One of the strange features of the strict anti-deaccessioning position, it seems to me, is the whole notion of the "public trust." How is it, exactly, that works owned by museums comes to be "held in the public trust" such that they can never be sold (except to buy other art)? What is the mechanism? It is sometimes suggested that this is a function of the favorable tax treatment museums receive: because museums are exempt from property and income taxes, and donors get tax deductions for contributing to them, the "public" therefore is the true owner of the art. I've never really understood that argument. There are lots of other entities that get the same tax benefits -- churches. private schools and universities, hospitals, etc. Does the public own the MRI machines at the hospital? If a university decides to shut down the sociology department, should we step in and say, "Hey, wait a minute. That department was held in trust for us. You can't just get rid of it like that"? Does every asset ostensibly held by every non-profit really belong to us? And if not, what makes art different? How does it come to be "held in trust" when other, similarly-owned assets are not?
But if tax benefits are not enough, what about a bailout? The New York Times ran a little piece earlier this week that began:
"Many of the world’s biggest banks — and biggest recipients of government bailouts — have some of the largest collections of art. Some of the works, including abstract pieces and old masters, are hanging in hallways or boardrooms. But much of it is packed away in storage. The art owned by financial institutions should get out more — at the least to give the taxpayers, who have been so generous with the financial sector, an aesthetic return."
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Here's the Rub
Lee Rosenbaum asks former Cleveland Museum director Timothy Rub about the decision to use (with court permission) certain acquisition-specific funds to help complete the museum's expansion project. He says:
"There are legal means that have been in place for a long time to ask courts to determine whether or not funds that have been contributed for one purpose can be utilized ... for another purpose. There are legal mechanisms and a significant body of law that leads to this.
"Secondly, I should say that the board of the Cleveland Museum of Art is a tremendously responsible and resourceful group of people who are fiduciaries for the institution. And it's their responsibility to make thoughtful and prudent fiscal decisions on behalf of the institution. I think the trustees discharged their responsibilities extremely well. I really do."
"There are legal means that have been in place for a long time to ask courts to determine whether or not funds that have been contributed for one purpose can be utilized ... for another purpose. There are legal mechanisms and a significant body of law that leads to this.
"Secondly, I should say that the board of the Cleveland Museum of Art is a tremendously responsible and resourceful group of people who are fiduciaries for the institution. And it's their responsibility to make thoughtful and prudent fiscal decisions on behalf of the institution. I think the trustees discharged their responsibilities extremely well. I really do."
"I don’t regard copyright as a property right, but rather as a government program, a social program"
An interesting conversation between Clancco's Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento and copyright scholar William Patry.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
More on the Rose Lawsuit
I mentioned, after the probate court hearing earlier this month, that it was a little unclear where things stood in the Rose Museum lawsuit. It seemed, at the time, that it was being reported as something of a victory for the plaintiffs. ARTINFO.com, for example, headlined their piece: "Judge Lets Rose Museum Suit Stand."
But now comes a story in the Brandeis Justice that suggests that the only part of the suit the judge let stand is the part that Brandeis agreed could stand -- i.e., the plaintiffs could sue over their own donations to the museum, but they have no standing to challenge the university's decision to sell art generally, or to close the museum. The university's lawyer says "the case is now limited to the plaintiffs' ability to control their own donations or those of their ancestors to the Rose. 'The court ruled that the plaintiffs have no right and standing to represent any donors other than themselves or their ancestors, and that is all that's left now for the plaintiffs,' he said." He added that "Brandeis never had any intention of selling any artwork donated by any of the plaintiffs or the estates that they represent."
But now comes a story in the Brandeis Justice that suggests that the only part of the suit the judge let stand is the part that Brandeis agreed could stand -- i.e., the plaintiffs could sue over their own donations to the museum, but they have no standing to challenge the university's decision to sell art generally, or to close the museum. The university's lawyer says "the case is now limited to the plaintiffs' ability to control their own donations or those of their ancestors to the Rose. 'The court ruled that the plaintiffs have no right and standing to represent any donors other than themselves or their ancestors, and that is all that's left now for the plaintiffs,' he said." He added that "Brandeis never had any intention of selling any artwork donated by any of the plaintiffs or the estates that they represent."
Monday, October 26, 2009
Hard to Make Your Closing Thrilling When It's All About the Paperwork
Defendant lied to get benefits from a State Agency:
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I told you we'd get through this trial quicker than the last trial. Unfortunately, this one was more boring than most cases too. That's just the way it is in paperwork cases. You get up here and basically the only witnesses are people showing you how the paperwork is done and telling you why he did what he did.
Going all the way back to February 5, 2005, I told you I was going to have this paper for you. Feel free to go over this back in the jury room. He answers everything so that he can get benefits, including checking no on this question, which, compared to a lot of things in this 12 pages document, really isn't all that complex a question. “Have you, or a person for whom you are applying been convicted, after January 1, 2001, of snipe hunting or possession of snipe pelts?”
OK, he wants you to believe he didn't understand that question. Well, let's say he can't read too well. I don't believe that's been shown. He was reading things while on the stand and his illiteracy seems to come and go, as convenient. Still, we know better, because Pete Jones and Mary Greene got up on the stand and told us what they do for each interview. Now, I know that Mr. Smith tells you it's a ten minute thing, you're in you're out, you're done. I guess the interviewers are supposed to sit around the rest of the day drinking coffee or something, because if they only schedule 2 to 4 interviews a day I don't know what else you'd be doing. What are they filling that time with? It just doesn't make sense. Recall that they both told you the same thing. This is what we do; this is what was done with her. And they weren't in the courtroom during the others' testimony, so they couldn't hear what the other said and sit down and say exactly the same thing.
They both came up here and told you that on two dates a year apart, on 15 October 2007 Pete Jones interviewed him about the various benefits he was getting from State Agency and he answered no on the snipe hunting question. It gets put into the computer and he answers “no” again when they go over it verbally. The he has to scan it himself. All those opportunities to say “Yes, I've been convicted.”
18 November 2008, Mary Greene, same thing, they do the computer – and why would the workers cheat on the computer? It can't take that long to fill out the questions on the computer – they fill out all the computer stuff. She prints it out, goes over it with him. He again says, “No, I've not been convicted.” At least twice on that day he says, “No, I've not been convicted.”
Now, the big defense seems to be that, “They knew.” “They knew; they should have known.” Their one sheet of paper which seems to go anywhere near that is this one. This is the printout you've seen us arguing about up here. Now, this is, as it says here on the front, “Request to Be Made Payee.” This is from Federal Agency. You can tell it's from Federal Agency. Here they go on about “We are returning this application to you for your records” and telling that they store their copy electronically. This sheet was turned in the day after he told State Agency that he didn't have any snipe hunting convictions in 2006. It says that Federal Agency is giving him $176 a month from this date forward. And there's this part which says if you have any questions contact us at Federal Agency.
