-free treatment on the transfer of such property. The law governing tax-free exchanges of art and collectibles is a veritable minefield, and the slightest foot-fault with such transactions could result in significant amounts of tax."
For a longer version from Borden, see here.
For a recent discussion of the issue, see here.
"Owners of art and collectibles should ... be concerned, however, because many such transactions may not satisfy the technical requirements of the tax law. Owners of art and collectibles must tread carefully when claiming tax-free treatment on the transfer of such property. The law governing tax-free exchanges of art and collectibles is a veritable minefield, and the slightest foot-fault with such transactions could result in significant amounts of tax."
For a longer version from Borden, see here.
For a recent discussion of the issue, see here.
Hold that sigh of relief (UPDATED 2X)
Hyperallergic had a report a couple days ago suggesting that the "much-anticipated legislation" protecting art authenticators from frivolous lawsuits had passed into law. Not quite yet. What happened was it passed in the State Senate; it still needs to be voted on in the State Assembly, and that probably won't happen until next year.
I'm on record as a skeptic of whether this law will make as much of a difference as people seem to think.
UPDATE: The story has been updated to now say that, "[t]hough the bill has cleared one major hurdle with the State Senate’s approval, it still needs to be voted on by the State Assembly before it passes into law."
UPDATE 2: Nicholas O'Donnell provides even more reasons to be skeptical that the law will have as much impact as advertised: "When I first saw the news it seemed like a minor development, but then I went and read the bill. It stripped out a material aspect of the bill first proposed last year that would have required plaintiffs seeking damages against authenticators to prove their case by clear and convincing evidence, a daunting standard. Heightened pleading requirements are still contained within the bill, but the attorneys’ fees provision has also been watered down, with such an award now discretionary rather than mandatory."
I'm on record as a skeptic of whether this law will make as much of a difference as people seem to think.
UPDATE: The story has been updated to now say that, "[t]hough the bill has cleared one major hurdle with the State Senate’s approval, it still needs to be voted on by the State Assembly before it passes into law."
UPDATE 2: Nicholas O'Donnell provides even more reasons to be skeptical that the law will have as much impact as advertised: "When I first saw the news it seemed like a minor development, but then I went and read the bill. It stripped out a material aspect of the bill first proposed last year that would have required plaintiffs seeking damages against authenticators to prove their case by clear and convincing evidence, a daunting standard. Heightened pleading requirements are still contained within the bill, but the attorneys’ fees provision has also been watered down, with such an award now discretionary rather than mandatory."
Thursday, June 18, 2015
There's no mention of the D-word in the article ...
... but the Washington Post has a story about how the University of Virginia's School of Architecture funded its doctoral program by selling some art.
Imagine how upset the Deaccession Police will be when they find out about this. So repulsive and unethical.
But seriously: no one can actually have a problem with this ... right?
Imagine how upset the Deaccession Police will be when they find out about this. So repulsive and unethical.
But seriously: no one can actually have a problem with this ... right?
Tuesday, June 09, 2015
"This weekend artist Tania Bruguera was arrested once again in Cuba, along with dozens of other activists, and was manhandled by the police."
The latest, from Jillian Steinhauer at Hyperallergic.
Thursday, June 04, 2015
Caught in the crossfire
The Art Newspaper's Corinna Kirsch on art teachers and Title IX (which has been in the news a lot lately).
Hoarders
Bloomberg columnist Virginia Postrel takes notice of Michael O'Hare's recent "iconoclastic" article calling for "more, better engagement with art." She's in favor, and points out how the Deaccession Police are not:
"Museums do sometimes sell works from their collection. It’s called 'deaccessioning.' But they can’t use the money to reduce admissions fees, improve educational programs, pay guards for extended hours, or install benches or better lighting -- no matter how much these investments might enhance their visitors’ experience. If they want to stay in the art museum club, they can only sell art to buy more art.
"Any other use violates the 'ethics' code of the Association of Art Museum Directors, a group that stringently enforces its art-hoarding cartel. Museums that break the rules lose their accreditation and can’t borrow from, lend to, or otherwise cooperate with other museums."
And she ends with some praise for Eli Broad's soon-to-open new museum:
"Unlike LACMA or the Museum of Contemporary Art across the street, when the Broad museum opens this fall it won’t charge admission. It will also house a 'lending library' of artworks available to other museums, including small ones. To fulfill O’Hare’s vision of 'more, better engagement with art,' maybe you have to start from scratch."
