Monday 30 January 2012

Originality or author's own intellectual creation? What is the legal test for copyright subsistence in photographs?

Is this the red bus that sparked
a thousand copyright debates?
One of the many insightful comments in response to the Art & Artifice debate surrounding the "Red Bus" decision came from Francis Davey.

He wrote in response to my musings regarding the current test for copyright subsistence in photographs:

Does Painer apply? Painer was considering the "own intellectual creation" standard for European Law, but common law protection is, arguably, lower (I'd say - almost indisputably).

Surely recital 16/article 6 of 2006/116/EC preserved the common law level of protection for "uncreative" photographs? The 1988 was not, and could not, be amended to raise that level of protection by a regulations made under the 1972 Act, so the law must, presumably, be the common law. Unless some new, countervailing, principle exists that has never been properly articulated.
My understanding was that there are not two systems that run in parallel for assessing whether a photograph has artistic copyright and that following Infopaq, which was confirmed in Painer, the correct test is now "author's own intellectual creation" rather than the common law approach of originality. However, lacking complete confidence in my convictions, I deferred to a higher authority, namely Dr Justine Pila of Oxford University. She, diplomatically, replied as follows:

I agree with you both.

1. Is the common law originality standard lower than the EU ("author's own intellectual creation") standard?

*If* the common law standard requires "skill and labour" only, and *if* the EU standard requires creativity (as per Floyd J and AG Mengozzi in Football Dataco) then *in principle* yes - and this certainly was the view of AG Mengozzi in that case ("copyright protection is conditional upon the database being characterised by a ‘creative’ aspect, and it is not sufficient that the creation of the database required labour and skill").

2. Does the Term Directive permit Member States to confer copyright protection on photographs which satisfy the common law originality standard but not the EU standard?

I think it does. Article 6 of the Term Directive requires that photographs satisfying the EU standard be protected as literary or artistic works within the meaning of Berne Art 2 - ie, by lit/artistic copyright - without the imposition of any other criteria. And it expressly permits [Member States] to "provide for the protection of other photographs", ie, photographs not satisfying the EU standard. So the only question is whether UK law still recognises the sufficiency of the common law originality standard with respect to photographs.

3. Does UK law recognise photographic copyright in the absence of "creativity"?

I think it does, consistent with (2001 Ch).

4. Does it follow that UK copyright only subsists in photographs if they are creative, or that the UK and European tests of photographic copyright differ?

No, I don't think so, because I don't think that Painer requires creativity for photographic copyright. Rather, it requires (a) that the subject matter of a photograph leaves scope for “sufficient formative freedom”, and (b) that the photographer exploit that freedom so as to leave his “mark” on the resulting work (ie, the photograph). (And it held that in the case of a photographic portrait, there is sufficient formative freedom, and thus the possibility of copyright, as "the photographer can determine, among other things, the angle, the position and the facial expression of the person portrayed, the background, the sharpness, and the light/lighting.") In my view this is perfectly consistent with the UK approach as adopted in, where the court held that UK copyright will always subsist in a photograph of a single, static non-spherical 3-d object (eg, antiques) on the basis of the judgement involved in positioning the object, determining the angle at which it is to be taken, and determining the lighting and focus.

So I agree with you, that the European and UK tests of photographic copyright are the same, and conform with that adopted in Painer. The critical question in any particular case is whether the subject matter leaves scope for “sufficient formative freedom” which the photographer exploits so as to leave his “mark” on the resulting work. This test seems better captured by the "author's own intellectual creation" formulation than the "skill and labour" one; though in fact UK courts have often expressed the common law originality standard in terms of "skill, labour and judgement", which is arguably not different from the European "author's own intellectual creation" test. And I personally doubt that the EU test requires creativity - it's almost identical to the Canadian test, which was formulated partly so as to underline that creativity is *not* required. (That at least is my memory.)

Do you agree? Where is the line in your jurisdiction? Where do you think the line for copyright subsistence should lie? Please join in the debate using the comments section below.

Note: no weblinks were included in the correspondence.  They have been included in this blog for readers' ease of reference.

Sunday 29 January 2012

Red bus suggests copyright law is not black and white: an Italian perspective

A red bus in Italy - including a
reference to another
English copyright case
The English case - Temple Island Collections Ltd v New English Teas Ltd -  is arising a great discussion not only in England but even in other European legal circles.

