In preparing for the CAA’s conference this month, I was stopped in my tracks by a presenter agreement that required contributors to sign over extensive rights, made no reference to fair use, and put all liability risk on the speakers.
The European Union Intellectual Property Office ruled that the street artist, who remains anonymous, could not be identified as the unquestionable owner of his “Flower Thrower” stencil.
Yahoo’s recent move to sell prints of photos users have put on Flickr has sparked a backlash from many photographers who object to the company’s policy of taking all the profits from sales of images uploaded under the Creative Commons “commercial attribution” license.
New York housewares store Fishs Eddy has run afoul of the Port Authority’s apparent rights to the Manhattan skyline, the New York Times reported.
On April 8, I wrote a story on Bravo’s Gallery Girls, a new reality show in the making, and the name and concept’s similarity to a popular independent webcomic, also called Gallery Girls. In this post, Bravo responds to the possible conflict and I take stock of commenter responses.
The art world is apparently supposed to line up behind Richard Prince. If you’re radical right now, you view intellectual property (IP) as a vestige of an archaic market strategy. You think of IP enforcement as a form of hoarding. And you think that anyone who objects, just “doesn’t get it.” And any artist who wishes to build a brand or even to get paid for serial prints (mind you, this includes some of the very radicals mentioned above!) — well, they are supposed to line up behind Patrick Cariou. If you’ve got a vested interest in a body of work, you think of appropriation artists as vermin, lazy, energy-sapping parasites. And you think that anyone who objects is an egomaniac with a crazed sense of entitlement. Want to pick a side in the debate? Here are a few things you’ll need to know.