So, this is a Federal Agency document, which, by its own writings on page 2, was given back to Mr. Smith. Not given to anyone else at State Agency. And you'll recall that when Mary Greene was on the stand and defense counsel walked up and said “This is the form you get at the office” and she said “No” and he stopped asking questions real quick. She explained a little bit further, when prompted, that they get a different form than this. This is something that was given to Mr. Smith and if it had made its way into the State Agency's paperwork would have been stamped “received”, with a certain date, just like you see it stamped on the February 5 application Mr. Smith filled out and handed in. And, if he'd gone and gotten this copy from State Agency, like he told you today, it would have “received” such and such date on it. It doesn't - this is just his application from Federal Agency, to get money from them as well.
And, as far as it goes, for impeachment purposes, we have, March 22, 2006, the day before this application – see right here, it has March 23 – he was at State Agency and again said “Snipe Hunting Conviction: No.”
So, the whole “They knew” thing is a red herring and there are lot of red herrings, and that's [Mr. Defense Attorney]'s job. He's here to try to get his client not convicted. And he's tried to point out everything he can to get her not convicted. There's just nothing here which rebuts the paperwork and interviews.
Mr. Jones and Ms. Greene have no reason to be going after him. He couldn't state a reason that State Agency would be coming after him. No reason why Mr. Jones and Ms. Greene would be lying about it, going after him. Why would they make all this up? It doesn't make any sense at all. They're just doing their jobs and they're here today, rather than being at work dealing with their other clients because he lied. And that's it plain and simple ladies and gentlemen. There's not really a whole lot more to this. I wish I had some big rousing argument to make or statements to make.
He lied. He lied in order to get benefits. He's trying to do the same thing today by shuffling things at you like this application to Federal Agency and claiming he can't read anything despite the fact his initial application is filled out pretty well and on the other days he didn't really have to read anything. He got asked the questions. As a matter of fact, his inability to read is not what we're here for today because the two times he's charged are the times he was asked the questions by those folks and answered “No, I don't have any snipe hunting convictions.”
You'll get all this back there. Of course, here's the paper showing his snipe hunting convictions, 2003, before any of this started, before he applied at all to State Agency: felony snipe hunting.
I wish I had some sort of rousing statement to give you, like I said, but I think it's straight forward. I don't really think there's any reasonable doubt here folks. [Get charging instruction from judge] We have to prove he falsely stated in a document to get benefits from State Agency. That's what he did. He did it twice, and I ask you to find him guilty of that. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I told you we'd get through this trial quicker than the last trial. Unfortunately, this one was more boring than most cases too. That's just the way it is in paperwork cases. You get up here and basically the only witnesses are people showing you how the paperwork is done and telling you why he did what he did.
Going all the way back to February 5, 2005, I told you I was going to have this paper for you. Feel free to go over this back in the jury room. He answers everything so that he can get benefits, including checking no on this question, which, compared to a lot of things in this 12 pages document, really isn't all that complex a question. “Have you, or a person for whom you are applying been convicted, after January 1, 2001, of snipe hunting or possession of snipe pelts?”
OK, he wants you to believe he didn't understand that question. Well, let's say he can't read too well. I don't believe that's been shown. He was reading things while on the stand and his illiteracy seems to come and go, as convenient. Still, we know better, because Pete Jones and Mary Greene got up on the stand and told us what they do for each interview. Now, I know that Mr. Smith tells you it's a ten minute thing, you're in you're out, you're done. I guess the interviewers are supposed to sit around the rest of the day drinking coffee or something, because if they only schedule 2 to 4 interviews a day I don't know what else you'd be doing. What are they filling that time with? It just doesn't make sense. Recall that they both told you the same thing. This is what we do; this is what was done with her. And they weren't in the courtroom during the others' testimony, so they couldn't hear what the other said and sit down and say exactly the same thing.
They both came up here and told you that on two dates a year apart, on 15 October 2007 Pete Jones interviewed him about the various benefits he was getting from State Agency and he answered no on the snipe hunting question. It gets put into the computer and he answers “no” again when they go over it verbally. The he has to scan it himself. All those opportunities to say “Yes, I've been convicted.”
18 November 2008, Mary Greene, same thing, they do the computer – and why would the workers cheat on the computer? It can't take that long to fill out the questions on the computer – they fill out all the computer stuff. She prints it out, goes over it with him. He again says, “No, I've not been convicted.” At least twice on that day he says, “No, I've not been convicted.”
Now, the big defense seems to be that, “They knew.” “They knew; they should have known.” Their one sheet of paper which seems to go anywhere near that is this one. This is the printout you've seen us arguing about up here. Now, this is, as it says here on the front, “Request to Be Made Payee.” This is from Federal Agency. You can tell it's from Federal Agency. Here they go on about “We are returning this application to you for your records” and telling that they store their copy electronically. This sheet was turned in the day after he told State Agency that he didn't have any snipe hunting convictions in 2006. It says that Federal Agency is giving him $176 a month from this date forward. And there's this part which says if you have any questions contact us at Federal Agency.
So, this is a Federal Agency document, which, by its own writings on page 2, was given back to Mr. Smith. Not given to anyone else at State Agency. And you'll recall that when Mary Greene was on the stand and defense counsel walked up and said “This is the form you get at the office” and she said “No” and he stopped asking questions real quick. She explained a little bit further, when prompted, that they get a different form than this. This is something that was given to Mr. Smith and if it had made its way into the State Agency's paperwork would have been stamped “received”, with a certain date, just like you see it stamped on the February 5 application Mr. Smith filled out and handed in. And, if he'd gone and gotten this copy from State Agency, like he told you today, it would have “received” such and such date on it. It doesn't - this is just his application from Federal Agency, to get money from them as well.
And, as far as it goes, for impeachment purposes, we have, March 22, 2006, the day before this application – see right here, it has March 23 – he was at State Agency and again said “Snipe Hunting Conviction: No.”
So, the whole “They knew” thing is a red herring and there are lot of red herrings, and that's [Mr. Defense Attorney]'s job. He's here to try to get his client not convicted. And he's tried to point out everything he can to get her not convicted. There's just nothing here which rebuts the paperwork and interviews.
Mr. Jones and Ms. Greene have no reason to be going after him. He couldn't state a reason that State Agency would be coming after him. No reason why Mr. Jones and Ms. Greene would be lying about it, going after him. Why would they make all this up? It doesn't make any sense at all. They're just doing their jobs and they're here today, rather than being at work dealing with their other clients because he lied. And that's it plain and simple ladies and gentlemen. There's not really a whole lot more to this. I wish I had some big rousing argument to make or statements to make.
