DOCSLIB.ORG

(Mis)Appropriation Art: Transformation and Attribution in the Fair Use Doctrine 15 CHI.-KENT J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(Mis)Appropriation Art: Transformation and Attribution in the Fair Use Doctrine 15 CHI.-KENT J (Mis)appropriation Art: Transformation and Attribution in the Fair Use Doctrine 15 CHI.-KENT J. INTELL. PROP. (forthcoming 2015) John Carl Zwisler∗ Abstract Since the adoption of transformation by the Supreme Court, the fair use doctrine has continued to judicially expand. The reliance on transformation has led judges to subjectively critique and analyze artworks in order to make a legal decision. While the transformation precedent is dominant among the circuits, it is not followed by all and gives an advantage to an appropriation artist claiming fair use of another’s copyrighted work. Transformation should no longer be a requirement in a fair use analysis concerning appropriation art, as it requires subjective interpretation of an artist’s work. Instead, the emphasis should be on the overall market effect the secondary use had on the market for the original with consideration given to how attribution to the original author aids in the fair use test. ∗ B.M., 2010 Berklee College of Music; J.D. candidate, 2016, Northeastern University School of Law. I would like to thank Professor Kara Swanson for her support and comments on early versions of this article as well as Nathanael Karl Harrison for our many discussions on the subject. I would also like to thank my parents, Yashira Agosto, and Nicholas Fede for their comments and support during the writing of this article. WORKING DRAFT—DO NOT CITE TO THIS ARTICLE 1 Table of Contents Part I Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Part II A History of Fair Use ...................................................................................................................... 8 A. Supplanting the Market of the Original Work ..................................................................................... 8 B. Four Factors Codified .......................................................................................................................... 9 C. Toward a Fair Use Standard .............................................................................................................. 10 D. The Supreme Court Errs in Expanding Fair Use ............................................................................... 10 Part III Appropriation Art and Case Law History ................................................................................ 11 A. Appropriation Art Primer .................................................................................................................. 11 B. Pre-Campbell: Parody Versus Satire ................................................................................................. 12 C. Post-Campbell: Adopting Transformation ........................................................................................ 14 D. Transformation Usurps the Four Statutory Factors ........................................................................... 17 Part IV The Fair Use Problem Across the Circuits ................................................................................ 20 A. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 20 B. The Transformative Test ................................................................................................................... 20 C. The Statutory List Test ...................................................................................................................... 26 Part V A New Fair Use Approach ........................................................................................................... 29 A. No More Transformation ................................................................................................................... 29 B. Putting the Emphasis on the Fourth Factor ....................................................................................... 30 C. Market Harm Balanced Against Market Help ................................................................................... 32 D. Encouraging Appropriation Artists to Attribute Original Authors ................................................... 33 Part VI Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 36 Appendix .................................................................................................................................................... 38 WORKING DRAFT—DO NOT CITE TO THIS ARTICLE 2 Part I Introduction You are invited to attend the new exhibit of a well-known artist at one of the most famous galleries in New York City. Weaving your way through celebrities and critics, you notice a piece that looks very familiar. Upon closer inspection, you realize the artist has based the work on a photograph you took several years ago, but it has been slightly manipulated. Your name is not mentioned anywhere and you know you never gave the artist permission to use your work. Frustrated with what you consider an objectionable use, you want to prevent the artist from further exploiting your creative work.1 However, after consulting with copyright counsel, you learn that whether you can vindicate your rights under federal copyright law depends on where you bring a lawsuit. By relying on the fair use doctrine, as it is interpreted in the Second and Ninth Circuits, the artist may handily convince a judge that the copying was necessary for his or her own creative vision and you will be left without a remedy. Fair use is an affirmative defense that the use of a copyrighted work does not constitute infringement.2 When analyzing a fair use defense, a court must look at four statutory factors to determine if the defendant’s taking qualifies as a fair use; the purpose and character of the use; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the market for or value of the copyrighted work.3 1 While the aforementioned is meant to be a hypothetical example, it is comparable to the events surrounding Richard Prince’s New Portraits exhibit. Prince commented on others’ Instagram pictures, took screenshots of them, and placed them on canvas. New Portraits was featured at the Gagosian Gallery in New York City in