Anne d’Harnoncourt

William Grimes's New York Times obituary for the Philadelphia Museum of Art's Anne d’Harnoncourt closes with a mention of her crucial role in the Gross Clinic saga:

"One of her recent achievements was a matter of local pride. In the fall of 2006, Thomas Jefferson University, a Philadelphia medical school, said that it would sell 'The Gross Clinic,' an 1875 masterpiece by the Philadelphia artist Thomas Eakins, to the National Gallery of Art in Washington and the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Arkansas. To prevent the sale, the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts had 45 days to match the selling price of $68 million. Ms. d’Harnoncourt went into high gear, saying, 'It’s a painting that really belongs in Philadelphia — his presence still resonates here.' In the end she prevailed, in part by selling an Eakins painting and two oil sketches to the Denver Art Museum and the Anschutz Collection, also in Denver. (The Fine Arts academy had also sold an Eakins painting from its collection.) 'We’re heaving a deep sigh,' Ms. d’Harnoncourt said when the Eakins deal was concluded. 'This is it. Now we can celebrate.'"

"Even in Canada . . ."

". . . art theft is more prevalent than most people imagine."

Salander Rugs

Bloomberg's Philip Boroff reports on Tepper Galleries' auction Friday of "nearly 300 antique and 'semi-antique' carpets" from the bankrupt Salander-O'Reilly. No reserves, minimum bids of just $10. The sale raised about $250,000 in total.

"My aim is to show the beauty of death"

UCLA lawprof Eugene Volokh comments on the legal aspects of German artist Gregor Schneider's planned performance piece that would include an actual person dying. His "tentative answer" is that it's probably legal: "The dying are as entitled to be in a place as anyone else, and invite people to visit them or see them. Nor is there any reason that I can see why a museum's drawing attention to this, or charging money for it, would be illegal under existing law."

There are also First Amendment considerations at play: "If the dying person is using the occasion to speak to people who come, either as a group or one at a time, it seems to me that this would be constitutionally protected speech, even if admission is charged. ... The tougher constitutional question is whether simply deliberately going to die in a place set aside for such an occasion, and publicized as a place for such an occasion, is protected expression even if nothing is said. That's hard to tell; compare Rumsfeld v. FAIR (holding that conduct may be protected by the First Amendment only if it's 'inherently expressive' so that '[t]he expressive component ... [is] created by the conduct itself [rather than] by the speech that accompanies it,' something that might not be so given that death as such is not inherently expressive) with Brown v. Louisiana ... (holding that silent presence at a racially segregated library was protected by the 'freedom of speech and of assembly'). ... I'm sure that ... some audience members may just ogle rather than being enlightened. ... And I sympathize with concerns that some of the people being exhibited might feel degraded by the process. But I don't think this justifies blocking those dying people ... who choose to display themselves in public from doing so (especially if they are speaking in the process) ...."

Richard Lacayo had some thoughts on Schneider's project last month.

White Flag

Montgomery County is throwing in the towel in the Barnes fight. It will not appeal Judge Ott's most recent decision dismissing its challenge to the move.

Now it's up to the Friends of the Barnes to decide what to do.

"It addresses a narrow but growing problem in a way that ensures that good actors and our culture benefit"

Public Knowledge's Gigi Sohn spoke about the orphan works legislation at the Eighth Annual Intellectual Property Symposium today. The text of her speech is here. InformationWeek has a summary here.

Among other things, she addresses what she calls "the fear, uncertainty and doubt" being raised by opponents of the bill, including the following:

"Myth #4: The bills would mandate registration of all visual art in expensive, private registries, and not registering a work would automatically orphan it.
... [T]he bill provides for the creation of marketplace-based visual registries that would make it easier for users to find the owners of visual art. And let me emphasize that having users find owners is the real goal of this legislation. But while it might be wise for a visual artist to make use of the registry, nothing requires her to do so. Nor does failure to place a work in a visual registry automatically orphan a work. A user would still have to do a diligent search to find an owner, and might be able to do so without the help of the visual registry."

Randolph Sale (UPDATE)

Despite considerable opposition, Randolph College's deaccessioned Tamayo has just sold for more than $7 million at Christie's. Lee Rosenbaum breaks the news.

UPDATED: Lots more from Christa Desrets in The Lynchburg News & Advance today. The buyer was "an anonymous phone bidder."

And further thoughts from Heather Hope: "I still firmly stand by my opinion that if Randolph College feels that selling these works is necessary to support the college's mission, then they should be permitted to do so."

"Probably best left to bored, art-loving fictional playboys"

One of the guest bloggers over at Matthew Yglesias's place has some fun (probably a little too much fun) with Smithsonian magazine's recent list of the ten "most incredible art heists of the modern era." She writes:

"Whatever the reason, big heists are always fun to think about after the fact. There's the object of the theft to consider .... There are the logistics: if one is going to steal the Gutenberg Bible, one might factor the fact that it weighs 70 pounds into the planning process. Finally, it's giddy and transgressive to think about. Art theft isn't a victimless crime, but it's less directly and immediately harmful than robbing a little old lady or committing murder or defrauding a pension fund. Prints are cool, but it's fun to imagine having the real thing tucked away to look at."

Today's Orphan Works Report

The British Journal of Photography is urging its readers to oppose the U.S. orphan works bill:

"The proposed legislation would legalise the use of such images if an attempt has been made to trace the owner. Critics - ie, pretty much anyone who trades on their own copyright ownership - say the proposals will kill international accords and encourage widespread theft. What's more, to protect your images, you will be forced to register them with private, profit-run databases."

The last bit is, as I've noted before, untrue: registration would not be mandatory under the new law.

I also think it to some extent overstates the level of opposition to the legislation. As this story in the River Cities' Reader points out, the American Society of Media Photographers, for example, supports the House version of the bill (admittedly on a lesser-evil theory: "Passage of an orphan-works bill is nearly inevitable, [its president] claimed, and ASMP feels this is its best opportunity to get a version that's friendly to artists").

Who knew?

I learned from Instapundit this morning that "many claim" that the Indiana Jones character is based on Hiram Bingham, of Yale-Machu Picchu dispute fame.

More on Art Title Insurance

BusinessWeek has an update on the art title insurance being offered by ARIS:

"Art title insurance through ARIS has been available for purchase since June, 2006, and it has underwritten more than 300 policies. ARIS clients include private collectors, dealers, art funds, and major museums and investment entities, and the values of the works insured have ranged from $20,000 to $4 million. (ARIS has been approached on a $100 million transaction that hasn't yet taken place.)"

There's a one-time premium ranging from 1.75% to 6.75% of the artwork's value, for "a life-of-ownership policy that can be passed on to heirs. ... In an ownership dispute, ARIS will cover legal defense expenses and the cost of the artwork if it is lost." Authenticity is not covered, however.

I had some thoughts on this about a year ago here.