Read the whole thing. This is not the first time Postrel has waded into the Deaccession Debate.
O'Hare has a short response here.
"Museums do sometimes sell works from their collection. It’s called 'deaccessioning.' But they can’t use the money to reduce admissions fees, improve educational programs, pay guards for extended hours, or install benches or better lighting -- no matter how much these investments might enhance their visitors’ experience. If they want to stay in the art museum club, they can only sell art to buy more art.
"Any other use violates the 'ethics' code of the Association of Art Museum Directors, a group that stringently enforces its art-hoarding cartel. Museums that break the rules lose their accreditation and can’t borrow from, lend to, or otherwise cooperate with other museums."
And she ends with some praise for Eli Broad's soon-to-open new museum:
"Unlike LACMA or the Museum of Contemporary Art across the street, when the Broad museum opens this fall it won’t charge admission. It will also house a 'lending library' of artworks available to other museums, including small ones. To fulfill O’Hare’s vision of 'more, better engagement with art,' maybe you have to start from scratch."
Read the whole thing. This is not the first time Postrel has waded into the Deaccession Debate.
O'Hare has a short response here.
"Museums are really not set up to represent artists"
A great piece in The Art Newspaper by Julia Halperin on artist Scott Burton, who left his entire estate to the Museum of Modern Art: MoMA struggles to fulfil sculptor's last wishes.
"'It's not his duck,' Samborski insists. 'It's just another large inflatable duck.'"
Philadelphia Magazine has a story about the organizers of the "Tall Ships Festival" there ripping off artist Florentijn Hofman. The IP lawyer quoted at the end is probably right that Hofman can't claim copyright in the idea of a very large rubber duck, but it's still not cool (technical legal term).
Tuesday, June 02, 2015
"To be clear, I'm glad that the rules in the art world are loose enough that we don't have the same restrictions as say the music industry where you can't sample like three beats of a song before you're infringing on somebody else's copyright."
An interview with Paddy Johnson re Richard Prince and Instagram. (I make a brief appearance.)
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Thursday, May 28, 2015
The New York Times catches up to the BREAKING NEWS I mentioned last week that Richard Prince is an appropriation artist (UPDATED)
Their story is pegged to the development that one of the appropriatees -- Selena Mooney, who founded the website SuicideGirls -- has started selling her appropriated picture ... for $90, as opposed to the $90,000 Prince gets.
NYU's Chris Sprigman tweets: "I condemn Suicide Girls for making money from an Instagram that was worthless until Richard Prince made it valuable. Shame on them."
That's funny, but isn't it also true? Doesn't the price disparity between the two identical images tell us something important about what's going on? Doesn't it make the simple "theft" model look a little silly?
UPDATE: Scott Indrisek gets it too: "Can't believe [Richard Prince] stole my Instagram photo just mere seconds before I was about to print it out and sell it for $90,000."
NYU's Chris Sprigman tweets: "I condemn Suicide Girls for making money from an Instagram that was worthless until Richard Prince made it valuable. Shame on them."
That's funny, but isn't it also true? Doesn't the price disparity between the two identical images tell us something important about what's going on? Doesn't it make the simple "theft" model look a little silly?
UPDATE: Scott Indrisek gets it too: "Can't believe [Richard Prince] stole my Instagram photo just mere seconds before I was about to print it out and sell it for $90,000."
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
"[T]he detention comes at an uncomfortable moment for the Cuban government ..."
". . . just as the art world has descended on the 12th Havana Biennial, an event that has drawn a jet-setting group of international curators, artists and collectors to the Cuban capital for exhibitions, parties and private studio tours."
Tania Bruguera detained again.
Tania Bruguera detained again.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
"The counter-argument is that a good chef is rewarded not with tips but with a better job in a richer kitchen ..." (UPDATED)
". . . but our moral intuition tells us that he deserves one, especially if his dish is still mysteriously delicious years after he first served it."
The New Yorker's Adam Gopnik has a riff on art and money pegged to last week's $179 million Picasso sale, in the course of which he mentions Jerrold Nadler's campaign for resale royalties for artists. He summarizes the issue nicely:
"It’s a complex issue. Copyright law is called copyright law because it is meant to be concerned with the problem of copies. Since books and records can be copied freely (as, indeed, they are, online), we impose a royalty on the copyist in order to insure that the originator isn’t cheated for his labor. The deal that visual artists typically make with their buyers is different: the artist sells the original and reaps the benefit. The logic here is that if the owner of a Jeff Koons sells it at auction for a profit, that will be reflected in the next Koons that Jeff Koons makes; the 'royalty' that he reaps is the increase in the value of his next work of art, sold to the next individual buyer."