As Rosie correctly underlined in her last post on January 24, this English decision could be objectionable since the Judge focused more on the defendant's attempt to sell more tea - thanks to the association to a famous image - rather than on considering whether a substantial part of the original photograph was copied or not. Therefore, the Judge seemed to be more interested in protecting idea rather than the expression of it, going beyond the scope of copyright.

In Italy, as in other civil law countries, the decision would have probably been the same: the red bus photograph would be considered a copyright protectable work according to art. 2, n° 7 of Italian Copyright law (law n° 633, on April 22, 1941), so that the defendants  would have committed a copyright infringement taking a substantial part of the claimant's photo.

The level of creativity requested to a photograph in order to be considered copyrightable is quite low in Italy. It is sufficient, according to caselaw, that the author's personality emerges through, by way of example: the selection of lights and their sources, the visual angle, the choice of warm and cold colours, at the end, i.e. when the photograph is not a mere copy of reality lacking of any creative trait.

Nevertheless, in Italy the claimant would have pleaded not just copyright protection but even unfair competition, which can be considered, unlike the English tort of passing off, a general remedy against damaging dishonest practices committed by competitors. 

Indeed, the defendant's behaviour could theoretically embody two of the three hypothesis of unfair competition provided by article 2598 of the Italian Civil Code. The first hypothesis occurs when the competitor uses names, distinctive signs or makes any act that can create confusion with the competitor's products or activity, whereas the second one punishes the disparagement of a competitor's reputation or appropriation of a competitor's goodwill.

The defendant's behaviour could be considered confusing, besided being deemed as misappropriation of the claimant's goodwill according to the Italian provision on unfair competition.

Friday 27 January 2012

Motion to dismiss filed by Sotheby's in California resale royalty claim

In October 2011, a lawsuit against Sotheby's and Christie's commenced in Los Angeles (reported in Art and Artifice here). The claimants - a class of artists including Chuck Close, Laddie John Dill and the estate of Robert Graham (and, in Christie's case, the Sam Francis Foundation) - are arguing that the auction houses unlawfully failed to collect the 5% artist's resale royalty that California law demands. The state's Resale Royalty Act (CRRA) says that:

'When a work of fine art is sold at an auction or by a gallery, dealer, broker, museum, or other person acting as the agent for the seller, the agent shall withhold 5 percent of the amount of the sale, locate the artist and pay the artist'.

At the time the suit was filed Christie's stated that 'it views the California Resale Royalties Act as subject to serious legal challenges'. Now co-defendant Sotheby's has duly filed a motion to dismiss the artists' suit. Its main arguments are:

  1. that the CRRA 'violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution in that it constitutes an impermissible direct regulation of interstate commerce and serves no legitimate local interest' (that is, it violates the constitutional principle that no state may control commerce in any other state); 
  2. that the CRRA 'effects a per se taking of private property in violation of the US and California constitutions', i.e. that the resale percentage is an unlawful taking of the auction houses' own property in a sort of legalised theft; and
  3. that 'the Copyright Act of 1976 both expressly and impliedly preempts the CRRA'.  

The motion is due to be heard on or after 12 March.

Tuesday 24 January 2012

Red bus suggests copyright law is not black and white

A recent case in the Patents County Court for England and Wales concerned the nature and scope of copyright protection for a computer manipulated monochrome photograph of a bright red bus going over Westminster Bridge. The photograph may be of a specific subject matter but the case has much wider implications for the worlds of photography and graphic design.

Photo 1

The court considered two main questions (1) is Photo 1 a copyright protectable work and (2) if so, has a substantial part of Photo 1 been copied to make Photo 2.

Has Photo 2 (on the right) copied a "substantial part" of photo 1 (on the left)? 
Is photo 1 a copyright work?

Although a photograph is one form of artistic work which is protected under the Copyrights Designs and Patents Act (CDPA), not every photograph is an artistic work. Following the European cases of Infopaq and Painer, for copyright to subsist in a photograph it must be the “author’s own intellectual creation”. Painer went into considerable detail as to what did and did not constitute the “author’s own intellectual creation” but it effectively means that not every snapshot that you take on e.g. your smart phone has copyright protection.

By way of example, the judgment refers to an Austrian decision (O (Peter) v F KG) which related to photos of grape varieties. This found that “what is decisive is that … the [photographer’s] personality is reflected by the arrangements (motif, visual angle, illumination etc).” It is hard to avoid an aesthetic judgment being made under this approach (even though the CDPA explicitly says that '“artistic work” means ... [a] photograph ... irrespective of artistic quality' (s. 4(1)(a)).