September and October of 2014. Since then, the works have sold upwards of $90,000 a piece. While Prince has yet to face copyright action claimed against him, a photographer has sent Prince and the Gagosian cease and desist letters. Donald Graham’s Rastafarian Smoking a Joint, Jamaica was uploaded to Instagram by a third party and Prince used the photo as the basis of one of his New Portraits without permission or attributing Graham. While no further legal action is underway, Prince could potentially face several actions for the use of copyrighted images in New Portraits. Hrag Vartanian, Photographer Sends Cease and Desist Letters to Richard Prince and Gagosian, February 15, 2015. Available at http://hyperallergic.com/183036/photographer-sends-cease-and-desist-letters-to-richard-prince-and- gagosian/ (last visited June 6, 2015); http://www.gagosian.com/exhibitions/richard-prince--september-19-2014 (last visited June 6, 2015); Jessica Contrera, A reminder that your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90,000, May 25, 2105. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style- blog/wp/2015/05/25/a-reminder-that-your-instagram-photos-arent-really-yours-someone-else-can-sell-them-for- 90000/. (last visited June 6, 2015). 2 17 U.S.C § 107 (2012). 3 Id. WORKING DRAFT—DO NOT CITE TO THIS ARTICLE 3 Twenty years ago, in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, the Supreme Court added to the first factor, courts should determine if the secondary work is a “transformation”.4 The high court stated that judges should look to whether the new work adds something to the first work or alters it with a new meaning or message5; a task that requires judges to subjectively interpret what the works at issue mean. If a court were to determine the new work is a transformation, the re-use would be allowed as fair use. This precedent has been interpreted differently among the federal circuits and has led to much confusion. Specifically in the world of appropriation art, the focus on transformation requires judges to rely on their personal views on art to determine if and how a work has been sufficiently transformed into a new one. This is a dangerous test as the fates of many plaintiffs lie in the hands of judges who likely do not have substantial training in the fine arts. Additionally, it is counter to the words penned by Justice Holmes over a century ago, “[i]t would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of pictorial illustrations, outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits.”6 As a result of the transformative test, judges are forced to ignore this warning when deciding appropriation art cases. Appropriation artists use others’ work to create their own. The prior works can be in the public domain or protected under copyright law. Appropriation artists may take another’s material and manipulate it by changing color, size, and orientation7 or may simply enlarge the size of an existing photograph.8 Early appropriation artists challenged what constituted art and some were consciously aware of the legal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ROGERS V. KOONS -A VICTORY a Different Medium
    This conclusion applies, the Court said, even though the sculpture was in ROGERS V. KOONS -A VICTORY a different medium. Koons' sculpture was based upon Rogers' pre-exlstlnq copyrighted photograph - and was OVER "APPROPRIATION" OF therefore a "derivative work" under the Copyright Act. The Act specifically provides that copyright protection in­ IMAGES cludes the exclusive right to create and license derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. "In By Michael D. Remer, ASMP Legal Counsel copyright law:' said the Court, "the medium ls not the message, and a t is basic law that when a photographer creates an change In medium does not preclude original image, that image is protected by copyright infringementII from the moment the shutter clicks. The copyright is I (It is worth.noting that in support of this owned by the photographer (assuming that it has not conclusion, the Court cited a 1924 been given up under work for hire or an all rights assign­ case which held that "a piece of statuary may be infringed by a picture ment). And unauthorized use of the image infringes the of the statuary:' The KQm court ob­ photographer's copyright. served that it was equally true that a SCUlpture may infringe a Clear enough - but apparently not to this "colorized" version of the photographer'S copyright. But those people who feel justified in "ap­ Rogers photograph. When Scanlon photographers also should under­ propriating" a photographer's saw the newspaper photograph, he stand the lesson of the 1924case- an copyrighted image for use in their art realized that it was not Rogers' unauthorized photograph of work In another medium.
    [Show full text]
  • The 'Transformation' of the Copyright Fair Use Test
    The 'Transformation' Of The Copyright Fair Use Test Law360, New York (December 19, 2014, 10:09 AM ET) -- The purpose of United States copyright law is “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts.” U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. This purpose is achieved not only through protection of copyrighted works, but also by allowing “some opportunity for fair use of copyrighted materials.” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 575 (1994). Accordingly, the current Copyright Act includes a defense that insulates the “fair use of a copyrighted work” for “purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching ... scholarship, or research.” 17 U.S.C. § 107. The act identifies four nonexclusive factors that “shall” be considered in evaluating fair use: “(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” Id. While the factors have remained largely unchanged since the adoption of the current act, the manner in which courts apply them has been evolving. In particular, some courts have placed substantial emphasis on a single consideration — whether a new work is “transformative” of an older work — in evaluating fair use. This singularity of focus, on a factor not expressly referenced in the Copyright Act, has prompted others to push back and insist upon an analysis that is arguably more faithful to the actual language of the statute.
