Egyptian Museum Safe (for now)

The Egyptian Museum houses a variety of priceless works of art, including the contents of the tomb of King Tutankhamen. The gold death mask is one of the most spectacular and famous pieces.



It is unclear how many of the works are in the museum at the present time as reports suggest that a large number of treasures are currently on tour around the States, nevertheless, the quality and historical significance of the art stored in the museum cannot be underestimated.

Unfortunately, the museum is practically next door to the National Democratic Party building which has been the focus of a lot of the fighting in Cairo.

There were a variety of both alarming and reassuring reports yesterday. The Guardian suggested that the fire at the NDP headquarters might spread to the Museum. Meanwhile, Euronews reported that thousands of protestors had formed a human chain around the Museum to prevent its being looted.

Reuters finally reported that the army had secured the Museum late last night. It appears to be safe for now, and more importantly, the protestors appear to be extremely conscious of avoiding the fate of the Iraq museum. We can only hope that this respect for the past continues.

UPDATE - Saturday

So, it looks like I wrote too soon…

Reports are still a little confused but it appears that at least two mummies were destroyed during the anti-government protests before the army moved in to secure the museum. There have also been images of broken glass display cases and artefacts on blogs such as HyperAllergic.

According to Al Jazeera, Zahi Hawass, the Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, said looters ripped the heads off two mummies and cleared out the museum gift shop. However, in large part thanks to the actions of Egyptian citizens forming a protective human shield around the museum, the damage has been fairly limited and there have been no reports of any successful theft from the museum.

Mr Hawass confirmed that the museum's prized King Tutankhamun exhibit, which includes the boy pharaoh's gold death mask, had not been damaged and was safe. However, he also noted that the museum's contents could still damaged by the potential collapse of a neighbouring building that was gutted by fire.

Ironically, a couple of weeks ago Zahi Hawass, Egypt's Vice Minister of Culture, grabbed headlines around the world after he claimed that the Central Park Conservancy and Mayor of New York City have not made adequate efforts to conserve Cleopatra's Needle.

UPDATE - Sunday

Sadly, there are now reports of looting at the Egyptian Museum. Somewhat depressingly the former director of the Egyptian Museum, Wafaa el-Saddik (pictured below) has said, in a widely reported interview for Zeit Online (in German only), that the individuals responsible for the museum’s looting included its guards.



On the bright side, it looks as though the fire at headquarters has now been extinguished and no longer poses a threat to the museum.

Other parts of Egypt have not been so lucky. The Memphis Museum has apparently been completely ransacked.

UPDATE - Tuesday

There are now reports from Reuters of Molotov cocktails being thrown in the vicinity of the museum some of which landed in the Museum's gardens. It does not appear that the Museum itself has been hit but the risk of fire spreading to the museum increased as a result. Reuters has reported that the army has moved in to extinguish the flames and prevent the fire spreading.

Banned Zimbabwean Artist’s Work Uncovered

In March 2009, Zimbabwean artist Owen Maseko had an exhibition at the National Gallery in Bulawayo. Many artists are nervous before their works are shown to the public but Maseko had more reason to be anxious than most. His work was an outspoken critique of the 1980s period known as the Gukurahundi, when forces associated with Mugabe committed widespread atrocities. According to ArtInfo, the authorities shut the exhibition down the following day on the basis that it would provoke inter-tribal strife. Furthermore, both Maseko and Voti Thebi, the gallery’s Director, were taken to prison in leg shackles.

According to the Web site of Sokwanele, an underground pro-democracy movement in Zimbabwe, Maseko was initially charged with violating a prohibition on anything that "insults or undermines the authority of the President," as well as "causing offense to persons of a particular race, religion, etc." Under Zimbabwean law, these charges warrant a fine or a prison sentence of up to a year. However, the Government later attempted to substitute the charges with “violating a ban on publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the State." This offence carries up to 20 years of prison time.

Maseko's lawyer successfully argued against this greater sentence, however, Maseko’s art remains banned, and the art from his exhibition is still retained by the authorities as potential evidence against him.