The judgment noted that composition is affected by the angle of the shot, the field of view, and computer manipulations which are made in post processing. It ultimately held that Photo 1 is an artistic work as either a photograph or a collage (on the basis that the sky was digitally removed and replaced with white and therefore the image could be an electronic collage).

Does photo 2 infringe the copyright in photo 1?
Answering question 2 isn’t as straightforward as it may sound. It is not a case of what are the differences between photo 1 and photo 2. As the judge notes, it is possible to “reproduce a substantial part without necessarily producing something that looks similar”.

It is a matter of “quality not quantity” i.e. have the features which give photo 1 its artistic quality been copied by photo 2. The judge analysed this quality based on composition and visual contrast.

Although the “images undoubtedly differ in their composition”, the type of bus, direction of travel, presence of people, lack of traffic and amount of sky were identified as both copied and qualitatively important. In terms of visual contrast, the red bus against the monochrome background was clearly copied but the blank white sky was also identified as significant.

Together the composition and visual contrast features were found to be a “substantial part” of photo 1 and to have been copied by photo 2.  Although the analysis is quite detailed it is very hard to see how a photo taken at a different angle, with a different foreground, exposure level and perspective could infringe. Arguably all that is really copied is that idea of a black and white photo of the Houses of Parliament with a red bus in the foreground.

The judge noted that “the whole point of this case is that [the defendant wants] lawfully to produce an image which does bear some resemblance to the claimant’s work". This is the heart of the problem. Based on the judgment, there appears to be an attempt by the tea company (defendants) to sell more tea through an association with a popular photograph of a London landscape (photo 1). However, whether that association is legitimate is not a question for copyright law which should only be concerned with considering whether a substantial part of the original photograph has been taken. It is my personal view that a substantial part has not been taken.

Whilst it is clear that not every photo of Westminster Bridge would infringe photo 1. The line as to what inspiration photographers (and other artists) can and cannot take from previous works has become (more) blurred.


Photo 3
(a portrait version of the defendant's photo 2)
The court was, post-trial, asked to consider whether the portrait version of photo 2 (photo 3 above) could infringe photo 1. Photo 3 has been substantially cropped so that the bus is even more prominent together with Big Ben.

Again, somewhat surprisingly, the court found that “The cropping has been carried out to discard only the most insignificant parts of the original” and therefore “the cropped portrait version does reproduce a substantial part of the claimant’s work”.

What do you think? This case has aroused a fair amount of controversy in legal circles. We would love to know where would you draw the line.

Sunday 22 January 2012

Is McBanksy at large in Edinburgh?

"The mystery of Scotland's secret sculptor", as reported by the BBC here, explains that Edinburgh has its own secret artist who has been strategically depositing a series of delicate sculptures made from books in cultural establishments across the city. Speculation is rife as to whether the artist is operating Banksy-style in order to make some sort of cultural statement or whether the whole exercise is an elaborate con, designed to stimulate tourist interest in the city. One journalist, interviewed in the BBC's video clip, maintains that she knows the identity of the artist but refuses to reveal it.

The identity of the artist is a matter of legal significance for copyright reasons, if no others, since special provisions govern anonymous works in the United Kingdom and many other jurisdictions.

Sunday 15 January 2012

Woman’s buttocks make an impression on a Clyfford Still Painting

Potential peeing target:
Clifford Still 1957-J no.2 
On 29 December 2011, the Clyfford Still Museum in Denver was the scene of a rather dramatic display of vandalism (or performance art, depending on your perspective).

A woman, who had apparently enjoyed the alcoholic fruits of the holiday season a bit too much, reportedly pulled her trousers down, leaned her buttocks against against and subsequently slid down an iconic Clyfford Still painting worth more than $30 million. Although the impression of her buttocks caused the most damage, she also punched and scratched the painting and urinated on herself (fortunately the urine does not appear to have damaged the painting). The total cost of the damage to the oil-on-canvas called 1957-J no.2, is an estimated US$10,0000. The woman in question, Carmen Lucette Tisch, was charged with felony criminal mischief.

Clyfford Still was one of the first abstract expressionists who lead the movement after the Second World War. The Clyfford Still Museum opened on 18 November 2011. It constitutes a collection of approximately 2,400 works in a variety of media which were previously sealed off from public and scholarly access following Still’s death in 1980.