    [Show full text]
  • RICHARD PRINCE I CHANGED MY NAME, 1988 (I Never Had a Penny to My Name, So I Changed My Name.)
    MY ACCOUNT PREFERRED LOYALTY PROGRAM SIGN UP FOR EMAIL RECENTLY VIEWED WISH LIST MY BAG 0 FREE SHIPPING ON ORDERS OF $99 OR MORE DETAILS* Can we help you find something? WOMEN MEN UNDERWEAR FRAGRANCE HOME SALE PROJECTS 1 RICHARD PRINCE I CHANGED MY NAME, 1988 (I never had a penny to my name, so I changed my name.) Richard Prince, I Changed My Name, 1988 © Richard Prince LULU Acrylic and screen print on canvas (142.5 cm x 198.7 cm) Photographed by Willy Vanderperre at the Rubell Family Collection, Miami. Monochromatic Jokes Richard Prince’s Jokes series remains among his But if you bothered listening to one there was nothing most iconic. On the eve of a 2013 retrospective at recorded on it. New York’s Nahmad Contemporary Gallery, writer and Only white noise to greet you. kindred spirit Bill Powers riffed on the essence of He thought he might give the cassettes out at galleries like demo tapes. these works for the show’s catalog. The piece is Like musicians did at record labels to get signed. excerpted below. Within a year he began silk-screening jokes on canvas. He wasn’t a funny guy. He made them with black text on a white background, He wasn’t the life of the party. but then decided that wasn’t quite right. But most comedy isn’t about entertaining as it is about He painted over them. survival. There’s an installation shot in Spiritual America before And he wanted to live. he destroyed the paintings. He didn’t make art looking for love.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Prince
    RICHARD PRINCE BIOGRAPHY Born, Panama Canal Zone, 1949. Lives and works in New York. Selected Solo Exhibitions: 2014 “Richard Prince,” Kunsthaus Bregenz, Bregenz, Austria, July 19 – October 5, 2014 2012 “Richard Prince: 14 Paintings,” 303 Gallery, New York, NY, May 18-June 22, 2012 “Richard Prince: Four Saturdays,” Gagosian Gallery, New York, NY, October 25- November 17, 2012 2011 “Richard Prince,” Gagosian Gallery, Hong Kong, May 24 – July 16, 2011 “Richard Prince. American Prayer,” Bibliotheque National de France, Paris, France, March 29- June 26, 2011 2010 “Richard Prince T-Shirt Paintings: Hippie Punk,” Salon 94 Freemans, New York, May 15- June 26, 2010 “Richard Prince: Pre-Appropriation Works 1971-1974,” Specific Object, New York, June 9 – September 10, 2010 2009 “Richard Prince,” Skarstedt Gallery, New York, January 8 – February 28, 2009 2008 “Richard Prince,” Gagosian Gallery, New York, November 8 – December 20, 2008 “Richard Prince,” Gallerie Patrick Seguin, Paris, October 23 – November 29, 2008 “Richard Prince: Continuation,” Serpentine Gallery, London, June 26 – September 7, 2008 “Richard Prince,” Gagosian Gallery, London, June 19 – August 8, 2008 “Richard Prince: Four Blue Cowboys,” Gagosian Gallery, Rome, June 20 – August 8, 2008 “Richard Prince: Young Nurse,” Monte Clark Gallery, Vancouver, Canada, March 5 – 15, 2008 “Richard Prince: Spiritual America,” Guggenheim Museum, New York, NY, September 28 – January 9, 2008 “Richard Prince: Spiritual America,” Walker Art Center, Minneapolis, March 23 – June 15, 2008 2007 “Richard
    [Show full text]
  • Law, Art, and the Killing Jar
    Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 1993 Law, Art, And The Killing Jar Louise Harmon Touro Law Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/scholarlyworks Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation 79 Iowa L. Rev. 367 (1993) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Law, Art, and the Killing Jart Louise Harnon* Most people think of the law as serious business: the business of keeping the peace, protecting property, regulating commerce, allocating risks, and creating families.' The principal movers and shakers of the law work from dawn to dusk, although they often have agents who work at night. 2 Their business is about the outer world and how we treat each other during the day. Sometimes the law worries about our inner life when determining whether a contract was made5 or what might have prompted a murder,4 but usually the emphasis in the law is on our external conduct and how we wheel and deal with each other. The law turns away from the self; it does not engage in the business of introspection or revelation. t©1994 Louise Harmon *Professor of Law, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, Touro College. Many thanks to Christine Vincent for her excellent research assistance and to Charles B.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Grosvenor | Richard Prince