Maseko's Gukurahundi exhibition includes graffiti and installation elements as well as paintings. Slogans scrawled on the walls proclaim such sentiments as "A weak community is a politically compliant one," and "Patterns of resilience and support need to be facilitated...." The show also included several dummies strewn around the space, apparently representing victims of the atrocities. The paintings depict faceless silhouettes many of whom are fleeing in terror. In amongst all this fear threads the sinister caricature of a figure in over-sized glasses: Mugabe.



Maseko's personal website explained his philosophy as an artist: "Being an artist is about being brave and using art to challenge attitudes … People in Zimbabwe are waiting for change, but we as Zimbabweans are the change." He has been and continues to be extremely brave. It is now up to us to view and understand his art and not allow it to be swept under the carpet.

Art Info has an online gallery of seven photos from the exhibition which is available here: and there is a wider gallery of photos on Flickr.

Sources: Art Info and Sokwanele

Art's Cold War Continues

Although now overshadowed by more recent news from the east, it was announced last week that Russia will maintain its ban on sending any new art exhibitions to the US. The ban was imposed in response the decision of the US district court for the DC Circuit in the case of Chabad-Lubavitch v Russia.

The case relates to an archive of 12,000 books and manuscripts and 50,000 other documents collected by the Sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Joseph Isaac Schneersohn, which was seized by the Nazis, and subsequently claimed by Soviet during World War II. After apparently exhausting all diplomatic avenues, in December 2008, the Brooklyn-based Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement filed suit against Russia claiming ownership of the archive. In a ruling in August 2010, the US court confirmed that the Russian government must return the archive to Chabad-Lubavitch. However, Russia did not accept the judgment as valid, insisting that the collection is part of its state archive, and, in any case, claiming that the US district court does not have jurisdiction over the matter. Therefore, following the court's judgment, Russia declared that it would not send any art exhibitions to the US until the dispute over was satisfactorily resolved.

On 20 January 2011, Russia's Culture Minister Alexander Avdeyev confirmed that the ban remains in place, stating:

"We stopped sending exhibitions to the United States in August (because) one American organisation made a completely illegitimate claim on this collection of books."

It seems that the main reason for the ban is that Moscow fears the US authorities will seize any Russian art coming into the country and hold it as security in exchange for return of the archive.

This dispute is damaging to all sides of the argument, but particularly to both the US and the Russia art markets. Since Russia refuses to accept the jurisdiction of the US court, it appears it is up to the diplomats to find a solution. Not really a promising state of affairs. After all it took them 40+ years to resolve the actual cold war.

Some Russian art currently showing at The Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow. Not in the US.

March 1895, from the exhibition Isaak Levitan. To the 150th anniversary.

Source: AFP, 20 January 2011

World's First Online Art Fair

The inaugural VIP Art Fair, which describes itself as "the first art fair to mobilize the collective force of the world’s leading contemporary art galleries with the unlimited reach of the Internet" is being held this week only from 22-30 January 2011.


Taking place at vipartfair.com, the VIP Art Fair aims to give contemporary art collectors access to artworks by critically acclaimed artists and the ability to connect one-on-one with internationally renowned dealers—from anywhere in the world and without leaving home.

Most of the details, including how to register to browse the art (which is free) can be found here. Glaringly omitted, at least at the registration stage, are the terms and conditions of sale. Indeed, according to this report, Noah Horowitz, the director of the VIP Art Fair has said that: "Exactly how transactions are conducted at the point of sale are entirely in the hands of buyer and seller; VIP simply helps to connect one party to the other....This means that purchases could happen without either side meeting each other in person or without the buyer seeing the actual work in the flesh prior to purchase." In other words, VIP is not offering an art auction type service, a la eBay or Christie's Live - but merely a forum, much like the London Art Fair, except that it is a virtual venue.

From a legal standpoint, it can be very risky to not have the legal terms set out from the beginning - particularly when trading valuable art. So, while this is a potentially exciting development, both purchasers and vendors of art via this service should be cautious and ensure they are protected. There will be no third party in the background ensuring the transparency of the transactions.

