Source: http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2014/05/picasso-and-potato-chips.html
Timestamp: 2014-10-20 21:10:27
Document Index: 390528069

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 106', 'Art 1', 'Art. 5', 'Art 9', 'Arts 1', 'Art 6']

The 1709 Blog: Picasso and Potato Chips
Interesting and informative especially for those of us that deal with the differences in how artists are protected in the EU vs the US. Where does the US stand on moral rights and Article 1(4) of the WCT?Do you have any views on whether the US should adopt the artist's resale right? I seem to recall the Copyright Office has published a new report. In the past it was claimed that the Visual Rights Act was one reason why it was not necessary. 23 May 2014 11:21
Given that this work was installed in the Four Seasons in 1959, according to Mira, and title in the mural had presumably passed from Picasso by that time, it would seem that any moral rights under VARA would not apply. See the “effective date” provisions in s. 610 of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act_of_1990 and 17 U.S. Code § 106A(3)(d)(2) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106A#a What am I missing here? Maybe this is now more a case of “mural” rights than of “moral” rights.
Dear Jeremy:This calls out for further comment that is rather more extensive than I can put into the "comment" box. So here it is:http://bit.ly/1lM5k1B Best regards,Howard
Another reason VARA doesn't apply here: those rights are personal to the artist and only last for the life of the artist.
Howard , thank you! I thought the 'story' did not sound right- the picture was originally a stage curtain/backdrop, not a mural painted on a wall. 26 May 2014 21:38
John, thanks for your comment. I actually mentioned in the opening paragraph of my post that the painting was (part of) a set decoration for Diaghilev's Ballets Russes. Information about its history is available from numerous sources (see, for example, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/nyregion/fate-of-a-picasso-hangs-on-a-court-case.html?_r=0, or http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304104504579375293785466778). The important issue in this case is that any attempt to move this artwork would now be challenging: it would be very difficult, and maybe practically impossible, to remove it from the wall without damaging it. That is the basis of the NY Landmarks Conservancy action - that the painting would be destroyed if any attempt were made to take it down. 27 May 2014 12:39
MiraMoving just about any older painting on canvas entails a risk of damaging that painting(especially if it is not done by experienced museum conservators). However I do not see how that risk of damage in moving the picture ,equates to a Moral right for the picture to stay where it is currently hung. And this is especially so in the case of something that was originally made as a temporary stage backdrop I.e was not really intended to last for decades let alone centuries.
1 June 2014 23:18
John, thanks for your comment. Quite true, which is what makes it all the more interesting that this particular artwork seems to have aroused such strong feelings among New Yorkers. I think the key issue here is really that the artwork is in a public space where it is, in a sense, uniquely available - I quoted from Terry Teachout at the Wall Street J, who calls it "Picasso's most readily accessible painting." I've just secured the latest judgement in this case; stay tuned for a follow-up post from me!
3 June 2014 13:28
Does the lobby of a privately owned hotel qualify as a Public Place?
3 June 2014 23:55
Anonymous, thanks for your comment about Art 1 (4) of WCT...on compliance with Articles 1-21 of the Berne Convention, with no exception made for Article 6bis of Berne on moral rights. In the United States, the argument has been made that VARA is sufficient to meet Berne requirements, especially as U.S. law has "alternate mechanisms" for the protection of authors' and artists' moral interests - eg. Lanham Act s. 43 (a) (1) on the origin of goods (and misrepresentation of their quality) and common-law actions such as defamation. The trouble is, the application of the Lanham Act has been circumscribed by the Dastar case (2003); and common-law actions like defamation, in contrast to moral rights under copyright law, terminate upon the death of the author. A U.S. regime based on these alternatives cannot be equivalent to Berne, even taking into account the cultural peculiarities of different national legal systems. But the U.S. is not the only country potentially failing to implement Berne standards on moral rights. In the UK, a review of British law in the 1950s found that moral rights did not need to be introduced into the copyright act; a review of the same provisions in the 1980s found that they did. The Copyright, Designs & Patents Act of 1988 then established a framework for moral rights, but it was, not surprisingly, tentative in many respects. UK authors must now "assert" their right of attribution, which would seem to go directly against the Berne specification that authors' rights are to be available without "any formality" (Art. 5(2)). A more subtle issue is apparent in Canada, which has recognized moral rights for a very long time- since 1931, and they first came into Berne in 1928 - and formally meets Berne requirements. The comprehensiveness of Canadian provisions allowing waiver has led to a situation where industry practice is to expect authors to waive their moral rights. This then raises questions about how significant Canadian moral rights really are in practice. The international issue comes up again in relation to TRIPs, with Art 9 (1) telling us that countries must recognize Berne Arts 1-21, but that Art 6bis will not be enforceable under TRIPs and, therefore, the dispute settlement provisions of the WTO will not be applicable to moral rights issues...So, as you can see, international acceptance of moral rights still has some way to go.
4 June 2014 23:02
Am a bit surprised that the current owners of the picture can not find a public museum to take what is after all a big Picasso.
5 June 2014 00:05