Does an artist have the right to withhold their work when they don’t agree with the political message?
National Geographic used artist Barrett Lyon’s internet image on the cover of its bookazine, 100 Scientific Discoveries that Changed the World, and in the book, The Big Idea, without Lyon’s permission.
I’ve been called a lot of things (including, “lawyer”), but one thing I can be proud of is never having been called a liar.
Having two entities using the same word to identify similar services is likely a problem. Case in point, Booklyn.
A legal battle has ensued over who has legal rights to an artist’s photographic negatives.
Earlier this month I wrote here that it would be very difficult to argue that a monkey could create a copyrightable work. Seems I was right.
Apparently Wikimedia, the US-based organization behind Wikipedia, is refusing to remove an image of a monkey taken by … wait for it, wait for it … the monkey itself.
When I read about Marina Abramović’s volunteer advertisement on the New York Foundation for the Arts (NYFA) website last week, it got me thinking about how many arts nonprofits employ the law to their benefit, and many times against an ethical grain.
The Cariou v. Prince decision was handed down last Thursday. I have struggled with what to write primarily because I have been shocked into a catatonic state. How two intelligent minds could draft such an epic disaster is beyond any form of comprehension.