But he comes out in favor of the idea:
"Yet the idea of paying royalties to artists probably still resonates emotionally with most of us. That’s because what distinguishes a work of visual art is ... that it is made by a singular hand (or, at any rate, comes from a singular vision), whose claim on it lingers, even after it changes owners. A work by Chuck Close can be a wall decoration, an investment, a legacy, and a tax deduction, but, before it is any of these, it is, and remains, a Chuck Close. ... Essentially, what artists are asking for, through Nadler’s bill, is little more than the courtesy of a tip."
I think he refers to it as a tip because, under Nadler's version, it's capped at $35,000. But that, I think, is the problem with Nadler's approach: our moral intuition is strongest when the increase in value is greatest -- where the price is 100 times what the artist was paid for it, or more -- and, in those cases, where the collector has made ten-, twenty-, thirty-million dollars, a $35,000 "tip" does little to balance out the equities of the situation.
UPDATE: Michael Rushton is not convinced by Gopnik's argument: "'Moral intuition' is evasive."
The New Yorker's Adam Gopnik has a riff on art and money pegged to last week's $179 million Picasso sale, in the course of which he mentions Jerrold Nadler's campaign for resale royalties for artists. He summarizes the issue nicely:
"It’s a complex issue. Copyright law is called copyright law because it is meant to be concerned with the problem of copies. Since books and records can be copied freely (as, indeed, they are, online), we impose a royalty on the copyist in order to insure that the originator isn’t cheated for his labor. The deal that visual artists typically make with their buyers is different: the artist sells the original and reaps the benefit. The logic here is that if the owner of a Jeff Koons sells it at auction for a profit, that will be reflected in the next Koons that Jeff Koons makes; the 'royalty' that he reaps is the increase in the value of his next work of art, sold to the next individual buyer."
But he comes out in favor of the idea:
"Yet the idea of paying royalties to artists probably still resonates emotionally with most of us. That’s because what distinguishes a work of visual art is ... that it is made by a singular hand (or, at any rate, comes from a singular vision), whose claim on it lingers, even after it changes owners. A work by Chuck Close can be a wall decoration, an investment, a legacy, and a tax deduction, but, before it is any of these, it is, and remains, a Chuck Close. ... Essentially, what artists are asking for, through Nadler’s bill, is little more than the courtesy of a tip."
I think he refers to it as a tip because, under Nadler's version, it's capped at $35,000. But that, I think, is the problem with Nadler's approach: our moral intuition is strongest when the increase in value is greatest -- where the price is 100 times what the artist was paid for it, or more -- and, in those cases, where the collector has made ten-, twenty-, thirty-million dollars, a $35,000 "tip" does little to balance out the equities of the situation.
UPDATE: Michael Rushton is not convinced by Gopnik's argument: "'Moral intuition' is evasive."
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
"Since her passport was confiscated, the artist has remained in Cuba in what she describes as 'legal limbo' ..."
". . . while she waits for the authorities to schedule a hearing to decide whether she will be charged and put on trial for attempting to incite a public disturbance with her December performance."
The latest on Tania Bruguera.
The latest on Tania Bruguera.
Saturday, May 16, 2015
"Today’s accusations call the whole affair into question—or plunge it deeper into mystery"
The Art Market Monitor on the latest twist in the alleged theft of certain works from Picasso's stepdaughter.
On what can appear to the public to be confusing or contradictory rules concerning deaccessioning
So, as mentioned in the Mark Stryker article I linked to in the update to this post yesterday, the Detroit Institute has apparently walked back the claim that it plans to sell a Van Gogh. But the larger point remains: the D.I.A. will, at some point, resume the ordinary, common, nothing-touchy-about, totally-non-controversial-within-the-museum-world practice of routinely selling works from the collection and using the proceeds to buy different art.
The question is: is that consistent with what they told the world during the bankruptcy proceeding, in their (highly successful) campaign to keep the art from the reach of creditors?
In fairness to museum director Graham Beal, as he pointed out to Nicholas O'Donnell earlier this week, he was clear in his public statements that he was not arguing for a categorical ban on all sales; his position was just that the museum would not breach "the most fundamental tenet of the art museum world: that art in the collection can only be sold to acquire more (and better) art."
