It’s back, like a double-edged dagger — an éperon — Nietzsche style.  Back by popular demand, and now going on its third year, Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts‘ legendary, ground-breaking, and no-holds-barred educational series for visual artists.

“Informative, thought-provoking, enlightening, sensical. These things should be taught in art school, but I’m glad I learned them here!” notes one artist. “Pure deliciousness. Challenging, spicy, enlightening,” notes another. Read (and see) what other past participants have said here.

Although fees are now attached, artists can register for individual classes or the entire series. Course starts March 20, 2012

Law School for Visual Artists

Topics that will be covered during the 5-week course:

Tuesday March 20, 2012
Introduction:
• Legal Hypothetical: Analyzing legal issues in your art projects

Tuesday March 27, 2012
• Basic business models (non-profit and for-profit corporations, LLC’s)
• Fiscal Sponsorships
• Employment issues
A. Studio and gallery assistants
B. Working as a preparator for art galleries

Tuesday April 3, 2012
• Free Speech
• Right of Privacy

Tuesday April 10, 2012
Contracts
• Consignment Agreements
• Licensing Agreements
• Commissioning Agreements

Tuesday April 17, 2012
• Intellectual Property (copyright and trademarks)

Click here to register for this course (or just one or two classes).

Another strong sign that U.S. courts are increasingly leaning toward protecting artists and their creative assets. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court correctly affirmed the 10th Circuit’s decision upholding Congress’s right to extend copyright protection to millions of books, films, artworks, and musical compositions by foreign artists that once were free for public use.

In a 6-2 decision (Kegan recused), Justice Ginsburg opined that Congress was acting “comfortably” within its powers when it extended copyright protection to foreign artists under treaty obligations that gave U.S. artists the same rights. Justice Breyer and Justice Alito dissented.

Lyle Denniston, of the SCOTUS blog, opined, “[a]ny legal rights that exist belong only to the author or composer, the ruling said.  If anyone wants to resume the use or performance of a work after it regains copyright, they must pay for the privilege[.]”

This decision should give pause to those pushing for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Cariou v. Prince. The Ginsburg opinion was supported in full by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarence Thomas. Quit while you’re ahead, for it’s one thing to have a district court decision; it’s another to have a Supreme Court decision strongly (and correctly) restricting mindless appropriation across the land.

The case is Golan v. Holder.

Kevin Smith, Duke University’s Scholarly Communications Officer, has some thoughts on this question, comparing U.S. copyright laws to those of the UK and Brazil.

A professor’s nude photographs that show him posing with students and faculty are causing controversy.

Artist Danny Guthrie is an associate professor at Michigan State University. According to The Detroit News, Guthrie “does not recruit currently enrolled students. Those who participate do so voluntarily, determine the extent of their involvement and approve the final photographs.”

Michigan State supports Guthrie. “Sometimes art, and the means by which it is expressed, evokes strong responses — both for and against it,” Heather Swain, interim vice president for university relations, said in a statement. “In situations where the art relates to an academic activity, MSU’s main concern is to maintain the integrity of the teaching and learning environment.”

What does Guthrie have to say about this controversy?

“I have reached a not entirely pleasant place in life one might call the fulcrum of middle age, with the balance shifting inexorably towards decrepitude,” Guthrie said in his statement on MSU’s website.”As one ages, it is with no small sense of remorse and regret that one comes to experience the realm of desire, romance, and carnality as existing more in the past than the future.”

One can’t help but think of Guthrie’s work as a beautiful illustration of Philip Roth’s, The Dying Animal. Some of Guthrie’s more “innocent” photos may be viewed here, while some with nudity may be viewed here and here.

Photo via fightlaunch at everystockphoto.

Yesterday, the Ultimate Fighting Championship (“UFC”)  sued New York state in Manhattan federal court, arguing that New York’s ban on live professional mixed martial arts fighting is unconstitutional. The complaint accuses the state of enacting the ban because of the violent message it believes the sport conveys. The UFC alleges that by doing so, NY state violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

What do you think, art, martial art, performance art, sport, or bloody sport (or all of the above)?