Source: DNAInfo.com, 21 January 2011

Senior Curator Praised as Stolen Paintings are Returned to Kelvingrove Gallery

In a case dating back to 1996 three stolen works of art, with an estimated value of £200,000, have been recovered after they were removed from museums in Glasgow to be sold on the black market. One is by the Scots colourist, Samuel Peploe, another by French artist Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot, and a third by Italian painter, Federico Barocci.The case took another turn in November when a senior curator at Glasgow's Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum noticed the Corot included in a sale by Edinburgh-based Lyon and Turnbull auction house. When police recovered the painting, the auctioneers confirmed they had sold another work, the Peploe, from the same source. The Peploe was seized at a Glasgow art gallery owned by Ewan Munday. Mr Munday confirmed to BBC Scotland that he bought the Peploe at auction last year. He said police had given him convincing proof the work was one of a number of items missing since the 1990s. He is now pursuing a legal action against an auction house. It is understood that the Barocci painting was later recovered from the source's home.

A spokesman for Glasgow Life, the body which looks after public museums, said: "We're very grateful for the work of the police in bringing these paintings home to Glasgow. "However, every praise should be reserved for our senior curator whose keen eye illuminated the fact that the stolen Corot was up for auction. Without his wealth of knowledge and expertise, the works may still have been hanging elsewhere. "We will continue to work with UK police forces to ensure any stolen item is returned to Glasgow and we are grateful to the galleries who have readily assisted in this matter."

It is unusual to find a stolen Corot, a more common problem being forged works instead. His relatively simplistic painting style resulted in a huge production of Corot forgeries between 1870 and 1939. René Huyghe famously quipped that ”Corot painted three thousand canvases, ten thousand of which have been sold in America”. Adding to the problem, Corot was no ‘copyright activist’ and his relaxed attitude encouraged copying and forgery. He allowed his students to copy his works and would even sign their copies.

Source: BBC Scotland

Photo: Shaun Killen Photography

Rubens Causes More Controversy as Artwork Owned by A Victim of the Nazis to Remain in Britain

Following on from my earlier post, it seems that Rubens was causing a stir before Christmas too.

His work entitled The Coronation of the Virgin, an oil sketch measuring 46cm x 61.4cm, was painted in or around 1613. While the painting is one of Rubens's lesser known works, it is considered important as it is part of a group of oil sketches by the German-born artist made in preparation for a series of larger paintings that decorated the ceiling of a Jesuit church in Antwerp destroyed by fire in the 18th century.

15 December 2010, after dispute between the Courtauld Institute and the family of its original owner, Parliament's Spoliation Advisory Panel ruled in favour of Courtauld Institute and as a result the historically important painting of the Virgin Mary stay in Britain. The full report of the Panel can be found here. Last year another painting formerly owned by the Jewish banker, Hans Makart's The Death of Pappenheim, was returned to the same family by a decision of Vienna Municipal Council.

The Spoliation Advisory Panel, chaired by Sir David Hirst, was established in February 2000 by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as an advisory non-departmental public body (NDPB) to help resolve claims for cultural property looted during the Nazi era. On 12 April 2010 the Panel was dissolved as an advisory NDPB and reconstituted as a group of expert advisers which continues under the name 'Spoliation Advisory Panel'. Sir David Hirst continues to be chairman, the Panel's membership remains as before and the Panel remains the advisory body designated by the Secretary of State under Section 3 of the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009.

The Panel resolves claims from people, or their heirs, who lost property during the Nazi era, which is now held in UK national collections. The Panel is appointed by the Secretary of State. It considers both legal and non-legal obligations, such as the moral strength of the claimant’s case, and whether any moral obligation rests on the holding institution.