He lied. He lied in order to get benefits. He's trying to do the same thing today by shuffling things at you like this application to Federal Agency and claiming he can't read anything despite the fact his initial application is filled out pretty well and on the other days he didn't really have to read anything. He got asked the questions. As a matter of fact, his inability to read is not what we're here for today because the two times he's charged are the times he was asked the questions by those folks and answered “No, I don't have any snipe hunting convictions.”
You'll get all this back there. Of course, here's the paper showing his snipe hunting convictions, 2003, before any of this started, before he applied at all to State Agency: felony snipe hunting.
I wish I had some sort of rousing statement to give you, like I said, but I think it's straight forward. I don't really think there's any reasonable doubt here folks. [Get charging instruction from judge] We have to prove he falsely stated in a document to get benefits from State Agency. That's what he did. He did it twice, and I ask you to find him guilty of that. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
"Brandeis Wasn't Wrong"
An interesting piece inside Inside Higher Ed by former Northwestern dean Rudolph Weingartner, who describes himself as "a lifetime 'consumer' and supporter of the arts." He acknowledges "a significant role for art museums on higher education campuses," but says:
"[W]ith quite special exceptions, I see a very small pedagogic function for colleges and universities to own works of art, especially given the current cost and value of so many of them. ... To be sure, the provisions of deeds of gift must be scrupulously observed; but assuming that to be the case, let them sell their works of art if the funds thus gained will better serve the institutions’ educational mission."
Referring to the "task force formed by arts groups to figure out ways to avoid the next Brandeis," he also notes that such studies tend to turn into preaching-to-the-converted affairs:
"Members of the task force, make sure, ... that you are not just talking to yourselves. You are looking for ways to relate A to B; there must thus be strong representation from both poles. As announced, the organizations participating in the task force are mostly from the Category A: the art museum community. I strongly recommend that it also include not only representation from the art history and studio art departments, but knowledgeable people who have thoughts about how to involve art museums in educating students who are not primarily concerned with the arts."
"[W]ith quite special exceptions, I see a very small pedagogic function for colleges and universities to own works of art, especially given the current cost and value of so many of them. ... To be sure, the provisions of deeds of gift must be scrupulously observed; but assuming that to be the case, let them sell their works of art if the funds thus gained will better serve the institutions’ educational mission."
Referring to the "task force formed by arts groups to figure out ways to avoid the next Brandeis," he also notes that such studies tend to turn into preaching-to-the-converted affairs:
"Members of the task force, make sure, ... that you are not just talking to yourselves. You are looking for ways to relate A to B; there must thus be strong representation from both poles. As announced, the organizations participating in the task force are mostly from the Category A: the art museum community. I strongly recommend that it also include not only representation from the art history and studio art departments, but knowledgeable people who have thoughts about how to involve art museums in educating students who are not primarily concerned with the arts."
Thursday, October 22, 2009
"Didn't Sotheby's waive its right to whine about the hassles of disclosure when it went public?"
ContractsProf Blogger Jeremy Telman on a report that Sotheby's is refusing to provide government regulators with information on bonuses paid to its executives on the ground that Christie's might use the info to steal the executives away. [via]
"There was an opportunity to make collecting art something that everyone can do"
Online art gallery 20x200 has raised more than $825,000 in venture financing. New York Times story here.
"The issue highlights for me the futility of the entire regulatory process"
Peter Hirtle on the latest on deaccessioning from the NY Board of Regents:
"The Board of Regents and Education Department should stop trying to micromanage cultural institutions in the state and instead simply require that the governing boards of those institutions operate according to best professional practice and with the mission of the institution in mind."
"The Board of Regents and Education Department should stop trying to micromanage cultural institutions in the state and instead simply require that the governing boards of those institutions operate according to best professional practice and with the mission of the institution in mind."
Quoth the Defense Attorney
From an actual closing argument in a jury trial:
"Sherlock Holmes had an arch enemy, Professor Moriarty, who made nefarious plots and gave him someone to fight against. The Batman has the Riddler and Joker. Superman has Lex Luthor. Pity the poor County of Pitcairn; the worst person they can come up with is Jane Smith." (points dramatically at client who looks pitiful at defense table)
"Sherlock Holmes had an arch enemy, Professor Moriarty, who made nefarious plots and gave him someone to fight against. The Batman has the Riddler and Joker. Superman has Lex Luthor. Pity the poor County of Pitcairn; the worst person they can come up with is Jane Smith." (points dramatically at client who looks pitiful at defense table)
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
"To 'Warholize' someone else's photo ... doesn't fall within an existing category of fair use"
"The idea that I would steal from myself is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard"
The LA Times: "Richard L. Weisman, the noted art collector who made news recently when he decided to forgo a multimillion-dollar insurance policy for stolen art, had some critical words for the LAPD detectives investigating his case. 'Maybe if they would do their job … and spent some time looking for the art instead of being accusatory of the person who had it stolen, they might actually find it,' Weisman said."
"Fairey now seems to have committed himself to a version of events that could be taken to suggest he didn't spend much time on the poster"
Richard Lacayo on the latest twist in the Shepard Fairey-AP lawsuit:
"By claiming to have forgotten at first which photo he had worked from, did Fairey undercut his case in his own suit against AP? Fairey argues that he transformed the original image sufficiently to qualify for fair use protection .... But if the transformative process didn't leave enough of an impression on him for him to recall what picture he was working from, how transformative could it be? How long did it actually take? A few minutes? A few days? Surely if you work with a photo for a few days you remember it. But if the changes you made to the image only took a few easily forgotten minutes, or even an hour, then does that really qualify as a transformation?"
"By claiming to have forgotten at first which photo he had worked from, did Fairey undercut his case in his own suit against AP? Fairey argues that he transformed the original image sufficiently to qualify for fair use protection .... But if the transformative process didn't leave enough of an impression on him for him to recall what picture he was working from, how transformative could it be? How long did it actually take? A few minutes? A few days? Surely if you work with a photo for a few days you remember it. But if the changes you made to the image only took a few easily forgotten minutes, or even an hour, then does that really qualify as a transformation?"
The Shelby County Anti-Judge Mutiny: When the Judge is Too Nice to Defendants
It's not a good thing to have a Commonwealth’s Attorney, County Attorney, Assistant County Attorney, District Court Judge get together to write an anonymous letter of complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commission stating that if the Circuit Court Judge remains on the bench "blood in the streets", because he is too lenient.