Via The Paper of Record.

Last week, the U.S. Copyright Office announced its priorities and thoughts for the coming year. The priorities range from the possible establishment of a new small claims circuit to group registrations to a new way that websites and blogs can register continually changing material for copyright protection. Both thoughts seem like sound changes, but let’s keep an eye out for the small-claims circuit idea and structure; we wouldn’t want it to short-change low-income or struggling artists and further benefit those with the power to litigate.

Based on this circular, the small-claims circuit idea seems promising:

Specifically, the Office is to undertake a study to: (1) assess the extent to which authors and other copyright owners are effectively prevented from seeking relief from infringements due to constraints in the current system; and (2) furnish specific recommendations, as appropriate, for changes in administrative, regulatory and statutory authority that will improve the adjudication of small copyright claims and thereby enable all copyright owners to more fully realize the promise of exclusive rights enshrined in our Constitution. [bold added]

If you have any thoughts on the small-claims circuit, be sure to let the Copyright Office know by filling out this online form. Deadline is 5pm, January 16, 2012.

The Copyright Office website will also be revamped and updated in 2012.

Here’s a link to the Copyright Office’s Circular detailing the considered changes.

Nutshell version via the Hollywood Reporter.

Starts right here.

We posted last week on the two “right of resale” lawsuits, where a group of artists, including Chuck Close, filed two lawsuits on  October 18, 2011 with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California asserting their rights under the California Resale Royalty Act of 1976 that would force sellers of their work to a share a percentage of the revenue when the artists’ works were resold. The lawsuits are, Estate of Robert Graham v. Sotheby’s Inc. (C.D. Cal.No. 2:11-cv-08604-JHN-FFM), and Sam Francis Foundation v. Christie’s Inc. (C.D. Cal.No. 2:11-cv-08605-SVW-PJW).

The Bureau of National Affairs has an interesting take, arguing that the California statute may implicate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause:

Should these claims be substantively addressed, the court would have to reconcile them with the [Copyright Act's] first sale doctrine, 17 U.S.C. §109(a), which gives a creator no rights to control the subsequent disposition of copies of works once they have been sold off. It might also implicate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without compensation.

Here’s the part of the Fifth Amendment that may apply here:

No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Not sure what’s going on, or what the California statute is about? Check out Andrew Russeth’s overview over at GalleristNY. For a helpful outline of the Takings Clause, take a look at this chart.

This is another interesting free speech case, where the United Northern & Southern Knights of the Ku Klux Klan are arguing that distributing leaflets containing their beliefs is not littering, but leafleting,  an act usually protected by the First Amendment. In its defense, the Klan cites Indiana Code § 35-45-3-2, which, in part, defines “Refuse” as “solid and semisolid wastes, dead animals, and offal.”

The Klan is being represented by the ACLU in Indianapolis Federal Court. Via Courthouse News.

Yuma, Arizona’s The Vertical Church is causing a bit of controversy. The Church has designated a free-standing wall along the north edge of the property as the Art Wall,specifically to promote “a form of ministry.” But not just anything can be posted or painted on the wall. A sign posted above the mural invites people to express themselves artistically, with the only requirement being that they not use profanity or gang images.

However, Yuma has an ordinance that expressly bans graffiti, arguing that even the sign posted above the wall also is a violation of city ordinances.

Via the ACLU:

ACLU-TN [has] announced plans to file a lawsuit challenging [Tennessee law] Public Chapter 362, which violates the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under the First Amendment. This new law, which goes into effect on July 1, would make it a crime to post any image online that causes “emotional distress” to any individual.

“This new law creates a chilling effect on expressive political, artistic, and otherwise lawful speech and also turns political activists, artists and others into criminals,” said Hedy Weinberg, ACLU-TN Executive Director. “In addition, anyone with an online presence, such as social media users, becomes vulnerable.”