Despite considerable opposition

The New Yorker reminds us that leading Christie's two-day sale of twentieth-century Latin-American art this week is Rufino Tamayo's “Trovador” -- "it is being sold off, despite considerable opposition, by the museum of Randolph College to benefit the school’s endowment."

Anne Yastremski, the unofficial leader of that considerable opposition, had an op-ed in this Sunday's Washington Times arguing that the school has enough money without having to sell any art. She specifically objects to the planned construction "of a costly new artificial turf track and field facility" (adding, for emphasis, that "Randolph College has no track and field team"). She does mention, however, that the school "abolished the American Studies, Anthropology, German, Japanese, and Russian departments this year." So it's clear even from this piece that you can't have everything. There are always going to be trade-offs. The question, as I argued last week, is who gets to make those decisions? Shouldn't school administrators and trustees have some latitude to weigh the costs and benefits of various courses of action -- including, if they deem it best under the relevant circumstances, the sale of certain works of art -- without always having to defend their decisions in court?

The "Truly Educated" Heather Hope argues against a "black-and-white" approach to deaccessioning here.

"To what culture does the concept of 'cultural property' belong?"

In today's New York Times, Edward Rothstein writes about James Cuno's "Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle Over Our Ancient Heritage" (mentioned earlier here):

"Seen in this light the very notion of cultural property is narrow and flawed. ... It may be useful as a metaphor, but it has been more commonly used to consolidate cultural bureaucracies and state control. But if cultural property really did exist, the Enlightenment museum would be an example of it: an institution that evolved, almost uniquely, out of Western civilization. And the cultural property movement could be seen as a persistent attempt to undermine it."

Derek Fincham is not impressed with Rothstein's piece.

Esmerian Sale

Ralph Esmerian sold his "Peaceable Kingdom" at Sotheby's last week for $9.7 million, reportedly a record for American folk art. As Bloomberg's Philip Boroff reports, Esmerian promised the work to the American Folk Art Museum back in 2000, but "about three years ago also pledged it to Sotheby's as collateral for a loan. ... Esmerian said last month that both Sotheby's and the museum had been aware of the arrangement. Folk Art Museum Director Maria Ann Conelli said in an April interview that a promised donation is merely a promise. 'We work on faith,' she said."

Booze Bust

East Hampton gallerist Ruth Vered was taken away in handcuffs this weekend for serving alcohol at a gallery opening without a license. Both the Daily News ("Hamptons Gone Wild") and the Post ("Fine Whine") put it on the front page. You can watch video of the arrest here.

Jen Chung links to the State Liquor Authority's Special Events Permit application. Dealer Ed Winkleman offers some personal reflections on the issue here.

Some Salander News

From Wendy Moonan's "Antiques" column in yesterday's New York Times:

"One casualty of the bankruptcy of the Salander-O’Reilly Galleries ... is its largely unknown collection of decorative arts: European antiques, architectural ornaments and garden sculpture. The United States Bankruptcy Court ... chose Stair Galleries of Hudson, N.Y., to sell this collection. The 300 lots go on view on Saturday at 549 Warren Street in Hudson for 10 days and at stairgalleries.com."

"It just shuts us down"

An article in the Philadelphia Inquirer last week mentioned that Montgomery County is "unlikely" to appeal Judge Ott's latest decision in the Barnes case. The Friends of the Barnes are still thinking about it.

The article also says the County/Friends are "looking west for a strategy" -- a reference to a recent decision of the Montana Supreme Court which the New York Times described as follows:

"The Montana Supreme Court dismissed ... the board of the Charles M. Bair Family Museum in Martinsdale, Mont., saying it breached its fiduciary duties by closing the museum from 2002 to 2005. The court said the board had not spent enough money to give a good start to the museum — home to an eclectic collection of fine European antiques, valuable art works and priceless Indian artifacts. It ordered [the creation of] a new board that has to meet within six months."

The Nonprofit Law Prof Blog has a fuller summary.

I doubt the case will be of much help to the folks in Pennsylvania. The problem for the Barnes opponents, remember, is how to get their foot in the door: Judge Ott threw out the latest round of lawsuits on standing grounds. He never got to the merits. In the Montana case, the lower court found that the relevant "Friends" group did have standing to sue, but, because the Montana Attorney General was also party to the lawsuit, the Supreme Court "decline[d] to resolve whether the [lower court] erred when it determined that the Friends of the Bair had standing in the matter. ... To decide whether the Friends of the Bair have standing would amount to nothing more than an academic exercise."

So all the Barnes Friends really have to go on is a Montana lower court interpreting a Montana statute (Section 72-33-503, conferring standing to sue to enforce a charitable trust on the Attorney General, a co-trustee, or a person possessing a "special interest in the enforcement of the charitable trust"). I'd venture to say that's not quite the game-changer the Barnes opponents were looking for.

No. 9

Performance artist Karen Finley, no stranger to legal controversy, debuted a new, law-related piece tonight. Sewell Chan has the details.

Scream Back on View

"Edvard Munch's masterpiece 'The Scream' goes back on display this week for the first time since it was stolen four years ago but has suffered permanent damage, museum officials said Wednesday. Masked gunmen stole the work and another Munch masterpiece, 'Madonna,' in a brazen daylight raid on the Munch Museum in August 2004. Police recovered the paintings ... over a year later. Two men have been convicted and sentenced. The two works show signs of damage despite extensive restoration. At a preview of the exhibition called 'The Scream and Madonna Revisited,' which opens Friday, water damage to the lower left corner of 'The Scream' was clearly visible, as were scrapes to both paintings."

See here for background.

Paducah

A story in the special Summer Travel section of this Sunday's New York Times on how art and law came together to revive the rundown town of Paducah, Kentucky:

"[Artist] Mark Barone ... was fed up with the neighborhood and challenged the city to do something about it. Barone met with the mayor at the time, Albert Jones, and told him how other cities had improved blighted communities by passing a 'rental licensing ordinance' that forced slumlords to bring their buildings up to code. Jones liked the idea, and in 2000, despite constant battles with Paducah’s building owners, the city commission passed the ordinance .... That marked a turning point for Paducah, but for Barone it was only a start. ... With his help, Paducah put together a package of real estate incentives ... including 100 percent financing, low-interest loans and architectural services — in some cases the city even gave away properties if new owners would develop a plan to rehab them."

"I believe it is mostly neuroeconomics at work, namely that we are more excited by new offerings than by familiar offerings"

Tyler Cowen on "the afternoon effect" for artworks -- i.e., "the observation that as an auction proceeds, the prices of the lots decline, even for identical goods (e.g., wines)."

Art, YouTube, and the Law

The always-interesting Virginia Heffernan had a column in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine on an exhibition, at the Kitchen gallery, of videos chosen from YouTube. Rebecca Tushnet (who is also always interesting) gives a tour of the (many) IP issues the project raises, including whether the Times might be liable for linking to the videos ("inducement, anyone?").