Not sure how true any of this is, but it makes me leery of running for judge in Kentucky.
Not sure how true any of this is, but it makes me leery of running for judge in Kentucky.
Putting the public back in "public trust"
An interesting approach to deaccessioning at University College London.
"Lawsuit against sports artist nears end"
Adam (Not Pacman) Jones of the Tuscaloosa News on the University of Alabama’s lawsuit against sports artist Daniel Moore.
File Under "Careful-What-You-Wish-For"
Lee Rosenbaum complains that revised (temporary) anti-deaccessioning rules from the NY Board of Regents are too restrictive.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Fairey Latest
Daryl Lang of Photo District News has a good roundup of Shepard Fairey-AP lawsuit developments. The AP says Fairey "has now concocted another story." Fairey says the AP is "diverting the debate from the central question in this case, which is whether he transformed the Mannie Garcia image into a work of art, which he has."
Jenny Fontaine: Emotional Prosecutor
Now, here's a tactic I've not yet seen in court (not sure this one will work for us guys).
World's Most Impressive Scam Artist?
An entire room dedicated to him at the prosecutor's office and "the alleged scam actually would be his third in a decade operated over the phone from the Department of Corrections."
Who the heck is this guy? Lex Luthor? How the heck does he STILL HAVE ACCESS TO A PHONE?
Who the heck is this guy? Lex Luthor? How the heck does he STILL HAVE ACCESS TO A PHONE?
Perfect Prosecutor
I assume this game doesn't exist in English. If he truly is perfect it would probably be a good training device.
Monday, October 19, 2009
"Is the corpse's former intent all we care about?"
I missed this post on the Barnes by Peter Friedman last week:
"Barnes’ original bequest might have forbidden the move, but the result of his restriction, 60 years after his death, was the closing off of a multi-billion dollar collection of art to the wider public, strife between the Foundation and its neighbors, and a threat to the very existence of the Foundation itself. Isn’t it at least arguable that satisfying much of Barnes’ obvious intent — precisely how the art is housed and shown — while making it accessible to the world in a location where it is welcome is a reasonable effort to accommodate what he would have wanted? And isn’t it appropriate that we have institutions like courts to decide [between] that reasonable argument [and] the opposing one (Barnes stated in his bequest the collection should never be moved, so it should never be moved, even if there are circumstances now that he did not anticipate and we could not predict his reaction to)?"
"Barnes’ original bequest might have forbidden the move, but the result of his restriction, 60 years after his death, was the closing off of a multi-billion dollar collection of art to the wider public, strife between the Foundation and its neighbors, and a threat to the very existence of the Foundation itself. Isn’t it at least arguable that satisfying much of Barnes’ obvious intent — precisely how the art is housed and shown — while making it accessible to the world in a location where it is welcome is a reasonable effort to accommodate what he would have wanted? And isn’t it appropriate that we have institutions like courts to decide [between] that reasonable argument [and] the opposing one (Barnes stated in his bequest the collection should never be moved, so it should never be moved, even if there are circumstances now that he did not anticipate and we could not predict his reaction to)?"
How do you figure the value of an item stolen?
Baylor v. Commonwealth:
If there is no market for a used item (in this case catalytic converters) then the value of a replacement cannot be used to prove value. Value must be proven by another means and must be the value of the item at the time it was stolen. Possible methods offered are:
If there is no market for a used item (in this case catalytic converters) then the value of a replacement cannot be used to prove value. Value must be proven by another means and must be the value of the item at the time it was stolen. Possible methods offered are:
[T]estimony of a lay person as to the property’s fair market value, the opinion of an expert, or by traditional accounting principles, starting with the original cost of the item and then factoring in depreciation or appreciation.Of course, the question becomes, if there is no market for the item once used and the value is the value when stolen after it has been used, is there any value if it's not the cost of replacement?
No, You Cannot Trifurcate a Virginia Trial
Elem v. Commonwealth: Defense attorneys in Virginia have been trying to figure out for a long time how to keep prior convictions out of cases in which an element of the offense is a prior conviction. No one has been able to convince Virginia courts that they should adopt the reasoning of Old Chief, so some have tried to get creative.
In Virginia all jury trials are bifurcated. In the first part the jury decides guilt or innocence. In the second part the jury decides the sentence.
Defense counsel tried for a trifurcated hearing. The first would have been to find guilt or innocence on the petit larceny. The second would have been for the jury to find whether or not there were two prior larceny convictions (necessary for the misdemeanor to be elevated to a felony). The third would have been the sentencing phase.
However, both the trial court and the appellate court denied them because such a procedure is not allowed by any legislation which has been passed by the General Assembly.
In Virginia all jury trials are bifurcated. In the first part the jury decides guilt or innocence. In the second part the jury decides the sentence.
Defense counsel tried for a trifurcated hearing. The first would have been to find guilt or innocence on the petit larceny. The second would have been for the jury to find whether or not there were two prior larceny convictions (necessary for the misdemeanor to be elevated to a felony). The third would have been the sentencing phase.
However, both the trial court and the appellate court denied them because such a procedure is not allowed by any legislation which has been passed by the General Assembly.
Friday, October 16, 2009
AP-Fairey News (UPDATED 2X)
The New York Times: "Lawyers for the visual artist who created the famous 'Hope' poster of Barack Obama have acknowledged that he lied about which photograph he based the poster on and that he fabricated evidence in an effort to bolster his lawsuit against The Associated Press, according to a statement released by The A.P. on Friday night" (emphasis added).
The AP's general counsel also says "Fairey’s counsel informed the AP that they intended to seek the Court's permission to withdraw as counsel for Fairey."
Remember that in their answer to Fairey's complaint, the AP argued that he "deliberately misrepresent[ed] the source of the Infringing Works in [the] Complaint" in a "misguided effort to argue that Fairey made more substantial changes to the photograph ... than he actually did." Related post here.
As Bruce Boyden said way back in February, when this issue first came up, "it just plain looks bad to have a misstatement like this in the complaint."
UPDATE: Boyden reacts here: "It looks even worse if you destroy evidence to cover it up. And it looks even worse than that if you manufacture evidence. All for very little benefit. Fairey’s behavior here reminds me of insider trading cases where some billionaire risks prison in order to avoid a loss of $20,000. It’s also too bad for us copyright professors who were interested in the doctrinal issues here. I can’t see this case going much farther, and even if it does, the chances we’ll get a clean holding on fair use, copyrightability, or substantial similarity seem thin."
Ann Althouse says: "The copyright issue itself should remain the same, and it's an important one indeed. It's a damned shame that the banner for expansive fair use is being carried by someone who was dishonest and who tried to play the legal system. Why is he admitting his deception now? Presumably, he knew the manipulations would come to light one way or the other, and it was a strategic decision to reveal it this way."