    Robert Grosvenor | Richard Prince 57 rue du Temple, 75004 Paris 14 April – 19 May 2018 Opening: 14 April 2018, 6 – 8 pm Galerie Max Hetzler is pleased to announce the exhibition Robert Grosvenor | Richard Prince, featuring a single work by each artist. The exhibition develops a dialogue between two artists who know each other and have great respect for the work of one another. Robert Grosvenor is known for his spacious sculptures which capture the viewer through their specifc materiality and unconventional formal language. He himself considers his sculptural work as “ideas that operate between foor and ceiling” and thus reveals an essential aspect of his practice: The Robert Grosvenor, Untitled, 2015-2017 preoccupation with the relation between an object and its surrounding as well as the efect that emerges from this connection. In the 1960s, his work was perceived in the context of Minimal Art and later Land Art. Yet, although his works display a certain minimalistic aesthetic, Grosvenor never adopted the movement’s programmatic claims. His works are rather characterised by a playful dealing with the properties of materials and the complexity of disposals while never ascribing to a particular artistic style. Often his sculptures seem to overcome the principles of physics, especially gravity. They appear massive and yet foating, both static and dynamic. His work Untitled, 2015-2017, evokes a boat, not only though its shape but also through the use of plywood and fberglass. Untitled, 2009/2010, is a monumental example of Richard Prince’s Check Paintings – a series initiated in the early 2000s. Composed of three panels, the work challenges the viewer with an eclectic visual language in which black delineated letters and colourful images collide amongst drips and swift brushstrokes of white, pale greens, blues and ochre.
    [Show full text]
  • RICHARD PRINCE ALL AMERICAN IDOL to Be Offered in the POST-WAR & CONTEMPORARY ART - EVENING AUCTION Christie’S London, 8 King Street 14 October 2011
    For Immediate Release 26 September 2011 Contact: Cristiano De Lorenzo tel. +44 7500 815 344 [email protected] RICHARD PRINCE ALL AMERICAN IDOL To Be Offered In The POST-WAR & CONTEMPORARY ART - EVENING AUCTION Christie’s London, 8 King Street 14 October 2011 London - Four outstanding works by Richard Prince (B. 1949) will be offered at Christie's London on 14 October, forming highlights of the Post-War & Contemporary Art evening auction. Spanning the course of the artist’s rich career they include Untitled (Fashion) (1983-1984), Untitled (Cowboy) (1999), Nurse Forrester’s Secret (2002-2003) and Untitled (de Kooning) (2007). Dina Amin, Head of the Sale; Director of Post War and Contemporary Art, Christie's London: ‚In October we are delighted to unite two masterpieces from the course of Richard Prince’s rich career including the iconic photograph, Untitled (Cowboy) (1999) and the painterly Nurse Forrester’s Secret (2002-2003.) Richard Prince is a master of Appropriation art. One of the first of a group of artists emerging in the 1970s including Cindy Sherman and Louise Lawler, who came to be known as the ‘pictures generation’, he has transformed some of the most enduring and iconic popular images in America. Fundamentally challenging notions of authorship, ownership and aura, he has radically reinvented the work of art, creating his own unique signature.‛ A key highlight of the Prince section is the large scale, dramatically executed Untitled (Cowboy), presenting a denim-clad lonesome American ranger (illustrated above right.) Created in 1999, this is a magnificent example of Richard Prince’s most celebrated series, exploring the American idol ‘par excellence’: the cowboy.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Prince Born in 1949, in the Panama Canal Zone, USA Biography Lives and Works in Upstate New York, USA