Lessig on Orphan Works

In a New York Times op-ed today, Stanford's Larry Lessig weighs in on the orphan works legislation making its way through Congress. He's against it: "This 'reform' would be an amazingly onerous and inefficient change, which would unfairly and unnecessarily burden copyright holders with little return to the public."

He concedes that "the problem of orphan works is real," but thinks this is the wrong remedy:

"The proposed change is unfair because since 1978, the law has told creators that there was nothing they needed to do to protect their copyright. Many have relied on that promise. Likewise, the change is unfair to foreign copyright holders, who have little notice of arcane changes in Copyright Office procedures, and who will now find their copyrights vulnerable to willful infringement by Americans.

"The change is also unwise, because for all this unfairness, it simply wouldn’t do much good. The uncertain standard of the bill doesn’t offer any efficient opportunity for libraries or archives to make older works available, because the cost of a 'diligent effort' is not going to be cheap."

And he takes the opportunity to once again plug his own preferred solution:

"Congress could easily address the problem of orphan works in a manner that is efficient and not unfair to current or foreign copyright owners. Following the model of patent law, Congress should require a copyright owner to register a work after an initial and generous term of automatic and full protection. For 14 years, a copyright owner would need to do nothing to receive the full protection of copyright law. But after 14 years, to receive full protection, the owner would have to take the minimal step of registering the work with an approved, privately managed and competitive registry, and of paying the copyright office $1."

Public Knowledge's Gigi Sohn responds to the op-ed here: "What makes this legislation a no-brainer is that with the exception of a handful of small copyright holder groups (who, to my chagrin, have been very effective), there is near unanimous agreement that an orphan works solution is a good idea. There are still some kinks to be worked out in the legislation, but the framework underlying them is basically sound."

And Ed Winkleman issues a call for more clarity.

"I think it’s better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission" (UPDATED)

A piece in this week's New York magazine notes that "Tom Sachs didn’t bother to get permission from Hello Kitty’s owner, Sanrio, before he installed his enormous Hello Kitty sculptures in front of Lever House." He says "Hello Kitty is so much a part of our popular culture, I don’t think anyone really owns it. It’s something licensed by Sanrio, but I think her spirit and love and purity belong to all of us." There's a good photo of one of the works being loaded in here.

For its part, Sanrio seems to be tolerating the use: a spokesperson is quoted as saying, "You know, there was Marilyn Monroe and Andy Warhol, and then Michael Jackson and Jeff Koons. When you’re an icon, that’s what happens."

Related interview with Sachs here.

UPDATE: More here from Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento, including some additional photos (thank you Ms. Valencia!). One point I'd make is that, while Sergio says "it seems that Sachs’ sculptures .. infringe the intellectual property rights of Hello Kitty’s owner," on a robust enough conception of "transformative purpose" it's possible these could qualify as fair use.

"Maybe it's the trustees and administrators who ought to be deaccessioned"

Lee Rosenbaum notes, with displeasure, that Randolph College is about to sell one of the four works it originally planned to offer last November but which were then tied up in a (now withdrawn) lawsuit seeking to block the sale.

Lee offers the following analogy in support of her no-deaccessioning policy: "If someone were to suggest that funds be raised by selling important books from the library, that (one hopes) would be a non-starter: Books go to the core of the college's educational mission."

I remain unconvinced. Would we really object if a university decided it was in the best interest of the school to sell off some books -- presumably because they thought the proceeds from the sale could be put to better use in other ways (like funding athletic programs, or preserving the anthropology department, or supporting additional need-based scholarships, and so on)? What if, by some quirk in the book market, these particular books (which, important as they undoubtedly are, were really only used and enjoyed by a fraction of the university community) were suddenly worth millions and millions of dollars? Do we really want to say that university trustees and administrators can never, under any circumstances, sell off an asset that "goes to the core" of its educational mission, even if the funds raised from the sale would be used to acquire other assets (or fund programs etc.) that also go to the core of its educational mission?

Why can't we trust the school's trustees to make these decisions?

Tolerable

Interesting article by Columbia IP scholar Tim Wu on "tolerated use" -- "a term that refers to the contemporary spread of technically infringing, but nonetheless tolerated use of copyrighted works."

Wu had a more accessible version, for a broader audience, at slate.com last fall.

So derivative

Robert Bernstein and Robert Clarida had a piece ($) in yesterday's New York Law Journal on the recent string of cases dealing with the question whether a photograph of a three-dimensional object is a "derivative work" under copyright law. Two district courts have said no, but the Ninth Circuit and one district court have said yes. I recently noted this issue here and here.

Bernstein and Clarida take the no-derivative-work line (as does Bill Patry): "For what it is worth, the authors of this article consider the [photographs] at issue in all of these cases to be works of photographic expression that depict their subjects but do not recast, adapt or transform them in the manner required of derivative works."

Rauschenberg

The sad news of Robert Rauschenberg's death this week also means the end of one of the two lawsuits he recently filed over the sale of objects pulled from his trash. The Southwest Florida News-Press's Mary Wozniak reports:

"Rauschenberg's death will nullify the federal lawsuit he filed against Naples artist Robert Fontaine under the Visual Artists Rights Act, said Lawrence H. Kolin of Orlando, Rauschenberg's attorney in the case. ... Kolin said that he has asked Yale T. Freeman, Fontaine's attorney, to consent to dismissal of the case. But Kolin likely will pursue a state lawsuit Rauschenberg filed in the same case, which Kolin amended shortly before Rauschenberg's death. The state lawsuit initially asked only for fact-finding, but now alleges that Fontaine and the HW Gallery of Naples made a deliberate effort to trade on Rauschenberg's fame and creative work by offering discarded copies of Rauschenberg's copyrighted photographs as if they were completed works authorized and signed by the artist."

Rights under VARA last only for the artist's lifetime.

Barnes Suits Dismissed (UPDATED)

In a post in March on the Friends of the Barnes's legal papers, I wrote that I was "not convinced they've solved their standing problem."

Today Judge Ott dismissed the various petitions on just those grounds. The decision is here. The Philadelphia Inquirer story is here.

Richard Lacayo has some thought here.

UPDATE: Further thoughts from Lee Rosenbaum here.

"If you still have those pieces of paper, shred them or frame them as souvenirs"

Lee Rosenbaum points out that yesterday was the last day to redeem the settlement coupons that were issued as part of the resolution of the Sotheby's-Christie's antitrust lawsuits several years back. She notes that, as of March 31, almost $42 million worth were still unredeemed.

Odd that a market for trading these never emerged.

Antiquities Death

Strange, sad twist in the California antiquities investigation: "An internationally known expert on Asian art who was implicated in a scheme to smuggle looted antiquities from Thailand to Los Angeles-area museums died Wednesday at a federal detention center in Seattle four days after being arrested there on a visit from Bangkok. Roxanna Brown, 62, director of the Southeast Asian Ceramics Museum at Bangkok University, had traveled to Seattle for a speaking engagement at the University of Washington, authorities said."