Quite apart from the criminal aspect, there is an argument that rubbing your buttocks against, scratching and punching a painting is an example of derogatory treatment and provides a potential moral rights action. Following Confetti v Warner (2003) this would depend on whether there was distortion and mutilation of the painting and “the distortion or mutilation prejudices the author’s honour reputation” (para 150). There is arguably prejudice to Clyfford Still’s reputation by the public nature of the damage (and the subsequent publicity).

Comments from readers, particularly regarding the US position on moral rights would be much appreciated.

Source: The Guardian

Friday 13 January 2012

Do the Velvet Underground and the Warhol Foundation fight for Warhol's banana?

Warhol's cover of the album "The Velvet Underground & Nico"

The Velvet Underground, the legendary New York band, filed two days ago a lawsuit against the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts Inc., in New York federal Court, for violating its trademark representing a banana designed by the pop art artist Andy Warhol.

The band worked closely with Warhol in the 60’s and the king of the pop art designed the banana illustration appearing on the cover of their first 1967 commercially released album “The Velvet Underground and Nico ”.

The band founders, Lou Reed and John Cale, claimed that the Foundation infringed the design, by licensing its usage to Incase, which makes sleeves, bags and cases for Apple products. In April 2011, this company announced it had worked with the Andy Warhol Foundation to create a “distinctive collection” of products that carried the artist’s works. Among these works, there is also the Velvet Underground’s album cover design.

Within the complaint, which does not mention Apple, the Velvet Underground claimed that the design could not be copyrighted because Andy Warhol took the banana’s image from an advertisement that was on the public domain.

In addition, the banana design would have become the Velvet Underground’s trademark, though theVelvet Underground did not ever trademark it, since the band would have obtained this right thanks to the exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted association to the band for more than 25 years, so to represent the band’s icon and an important element of its current licensed merchandising products.

The Velvet Underground asked the judge to prevent Incase from selling and creating other products reproducing the banana design. In addition, the band requested monetary damages, besides a judicial declaration that the Foundation holds no copyright to the banana illustration.

To know more see here

Thursday 12 January 2012

Two Forms (Divided Circle): Permanently Separated by Scrap Metal Theft

Two Forms (Divided Circle) in its original glory 
One of the more dramatic art stories to hit the news at the end of last year was the theft of Barbara Hepworth’s sculpture, Two Forms (Divided Circle), from Dulwich Park in South London.

This bronze sculpture, one of six casts, had stood in the park for more than 40 years. It weathered the seasons and successfully evaded graffiti artists only to mysteriously vanish overnight following an apparently well co-ordinated theft from the park.

The theft was not a traditional art heist but for the purpose of the sculpture's resale value as scrap metal. Indeed, the general media consensus is that it has most likely already been melted down.

Post theft orange tape
Art Theft Central has been regularly reporting on the dangers of scrap metal theft, which has targeted everything from copper railway cables to sculptures including war memorials. Rising prices for copper, lead and bronze coupled with relatively loose regulation of the scrap metal industry have contributed to a nationwide increase in metal theft. By way of example, according to the BBC, last year there were more than 2,500 claims for the theft of metal from churches.

According to the Association of Chief Police Officers, metal theft is estimated to cost the UK economy £770m every year.

There is currently a private member’s bill in the House of Commons (second reading on 20 January 2012). This includes the key requirement that financial transactions be limited to non-cash (traceable) payments. You can track the bill’s progress through Parliament here.

Source: The Guardian

Change coming to US copyright law?

Balloon Dog creator Jeff Koons is well known for his
copyright litigation - but he may get company in court 
Artinfo reported this week that there are possible changes on the American horizon to the way US copyright claims are conducted. If put into action, these changes could make it considerably easier for artists to claim copyright infringement of their works.

Currently, US copyright claims have to go through the federal district courts (which have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright cases) whatever the value of the claim. The reasoning behind this is that as copyright law is federal law, it's only the federal courts which have the necessary experience to deal with these claims - plus, use of only federal courts will ensure consistency in dealing with copyright cases.

Very sensible, but the (rather large) down side is that copyright cases for claims valued at under US$1m require on average US$350,000 in expenses, according to the Federal Register (which also helpfully points out that 'lawyers charge hundreds of dollars per hour'). So, your average penniless artist naturally isn't queuing up to file their claim forms, no matter how good their case may be. 

Congress has therefore asked the US Copyright Office to look into what problems are faced by those who want to bring small copyright claims to court, how far such difficulties are caused by the way the current copyright system is set up, and what can be done to solve them.