The painting came to Britain after it was acquired at auction at Sotheby's by a noted collector, Count Antoine Seilern, who bequeathed it to the Courtauld Institute in 1978. The painting’s original owner was Jewish Banker Herbert Gutmann, the Director of the Dresdner bank until 1931 and son its founder. Gutmann himself was a collector of Islamic, European and decorative arts. After his father died he was appointed the director of Dresdner Bank until 1931 when he stepped down in the wake of the German banking crisis. Having sold his art collection in Berlin in April 1934, he fled Nazi Germany for the UK in October 1936. He died here six years later. His brother and his wife, who remained in Germany, were murdered by the Nazis. Gutmann's remaining assets were seized by the Nazis in 1940.

Gutmann, described by a propaganda poster as a "profiteer and a Jewish manipulator" was feared by Hitler as someone, along with his contemporaries, who might support a coup against him. Indeed in 1934, together with other members of centrist and right-wing parties, several of Gutmann's contemporaries were murdered on the orders of Hitler. Gutmann’s descendants maintained that he was forced to sell the painting in haste before the Nazis seized the collection and because he was forced to flee Nazi Germany and as such the Courtauld was obliged to return the work.

Central to the row over ownership was whether Gutmann had been forced to sell the painting because of antisemitism. The panel heard evidence that Dresdner Bank became "Nazified" and was encouraged to persecute Jewish employees. The panel report notes: "While there is no documentary record of Gutmann having owed any money to the Dresdner Bank before 1933, documents start recording money owed by Gutmann from this point onwards, beginning with a debt, reported in July 1933, of 200,000 reichsmarks owed to a Dresdner Bank share syndicate set up in 1927, in which Gutmann was a participant."

The panel also heard Gutmann’s wealth was eroded after unsuccessful investments in Egyptian cotton and that Gutmann sold his art collection as a “cold financial calculation” because of these financial losses, rather than due to anti-Semitism. The panel agreed with his and saw no grounds for criticism of the Courtauld. In their final conclusion considered the moral strength of the Claimants’ case insufficient to warrant a recommendation that The Coronation of the Virgin should be transferred to them or that an ex gratia payment should be made to them.

Original Source: http://www.culture.gov.uk and http://www.guardian.co.uk

Banksy Bail Identity Crisis

Banksy’s identity is a closely kept secret and although several newspapers have claimed to have unmasked him, this has never been publicly confirmed.

However, whilst anonymity may a good thing from an artistic and personal perspective, it has its drawbacks, particularly if you want to intervene in Russian court proceedings.

As Simone published previously, Banksy has been following the fate of the Moscow based Voina art collective. Two of their members Oleg Vorotnikov, 35, and Leonid Nikolayev, 27 have been in prison since November 2010 after Palace Revolution, a piece of performance art in the centre of St. Petersburg, was considered to be more criminal than artistic. The performance art in question involved turning over police cars in an anti-corruption protest which police claim caused thousands of pounds worth of damage.

Banksy organised an online fundraiser which raised the required bail money (approximately £80,000) but last Friday, a judge refused to accept the money due to a "lack of information about the person providing the money." The two Voina artists’ fate remains unclear. Even if bail is granted, they are facing up to seven years in prison, in what appear to be less than savoury conditions. A response which Russian art community has denounced as excessive.



Previous Voina performances have included throwing cats at McDonald’s workers to alleviate their boredom, staging an orgy in a Moscow museum and painting a giant cock on a bridge in St Petersburg (not to be confused with the blue cock which will be coming to Trafalgar Square’s fourth plinth in the near future)…

Sources: Art Info and The Guardian

Woman in Sombre Travelling Cloak Detained in the UK

Culture Minister Ed Vaizey yesterday placed a temporary export bar on Portrait of a Young Woman, said to be by artist Peter Paul Rubens, providing a last chance to raise enough money to keep the painting in the United Kingdom. The Minister’s ruling follows a recommendation by the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest, administered by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA). The Committee recommended that the export decision be deferred on the grounds that the painting is of outstanding aesthetic importance and of outstanding significance for the study of early 17th Century portraiture.

The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest is an independent body, serviced by MLA, which advises the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on whether a cultural object, intended for export, is of national importance under specified criteria. Where the Committee finds that an object meets one or more of the criteria, it will normally recommend that the decision on the export licence application should be deferred for a specified period. An offer may then be made from within the United Kingdom at or above the recommended price.