Jim Johnson: "I still think that Fairey - without the lies - might well have won the fair use case .... After all, it was not even clear that [the AP] controlled rights to the relevant image, since it was taken by a free-lance photographer. Maybe Fairey thought some bluster might keep the whole mess out of court. Who knows? The lesson? Don't try this at home. I suspect, and HOPE, that the judge in this case will throw the book at Fairey for his shenanigans."
Daryl Lang of Photo District News: "Fairey’s admission resolves one of the strangest elements in the suit. Despite obvious evidence to the contrary, Fairey repeatedly cited the wrong AP photo as the one he used ...."
UPDATE 2: Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento: "Aside from the fact that he only strengthened the image of artists as clowns and buffoons in the eyes of judges and lawyers, Fairey’s recent actions could earn him serious consequences."
The AP's general counsel also says "Fairey’s counsel informed the AP that they intended to seek the Court's permission to withdraw as counsel for Fairey."
Remember that in their answer to Fairey's complaint, the AP argued that he "deliberately misrepresent[ed] the source of the Infringing Works in [the] Complaint" in a "misguided effort to argue that Fairey made more substantial changes to the photograph ... than he actually did." Related post here.
As Bruce Boyden said way back in February, when this issue first came up, "it just plain looks bad to have a misstatement like this in the complaint."
UPDATE: Boyden reacts here: "It looks even worse if you destroy evidence to cover it up. And it looks even worse than that if you manufacture evidence. All for very little benefit. Fairey’s behavior here reminds me of insider trading cases where some billionaire risks prison in order to avoid a loss of $20,000. It’s also too bad for us copyright professors who were interested in the doctrinal issues here. I can’t see this case going much farther, and even if it does, the chances we’ll get a clean holding on fair use, copyrightability, or substantial similarity seem thin."
Ann Althouse says: "The copyright issue itself should remain the same, and it's an important one indeed. It's a damned shame that the banner for expansive fair use is being carried by someone who was dishonest and who tried to play the legal system. Why is he admitting his deception now? Presumably, he knew the manipulations would come to light one way or the other, and it was a strategic decision to reveal it this way."
Jim Johnson: "I still think that Fairey - without the lies - might well have won the fair use case .... After all, it was not even clear that [the AP] controlled rights to the relevant image, since it was taken by a free-lance photographer. Maybe Fairey thought some bluster might keep the whole mess out of court. Who knows? The lesson? Don't try this at home. I suspect, and HOPE, that the judge in this case will throw the book at Fairey for his shenanigans."
Daryl Lang of Photo District News: "Fairey’s admission resolves one of the strangest elements in the suit. Despite obvious evidence to the contrary, Fairey repeatedly cited the wrong AP photo as the one he used ...."
UPDATE 2: Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento: "Aside from the fact that he only strengthened the image of artists as clowns and buffoons in the eyes of judges and lawyers, Fairey’s recent actions could earn him serious consequences."
Thursday, October 15, 2009
"However attorneys representing the two sides disagree on the details"
Still not clear exactly what happened at yesterday's hearing in the Rose lawsuit. Greg Cook is on the case.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
You mean deaccessioned works don't go in the shredder?
Lee Rosenbaum has another horror story involving a deaccessioned work, this one sold by the National Academy in 1994.
"These guys are still fighting!"
Rebecca Tushnet continues to do heroic work tracking the Renoir Wars. The latest: plaintiff's application for $340,000 in legal fees was denied. Says Tushnet: "Any bets on whether plaintiff will appeal? Any estimates on total cost of this litigation to the parties--merely an order of magnitude greater than the damages, or two orders?"
NPR on Finding Frida Kahlo
Paddy Johnson gives us the Cliffs Notes version of a recent KCRW piece on what she calls "the so-called new Frida-Kahlos." Her bottom line: "I suppose my deepest annoyance with this story is that it embodies the kind of false myths that create art world controversy where there is none. Resting one’s case on the fallacy of experts 'who haven’t seen the work in person' isn’t an argument for its legitimacy. It’s an argument meant to discredit the expert. But what kind of specialist flies to examine obviously fake documents? It’s like accusing an Anne Frank expert of malpractice for failing to fly to Germany to examine the long lost chapter about her iPod. There’s no point."
"The 'hottest' online art gallery in the world"
The Independent on the new Interpol stolen art database.
"The wilful Dr. Barnes has only himself to blame"
Witold Rybczynski in Slate.com:
"He had an excellent eye and a sharp mind, but unlike other private collectors who founded their own museums—Isabella Stewart Gardner, J. P. Morgan, Duncan Phillips—he was not a good institution builder. As a result, only 50 years after his death, the Barnes stood at the brink of insolvency. It was saved only by the intervention of the Philadelphia establishment ..., on the understanding that the collection, whose worth is estimated at more than $6 billion, would be moved to new premises in the city's museum district."
Philadelphia Inquirer culture reporter Stephan Salisbury told a similar story last week -- the Barnes was saved, not stolen.
"He had an excellent eye and a sharp mind, but unlike other private collectors who founded their own museums—Isabella Stewart Gardner, J. P. Morgan, Duncan Phillips—he was not a good institution builder. As a result, only 50 years after his death, the Barnes stood at the brink of insolvency. It was saved only by the intervention of the Philadelphia establishment ..., on the understanding that the collection, whose worth is estimated at more than $6 billion, would be moved to new premises in the city's museum district."
Philadelphia Inquirer culture reporter Stephan Salisbury told a similar story last week -- the Barnes was saved, not stolen.
Rose Lawsuit Update
A cryptic little report in the Boston Globe on yesterday's hearing on Brandeis's motion to dismiss the Rose lawsuit. The headline is "Brandeis agrees to delay sale of artwork," and the article notes that the motion was denied -- but then it goes on to say that "the university agreed it would not sell any of the artwork donated by the plaintiffs" (as opposed to all artwork at the museum) and "to give the attorney general a 30-day notice and an opportunity for review if it decides to sell any artwork donated by others" (which is something it would probably want to do in any event).
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Warhol Theft Update
A development in last month's high-profile Los Angeles Warhol theft. The Seattle Times reports that the collector has canceled his $25 million insurance claim for the 10 pieces. He "realizes some people might view it as strange for him to walk away from so much money. But, he says, he simply couldn't stand the thought of insurance investigators poring through his personal records and interrogating his family and friends before he stood any chance of collecting."