The Los Angeles Times story is here. Derek Fincham comments: "This has been a strange investigation from the outset. There was a massive search of California museums in January, and then nothing has emerged in the five months until this week when Brown was arrested, ... and now this death. There are no indications Brown was mistreated, though certainly the sketchy details give the appearance that the shock of being arrested led to a heart attack. Certainly this is a tragic death, and not the kind of message Federal authorities wanted to send."

Getty Sale

I missed it last week, but it seems Getty Images has been acquired by the private equity firm Hellman & Friedman for $2.4 billion. Story here. Earlier post here.

Rising Tide

The New York Sun cheers rising art prices:

"We think growing valuations in the art world are a healthy thing for New York City, which is the artistic capital of America. The high prices enrich artists and gallery owners and shrewd collectors, few to none of whom are 'royalty,' in the sense of vast, generations-long inherited wealth of the sort seen in Europe. ... What the art world boom exemplifies is not a concentration of wealth or royalty but social mobility. It is something to cheer, not to bemoan."

"The proposed legislation is written so broadly that it will almost certainly unleash a torrent of mischief by unscrupulous infringers"

The Association of American Editorial Cartoonists and the National Cartoonists Society express their opposition to the proposed orphan works legislation now making its way through Congress.

Related story here.

"There have been surprisingly few Supreme Court cases involving art . . . and even fewer that are illuminating"

Randall Bezanson on Art and the Constitution, forthcoming in the Iowa Law Review.

He crafts an argument for First Amendment protection of art . . . but it's not clear to me who he's arguing against. He mentions a 1948 book by Alexander Meiklejohn, and says "the text of the First Amendment says speech, not art." But is there anybody who seriously maintains today that art is not a form of protected speech?

Thanks to Stephen Urice for the pointer.

"Fingerprint analysis is kind of a dark art"

The Montreal Gazette has a story on Peter Paul Biro, the "forensic analyst and art restorer" who's been accused by the Fine Art Registry of using forged fingerprints to bolster the case for authenticating an alleged Pollock painting. (See earlier post here.) Biro says he "has mandated a lawyer to sue." It's hard to see what FAR had to gain -- other than the right to pay a lot of legal fees defending the lawsuit -- by speaking up here.

Orphan Works Update

A House panel unanimously approved the orphan works bill yesterday. Daryl Lang of Photo District News looks at the split among photo associations that the legislation has "exposed" (pun intended, I assume).

Lang also addresses some of the misinformation about the bill that's been floating around:

"One point of disagreement concerns whether the bill would require artists to register their work with commercial databases to get copyright protection .... Holland has used this point to argue against the bill in several articles. The APA used similar language in a five-page position paper published Tuesday: 'All works, professional or personal, published or unpublished, will have to be registered with as-yet-to-be-created private, commercial registries.' No such requirement appears in either bill currently before Congress, and Perlman and PACA attorney Nancy Wolff say the statement is untrue. Both versions of the amendment mandate the creation of private databases of copyrighted works to facilitate the search for rights owners, but registration would not be mandatory for all creative works."

"Our role in this community is to foster tolerance for creativity, and this law is completely in opposition to that mission"

The Indianapolis Museum of Art and the ACLU have filed a constitutional challenge to a recently passed statute that would require businesses selling pornography to register with the state. Story here in the Indianapolis Star: "The suit's target is House Enrolled Act 1042 .... It requires businesses that sell ['sexually explicit'] material to pay a $250 fee and register with the secretary of state."

"I think this lawsuit has given my campaign more attention than I ever would have gotten without it"

It seems Louis Vuitton is suing a young artist over a t-shirt she created to help raise awareness of the situation in Darfur. Techdirt's Mike Masnick describes the project thusly: "An artist named Nadia Plesner recently put together a project to try to raise money for the victims of genocide in Darfur. As part of the campaign, she created a t-shirt with a drawn image of a Darfur victim 'pimped' out to look like Paris Hilton -- that is, carrying a designer handbag and a small dressed up dog. The entire profits from the t-shirts are going to help the victims."

Masnick is not impressed with the lawsuit: "While there may be some difference due to the specifics of trademark law in Europe, it's hard to see how this is not overreaching. This is an entirely non-commercial venture. All of the profits are given to charity. The design has some differences from the Louis Vuitton bag, and hardly seems likely to specifically damage the Louis Vuitton brand (the lawsuit will take care of that). The t-shirts are clearly not competing with Louis Vuitton and there's little reason to have anyone think that Louis Vuitton somehow 'endorsed' this effort."

Political philosopher/photography enthusiast Jim Johnson agrees: "The obvious point is that Louis Vuitton must be out of their corporate minds. ... [W]hat sort of publicity do they think they are going to generate? Since they seem not to have figured that one out, maybe I can help. Before long there will be lots of people on the web and elsewhere making fun of LV for being idiots (at best) and callous assholes (at considerably less than best)."

Plesner has more at her website. New York magazine interviews her here.

Agis Trial Date Set

A trial date of January 26 has been set in the manslaughter trial of Maurice Agis, "whose inflatable sculpture flipped into the air and killed two women" in the U.K. in 2006.

Caught stealing?

This morning's New York Times mentions the Rockwell-ESPN lawsuit which I noted yesterday:

"[Curtis Publishing Company] has filed suit against ESPN, seeking to bar it from rebroadcasting its television series 'The Bronx Is Burning,' about the 1977 New York Yankees, until it withdraws its use of the [Rockwell] painting, 'Bottom of the Sixth.' In an e-mail message Curtis notified lawyers that ESPN did not have a license to use the painting and was committing willful copyright infringement, the lawsuit said. Court documents said that the painting was shown full screen in the second episode, 'Team in Turmoil.'"

475 Kent Update (UPDATED)

NY1 says the vacate order on 475 Kent Avenue has been lifted and tenants have started moving back in.

UPDATE: More in Tuesday's New York Times.

"You can’t just go out and take out works of public art just because you feel that you have the authority to do it. You’ve got to obey the laws."

More on the Kent Twitchell settlement from Richard Guzman in the Los Angeles Downtown News. He reports that, in addition to the $1.1 million payout, "Twitchell has until June 2009 to remove the artwork. After that, the building owner will be under no obligation to allow Twitchell access to the site."

Just Keep Scrolling

Lots of good stuff over at Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento's place, including: the story of a former U.K. public school art teacher who is charged with "making fake ceramic vases and bowls in his garden studio and passing them off as the work of renowned artists"; news of a lawsuit against ESPN for use of a Norman Rockwell painting in their "Bronx is Burning" miniseries without permission; and a pointer to an NPR piece on online art fraud.