The painting, which dates from c. 1602-04, depicts a woman in a sombre travelling cloak, embellished with elaborate lacework and expensive jewellery. Her identity is unknown, but she was clearly an individual of high status. The costume itself is Spanish but does not necessarily locate the painting in Spain, since some Italian courts at that time adopted the Spanish style of dress. It is possible that the painting was commissioned by Vincenzo Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, for his “Gallery of Beauties”. The woman gazes straight out of the canvas and there is a sense of a strong bond between viewer and sitter that gives the portrait a powerful impact.

Lord Inglewood, Chairman of the Reviewing Committee, said: “This is a striking portrait of a very real, although unidentified, woman. There are some bravura areas of painting, especially in the face and hand. It is an important work for study as although its attribution to Rubens is debated it is an outstanding example of portraiture in Southern Europe from the beginning of the 17th Century."

The decision on the export licence application for the painting will be deferred until 17^th March 2011 and may be extended until 17 May 2011 inclusive if a serious intention to raise funds to purchase the painting at the recommended price of £1m is expressed. So if you have a spare £1m lying about, now is the time to make an offer.

Original Source: http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/media_releases/7719.aspx

Scratching the surface of London -- with stolen material

Whether you care for "The Urethra Postcard Art of Gilbert & George", the latest exhibition of work by that iconic British duo, there is much to excite the lawyer.  The works exhibited consist of collages made from postcards and stolen newspaper billboards. Regarding the latter

" ... one of the artists enters a newsagents' to purchase some chocolate, while the other pilfers that night's attention-grabbing headline outside. “We have been stealing the Evening Standard [bills] and other newspapers for the last six years,” George said.

It means they have titles for the next series of works even before these are created: including Arrested, Attack, Baby, Bomb, Caged, Gay and Murder. Gilbert said: “There is nothing pleasant. But that's not our fault. We are scratching the surface of London."”

While it is not apparent whether the postcards are also stolen, their reproduction in the book of the exhibition inevitably raises questions of copyright too.  Some of the postcards -- those which consist of sex advertisements which are becoming less ubiquitous now that public telephone boxes are giving way to handheld telephonic devices -- may not even be entitled to copyright  protection in the fullest sense, if British courts revert to old case law on the subject which has never been formally overruled.

Would a court grant equitable relief to protect from copyright infringement (or any other wrong) a piece of artwork which consisted of stolen material, we wonder.

 Source: "It’s a steal! Gilbert & George nick Standard posters for art’s sake", London Evening Standard, 12 January 2011

Obama Copyright Dispute Settled

News today that the Associated Press has settled its lawsuit against Street artist Shepard Fairey who produced the iconic Obama “Hope” poster based on an AP photo of Obama.

A joint statement released today, which helpfully summarises both sides of the dispute as well as the terms of the settlement (minus financial details aka the juicy bits), advised that:

“The Associated Press, Shepard Fairey and Mr. Fairey’s companies Obey Giant Art, Inc., Obey Giant LLC, and Studio Number One, Inc., have agreed in principle to settle their pending copyright infringement lawsuit over rights in the Obama Hope poster and related merchandise.

Mr. Fairey used an AP portrait photograph of Mr. Obama in making the Hope poster. Mr. Fairey did not license the photograph from the AP before using it. The AP contended that Mr. Fairey copied all of the original, creative expression in the AP’s photograph without crediting or compensating the AP, and that Mr. Fairey’s unlicensed use of the photograph was not a fair use. Mr. Fairey claimed that he did not appropriate any copyrightable material from the AP’s photo, and that, in any event, his use of the photograph constituted a fair use under copyright law.

In settling the lawsuit, the AP and Mr. Fairey have agreed that neither side surrenders its view of the law. Mr. Fairey has agreed that he will not use another AP photo in his work without obtaining a license from the AP. The two sides have also agreed to work together going forward with the Hope image and share the rights to make the posters and merchandise bearing the Hope image and to collaborate on a series of images that Fairey will create based on AP photographs. The parties have agreed to additional financial terms that will remain confidential.”