On the other hand, there were other statements, at least as filtered through the media, where the message was more muddled. Here, for example, is the New York Times reporting that "[t]he museum’s director, Graham W. J. Beal, has said that any sale of art will most likely lead to the museum’s dissolution." Now, presumably he meant any sale of art other than those where the proceeds are used to buy other art, but you can understand how some people might have missed that. And here is another example from the Times of "museum officials" warning "if any pieces are sold the museum will no longer be able to attract donors and will immediately lose a crucial stream of tax revenue voted in last year by three Michigan counties." In the next paragraph, Beal himself is quoted as saying "such a loss of operating revenue and donations...would almost certainly lead to what he called a 'nonprofit controlled liquidation' of the museum." Now again, what those museum officials must have meant is that if any pieces are sold and the proceeds are not used to buy art, the museum will no longer be able to attract donors etc., almost certainly leading to a nonprofit controlled liquidation, but you can forgive someone for not catching that nuance.
But let's leave that to the side and grant that Beal and other opponents of sale during the bankruptcy were perfectly consistent: they never said that all sales were prohibited; they simply said that sales other than to buy more art were prohibited.
The larger issue, though (and I've been banging on this for years here), is that the people who hold that view fail to see that the same reasons they give for why art can't be sold for non-art buying purposes apply with equal force to sales to buy more art.
You say art can't be sold to pay operating expenses because it's held in the public trust for future generations?
Well, that applies to works sold to buy more art too. Isn't this Van Gogh held in the public trust for future generations?
You say art can't be sold because it will discourage people from donating art in the future?
Well, that applies to works sold to buy more art too. What's the basis for the assumption that donors don't mind it when you sell off the art they donated as long as you use the sales proceeds to buy art (different art, art that you are implicitly declaring you like better than the art they gave you)?
What defenders of the Beal view of deaccessioning are unable to do is point to a reason why sales for non-art buying purposes are wrong that does not also apply to sales for art-buying purposes. At least I've never seen one.
It's kind of like if I called you up this morning and asked if you wanted to play tennis, and you replied no and, when I asked why, you said "Because it's the weekend." Then, tomorrow, I happen to pass by the tennis courts and see you playing with someone else and say, "Wait a minute, I thought you don't play on the weekends?" And you respond: "No, Sundays are okay."
Graham Beal doesn't want works to be sold for operating expenses, or to pay creditors, or to keep from going out of business, because it's the weekend. But he's fine with selling that Van Gogh on Sunday.
No wonder "some observers" are critical of "what can appear to the public to be confusing or contradictory rules concerning deaccessioning and the supposedly sacrosanct notion of holding work in the public trust."
The question is: is that consistent with what they told the world during the bankruptcy proceeding, in their (highly successful) campaign to keep the art from the reach of creditors?
In fairness to museum director Graham Beal, as he pointed out to Nicholas O'Donnell earlier this week, he was clear in his public statements that he was not arguing for a categorical ban on all sales; his position was just that the museum would not breach "the most fundamental tenet of the art museum world: that art in the collection can only be sold to acquire more (and better) art."
On the other hand, there were other statements, at least as filtered through the media, where the message was more muddled. Here, for example, is the New York Times reporting that "[t]he museum’s director, Graham W. J. Beal, has said that any sale of art will most likely lead to the museum’s dissolution." Now, presumably he meant any sale of art other than those where the proceeds are used to buy other art, but you can understand how some people might have missed that. And here is another example from the Times of "museum officials" warning "if any pieces are sold the museum will no longer be able to attract donors and will immediately lose a crucial stream of tax revenue voted in last year by three Michigan counties." In the next paragraph, Beal himself is quoted as saying "such a loss of operating revenue and donations...would almost certainly lead to what he called a 'nonprofit controlled liquidation' of the museum." Now again, what those museum officials must have meant is that if any pieces are sold and the proceeds are not used to buy art, the museum will no longer be able to attract donors etc., almost certainly leading to a nonprofit controlled liquidation, but you can forgive someone for not catching that nuance.
But let's leave that to the side and grant that Beal and other opponents of sale during the bankruptcy were perfectly consistent: they never said that all sales were prohibited; they simply said that sales other than to buy more art were prohibited.
The larger issue, though (and I've been banging on this for years here), is that the people who hold that view fail to see that the same reasons they give for why art can't be sold for non-art buying purposes apply with equal force to sales to buy more art.