"Often looking scruffy in hiking boots and rolled-up khaki pants, Mr. Rau trusted only his instinct and his eye"

I thought this was interesting, from Carol Vogel's piece in Friday's New York Times regarding Gustav Rau, whose estate is selling 10 works at Sotheby's in London in July:

"After his father died in the late 1960s, he sold the family business and went to medical school. He first worked as a doctor in Nigeria, then spent 20 years in what is now Congo, where he built a village hospital. In failing health, Mr. Rau returned to Europe permanently in the early 1990s and settled in Monaco. But he became disoriented, perhaps because, as a doctor, he medicated himself, and was found roaming the streets. Employees of one of his foundations filed lawsuits challenging Mr. Rau’s mental competency, and as a result, his assets, including his art collection, were briefly frozen. But he regained control and in 2001 announced a gift of 700 works to the German branch of Unicef. Included in the gift was one group of works that he stipulated could not be sold for 25 years; the rest could be disposed of to finance medical care. The remaining 300 some works in his collection were left to his estate. ... His estate is selling [these] 10 works now to cover the cost of running his hospital in Africa and other expenses."

Cowen on Cuno

Tyler Cowen on Art Institute of Chicago director James Cuno's "excellent" Who Owns Antiquity?: Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient Heritage: "The book criticizes nationalistic identity politics, calls for measures to broaden international access to antiquities, and argues that museums should again be allowed to acquire undocumented antiquities. In other words he favors a cosmopolitan, property rights approach."

Richard Lacayo interviewed Cuno about the book earlier this year (part 1, part 2).

Moore

Summary judgment motions have been denied and an August trial date set in the University of Alabama's trademark lawsuit against sports artist Daniel Moore, previously discussed here.

Authentication Committee Suits

In today's New York Sun, Kate Taylor writes about the Basquiat and Boetti authentication lawsuits. She admits the latter story, in particular, is "tortuous," but gamely attempts a summary:

"[T]he basic gist is this: In 2002, eight years after the artist’s death, [New York gallery] Sperone Westwater presented an exhibition of 15 Boetti works. It sent the catalog of the show to the [Boetti] archive, which contacted the gallery to express concern about one of the pieces. After a representative of Sperone Westwater took the work to Italy so that the archive’s staff could examine it in person, the archive declared the piece to be not authentic, and the gallery removed it from the show. The archive made no comment at the time about the other 14 works in the exhibition, of which Sperone Westwater sold nine. Beginning in 2004, however, the archive started questioning the authenticity of some of the other works the gallery had sold, including one that was purchased by the Art Institute of Chicago. It also effectively nullified a certificate of authenticity it had previously issued for a piece the gallery had sold, asking the gallery to send the work to Rome so that the archive could re-examine it, as the complaint says, 'in light of alleged "episodes of counterfeited works."' There are more details, but, suffice it to say, these seeming vagaries made Sperone Westwater pretty mad. It threatened to sue, but the archive beat it to the punch by bringing the action in Milan. In the New York suit, Sperone Westwater asks the judge to make a declaratory judgment that the Archive has no moral rights claims and also seeks damages 'for the Defendants’ injuries to the Gallery’s business and reputation,' on counts of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, and interference with business relations."

Toward the end, the article also breaks news about a third recent authentication suit:

"A judgment came down yesterday in another case, brought by the owner of a stage set allegedly designed by Alexander Calder against the Calder Foundation .... As in the Basquiat suit, the [plaintiff] in this case ... alleged that the foundation had entered into a contract with the applicant, a musician and conductor named Joel Thome. But the judge didn’t buy it. He granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, saying that accepting Mr. Thome’s application did not constitute a binding contract."

Damage During Delivery

Another lawsuit reported by Josh Baer:

"Axa Art Insurance, as subrogee for Steve Cohen, have sued Aaronson Office Furnishings Inc for $1.7 million alleging damage during delivery to Jeff Koons 'Wall Relief With Bird.'"

Twitchell Settlement

Kent Twitchell has settled his lawsuit over the destruction of his "Ed Ruscha Monument" for $1.1 million. Details in the Los Angeles Times.

Bridgeman v. Corel

There was an interesting panel discussion at the New York City Bar Association last night on Bridgeman v. Corel, the now nearly ten-year old Southern District decision holding that photographs of public domain works are not protected by copyright because they lack the requisite "originality." Rebecca Tushnet has a thorough play-by-play, and later adds some related thoughts.

Judge Posner was originally supposed to be on the panel but couldn't make it (and was ably replaced by Judge Kaplan, the author of the Bridgeman decision), but here's what he might have said, from his The Intellectual Structure of Intellectual Property Law (with William Landes):

"The court [in Bridgeman] likened these transparencies to copies produced by a photocopy machine and held that since photocopying obviously fails the originality requirement of copyright law, ... so did the transparencies. Left out of this account is the fact that ... making high-quality transparencies of artworks is a time-consuming process that requires considerable skill on the part of the photographer ....

"The court's insistence ... that a finding of originality requires a 'distinguishing variation' between the original and the copy ... creates a perverse incentive to produce second-rate or poor-quality copies. ... [But] the incentive to obtain copyright protection by producing a second-rate copy can be curbed by insisting that second-rateness is not a form of originality. ... So the court's decision may be correct after all."

Orphan Works Update

Lots of coverage of the revised orphan works legislation introduced last week in Congress. The Chronicle of Higher Education summarizes:

"Lawmakers who lead committees on intellectual-property issues on Thursday introduced legislation that would exempt scholars and others from facing excessive copyright-infringement penalties for using orphan works. They would need to first diligently try to locate the works’ owners. Should the owners surface after a work has been reused they would receive some compensation, but could not stop the derivative creation from being distributed."

More from Ars Technica and from Daryl Lang in Photo District News.

I wrote about an earlier version of the legislation here and here.

Qualified

A special section ($) in today's New York Law Journal includes a piece by Lawrence Kaye and Howard Spiegler on the "qualified appraisal" requirements for charitable donations of artwork.

It includes this closing thought: "[T]here are indications that donations of artworks could be subject to greater scrutiny by the IRS in coming years."

"Once people see the padlock, you're finished"

Kelly Devine Thomas walks around the Met with Larry Salander, for "the first interview Salander has given since his gallery was closed by court order last October."

Agam Again

Yaacov Agam's sculpture is back on view in downtown Chicago -- or is it?

The work -- mentioned earlier here and here -- "was originally dedicated in a ceremony with Mayor Harold Washington in 1983, becoming a part of Chicago's famous outdoor art gallery that also features works by Picasso and Marc Chagall." Its paint began to fade and peel, and three years ago was taken down for restoration. Agam is deeply unhappy with the quality of the restoration -- to the point that he takes the position that what is now on view is not a restored version of the original work but, instead, an unauthorized derivative work, in violation of his rights under copyright: "'The public should know that this is not a real Agam,' he said by phone Thursday from Paris. 'It is an unauthorized copy.'" (Because it's a pre-1990 work, VARA does not apply.)

Agam said he plans to travel to Chicago on May 3 to inspect the work and consult with his attorney there about possible legal action.

Two Suits

Josh Baer reports on two new art-related lawsuits.

One:

"Gerard de Geer and Sarastro LTd have filed suit for $10 million against the Authentication Committee for the estate of Jean-Michel Basquiat (and its individual members) and against Carl Flach and Stellan Holm. The suit alleges they refiused to authenticate the painting 'Fuego Flores' that was purchased from Flach in 1987 who bought it from Holm in 1986."