The Oxycontin Express
Watch this video. We have this problem here as well. When I was in Richmond the drugs were cocaine and heroin. Out here the problems are oxycontin, percocets, xanax, lortabs, suboxone, et al. Pain clinics, out of State doctors and pharmacies, mail order drugs - most of it starts out with veneer of legality. Watch the Kentucky mountains part of the video and that's similar - although smaller in scale - to what our drug issues are.
Monday, October 12, 2009
"There have been untruthful and inconsistent statements presented to us by Mr. Amadio"
The Boston Globe has the latest twist in the (alleged) Pebble Beach art theft: "Investigators, who previously identified the alleged victims, Dr. Ralph Kennaugh and Angelo Benjamin Amadio, as suspects in the theft are considering the possibility the doctor was a victim of Amadio, a spokesman for the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office said yesterday."
The Art Market Monitor says that seems "unlikely": "Given what is known about the art, the theft and the behavior of the victims, it would seem logical to conclude that this was a fairly straightforward burglary that gained dimension in the telling and re-telling. We’re left with a stalemate as a face-saving measure."
Mark Durney sees a teachable moment.
The Art Market Monitor says that seems "unlikely": "Given what is known about the art, the theft and the behavior of the victims, it would seem logical to conclude that this was a fairly straightforward burglary that gained dimension in the telling and re-telling. We’re left with a stalemate as a face-saving measure."
Mark Durney sees a teachable moment.
"This is a tremendous thing the community has done tonight"
The Blanden Memorial Art Museum deaccessioning went forward this weekend. More than 300 pieces were sold. Judith Dobrzynski summarized the surrounding controversy.
Probable Cause is Probable Cause - Except When It Isn't
Everyone knows of my skepticism over the magically constitutional dog-sniff which isn't a search per Illinois v. Caballes. Nevertheless, now that the premise has become law, it has to be applied.
So, a car is pulled over and has four passengers. While the stop is going on a dog is run past the vehicle. The dog alerts. So, per Caballes the officers have constitutionally valid probable cause to search the contents of the vehicle. They have the people exit and search the vehicle, finding nothing. Can the officers search the people who were in the car when the dog alerted? After all, probable cause was for contraband to be in the vehicle and the people were in the vehicle; if an officer took a purse out of the car and laid it on the ground probable cause wouldn't dissipate and the search would still be valid. Thus the search of the individuals should be valid.
Except it isn't.
In Whitehead v. Commonwealth, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the standard for searching people is higher than probable cause. After all, probable cause was established by the dog sniff which covered the entire area of the car and Defendant was in the car at the time. Ipso facto, there is probable cause to search Defendant (if probable cause allows the officer to search a purse in the car he should be able to search the defendant). Nevertheless, the Virginia Supreme Court has decided that for a search of a person in the car the formula is: probable cause + a particularized something more.
In order to get there the Court has to stretch its reasoning across several different cases. Here are the cases it goes through:
Whence came the Virginia Supreme Court's reasoning? Well, it's a pretty close rationale to Di Re before it was limited by Pringle. Before the limitation, it was a fair reading of Di Re to say that it stood for the idea that being in a car in the presence of contraband or illegal activity does not mean that probable cause adheres to all individuals in the car. This is almost exactly the standard adopted by the Virginia Supreme Court. However, it is not the constitutional standard post Pringle.
Ybarra & El-Amin, neither car cases, really aren't germane to much except that the Virginia Supreme Court seems to be trying to use them as ammo in its attempt to turn back the clock and claim the old standard from Di Re. They bolster the Court's attempt to characterize this case as a "companions" case rather than a "car" case. However, it's clear that constitutional jurisprudence has set different rules for those in a car than for those an open shop or walking in public. The cases just are not on point.
To be fair, the Court was dealing with a terrible decision from the Court of Appeals which basically said that there was probable cause to search Defendant because he was the last place that hadn't been searched and that he couldn't raise the search of the other occupants, even if their searches might not have been as based in probable cause as his. Either all the occupants were searched constitutionally or they were not. You can't break the constitution until you find the guilty party and then state that it wasn't unconstitutional for this guy. As well, the Court does point out that there are opinions out there from other appellate courts which do not reach the same conclusion as it has. Maybe it's trying to get the USSC's attention by pointing out a split it ought to address.
Anyway, now we have to face the practical applications of this decision. I don't know if they'll be much. Now, as one officer searches the car another officer can run the dog past the individuals who have exited the car. As long as there is no extension to the time of the detention, this second, non-search sniff should not have any constitutional implications and furnish all the particularized suspicion needed.
----------
1 And before you yell at me about this, go read the article I linked to in the first sentence of this post. I do not believe this is logical per se, I am just stating that it is the USSC's logic per Caballes and we are obligated to follow it.
So, a car is pulled over and has four passengers. While the stop is going on a dog is run past the vehicle. The dog alerts. So, per Caballes the officers have constitutionally valid probable cause to search the contents of the vehicle. They have the people exit and search the vehicle, finding nothing. Can the officers search the people who were in the car when the dog alerted? After all, probable cause was for contraband to be in the vehicle and the people were in the vehicle; if an officer took a purse out of the car and laid it on the ground probable cause wouldn't dissipate and the search would still be valid. Thus the search of the individuals should be valid.
Except it isn't.
In Whitehead v. Commonwealth, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the standard for searching people is higher than probable cause. After all, probable cause was established by the dog sniff which covered the entire area of the car and Defendant was in the car at the time. Ipso facto, there is probable cause to search Defendant (if probable cause allows the officer to search a purse in the car he should be able to search the defendant). Nevertheless, the Virginia Supreme Court has decided that for a search of a person in the car the formula is: probable cause + a particularized something more.
In order to get there the Court has to stretch its reasoning across several different cases. Here are the cases it goes through:
U.S. v. Di Re, 1948, USSC: (Severely limited by Pringle) Mere presence in the car where a crime has been committed is not probable cause if one of the other persons in the car has been specifically identified as the law breaker.Of all the above, Pringle seems to be the case closest to point. It's not exactly the same because in Pringle the contraband was found first and then Pringle was arrested without particularized proof that it was his. However, since Caballes has declared dogs infallible, the same probable cause as the finding of drugs in Pringle is established by the alert of the dog.1 Thus, the defendant in Whitehead has probable cause clearly established against him, just as the defendant in Pringle did.
Ybarra v. Illinois, 1979, USSC: When police get a search warrant for a merchant's place of business the search warrant does not extend to whichever random customers happen to be in the place of business when the warrant is served.
Maryland v. Pringle, 2003, USSC: If contraband is inside a car an officer can reasonably infer that there is probable cause that all the occupants of the car are involved in the illegal activity because of the relatively small size of the automobile.
El-Amin v. Commonwealth, 2005, Va.SCt.: There is reasonable articulable suspicion for a Terry pat down of members of a group, in the evening in a high crime area, if a member of the group is found to have a weapon.