You say art can't be sold to pay operating expenses because it's held in the public trust for future generations?
Well, that applies to works sold to buy more art too. Isn't this Van Gogh held in the public trust for future generations?
You say art can't be sold because it will discourage people from donating art in the future?
Well, that applies to works sold to buy more art too. What's the basis for the assumption that donors don't mind it when you sell off the art they donated as long as you use the sales proceeds to buy art (different art, art that you are implicitly declaring you like better than the art they gave you)?
What defenders of the Beal view of deaccessioning are unable to do is point to a reason why sales for non-art buying purposes are wrong that does not also apply to sales for art-buying purposes. At least I've never seen one.
It's kind of like if I called you up this morning and asked if you wanted to play tennis, and you replied no and, when I asked why, you said "Because it's the weekend." Then, tomorrow, I happen to pass by the tennis courts and see you playing with someone else and say, "Wait a minute, I thought you don't play on the weekends?" And you respond: "No, Sundays are okay."
Graham Beal doesn't want works to be sold for operating expenses, or to pay creditors, or to keep from going out of business, because it's the weekend. But he's fine with selling that Van Gogh on Sunday.
No wonder "some observers" are critical of "what can appear to the public to be confusing or contradictory rules concerning deaccessioning and the supposedly sacrosanct notion of holding work in the public trust."
Friday, May 15, 2015
One follow-up on Detroit (UPDATED)
One thing you see in the Detroit News article yesterday, and even more so in Graham Beal's response to Nicholas O'Donnell here, is the usual bait-and-switch from the museums.
On the one hand, if a museum goes to sell something to, for example, avoid going out of business, we hear: OH MY GOD THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER THAT WORK IS HELD IN TRUST FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS WE WILL NEVER GET OVER ITS LOSS NO ONE WILL EVER DONATE WORK TO A MUSEUM EVER AGAIN IF THEY KNOW THE WORK CAN BE SOLD OFF FIRE UP THE SANCTION MACHINE.
(We saw a lot of this in Detroit, which I will return to in a later post.)
But when a museum decides to sell a Van Gogh, or a Monet, or Hopper, and use the proceeds to buy art, then we hear: "What? What's the big deal? Museums sell work all the time. Don't be so touchy. You didn't think we were serious about that 'public trust' thing, did you? Why would it matter to potential donors that their work might be sold? Where'd you ever get that silly idea? It's no big deal. Come on. Grow up."
You can see why Beal was worried about "send[ing] a confusing message to some of our public."
UPDATE: "Museums have been criticized by some observers for what can appear to the public to be confusing or contradictory rules concerning deaccessioning and the supposedly sacrosanct notion of holding work in the public trust."
On the one hand, if a museum goes to sell something to, for example, avoid going out of business, we hear: OH MY GOD THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER THAT WORK IS HELD IN TRUST FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS WE WILL NEVER GET OVER ITS LOSS NO ONE WILL EVER DONATE WORK TO A MUSEUM EVER AGAIN IF THEY KNOW THE WORK CAN BE SOLD OFF FIRE UP THE SANCTION MACHINE.
(We saw a lot of this in Detroit, which I will return to in a later post.)
But when a museum decides to sell a Van Gogh, or a Monet, or Hopper, and use the proceeds to buy art, then we hear: "What? What's the big deal? Museums sell work all the time. Don't be so touchy. You didn't think we were serious about that 'public trust' thing, did you? Why would it matter to potential donors that their work might be sold? Where'd you ever get that silly idea? It's no big deal. Come on. Grow up."
You can see why Beal was worried about "send[ing] a confusing message to some of our public."
UPDATE: "Museums have been criticized by some observers for what can appear to the public to be confusing or contradictory rules concerning deaccessioning and the supposedly sacrosanct notion of holding work in the public trust."
Thursday, May 14, 2015
"The art world is buzzing, albeit quietly, about a prospective, voluntary sale of some Detroit Institute of Arts works"
Laura Berman of the Detroit News has a story on the announcement I discussed last month here. I'm quoted in it (though I meant to say "fix streetlights," not "sell").
I'm tied up this morning, but will have more to say about this later.
I'm tied up this morning, but will have more to say about this later.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
"Picasso's Stepdaughter Accuses French Dealer and Bouvier Partner of Theft"
Artnet's Eileen Kinsella has the details.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
The Independent says drug dealers are using stolen Lowry paintings as "currency"
Here. The Art Market Monitor says it's a "nonsense article based entirely on hearsay quoting self-interested promoters who avoid confirmation." Other than that, it's great.