It also notes that the AP's copyright infringement lawsuit against Obey Clothing, the marketer of apparel with the Hope image, remains ongoing. So, the fight over this iconic piece of art is not all over yet.

Source: Wired, 12 January 2011 & Associated Press

Brainiart?

Questions have been raised as to the artistic value of an art exhibition currently showing at GV Art in Marylebone.

“BRAIN STORM - investigating the brain through art & science” is described as an “exhibition in which seven contemporary artists consider the human brain: the physical entity described by science, the seat of the mind and soul, and origin of the creative impulse”. The press release further explains that:

“Their works are shown alongside a film of a Neuropathologist performing a "brain cut up." For the viewer, this juxtaposition is the starting point for a dialogue between how we see the brain and understand its functions scientifically and what happens when this physical organ that produces our individual visual and creative understanding becomes the subject for the artist.”

“The inspiration for Brainstorm was an invitation earlier this year by Dr David Dexter, Reader in Neuropharmacology and Scientific Director Parkinson’s UK Tissue Bank, Centre for Neuroscience, Imperial College, London, for GV Art to observe a brain cut up. And, on 17 November, curator Robert Devcic and artists Katharine Dowson and David Marron spent more than two hours observing a braincut up at the Joint MS Society and Parkinson’s UK Tissue Bank at Imperial College, London. Some of the works in this exhibition were made in direct response to this experience.”

“The gallery hopes to have the actual brain and brain slices involved at that event on display in coming weeks. GV Art is the only private gallery in the country to hold a Human Tissue Authority Licence for Public Display and Storage”

Of course, it is on this last point that issues have arisen. For today, the brain, which was removed from the dead body of a multiple sclerosis sufferer (with the patient's consent), went on show.


It is reported that there have been protests over the work, with critics saying that the exhibit pushes the boundaries of decency in the name of art and that the public display of human body parts is “degrading”. In this respect, however, the only opponent cited is a Conservative MP, David Amess, who is a former member of the health select committee, who stated: “It's one thing if this is done in a laboratory, but it's degrading to put body parts on display in a public place. In my personal opinion, this is a disrespectful way to treat the human body and is unacceptable.”

It is not the first time that parts of a human body have gone on show in the name of art. This is not to say that there are not strict rules governing the public display or storage of any human tissue from a dead person.

The Human Tissue Act (“Act”), which came into force on the 1st September 2006 and is governed by the Human Tissue Authority (“HTA”), provides a framework for the regulation of storage and use of human tissue from the living, and the removal, storage and use of tissue and organs from the deceased for specified purposes. At the heart of the Act is the requirement that consent be obtained for the removal, storage and use of any relevant material which has come from a human body for certain Scheduled Purposes. These purposes include public display. The Act does not define 'public display', but the HTA Guidance provides that it will regard a public display as: “An exhibition, show or display in which a body of a deceased person or relevant material which has come from the body of a deceased person is used for the purpose of being exposed to view by the public.”

A key principle on which the Act is based is that all human bodies, body parts and tissue within the Act’s scope should be treated with appropriate respect and dignity. This principle applies to the public display of a body or tissue from a deceased person, and the guidance’s proposals complement those within the European Union Tissues and Cells Directive (EUTCD). The Act is also complemented by DCMS' Guidance for the care of Human Remains in Museums, which deals with the curating, care and use of human remains and rests on the same principle. In order to regulate this principle, the Act also makes it a requirement that all organisations that either use or store human tissue must be licensed to carry out specific activities. The HTA is responsible for issuing the licences.

As we have seen, GV Art holds one such licence. Accordingly, it may be inferred that that this exhibition does not fall foul of the requirements of the Act and that it has been concluded that the brain is being treated with sufficient dignity and respect.

Whether or not it is Art is another question. But, regardless of the answer to that, the exhibition certainly sounds fascinating.

It is currently showing at GV Art until 22 January 2011.