    Richard Prince Born in 1949, in the Panama Canal Zone, USA Biography Lives and works in upstate New York, USA Solo Exhibitions 2019 'Richard Prince: Portrait', Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit, Detroit, USA 2018 'Richard Prince - Works from the Astrup Fearnley Collection', Astrup Museet, Olso, Norway 'Untitled (Cowboy)', LACMA, Los Angeles, USA 2017 'Super Group Richard Prince', Galerie Max Hetzler, Berlin, Germany 'Max Hetzler', Berlin, Germany 2016 The Douglas Blair Turnbaugh Collection (1977-1988)’, Edward Cella Art & Architecture, Los Angeles, USA Sadie Coles, London, UK 2015 'Original', Gagosian Gallery, New York, USA 'New Portraits', Blum & Poe, Tokyo, Japan 2014 'New Figures', Almine Rech Gallery, Paris, France 'It's a Free Concert', Kunsthaus Bregenz, Austria 'Canal Zone', Gagosian Gallery, New York, USA 2013 Sadie Coles, London, UK 'Monochromatic Jokes', Nahmad Contemporary, New York, USA 'Protest Paintings', Skarstedt Gallery, London, UK 'Untitled (band', Le Case d'Arte, Milan, Italy 'New Work', Jürgen Becker, Hamburg, Germany 'Cowboys', Gagosian, Beverly Hills, USA 2012 ‘Prince / Picasso’, Museo Picasso Malaga, Spain 'White Paintings', Skarstedt Gallery, New York, USA 'Four Saturdays', gagosian Gallery, New York, USA '14 Paintings', 303 Gallery, New York, USA 64 rue de Turenne, 75003 Paris 18 avenue de Matignon, 75008 Paris [email protected] 2011 - ‘The Fug’, Almine Rech Gallery, Brussels, Belgium Abdijstraat 20 rue de l’Abbaye Brussel 1050 Bruxelles ‘Covering Pollock’, The Guild Hall Museum, East Hampton, USA [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • RICHARD PRINCE Born 1949, in the Panama Canal Zone
    RICHARD PRINCE Born 1949, in the Panama Canal Zone (now Panama) Lives and works in Upstate New York EDUCATION Nasson College, Springvale, ME SELECTED SOLO EXHIBITIONS 2014 Canal Zone, Gagosian Gallery, New York It's a Free Concert, Kunsthaus-Bregenz, Bregenz New Figures, Almine Rech Gallery, Paris New Portraits, Gagosian Gallery, New York 2013 Monochromatic Jokes, Nahmad Contemporary, New York Protest Paintings, Skarstedt Gallery, London Untitled (band), Le Case D'Arte, Milan Richard Prince, Sadie Coles HQ, London Richard Prince: Cowboys, Gagosian Gallery, Beverly Hills 2012 White Paintings, Skarstedt Gallery, New York 4 Saturdays, Gagosian Gallery, New York 14 Paintings, 303 Gallery, New York Prince / Picasso, Museo Picasso Malaga 2011 The Fug, Almine Rech Gallery, Brussels Covering Pollock, Guild Hall, Easthampton Richard Prince, Gagosian Gallery, Hong Kong de Kooning, Gagosian Gallery, Paris Bel Air, Gagosian Residence, Bel Air American Prayer, Bibliotheque nationale de France, Paris 2010 Richard Prince, Pre-Appropriation Works, 1971 – 1974, Specific Objects, New York Tiffany Paintings, Gagosian Gallery, New York Hippie Punk, Salon 94 Bowery, New York 2008 Richard Prince: Continuation, Serpentine Gallery, London Four Blue Cowboys, Gagosian, Rome Richard Prince, Gagosian, Davies Street, London Richard Prince, Galerie Patrick Seguin, Paris Richard Prince: Canal Zone, Gagosian New York SHE: Works by Wallace Berman and Richard Prince, Michael Kohn Gallery, Los Angeles 2007 Richard Prince: Spiritual America, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum,
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Safe Harbors and the Transformation of Copyright Law
    Internet Safe Harbors and the Transformation of Copyright Law Matthew Sag∗ ABSTRACT This Article explores the potential displacement of substantive copyright law in the increasingly important online environment. In 1998 Congress enacted a system of intermediary safe harbors as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). The Internet safe harbors and the associated system of notice-and- takedown fundamentally changed the incentives of platforms, users, and rightsholders in relation to claims of copyright infringement. These different incentives interact to yield a functional balance of copyright online that diverges markedly from the experience of copyright law in traditional media environments. More recently, private agreements between rightsholders and large commercial Internet platforms made in the shadow of those safe harbors. These “DMCA Plus” agreements relate to automatic copyright filtering systems, such as YouTube’s Content ID, that not only return platforms to their gatekeeping role, but encode that role in algorithms and software. The normative implications of these developments are contestable. Fair use and other axioms of copyright law still nominally apply online; but in practice, the safe harbors and private agreements made in the shadow of those safe harbors are now far more important determinants of online behavior than whether that conduct is, or is not, substantively in compliance with copyright law. Substantive copyright law is not necessarily irrelevant online, but its relevance is not only indirect, but contingent. The attenuated relevance of substantive copyright law to online expression has benefits and costs that appear fundamentally incommensurable. Compared to the offline world, online platforms are typically more permissive of infringement, and more open to new and unexpected speech and new forms of cultural participation.