And two:

"Artist Ilana Zadik has sued Agora Gallery and Ariel Kahana for $3.7 million alleging that they lost, damaged, misappropriated or gave away 15 paintings."

"Gross" Thoughts (UPDATED)

Reaction to last week's "Gross Clinic" denouement from Richard Lacayo ("there's one last piece of this puzzle that doesn't make for a happy ending. The Cello Player, the Eakins canvas sold by the Pennsylvania Academy [to help pay for The Gross Clinic], disappeared into a private sale. There's no telling when or if it will ever be on public view again, though the anonymous buyer reportedly agreed to lend it back to the Academy occasionally") and Lee Rosenbaum ("the sale was inappropriate but executed in the most responsible way possible, under the circumstances").

UPDATE: Further thoughts from Lee.

A Randolph Sale

Also in today's New York Times, Carol Vogel reports that Randolph College is selling one of the four paintings involved in its recent deaccessioning lawsuit at Christie's on May 28: "The [Rufino Tamayo] painting had been the cover image of Christie’s Latin American sale catalog in November. But the college was forced to withdraw [it] from the November auctions when a group of alumnae, students and donors obtained an injunction to stop the sale. The group posted half the $1 million bond required by the court but failed to raise the rest. The injunction was lifted in February; papers were filed last month to withdraw the lawsuit." She also reports that "no decision has been made about selling the other works."

Malevich Compromise

Randy Kennedy in this morning's New York Times: "The city of Amsterdam and the heirs of the Russian avant-garde painter Kasimir Malevich have reached an agreement in a long-running battle over the ownership of 14 works that the heirs had said were rightfully theirs. The city announced on Thursday at the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam that the heirs would be given title to five important Malevich paintings owned by the city that have been in the Stedelijk’s collection for many years. In return, the heirs have agreed to drop claims to the other works and end a lawsuit filed against the city."

"This is it. Now we can celebrate."

I hadn't realized that the "Gross Clinic" story wasn't over, but today brings news that, through the sale of another Eakins painting, the Philadelphia Museum had raised the last of the $68 million that was needed to keep the painting from leaving town.

The buyers were the Denver Art Museum and the Anschutz Collection, so it's a real life example of Adrian Ellis's proposed approach to deaccessioning -- mutually advantageous trades between public institutions. Lewis Sharp, director of the Denver Art Museum, reminds us that there is a flip side to Philadelphia's loss: "To bring a painting of this importance into the community, it is a great thrill." Philadelphia Inquirer art critic Edward Sozanski concedes that the museum "found ideal homes for the Eakins works." So who could object?

"Why does the lion want to eat the mouse?"

Martha Lufkin has a report on the Rauschenberg trash lawsuit in The Art Newspaper.

Not to Burn

Nabokov's son has decided not to comply with his father's direction to destroy his unfinished last novel. See here for the background.

Russian Art Lawsuit

In today's New York Sun, Kate Taylor has a story on a "porcelain centerpiece that was among the top presale lots in Sotheby’s Russian art sales last week" but is now "at the center of a legal dispute, in which a Great Neck man claims that the dealer who put the piece up for auction stole it from his home and then told him he would be killed by the Russian mafia if he tried to recover it."

The parties had reached an agreement with Sotheby's to allow the sale to go forward (with an estimate of $2-3 million) -- "with the successful purchaser acquiring full title and Sotheby’s holding onto the proceeds until the dispute was settled" -- but it failed to sell. The lawsuit followed.

Kurtz Charges Dropped

The AP reports that a federal judge yesterday dismissed the mail and wire fraud indictment against Buffalo professor Steven Kurtz as "insufficient on its face."

Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento says it's about time ("After approximately five years of wasting public monies on a ridiculous charge . . . ").

For background, see here.

"It seems that neither diamonds nor fine art are truly forever"

The International Herald Tribune has a lengthy story on the Ralph Esmerian saga. It's mostly about the $187 million he owes Merrill Lynch for financing his purchase of the Fred Leighton jewelry company, but also touches on his troubles with Christie's and Sotheby's:

"Some of the paintings Esmerian gave to the American Folk Art Museum were outright gifts, and some were merely promised as gifts, with the understanding that they were being used as collateral on a loan from Sotheby's. A few weeks ago the museum was forced to take down one of its greatest prizes from Esmerian's painting collection, a mid-1800's masterpiece from Edward Hicks's 'Peaceable Kingdom' series that had hung at the museum since its West 53rd Street building opened in 2001. The painting was sent to Sotheby's, where it is estimated to fetch up to $8 million, which will be applied to Esmerian's $11.5 million debt. Although a promise is only a promise, the museum was taken by surprise. 'We didn't know about Ralph's problems,' said Susan Flamm, a spokeswoman."

Youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com

Bill Patry takes a look at a new "open blog for artists to post material they think has been ripped off, preferably by corporations."

That Yale Art Controversy (UPDATED)

Lawprof Eugene Volokh has a good post on the "abortion art" controversy at Yale. (For background, see here.) As he points out, since "Yale is a private university, ... the issue here is properly one of professional principles of academic freedom rather than of the First Amendment as such."

The latest news is that Yale is saying it will not let her show the work unless she admits it was a hoax all along.

UPDATE: Randy Kennedy has more in this morning's New York Times: "Yale University said on Monday that it would not allow a senior to participate in a campus art exhibition unless she made a written statement that her 'performance,' in which she repeatedly inseminated herself and then induced miscarriages, was a fiction that she had concocted."

"Architects are now regularly asked to sign confidentiality agreements that forbid them to talk to the press"

Nicolai Ouroussoff in The New York Times this weekend.

"What helped make this possible is the existence in the US of tax incentives for gifts of works of art that benefit the donors while they are alive"

Tate Director Nicholas Serota on how to increase giving to British museums:

"In Britain, there are tax benefits when works of art are given to the nation - but the donor has to be dead. This is the acceptance-in-lieu scheme, which gives tax relief on the deceased's estate. ... I would like to see the principles of the acceptance-in-lieu scheme extended to allow living donors to have a similar tax benefit through income tax and capital gains tax relief, during their lifetime. In the last 10 years acceptance-in-lieu has brought over £250 million-worth of works into the cultural sector - I think it is time to make a case for lifetime giving."

Here is more on the acceptance-in-lieu scheme.

"Addressing concerns about the decline of French culture . . ."

" . . . , French Culture Minister Christine Albanel unveiled a series of proposals earlier this month to stimulate spending on art works by French buyers. She wants to change exisiting laws so that the sale and auction of modern art can become as simple in France as it is in booming American and British markets. She has also proposed tax breaks and no-interest loans to induce small businesses and individuals to begin investing and collecting contemporary works that many now feel are beyond their financial range."

Full story here from Time magazine. The proposal still needs parliamentary approval.

