Marc Jancou Fine Art has sued Sotheby’s and Cady Noland for breach of contract and tortious interference with a contract. Jancou alleges that in or around November 2011, Noland tortiously interfered with the consignment agreement between Jancou and Sotheby’s by persuading Sotheby’s to refuse to put her artwork up for auction. Jancou alleges that Sotheby’s acted in response to Noland by withdrawing the work from auction.

The lawsuit was filed with the NY Supreme Court. You can access the complaint here.

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.

On Facebook or Twitter? Have an RSS feed? Don’t have time to check our blog often? Then follow us on our social media sites!

Facebook

Twitter

RSS

Cheers!

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.

A source close to the contract negotiations notified Hyperallergic on Wednesday that the union and the museum have had five meetings and are unable yet to settle on a new contract.

Via Hyperallergic. [Note: the article refers at least twice to "contacts," but we believe they mean to say contracts.]