    [Show full text]
  • °105 Five Forms with Three Circles °103 Red Painting, 1950 °101
    THE COLLECTION OF MORTON AND BARBARA THE COLLECTION OF MORTON AND BARBARA THE COLLECTION OF MORTON AND BARBARA MANDEL, SOLD TO BENEFIT THE JACK, JOSEPH AND MANDEL, SOLD TO BENEFIT THE JACK, JOSEPH AND MANDEL, SOLD TO BENEFIT THE JACK, JOSEPH AND MORTON MANDEL FOUNDATION MORTON MANDEL FOUNDATION MORTON MANDEL FOUNDATION °101 °102 °103 JEAN DUBUFFET (1901-1985) WILLIAM BAZIOTES (1912-1963) AD REINHARDT (1913-1967) Paysage Rose The Balcony Red Painting, 1950 signed with the artist's initials and dated 'J.D. 75' signed 'Baziotes' (lower right); titled '"The signed and dated 'Reinhardt 1950' (lower right); (upper right); titled 'Paysage rose' (on the reverse) Balcony"' (on the reverse) signed again, titled and dated again 'Ad Reinhardt acrylic and paper collage on paper mounted on oil on canvas "Red Painting, 1950"' (on the backing board) canvas 36 x 41æ in. (91.4 x 106 cm.) oil on canvas, in painted artist's frame 26º x 40 in. (67 x 101.6 cm.) Painted in 1944. overall: 42Ω x 34Ω in. (108 x 87.6 cm.) Executed in 1975. Painted in 1950. $150,000-200,000 $300,000-500,000 $700,000-1,000,000 THE COLLECTION OF MORTON AND BARBARA THE COLLECTION OF MORTON AND BARBARA THE COLLECTION OF MORTON AND BARBARA MANDEL, SOLD TO BENEFIT THE JACK, JOSEPH AND MANDEL, SOLD TO BENEFIT THE JACK, JOSEPH AND MANDEL, SOLD TO BENEFIT THE JACK, JOSEPH AND MORTON MANDEL FOUNDATION MORTON MANDEL FOUNDATION MORTON MANDEL FOUNDATION °104 °105 °106 FRANK STELLA (B. 1936) BARBARA HEPWORTH (1903-1975) ADOLPH GOTTLIEB (1903-1974) Getty Tomb Five Forms with Three Circles Bastille Day titled 'GETTY TOMB' (lower left); signed with the signed with initials and dated 'B.H.
    [Show full text]
  • Campbell As Fair Use Blueprint?
    05 - Leval.docx (Do Not Delete) 6/3/2015 1:25 PM CAMPBELL AS FAIR USE BLUEPRINT? Pierre N. Leval* Friends, copyright geeks, I come not to bury Campbell,1 but to praise it. I might reasonably be considered a biased critic as Campbell took a number of suggestions from an article I wrote.2 Biased or not, I submit Campbell is a beautifully reasoned opinion, which has demonstrated in its twenty-one years that it provides a healthy framework for fair use analysis. That framework promotes the overall objectives of copyright; it protects the interests of rights holders; and it guards against putting “manacles upon science.”3 This is not to say that every case decided under Campbell has been indisputably correct. But disagreement with some decisions of lower courts is not a condemnation of Campbell’s blueprint. Furthermore, fair use decisions will often involve difficult appraisals, susceptible to reasonable disagreement. Nor is it surprising to find inconsistency in lower court opinions. Copyright cases come infrequently, especially those with fair use questions. Many judges are often confronting the complexities of fair use for the first time, and may be quick to reach out for what look like easy handholds that are often based on errant dicta. I. PRE-CAMPBELL To appreciate what Campbell did for us, we should look at the law of fair use prior to Campbell. It was a mess, and it gave virtually no guidance. For nearly 300 years, courts had acknowledged a need for doctrine that would allow copying in some circumstances. There developed a widely accepted view that copying in certain types of undertakings—criticism, parody, book reviews, news reporting, political * Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
    [Show full text]