Source: The Evening Standard, 11 January 2011

Image Source: © Alex Lentati

Brazil's new President: feminist or figurine?

Harmless fun, or a possible
criminal offence?

Google News has picked up the news that Brazil's new President Dilma Rousseff has been rendered into the form of a doll, complete with red dress and presidential sash, by figurine maker and collector Marcus Baby.  This, he says, is a "purely artistic exercise" which is not connected with any political posturing. According to the doll's creator,

"The creation of a Dilma Rousseff doll comes exclusively from the indisputable, historical fact that the actual president is visually interesting as inspiration for the type of art I do. That is all". 

What the President, a noted feminist and campaigner for women to take a greater share of the power in Brazil, feels about being put into doll format without her consent is as yet unknown. In some countries an activity which is deemed to be an insult to the Head of State may give rise to criminal prosecution, but in Brazil it is unclear what the situation is. According to Wikipedia,

"In Brazil, defamation is a crime, which is prosecuted either as “defamation” (three months to a year in prison, plus fine; Article 139 of the Penal Code), “calumny” (six months to two years in prison, plus fine; Article 138 of the PC) and/or “injury” (one to six months in prison, or fine; Article 140), with aggravating penalties when the crime is practised in public (Article 141, item III). Incitation to hate and violence is also foreseen in the Penal Code (incitation to a crime, Article 286). ...".

Images of the President Dilma Rousseff doll are on Marcus Baby's web page here.

Source: "For artist, Brazil's new president is a doll", Google News

Koons Sues Over Balloons

Jeff Koons has historically tended to be on the receiving end of copyright lawsuits – most famously in relation to his puppies sculpture.

However, just before Christmas Koons decided to take the initiative… His lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to Park Life a San Francisco shop for selling balloon dog book ends.

The letter has sparked a great deal of debate across the internet with many finding Koons’ approach somewhat hypocritical given his previous appropriations of other people's copyright work.

A&A has been particularly fascinated by the uncertainty as to the exact monopoly Koons is claiming in balloon images. Are children’s birthday party entertainers at risk of receiving similar letters? The bookend and the Koons sculpture are undoubtedly similar but there does not appear to be evidence that the bookend copied the sculpture – it could so much more easily be based on the balloon animals Koons copied in the first place.

It will be interesting to see if Koons decides to take this further and issue proceedings. At the moment, the shop in question, is being fairly bullish. It initially pulled all references to the balloon dog both in store and online but has now chosen a different tack and the balloon dog appears along with a message: “BALLOON DOG BOOKEND: please call Jeff Koons’ Lawyers.”

You can read more about the case here.
Source: Art Info

Rubbish or art?

Similar to our report here, a further story from the tail end of 2010, where it was reported that another art installation was mistaken as rubbish and thrown out. Valued at £30,000, Legg-io by Isabella Facco was on display at an open air exhibition in Padua, Italy, when rubbish collectors mistook the work as just that and sent it to be incinerated.

On realising what had happened, the gallery owners are said to have sought to reclaim the work, but were too late. It had already been destroyed.

The important question which this raises – apart from that time old one of 'what is art?' – is who, if anyone, bears the cost? Did the artist have an agreement in place with the gallery to display her works? If so, was there an indemnity clause, promising to indemnify her for any loss and damage to her work? Alternatively, would the artist or the gallery have a cause of action against the rubbish collectors? Or, if they worked for the city of Padua, is there a claim against the city?

There are also issues as to how much loss was suffered. The work was valued at £30,000. Was it insured for this much? Is this figure to be reassessed in light of the fact that the work was mistaken for rubbish?

In any case, the artist has clearly suffered a loss. However, in order to recover something to compensate her for this loss, these are the types of hard questions which need to be answered.

Art?

Source: Sunday Mail (Scotland), 19 December 2010

Entrustment, insurance and top marks for Spencer

Art & Artifice has just been taking a peep at Spencer’s Art Law Journal, since vol.1, issue 3 (Winter 2011) is now available. As editor Ronald D. Spencer explains,

"This issue contains three essays, which will become available by posting on Artnet, starting December 2010.