Saturday, May 09, 2015
A word about the California resale royalty decision
A strange note has crept into some of the coverage I've seen of this week's 9th Circuit decision in the California resale royalty. Some people seem to be reading it as making California a less hospitable place to sell art than it was before. (Here is one example: Will High-Priced Art Ever Be Auctioned Again in California?) But this case is not about sales within California. Before this case, the law applied to sales within California and sales outside California by California residents. The 9th Circuit has now affirmed the lower court ruling striking down the second part ... which means the law still applies to sales within California. Nothing has changed on that front. So if high-priced art is never going to be auctioned again in California, it's not because of this week's decision.
Thursday, May 07, 2015
In defense of like-kind exchanges for art (UPDATED)
From Diana Wierbicki.
UPDATE: Michael Rushton says the article "seems to want to have it both ways: That policy is tax 'deferral' not 'avoidance', yet at the same time needed to spur US art investment?"
UPDATE: Michael Rushton says the article "seems to want to have it both ways: That policy is tax 'deferral' not 'avoidance', yet at the same time needed to spur US art investment?"
Tuesday, May 05, 2015
"We easily conclude that the royalty requirement, as applied to out-of-state sales by California residents, violates the dormant commerce clause."
The en banc decision in the California resale royalty lawsuit. Summary here. Opinion here.
Always seemed pretty "easy" to me too.
Always seemed pretty "easy" to me too.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Tell me again about the public trust (these paintings have their own lives to live edition)
The Roerich Museum is selling two works previously held in the public trust to be accessible to present and future generations. But then they sprinkled the magic Not Held In The Public Trust dust over them and that made everything okay. You don't have to be so touchy about it.
"Tax Break Used by Investors in Flipping Art Faces Scrutiny" (UPDATED)
Excellent piece by Graham Bowley in the NYT this morning on 1031 exchanges.
I had some thoughts on this subject a few years ago. Good summary of the legal issues involved here.
UPDATE: Bloomberg's Katya Kazakina has a story out today on the same subject. Something's definitely in the air about this.
I had some thoughts on this subject a few years ago. Good summary of the legal issues involved here.
UPDATE: Bloomberg's Katya Kazakina has a story out today on the same subject. Something's definitely in the air about this.
Friday, April 24, 2015
"I took for granted and betrayed someone who will forever have great meaning in my life."
Eighteen months for Jasper Johns's former studio assistant. Background here.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
"Essential Issues in Artist's Estate and Foundation Planning"
A panel, tomorrow night, at Herrick, Feinstein. The Art Newspaper's Charlotte Burns is moderating.
Sunday, April 19, 2015
"Both bills have been proposed repeatedly in recent years, but have never successfully passed into law."
The bills are Jerrod Nadler's resale royalty bill and the oft-introduced fair-market-deduction-for-artists bill. Julia Halperin has the story in The Art Newspaper.
Speaking of bills with no realistic chance of passing, the House voted this week to repeal the estate tax.
Speaking of bills with no realistic chance of passing, the House voted this week to repeal the estate tax.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
"The charges have prompted art world figures outside of Cuba to call for a boycott of the Havana biennial"
The Art Newspaper has an interview with Tania Bruguera.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Tell me again about the public trust (will most likely lead to the museum’s dissolution edition) (UPDATED)
This one is almost too rich.
The Art Newspaper's Julia Halperin reports (the story's dated March 1 but it either just went online or I've been asleep at the switch) that the Detroit Institute is selling a Van Gogh.
Let me repeat that: the Detroit Institute is selling a Van Gogh.
Wait a minute. Didn't the Michigan Attorney General tell us the works in the museum's collection were held in charitable trust for the people of Michigan? I believe that he did.
And didn't Graham Beal, the director of the museum, say that that "any sale of art will most likely lead to the museum’s dissolution"? Any sale of art. I believe that he did.
Now we are told (by Beal) that "[d]eaccessioning is not controversial—US museums do it all the time." The museum had put its deaccessioning program on hold during the city’s bankruptcy proceedings. "We couldn’t sell any works [during the bankruptcy]," says Beal, "because it would have caused such confusion."
Yes, I can imagine people being confused about why they were being told that the sale of any art would most likely lead to the museum's dissolution. People can be so funny that way.