Whence came the Virginia Supreme Court's reasoning? Well, it's a pretty close rationale to Di Re before it was limited by Pringle. Before the limitation, it was a fair reading of Di Re to say that it stood for the idea that being in a car in the presence of contraband or illegal activity does not mean that probable cause adheres to all individuals in the car. This is almost exactly the standard adopted by the Virginia Supreme Court. However, it is not the constitutional standard post Pringle.
Ybarra & El-Amin, neither car cases, really aren't germane to much except that the Virginia Supreme Court seems to be trying to use them as ammo in its attempt to turn back the clock and claim the old standard from Di Re. They bolster the Court's attempt to characterize this case as a "companions" case rather than a "car" case. However, it's clear that constitutional jurisprudence has set different rules for those in a car than for those an open shop or walking in public. The cases just are not on point.
To be fair, the Court was dealing with a terrible decision from the Court of Appeals which basically said that there was probable cause to search Defendant because he was the last place that hadn't been searched and that he couldn't raise the search of the other occupants, even if their searches might not have been as based in probable cause as his. Either all the occupants were searched constitutionally or they were not. You can't break the constitution until you find the guilty party and then state that it wasn't unconstitutional for this guy. As well, the Court does point out that there are opinions out there from other appellate courts which do not reach the same conclusion as it has. Maybe it's trying to get the USSC's attention by pointing out a split it ought to address.
Anyway, now we have to face the practical applications of this decision. I don't know if they'll be much. Now, as one officer searches the car another officer can run the dog past the individuals who have exited the car. As long as there is no extension to the time of the detention, this second, non-search sniff should not have any constitutional implications and furnish all the particularized suspicion needed.
----------
1 And before you yell at me about this, go read the article I linked to in the first sentence of this post. I do not believe this is logical per se, I am just stating that it is the USSC's logic per Caballes and we are obligated to follow it.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Check out this blog by Kenneth David Westphal, the author of Law School Red Ink White Collar Blues (Letters from Law School)
. He blogs about the law student’s search for a legal position during second year of law school. I also noticed some lawyer jokes in his posts for those of you who enjoy a good lawyer joke!
Actually I heard a funny lawyer joke at a retirement dinner I went to for my husband's job. Here's another version of it. Enjoy!
. He blogs about the law student’s search for a legal position during second year of law school. I also noticed some lawyer jokes in his posts for those of you who enjoy a good lawyer joke!Actually I heard a funny lawyer joke at a retirement dinner I went to for my husband's job. Here's another version of it. Enjoy!
A truck driver would amuse himself by running over lawyers. Whenever he saw a lawyer walking down the side of the road he would swerve to hit him, enjoy the load, satisfying "THUMP", and then swerve back onto the road.
(at this point some of you are probably wondering how the trucker could distinguish the lawyers from the humans. Obviously he saw the trail of slime they left!)
One day, as the truck driver was driving along he saw a priest hitchhiking. He thought he would do a good turn and pulled the truck over.
He asked the priest, "Where are you going, Father?"
"I'm going to the church 5 miles down the road," replied the priest.
"No problem, Father! I'll give you a lift. Climb in the truck." The happy priest climbed into the passenger seat and the truck driver continued down the road.
Suddenly the truck driver saw a lawyer walking down the road and instinctively he swerved to hit him. But then he remembered there was a priest in the truck with him, so at the last minute he swerved back away, narrowly missing the lawyer. However even though he was certain he missed the lawyer, he still heard a loud "THUD". Not understanding where the noise came from he glanced in his mirrors and when he didn't see anything, he turned to the priest and said, "I'm sorry Father. I almost hit that lawyer."
"That's okay", replied the priest. "I got him with the door!"
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Bonfire of the Vanity
As a follow up to Peter Friedman's excellent response below, here's a question for the folks who are outrageously outraged by the move of the Barnes (and I hasten to add that I thought the Barnes should stay put):
What if Barnes's Will had provided that the works were to be exhibited in Merion for exactly 50 years -- and then were to be burned in a big bonfire?
Should we honor donor intent in that case?
Or can we agree that sometimes the public interest trumps the donor's intent?
(The Art Market Monitor has been asking a version of this question for some time now.)
What if Barnes's Will had provided that the works were to be exhibited in Merion for exactly 50 years -- and then were to be burned in a big bonfire?
Should we honor donor intent in that case?
Or can we agree that sometimes the public interest trumps the donor's intent?
(The Art Market Monitor has been asking a version of this question for some time now.)
"How confident are you that Barnes intended his collection to stay where it was come what may, hell or highwater?"
In the comments to a post by Peter Friedman discussed here, Barnes-move-protester -- and one of the main talking heads in The Art of the Steal -- Nick Tinari says Friedman's "view of the law is naive at best." Friedman responds:
"I guess you want an utterly rigid interpretation, entirely void of context, of words written by a guy who died 60 years ago to control what’s to be done with several billion dollars worth of art even if that means serious restrictions on access to the art.
"Me? I’ll take a pragmatic solution that preserves a heck of a lot of Barnes’ stated desires, takes into account the interests of art lovers, the public, the neighbors of the Barnes Foundation, and the fact that it really isn’t entirely clear what the guy would’ve intended under present circumstances.
"And did I mention that the guy has maintained almost exclusive control from the grave of several billion dollars worth of the world’s culture that he’d keep people away from during his life by denying their requests to see the art with letters signed by his dog?"
"I guess you want an utterly rigid interpretation, entirely void of context, of words written by a guy who died 60 years ago to control what’s to be done with several billion dollars worth of art even if that means serious restrictions on access to the art.
"Me? I’ll take a pragmatic solution that preserves a heck of a lot of Barnes’ stated desires, takes into account the interests of art lovers, the public, the neighbors of the Barnes Foundation, and the fact that it really isn’t entirely clear what the guy would’ve intended under present circumstances.
"And did I mention that the guy has maintained almost exclusive control from the grave of several billion dollars worth of the world’s culture that he’d keep people away from during his life by denying their requests to see the art with letters signed by his dog?"
"Meet the new Barnes Foundation museum, just like the old Barnes"
The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board is thrilled with the new Barnes design:
"In a substantially larger building ..., the paintings of Renoir, Cézanne, Matisse, and other masters will be accessible to millions of visitors. That would be impossible at the Barnes' leafy suburban location, where visitors were limited by court orders resulting from battles with neighbors over traffic concerns.
"Since it was the Barnes' isolation that helped trigger money woes that led museum leaders to explore moving, the city location should bode well for the museum as a going concern.
