UNESCO calls for ban on trade in Haitian artifacts to prevent pillaging of the country’s cultural heritage
“This heritage is an invaluable source of identity and pride for the people on the island and will be essential to the success of their national reconstruction.” -- quoting Director-General of UNESCO, Irina Bokova (http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=40335&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html)
Check out UNESCO's website for more on UNESCO's involvement with Haiti's reconstruction: http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=34603&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
See also an ICOM (Intl Council on Museums) report on the status (as of Jan. 21, 2010) of Haiti's museums: http://icom.museum/icbs-press/100121_haiti_damages_statement_UK.pdf
The ruling by the Berlin court of appeals left Sachs family members stunned, and came despite Germany’s signature of the Washington Principles in 1998 agreeing to the restitution of art plundered by the Nazis."
For complete article, see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7007140.ece.
If you are interested in the topic of Nazi-looted art and restitution, Cardozo offers a course on Restitution for Wartime Confiscations taught by Prof. Lucille Roussin.
"A tale in 13 tweets: the head honchos of the New Orleans Museum of Art and the Indianapolis Museum of Art have reached an agreement in a high stakes art exchange based on the outcome of the Superbowl. Both museums responded to a dare by art writer Tyler Green of Modern Art Notes, who suggested that the losing city loan out a work of art from its permanent collection to the victor. IMA director Max Anderson (on behalf of the Colts) and NOMA director E. John Bullard (wagering for the Saints) shaped the terms of the bet over email, blog posts, and Twitter, which makes for an entertaining — see also: transparent, accessible — dialogue between two higher institutions of art.
Sports trash talking (hello, talk radio) is nothing new, but we’re kinda digging this new layer of city pride. Museums engaging in popular culture via social media and by extension publicizing classical artworks? Well done."
- 5:38 pm Friday Jan 29, 2010 by Kelsey Keith
Learn more about the deal: http://flavorwire.com/66492/museums-take-pro-sports-gambling-to-the-next-level
" There has been a rage of attention to the recently revised proposal for a settlement by Google of a lawsuit brought against it by the Authors Guild of America and the Association of American Publishers (AAP). In 2004, Google launched the sort of project that only Internet idealists such as the entrepreneur and archivist Brewster Kahle had imagined: to scan eighteen million books, and make those books accessible on the Internet. How accessible depended upon the type of book. If the book was in the public domain, then Google would give you full access, and even permit you to download a digital copy of the book for free. If the book was presumptively under copyright, then at a minimum Google would grant “snippet access” to the work, meaning you could see a few lines around the words you searched, and then would be given information about where you could buy or borrow the book. But if the work was still in print, then publishers could authorize Google to make available as much of the book (beyond the snippets) as the publishers wanted.
The Authors Guild and AAP claimed that this plan violated copyright law. Their argument was simple and obvious--at least in the autistic sort of way that copyright law thinks about digital technology: when Google scanned the eighteen million books to build its index, it made a “copy” of them. For works still under copyright, the plaintiffs argued, this meant that Google needed permission from the copyright owner before that scan could occur. Never mind that Google scanned the works simply to index them; and never mind that it would never--without permission--distribute whole or even usable copies of the copyrighted works (except to the original libraries as replacements for lost physical copies). According to the plaintiffs, permission was vital, legally. Without it, Google was a pirate."
"On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court assumed that VARA applies to unfinished works of art, but it nonetheless ruled for the Museum in all respects because, even granting VARA's applicability, it found no genuine issues of material fact. Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art Found., Inc. v. Büchel, 565 F. Supp. 2d 245 (D. Mass. 2008). Büchel appeals. Because we find that, if VARA applies, genuine issues of material fact would foreclose summary judgment on one of Büchel's VARA claims – that MASS MoCA violated his right of artistic integrity by modifying the installation – we cannot assume that VARA applies to unfinished works but instead must decide its applicability. We conclude that the statute does apply to such works.
We further conclude that, in addition to his VARA claim, Büchel asserts a viable claim under the Copyright Act that MASS MoCA violated his exclusive right to display his work publicly. Accordingly, we reverse in part the grant of summary judgment for MASS MoCA and remand for further proceedings."