Another Pollock Authentication Dispute

From Friday's New York Post (headline: "You Don't Know Jack!"):

"A world-renowned fingerprint analyst says a purported Pollock painting found in a Long Island garage is a worthless knockoff - and an expert who authenticated it based on a fingerprint is a fraud. Peter Paul Biro had declared the recently sold artwork a Pollock after saying fingerprints he found on the frame matched those on a paint can stored at Pollock's studio in East Hampton. But Pat Wertheim, a veteran law-enforcement fingerprint expert, contends that the prints were actually copied from the can and applied to the painting, likely by Biro."

Biro -- who's also involved with the Teri Horton "Pollock" -- "dismissed the allegation as 'libelous' and 'inviting swift legal action.'"

Salander Update (UPDATED)

Bloomberg's Philip Boroff reports that "U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Cecelia Morris [yesterday] approved a motion to convert the Salanders' [personal bankruptcy] case from a Chapter 11 reorganization to Chapter 7 liquidation."

UPDATE: More from The New York Times.

Inside Art (Law)

Lots of art law in Carol Vogel's "Inside Art" column in today's New York Times.

First, she writes about "the tumultuous saga of the jeweler Ralph O. Esmerian — who owes some $187 million to Merrill Lynch, $11.5 million to Sotheby’s and $7.5 million to Christie’s" and is "is scheduled to pay down a chunk of his Sotheby’s debt" when it sells his version of Edward Hicks's "Peaceable Kingdom" at auction next month. For background, see here and here.

She also covers Randolph College's upcoming sale of four paintings, one of which, coincidentally, happens to be another version of Hicks's "Peaceable Kingdom." She mentions the ongoing fight over the $500,000 bond the opponents of the sale posted. Their lawyer claims the school is not entitled to any part of the bond: "There are no damages, because they still have the art." The school counters that the originally scheduled sale "would have provided an estimated $50 million. 'Since we were prevented from selling the art in November, we have been missing the interest on that money every day.'"

But who's counting?

The Guggenheim Bilbao's financial director confesses to embezzlement: "I have appropriated various amounts for my own benefit for a total of EUR 486,979.38."

Machu Picchu Update

Derek Fincham has the latest on the Yale-Peru dispute. Peruvian researchers are now saying more than 40,000 objects were taken -- which is 10 times the original estimate. Derek wonders if Peru is in danger of overplaying its hand: "By increasing the claims that Yale University has mistreated Peruvian heritage, I wonder if perhaps Peru may risk losing the bargaining chips which were gained in the 2007 [memorandum of understanding]."

Bond Battle

Randolph College is going after the $500,000 bond that was posted by the plaintiffs in the (since withdrawn) lawsuit challenging the school's right to sell four paintings. "According to the [new] lawsuit, the school estimated it would have received about $50 million for the four paintings .... The interest alone from the sale would have generated thousands of dollars in income daily for the school, the suit states."

Scientifically Proven

ARTINFO.com reports that "the Prado has withheld a widely acclaimed Francisco de Goya work from an upcoming exhibition, citing doubts about the painting's attribution." More here from Tyler Green.

Virginia Heffernan isn't impressed with the "science" behind the decision.

Persistence

Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento points to a report in Spanish newspaper El Pais to the effect that "The Dali Foundation reported net earnings in 2007 of €1.3 million based on reproduction rights, trademarks and rights of publicity for Salvador Dali and his works." The foundation's director is quoted as saying they are also "collaborating regularly with police and Interpol. Grand forgeries are rare, but fraudulent reproductions based on abuse of the original contracts are quite frequent."

"You don't get yourself into negotiations involving a stolen picture and large sums of money" (UPDATED)

The Los Angeles Times reports today that Jonathan Petropoulos has resigned as director of Claremont McKenna College's Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide and Human Rights in the wake of a controversy relating to attempts to recover a multimillion-dollar Pisarro painting. "The woman Petropoulos says he was trying to help [recover the painting] has accused him and a German associate of trying to extort 18% of the painting's market value as payment for shepherding its return."

Thanks to Terry Martin for the tip.

UPDATE: More from Derek Fincham: "The ultimate issue I suppose is what kind of compensation these kinds of experts can and should claim. The lawyers involved, and the Art Loss Register all take a healthy commission; and Petropolous certainly seems to have been amply compensated for his time at $350/hour."

Tax Change

The New York Times reports that among the changes in the new budget approved by the New York State Legislature last week is a requirement that "nonprofit organizations like museums ... collect sales taxes on T-shirts, mugs and other items."

András Szántó: "The same politicians who walked way from half a billion dollars in annual revenues from a Manhattan traffic congestion charge will combat future deficits with a tithe on postcards and mouse pads."

"When you give away $50 million or $60 million of folk art -- I could've sold that and not had to borrow anything"

Bloomberg's Lindsay Pollock and Philip Boroff have more on Ralph Esmerian's "financial pickle," including the following:

"Even New York's American Folk Art Museum, an institution Esmerian championed for three decades, was forced to relinquish a prized painting because of his woes. ... [O]n May 22, Sotheby's will offer a painting of about 1846 from Edward Hicks's famous 'Peaceable Kingdom' series, plucked from the wall of the Folk Art Museum. A star of its collection since 2000, ... the Hicks is projected to sell for up to $8 million. ... The painting is one of approximately 400 American folk art works that Esmerian promised to give to the museum in 2000. The museum celebrated the gift by publishing a lavish 571-page catalog and mounting a major exhibit of the works. Esmerian said that while about 200 of the artworks were outright gifts, in an unusual arrangement, he pledged the other 200 in 2005 as collateral for an $11 million Sotheby's loan."

Late today, the New York Court of Appeals stayed (at least for the time being) the sale, scheduled for tomorrow night, of "115 Esmerian family heirlooms, " in what Christie's has been calling "the most important antique jewelry auction in history."

"Lawyers, artists the world over are captivated by case"

Mary Wozniak has a package of stories in today's Southwest Florida News-Press on the Rauschenberg-trash lawsuit. I'm quoted in this one. The point I was trying to make is that even if you accept that Rauschenberg "abandoned" the physical objects at issue, that doesn't necessarily resolve the question of what intellectual property rights he still has in them (e.g., under VARA). The latter question doesn't arise in the case of a couch, but it does when you're talking about works of art.

"After this, Gehry, Rem Koolhaas — boring"

I meant to link to this terrific article last week about the East Hampton house designed by artists Arakawa and Gins. "The house is off-limits to children, and adults are asked to sign a waiver when they enter." (The "main concern" is the flooring, which "rises and falls like the surface of a vast, bumpy chocolate chip cookie.") It's all connected to their theory of "reversible destiny" -- "essentially, they have made it their mission — in treatises, paintings, books and now built projects like this one — to outlaw aging and its consequences." Sign me up!

50 x 50

In Friday's New York Times, Carol Vogel had a story on collectors Herbert and Dorothy Vogel and their "50 Works for 50 States" initiative -- they're going to give blocks of 50 works to each of 50 museums, across the country. The gifts come with two conditions: "The museum must exhibit the works within five years (with exceptions made when expansion or renovation closes a building), and the works may be transferred only if they are given to another institution as a group."