The Copyright Office is currently inviting comments on the subject which can be given via an online form. The consultation is open until 16 January 2012.

Thursday 5 January 2012

DIY art career

Andrzej Sobiepan's 19 x 20cm work hung for 3 days unnoticed
Young Polish art student Andrzej Sobiepan has become known in the art world overnight by hanging one of his own art works in the Wroclaw National Museum in Poland. The Warsaw Business Journal reports that, while the security guards' backs were turned, he took the chance to put small green and white work on display. Not only did he manage to do so without being spotted, but nobody noticed the addition for three days.

Sobiepan said that he did not want to 'wait 30 or 40 years' before seeing his work on the museum's walls and so, in emulation of Banksy, he went ahead and put it up himself.

The BBC reports that although the museum's director, Mariusz Hermansdorfer, admitted there had been some security breaches, he also said that Sobiepan's stunt was a 'witty artistic happening'. The student himself isn't too worried about the museum's reactions, since he hasn't taken or damaged any museum property. 'What could they accuse me of?' he asked. 'I do not think that the [museum] rules have anything about bringing in your own artwork.'

Evidently there are no plans afoot to accuse anyone of anything illegal - indeed the work is due to be displayed in the museum again, before being auctioned off in aid of the Great Orchestra of Christmas Charity, which purchases medical equipment for Polish hospitals.

Read more in the Washington Times and the Huffington Post.

Tuesday 3 January 2012

Art against the law

Happy new year.

While most were probably celebrating the arrival of 2012 in the usual manner, the controversial Russian art group Voina (which we have previously reported about
here and here) celebrated the new year with a bang – or more accurately a fire.

As reported by the Huffington Post, "Voina rang in 2012 by setting a police car on fire… The group broke into a police station in St. Petersburg on New Years Eve and used Molotov cocktails to set fire to a police car. Or rather, what they refer to as a 'trash truck' or 'prison on wheels.' The action was a New Years gift to the political prisoners of Russia." Voina's president, known as Bucket Man, expressed the motives behind the piece in a rather explicit statement, which will not be repeated here. However, he is also said to have clarified that the act was not "art" but "beyond art."

So there you have it. Art against the law is ok, as long as it is "beyond art"…..

For those interested, footage of the "performance" can be found on the Huffington Post website. By way of preview, here they are starting the fire:

Source: The Huffington Post, 2 January 2012

Sunday 1 January 2012

New Year – old art enters the public domain

As regular Art & Artifice readers will know, New Year celebrations are not just about watching fireworks, dancing, and eating and drinking enough to survive a resolution ridden January. The real point of the New Year is to celebrate the fact that a lot more works enter the public domain. 1709 blog has looked at some of the key literary and musical works which have entered the public domain (particularly the works of Virginia Woolf and James Joyce).

Amongst the artists whose work has entered the public domain, we have the sculptor behind Mount Rushmore, a cubist, an anti-cubist, a “Glasgow Boy”, the most expensive female Indian painter and several photographers and designers.

We have tried to be as comprehensive as possible but if there are any artists who died in 1941 that we have missed, please use the comments section below to let us know.

Simultaneous Windows on the City, 1912
Robert Delaunay was a French artist who cofounded the Orphism art movement (a form of cubism noted for its use of strong colours and geometric shapes).

His later works were more abstract, reminiscent of Paul Klee (whose works entered the public domain last year).

Sources: Art Icons and Wikipedia

Building Mount Rushmore

Gutzon Borglum was an artist with a penchant for carving political figures. He is most famous for creating the Presidents’ heads at Mount Rushmore, South Dakota (and for being referenced in National Treasure 2!). He also created the famous carving on Stone Mountain which depicts three figures of the Confederate States of America: Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, and Jefferson Davis, as well as other public works of art including a six-ton bust of Abraham Lincoln, and a series of sculptures in Manhattan's Cathedral of St. John the Divine.

In 1916, Borglum was appointed to cut away much of the copper surface of the statue of liberty torch's flame and install glass windows. Snow and rain leaked in through the windows leading to corrosion. In the mid-1980s the old torch was removed and placed in a museum. The replacement torch is covered with gold leaf.
For a gallery of Borglum’s work, see here.
Sources:, Statue of Liberty Blog and wikipedia

Churchill by Lavery
Sir John Lavery, one of the “Glasgow Boys” first entered the world of art through a job touching up photographic negatives in Glasgow. Before long he had developed a considerable reputation. Indeed, his early work was hung next to Manet's Bar at the Folies Bergère at the 1882 salon.