UPDATE: Nicholas O'Donnell has some thoughts.
The Art Newspaper's Julia Halperin reports (the story's dated March 1 but it either just went online or I've been asleep at the switch) that the Detroit Institute is selling a Van Gogh.
Let me repeat that: the Detroit Institute is selling a Van Gogh.
Wait a minute. Didn't the Michigan Attorney General tell us the works in the museum's collection were held in charitable trust for the people of Michigan? I believe that he did.
And didn't Graham Beal, the director of the museum, say that that "any sale of art will most likely lead to the museum’s dissolution"? Any sale of art. I believe that he did.
Now we are told (by Beal) that "[d]eaccessioning is not controversial—US museums do it all the time." The museum had put its deaccessioning program on hold during the city’s bankruptcy proceedings. "We couldn’t sell any works [during the bankruptcy]," says Beal, "because it would have caused such confusion."
Yes, I can imagine people being confused about why they were being told that the sale of any art would most likely lead to the museum's dissolution. People can be so funny that way.
UPDATE: Nicholas O'Donnell has some thoughts.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
"In this case, we are constrained to concur with the views expressed in Altbach, Hoepker, and Nussenzweig's concurrence: ..." (UPDATED)
"... works of art fall outside the prohibitions of the privacy statute."
The First Department has affirmed a lower court ruling in favor of photographer Arne Svenson, who "surreptitiously" photographed people in their apartments, in the building across from his. The decision is here. The New York Law Journal put it on their front page. Julia Halperin in The Art Newspaper is here. Artnet news is here, and Photo District News here.
It's a straightforward application of the relevant precedents and, as the court notes at the end of the decision, if there is a problem here it's one for the legislature to solve ("Needless to say, as illustrated by the troubling facts here, in these times of heightened threats to privacy posed by new and ever more invasive technologies, we call upon the Legislature to revisit this important issue, as we are constrained to apply the law as it exists").
UPDATE: Some thoughts from Amy Landers at PrawfsBlawg.
The First Department has affirmed a lower court ruling in favor of photographer Arne Svenson, who "surreptitiously" photographed people in their apartments, in the building across from his. The decision is here. The New York Law Journal put it on their front page. Julia Halperin in The Art Newspaper is here. Artnet news is here, and Photo District News here.
It's a straightforward application of the relevant precedents and, as the court notes at the end of the decision, if there is a problem here it's one for the legislature to solve ("Needless to say, as illustrated by the troubling facts here, in these times of heightened threats to privacy posed by new and ever more invasive technologies, we call upon the Legislature to revisit this important issue, as we are constrained to apply the law as it exists").
UPDATE: Some thoughts from Amy Landers at PrawfsBlawg.
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
Sunday, April 05, 2015
Wednesday, April 01, 2015
Friday, March 27, 2015
3D Printing Meets the Arts: Reproduction and Authenticity
The fantastic NYU Law Art Law Society is putting on a panel this Monday evening. Details here.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
"However, according to the complaint, the 2013 will was drafted 'negligently and carelessly,' resulting in a trust that did not qualify for the federal estate tax charitable deduction."
Artnet's Rozalia Jovanovic reports on a lawsuit by the estate of legendary collector Robert Ellsworth, “against attorney George L. Bischof and his firm for negligence in creating a charitable trust in Ellsworth's will that has resulted in $25 million in taxes for Ellsworth's estate.”
It’s a little hard to tell from the report what exactly happened, but it seems like the trust was not a so-called “qualified charitable remainder trust” -- meaning the non-charitable interest (the part that went to Hashiguchi) was neither an annuity nor a unitrust interest. Instead, it was cast as a discretionary trust, for which no charitable deduction is allowed.
On the other hand … it’s possible that there was no error here. The taxes on the 2010 will, where everything passed to Hashiguchi, and the 2013 will, where the assets pass to the non-qualified charitable remainder trust, would be the same. Perhaps Ellsworth still wanted the entire corpus to be available to Hashiguchi during Hashiguchi’s lifetime, which would not be the case with a charitable remainder trust, and simply wanted to designate the charities which would receive any corpus not consumed by Hashiguchi during his lifetime. It’s true that $25 million is a stiff price to pay to ensure that the entire trust corpus could be made available to Hashiguchi should he need it, but the result is no different than under the 2010 will, where Hashiguchi gets everything outright in the first instance.
Will be interesting to see how this one develops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)