475 Kent Update

The Brooklyn Paper's Caroline Jackson: "Roughly two dozen of the more than 200 artists and residents who were kicked out of [475 Kent Ave.] in January are participating in a group show, '475 Kent Lives,'" at the Queens Museum of Art.

The Brownstoner says there's a chance the residents could be back in next month.

One Moore Judge

The University of Alabama’s lawsuit against artist Daniel Moore is now on its fourth judge. District Court Judge David Proctor, who'd presided over the case since July 2005, recently recused himself "after strong disagreements with Moore over the appointment of a special master to broker a settlement between the two sides."

For background on what is actually a very interesting lawsuit, see here and here.

June 15

One more item from Josh Baer: "If you have, or think you have, an art claim against the Salander-O'Reilly Galleries you have until June 15th to file a claim with the US Bankruptcy Court."

More on the Arbus lawsuit

From Randy Kennedy in today's New York Times.

Josh Baer says "sources close to the deal report that Phillips (as noted in the catalogue) 'has guaranteed a minimum price to the owner of the sale and has direct financial interest in such lots.' Unlike media reports of the value being in the hundreds of thousands, the estimated value of the sale was approx $1.7-2.4 million, with the guarantee being in that range (we believe)."

"A bill to do something about a discriminatory tax situation that’s been affecting artists for 40 years"

A piece in the Chicago Reader on arts funding in Illinois includes the following:

"As things stand now, anyone who owns a piece of art can donate it to a charity and take a nice fat tax deduction equivalent to its current market value. But if the artist who created the work donates it, only the cost of materials can be deducted. We’re talking canvas and paint. This is a patently screwy arrangement, and local artists, who are often hit up to donate their work for charity auctions, have frequently lamented it. On the upside, all kinds of art qualify under the proposed [Artist-Museum Partnership Act], including 'literary, musical, artistic, or scholarly compositions or similar property,' so long as the work’s value is established. An NEA report ... makes the case for passage, arguing that the change will encourage artists to donate their work and especially aid small and medium-sized institutions."

Arbus auction off

Newsday reports: "[Phillips] auction house has canceled a New York sale of Diane Arbus photographs amid a lawsuit accusing their owner of taking advantage of the man who sold them to him."

Previous post on the lawsuit here.

"Simply to give with no tax benefit to himself is a remarkable gesture"

The U.K. Times has a story on David Hockney's donation of a major painting to the Tate (reportedly -- at 40' x 15' -- the largest ever given to the museum). He calls on more artists to follow suit: "More artists should donate. They should think about it. You can’t quite trust collectors who say they’ll give to the Tate and often don’t."

I can think of one thing that would help the cause here in the U.S.

"As a lot of people figure out, it's really complicated to run an art museum"

A couple of interesting articles toward the end of last week on the rise of private museums: Lauren Schuker in the Wall Street Journal ("The Firestorm Over Private Museums") and Kate Taylor in the New York Sun ("At Odds Over Art"). Eli Broad's recent announcement that he would not be leaving his art collection to LACMA seems to have prompted a lot of thinking by collectors about how best to dispose of their art collections.

Reversal

A London appellate court has reversed a decision awarding co-authorship rights to a former member of the 60's rock band Procol Harum over the song "A Whiter Shade of Pale," discussed earlier here. Apparently he waited too long to assert the claim.

"What experts described as the largest private sale of art ever"

In Friday's New York Times, Carol Vogel reported that "the heirs of the legendary dealer Ileana Sonnabend have parted with some $600 million worth of paintings and sculptures in two transactions to cover their estate taxes."

More from Kate Taylor in the New York Sun.

Vogel's story included this interesting tidbit:

"Perhaps the most famous painting she owned — Mr. Rauschenberg’s 1959 'Canyon' — will never leave the collection .... In its center is a stuffed bald eagle that cannot be sold because of a federal prohibition on trafficking in endangered species."

Boetti Bout

Josh Baer:

"In what is turning into a very nasty case there have been lawsuits filed between Sperone Westwater and the Archivio Alighiero Boetti (and some family members) over the authenticity of works exhibited and sold by the gallery in 2002. After being sued in Italy the gallery filed a detailed suit in NYC outlining allegations of reneged authentications over Boetti artworks shown and sold in the US."

Fisk to Appeal (UPDATED)

The AP is reporting that Fisk is going to appeal Judge Lyle's recent ruling in the O'Keeffe case. "The school said in a news release Thursday the order threatens the safekeeping of the collection."

Lee Rosenbaum was tipped off about this several weeks ago.

UPDATE: More from Richard Lacayo.

Intrepid Lawsuit

The AP reports that the Intrepid Museum is facing a lawsuit claiming that it lost several World War II-era photographs that had been loaned to it. The plaintiff says the photos were worth about $175,000.

For its part, the museum is playing the Guilt Card: its president is quoted as saying, "We are surprised and disappointed to hear of the filing of this lawsuit have referred this matter to our insurance representatives." He added that the museum had "limited resources" and "this unfortunate action detracts from our carrying out [our] critically important national mission."

In the long run . . .

At Andrew Sullivan's blog, an interesting take on the recent New York magazine article on Larry Salander, which made the case that his fall was caused by his (overly) ambitious project to create a new market for old master work:

"I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who bemoan contemporary art and seek a return to the old-masters. Appreciating formalism is one thing; crusading against contemporary art in order to correct an alleged cultural imbalance is something else entirely. When you buy a piece of art from a living artist you are funding her next project; you are allowing her to continue with her work. What does it matter to Rembrandt how much his painting sells for?"

"Recognizing a descendible postmortem property right has federal estate tax consequences that state legislators appear not to have considered"

In the Yale Law Journal "Pocket Part," Mitchell Gans, Bridget Crawford, and Jonathan Blattmachr look at the estate tax implications of the recently enacted California publicity rights legislation:

"Legislators, proponents of these laws, and legal commentators have overlooked two significant federal estate tax consequences of these new state law property rights. First, a descendible right of publicity likely will be included in a decedent’s gross estate for federal estate tax purposes. Second, the estate tax value of rights of publicity easily could exceed the estate’s liquid assets available to pay taxes. These tax concerns could be eliminated, however, by rewriting the statutes to limit a decedent’s ability to control the disposition of any postmortem rights of publicity."

Similar legislation is still pending in New York.

"Without freedom, no art"

From today's New York Law Journal ($): "An unlicensed street vendor, who sold tiles decorated with photographic reproductions, was entitled to First Amendment protection, a Manhattan [criminal court] judge has ruled. The court held that the peddler's 'creations' amounted to 'artwork' within the meaning of a 1997 injunction, in which New York City agreed to permanently refrain from enforcing licensing requirements against vendors who sold 'paintings, photographs, prints and/or sculpture.'"

The decision is here. The 1997 case is here.