William Patry, senior copyright counsel at Google, opines on the public domain as well as current U.S. copyright terms and their detrimental effects.

Via CNN.

On the proposed Los Angeles City ordinance. On a public hearing concerning the proposed ordinance. And on whether the proposed ordinance should refer to murals as fine art and not commercial signs, and whether murals should have moral rights protection under California law and the 1990 Visual Artists Rights Act.

Seems like it. And now a custom car maker who goes by the name of Gotham Garage will have to prove that it did not infringe DC Comics’ copyright to the Batmobile. You see, Gotham Garage decided to build and sell replica Batmobiles — without DC Comics’ permission. DC Comics flew out of their bat cave (lower case “b” so as to not run the possibility of infringing DC Comics’ trademark) and sued Gotham Garage claiming copyright infringement, trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and common law unfair competition.  Yikes!

Anyhow, Judge Ronald Lew, of the Central District of California, found that Gotham Garage’s claim that the Batmobile was not protected by copyright to be, let’s just say, pure bat guano, meaning it had no teeth. Gotham Garage will now have to answer DC’s allegations that the full-size, drivable Batmobile replicas infringe DC’s rights to the car’s design.

For those of a legal persuasion, the case is DC Comics v. Mark Towle et al (2:11-cv-03934).

Via the Hollywood Reporter and Mr. Pink.

Patrick Cariou’s lawyers filed their appellate brief on Wednesday, January 25, 2012. The case, the Roe v. Wade of the artworld, is Cariou v. Prince.

The brief is available here, via pdf format on Scribd.

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).

They probably did, and their customer service response didn’t make things any better. Thanks to our good friend Amanda Sitzer for the heads up.

When asked if his use of a copyrighted photograph of Bob Marley in a judicial opinion was fair use, 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner had this to say.

“It’s not as if we’re selling our opinions in competition with a photographer,” he said. “Using the photo in a judicial opinion couldn’t conceivably be hurting the copyright holder.”

The case, Grayson v. Schuler, concerns the right of a prisoner with dreadlocks to refuse a haircut on religious grounds.

Via Reuters.

The US Copyright Office would like to hear from those who have interest in copyright records and get thoughts on how we would search these records and how we would like to see the records displayed. Very nice.

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.

I don’t think so, but see what you think. My good friend, and fellow artist-lawyer, Alfred Steiner, has taken it upon himself to dabble in some potential legal trouble. You see, Steiner

…bought a glob-erific clown painting by Allison Schulnik at Canada gallery on the Lower East Side. He then proceeded to have a replica of the work fabricated on a ZPrinter 650 3D printer. The result is a quite good monochromatic reproduction of the painting that is full of the brushstrokes and textures that until recently we thought we couldn’t so easily reproduce.

Steiner, having quite a bit of experience in copyright law, contacted Schulnik and alerted her to his alleged infringement. But is what Steiner did actually copyright infringement? At this late hour (11:00pm EST), I would have to say, not at all.

You see, one great aspect of painting is the use/non-use of color paint. In this case, to make a monochrome painting copy of an impastoed/expressionistic painting is synonymous to making a black version of a Robert Ryman or a pink version of a gray Gerhard Richter. At that point, one can easily concede that the copy is based more on inspiration than on infringement, regardless of the clown face on Schulnik’s painting. Schulnik’s clown face, one can certainly argue, is a generic representation of a clown face. To say that Steiner’s white version is a derivative work, and therefore infringing on Schulnik’s painting, would be tantamount to saying that no other artist could paint a clown face impasto-style, white or in color. Silly indeed.

But, and as my fourth-grade teacher, Mrs. Cabbines, used to remark, “and this is a big but,” the real question is whether the mechanical reproduction of Schulnik’s painting is in fact infringement, where the copyright protection rests also on the sculptural aspects of Schulnik’s work. In this case, now we’re talking. And, I might add, the legal question gets more interesting (and juicier) if we ask how exactly Steiner went about copying Schulnik’s work. Why? Because if there is any, and by this I mean any, detrimental physical impact on Schulnik’s work, Steiner may just have triggered the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, which protects an artist’s painting (among a few other types of fine art) from distortion, modification, or destruction.

Until we know the exact process Steiner used to copy Schulnik’s work, we won’t know whether or not Schulnik’s moral rights to her painting were violated.

A great art project indeed!

More on this via Hyperallergic.