As many of you know, the Art Law Society is sending a team of three people (myself, Kiko White, and Josh Wolkoff) to Chicago during March 5-6 for the First Annual Cultural Heritage Moot Court Competition. The brief has been submitted, but now the team needs your help! During the month of February, the team will have 12 practices for oral arguments. We need people to act as the judges and ask tough questions to the team members. Ideally, we would like 3-4 people at each session, so we really need Art Law Society participation. This is a great opportunity to get involved with the Art Law Society (help out your fellow member!), get more exposure to the Moot Court competitions, and will get you bonus points if you're interested in entering this competition next year.
This requires familiarity with the briefs (both respondent and petitioner sides). You should know the issue and be able to ask very tough questions. This also requirement a time commitment of 2 hours for each practice session. You can do as many or as little practice sessions as you want. Please go to http://law.depaul.edu/chmoot/prob_brief.asp for the problem and published briefs.
The practice schedule is set out below.
Feb. 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, 19, 24, 26, & March 3 at 230pm-430pm
Feb. 14 at 2-4pm
Feb. 21, 28 at 4pm-6pm
Please email me with the days you are available to help out. If you have more questions regarding the practice team, please do not hesitate to email me (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Captain of the Art Law Society Moot Court Team
Alumni Relations Chair
Cardozo Art Law Society
Don’t miss the grand finale of Art after Dark: First Fridays at the Guggenheim! Special guest DJs Chromeo (P-Thugg and Dave 1) will fill the rotunda with their electro-funk sound as we cel...ebrate the end of an amazing five-year run.
$25 (FREE for Guggenheim Members)
Cash only at the door
Cash bar, members receive two complimentary drink tickets
5th Ave at 89th St
It's time to put a face to the Art Law Society's name! We are having a logo drawing competition. If you are at all interested in graphic design, please send us your submission. The logo will be used for all of our events. Submissions are due by Friday, February 5; please email a picture to email@example.com. Please contact the executive board with questions.
CALS Executive Board
Shepard Fairey, the creator of the Obama "Hope" poster, faces a criminal investigation into his behavior during a copyright dispute with The Associated Press over the photo that he used as the source of his iconic image. The Am Law Daily learned of the probe Tuesday afternoon while attending oral arguments before federal district judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.
Fairey's Jones Day lawyers had asked Hellerstein to close the courtroom for a scheduled hearing on motions that had been filed under seal, but the judge refused. In their sealed motion, Fairey's lawyers were asking the judge for a six-month extension of the discovery deadline in Fairey's copyright suit against The AP -- in part, in turns out, to allow Fairey to delay his deposition in the face of the criminal investigation.
In October, Fairey admitted lying about which AP photograph he used as the basis for his Obama poster -- and to fabricating and destroying evidence to cover up the truth.
When Hellerstein asked Meir Feder of Jones Day whether he could promise that Fairey would not need to assert his Fifth Amendment rights at the end of the proposed six-month delay, Feder responded: "I can't promise you his intentions."
Hellerstein ruled from the bench that due to the time sensitivity of the copyright claim, he was denying Fairey's motion for an extension. "Everything in this world is time sensitive," Hellerstein said. "Especially news. Especially photographs." Tuesday evening AP spokesman Paul Colford said in a statement that The AP had received a grand jury subpoena in connection with Fairey's admitted misconduct.... In October, one of The AP's lawyers in the matter, Dale Cendali of Kirkland & Ellis, told sibling publication The Am Law Litigation Daily that Fairey's "lies about which photograph he used go to the heart of the case," she said. Hellerstein seemed to echo that sentiment Tuesday afternoon. "It's a fact case," he said at one point during the hearing. "Credibility is probably the most important issue." ...
by Ross Todd (01-27-2010)
"If Deitch thrives in his new post, I suspect it will go a long way towards silencing the gasps when the next dealer is appointed to head a museum."
Read the full article here:
Poznan police spokesman Romuald Piecuch said today that officers detained a 41-year-old man in the southern city of Olkusz after the painting, Beach in Pourville , was found in his possession.
Mr Piecuch says the suspect and the painting were being transported to Poznan.
The picture was stolen in September 2000 from the National Museum in Poznan. It was valued at $1 million at the time.
The thief cut the painting from its frame and replaced it with a copy painted on cardboard.
Sotheby's estimated the painting's value at $60,000 to $80,000, and French prosecutors learned of it from the catalogue, the U.S. Attorney's Office said in announcing the verdict.
Neither the San Antonio gallery owner nor Sotheby's was a defendant in the case. The painting will be returned to France in accord with the National Stolen Property Act.