Although appointed an official artist in the First World War a combination of illness and a car crash during a zeppelin bombing raid kept him from fulfilling this role as war artist. He later moved on to portraiture and painted everyone from Winston Churchill to John McCormack. After the war he was knighted and in 1921 he was elected to the Royal Academy.

Sources: Wikipedia and

Three Girls

Amrita Sher-Gil was an eminent Indian painter, sometimes known as India's Frida Kahlo. She is reportedly the 'most expensive' woman painter of India. She had a Eurasian upbringing, born in Hungary, studying art in France but living much of the intervening period in the Punjab. After receiving considerable critical acclaim in France, in 1934, Sher-Gil returned to India and evolved her own distinct style which tended to take Indian villagers and beggars as her subject.
Sources: and wikipedia

Alexander Sakharoff, 1909
Alexej von Jawlensky was a Russian expressionist painter active in Germany. His work has grown in reputation and price tag. In February 2008 his Schokko mit Tellerhut sold for £9,400,000. Despite having built a strong reputation and made a lot of friends in Germany, when The Great War began, Jawlensky was expelled from Germany due to his Russian citizenship.

Source: wikipedia

1919 propaganda - Beat the Whites
El Lissitzky was a Russian artist, designer, photographer, typographer, polemicist and architect. He was an important figure of the Russian avant garde, helping develop suprematism and designing numerous exhibition displays and propaganda works for the former Soviet Union. His work greatly influenced the Bauhaus and constructivist movements, and he experimented with production techniques and stylistic devices that would go on to dominate 20th-century graphic design.

El Lissitzky developed a suprematist style of his own, a series of abstract, geometric paintings which he called Proun (effectively suprematism in 3D). He took the principles one step further and between 1923 to 1925 developed the idea of “horizontal skyscrapers”. Each proposed “sky scraper” was a flat three-story, 180-meter-wide L-shaped slab raised 50 meters above street level. Lissitzky argued that as long as humans cannot fly, moving horizontally is natural and moving vertically is not.

Fountain of Naiads, Rome
Mario Rutelli was a Palermo based Italian sculptor. His masterpiece is a Fountain of Naiads on the Piazza della Repubblica in Rome. He dedicated himself to big monuments such as the monument to Anita Garibaldi on Janiculum Hill in Rome.
Among his surviving works are the statue of Goethe at Munich, and a war memorial in Aberystwyth.

Source: Rome Tour

Alice in Wonderland furnishing fabric
Charles Voysey was an English architect, and furniture and textile designer. His early work was as a designer of wallpapers, fabrics and furnishings in a simple Arts and Crafts style. He is renowned as the architect of a number of notable country houses. He was one of the first people to understand and appreciate the significance of industrial design.

Voysey was influenced by the work of William Morris, the Arts and Crafts Movement and Art Nouveau. Unlike most Vicotorian design, he was concerned with form and function i.e. simplicity over the ornamental and decorative.

Sources: The V&A and Wikipedia

Water Rats
Francis Meadow Sutcliffe made a living as a portrait photographer. He is today known for his extensive photographs of the people of Whitby, a town he lived in and knew well.
His most famous photograph, Water Rats, was taken in 1886.

A selection of his photos available here.

Seiki Kayamori was a Japanese photographer who spent the latter part of his life in Alaska. The FBI suspected him of spying. Two days after the attack, awaiting his arrest, Kayamori committed suicide. No credible evidence has ever been produced to indicate that he was a spy. Many of Kayamori's photographs are now kept in the Alaska State Library.

Maximilien Luce was a French Neo-impressionist artist. Luce is best known for his pointillist canvases. Like Pissarro, he was active with anarchist groups in Paris in the 1890s. During World War I, Luce painted war scenes, depicting soldiers struggling against the horrors of the Great War.

The Kolkhoznik, 1931

Pavel Filonov formulated the principles of analytical realism, or "anti-Cubism". According to Filonov, Cubism represents objects using elements of their surface geometry but "analytical realists" should represent objects using elements of their inner soul.

From 1932 onward, Filonov literally starved but refused to sell his works to private collectors. He wanted to give all his works to the Russian Museum as a gift so as to start a Museum of Analytical Realism. He died of starvation on December 3, 1941 during the Nazi Siege of Leningrad.
Source: MOMA