... the legal structure we call art law (an amalgam of personal property law, contract, estate, tax and intellectual property law) supporting the acquisition, retention and disposition of fine art, often fits uneasily with art market custom and practice. The result is that 21st century art market participants are frequently unsure of their legal rights and obligations.

The goal of this Journal is to promote discussion of art law legal issues for lawyers and nonlawyers alike, so as to provide greater transparency, stability and predictability. ...

Three times a year issues of this Journal will address legal issues of practical significance to collectors, dealers, scholars and the general art-minded public."

Looks good to us.  The first article of 2011 is Elizabeth C. Black's "  Entrustment, The Hidden Title Risk of Leaving Your Artwork in the Care or Possession of Others -- Will Your Fine Art Insurance Cover Your Loss? Probably Not".  She concludes, following a review of US law and practice, that

" ... fine arts policy insurance claim for lost title due to an entrustment may result in a denial of coverage. You should be sure you always know the location of your artwork, who has possession of it, and whether or how it is being displayed (e.g., is it listed for sale?). Consignment agreements often run for years and artwork may be moved between various locations as a series of consignments from your dealer to other dealers (whose identity is not known to you) over the course of several years. The more informed you are about these re-consignments, the more likely you will be able to protect your interests".

This looks like sensible advice, regardless of the jurisdiction -- though it's not just a question of being informed in the first place, it's also a question of how to remember to stay policy-conscious as art works travel and change their functionality between display object, item for sale and goods in transit.

Happy new year!

Happy New Year from Art and Artifice! We hope 2011 brings you joy, happiness and lots more exciting art law news.

As always, with the start of a new year many works of art lose their copyright protection. This blog is dedicated to the artists who died in 1940 and their now copyright free art. If you know of any artists we have overlooked, please let us know using the comments section below.

John Calvin Stevens

was an American architect who worked in both the Shingle Style, in which he was a major innovator, and the Colonial Revival style. He designed more than 1,000 buildings in the state of Maine and several others throughout the world, including various features of this church.

Robert Frangeš-Mihanović

was a pioneer of modern Croatian sculpture and one of the initiators and organizers of artistic life in Zagreb at the turn of the century.

Isaak Babel

was a Soviet journalist, playwright, and short story writer acclaimed as "the greatest prose writer of Russian Jewry.” Despite being an enthusiastic and loyal Communist, Isaac Babel was arrested, tortured and executed during Stalin's Great Purge.

Charles Herbert Woodbury

was an American marine painter. He was renowned for his images of the coast and sea. Seeing and understanding movement was fundamental to his art and teaching, and is reflected in his own maxim: “Paint in verbs, not nouns.” Woodbury had over 100 solo exhibitions throughout his career, and his work can be found in many of America’s most prestigious art galleries including the Met in New York.

Paul Klee

was a renowned Swiss artist who died in 1940 of scleroderma, a disease which is generally acknowledged to have strongly influenced his creative art. Klee has been associated with Expressionism, Cubism, Futurism, Surrealism, and Abstraction. His pictures such as this one of a cat



are difficult to classify. He generally worked in isolation from his peers, and interpreted new art trends in his own way. He was inventive in his methods and technique. Klee worked in many media including oil paint, watercolour, ink, pastel, etching and others. He often combined them into one work. He used canvas, burlap, muslin, linen, gauze, cardboard, metal foils, fabric, wallpaper, and newsprint.

Paul Behrens

dabbled in various artistic design enterprises particularly in applied arts, including constructing typefaces, ceramics, and magazine covers. In 1907, the German company Allgemeine Elektricitäts-Gessellschaft (AEG) hired Behrens as a consultant. In an early form of marketing, he transformed the company's image and created, arguably the first, corporate identity. He designed the AEG trade mark, stationery and catalogues, as well a certain products for the company. Whilst his copyright no longer has any intellectual property rights, any trade marks which remain on the register can be protected almost indefinitely so long as the registrations are maintained.