" . . . At the same time, there is no mistaking the aim of architects Tod Williams and Billie Tsien to re-create Albert C. Barnes' former mansion. That's in keeping with pledges to preserve the unique artwork displays dictated by Barnes . . . .
"Will the design silence critics of the move, who objected to a Montgomery County judge's ruling in favor of a more flexible interpretation of Barnes' bequest? That's probably asking too much. But the plan's obvious respect for Barnes' legacy - for his idiosyncratic view of how art should be displayed and appreciated - should reassure supporters of the move."
"In a substantially larger building ..., the paintings of Renoir, Cézanne, Matisse, and other masters will be accessible to millions of visitors. That would be impossible at the Barnes' leafy suburban location, where visitors were limited by court orders resulting from battles with neighbors over traffic concerns.
"Since it was the Barnes' isolation that helped trigger money woes that led museum leaders to explore moving, the city location should bode well for the museum as a going concern.
" . . . At the same time, there is no mistaking the aim of architects Tod Williams and Billie Tsien to re-create Albert C. Barnes' former mansion. That's in keeping with pledges to preserve the unique artwork displays dictated by Barnes . . . .
"Will the design silence critics of the move, who objected to a Montgomery County judge's ruling in favor of a more flexible interpretation of Barnes' bequest? That's probably asking too much. But the plan's obvious respect for Barnes' legacy - for his idiosyncratic view of how art should be displayed and appreciated - should reassure supporters of the move."
Astor Guilty Verdict
Brooke Astor's son was convicted of stealing from her this afternoon. NYT story here. He was found guilty of 14 of the 16 counts against him. One of the two he was not found guilty of was a grand larceny charge stemming from the sale of a Childe Hassam painting.
Power, Persuasion, & Plea Agreements
So, I'm reading thru Simple Justice and I ran across this post regarding plea agreements. I'm not particularly concerned over whether academics have an accurate view of actual practice, but I did suss out some points which I thought it would be interesting to address.
On the other hand, if somehow all defendants, and their attorneys, decided that from a date certain there would be no more plea bargains and that they were all going to plead not guilty to everything it would benefit a number of defendants in the future. Of course, the first group to do this would have a lot of people who would get longer sentences than they would have otherwise, but, assuming the government could not increase its resource expenditure to handle all the cases, the government would eventually have to bring fewer charges or drop more. This would benefit those with lesser charges. However, those with more serious charges are going to see the time they spend in prison increase.
As a practical matter, you'll never see all the defendants act in concert. In the short run it is to most of their self interests to take the plea offer. As well, defense counsel isn't charged with defending the best interest of the group, he's charged with defending the interests of the single defendant in his care. He cannot ethically recommend Defendant take one for the team and spend a year in jail for snipe hunting (instead of the 9 months offered) just so that someone else might not have to be charged or convicted of this crime in the future.
However, this isn't reality. Judges are coerced into plea agreements because they need to keep their dockets moving. Prosecutors are coerced into plea agreements because it is problematic to gather all the witnesses and all the evidence for each and every single case they are prosecuting, concern about witnesses/evidence, speedy trial concerns, &cetera. The defense is coerced into plea agreements because of the probable worse consequences if the agreement is not entered into. Sure, no one's free will is overborne, but it isn't exactly as though everyone gets there without some force within the judicial system pushing him in that direction.
Just as true is the fact that plea agreements aren't desirable for all involved. They turn the esteemed, legally brilliant judge into a clerk for the prosecutor and defense attorney who are basically just filing their agreement with him. The prosecutor generally offers less than she really thinks is the optimal punishment for the defendant. And what defendant desires his liberty interests to be imposed upon?
Yet, plea agreements aren't going away anytime soon. They are the oil which keeps the judicial system flowing and unless someone comes up with something better they're going to be with us for a long time.
(1) Had defendants refused to settle, many of them would not have been charged or would have escaped with lenient sanctions.I don't see how refusing to settle would get a defendant "lenient sanctions", except for a not guilty finding. In general, one would expect a pragmatic prosecutor to offer a better deal than Defendant could expect to get even if Defendant just pled straight guilty and got a disposition from the judge. I'm not saying Prosecutor will give up the farm, and she won't offer a punishment which is insufficient, but she'll offer something at least a little less than what the judge will probably hand down. Of course, there will be exceptions to this - charges which cannot garner an offer, judges who are too lenient for a prosecutor to conscientiously make a better offer, the rare unreasonable prosecutor - but this would be the general rule.
On the other hand, if somehow all defendants, and their attorneys, decided that from a date certain there would be no more plea bargains and that they were all going to plead not guilty to everything it would benefit a number of defendants in the future. Of course, the first group to do this would have a lot of people who would get longer sentences than they would have otherwise, but, assuming the government could not increase its resource expenditure to handle all the cases, the government would eventually have to bring fewer charges or drop more. This would benefit those with lesser charges. However, those with more serious charges are going to see the time they spend in prison increase.
As a practical matter, you'll never see all the defendants act in concert. In the short run it is to most of their self interests to take the plea offer. As well, defense counsel isn't charged with defending the best interest of the group, he's charged with defending the interests of the single defendant in his care. He cannot ethically recommend Defendant take one for the team and spend a year in jail for snipe hunting (instead of the 9 months offered) just so that someone else might not have to be charged or convicted of this crime in the future.
(2) The substantial bargaining power of the resource-constrained prosecutor is therefore the product of the collective action problem that plagues defendants.Yes, this is partially true. However, that's an incomplete picture. A good portion of the power in a prosecutor's hands comes from the fact that a large percentage of defendants are provably guilty. They've been found by an officer in possession of contraband. They shoplifted while store security was filming them. They confessed to an investigator. Let's say that these "easy proves" are 60%. In those cases the only real thing which is going on is a determination of what the disposition shall be. If Defendant and Counsel know Defendant has a 99% chance of being found guilty and getting 5 years from the judge, that is what gives the prosecutor a lot of power to plea bargain. The prosecutor has the power to offer anything up to a 5 year sentence. Then come the "probable proves"; let's say these are another 25% of the cases. In those everyone perceives an 80% chance of conviction and therefore Prosecutor's plea bargaining power is less; perhaps her power only rises to the level of the ability to offer up to a 4 years sentence. The scale continues to slide as the perceived ability of the prosecutor to prove a case lessens. Mind you, the plea bargaining power of a prosecutor never completely ceases to be; the mere existence of the ability under the law to offer a plea agreement assures the prosecutor will always have some power in plea negotiations. In a murder case which both sides perceive to have a 5% chance of conviction an offer to reduce to felony battery and probation (rather than potential life) is still something the defense is going to have to consider.
(3) [T]he institution of plea bargains may not improve the well-being of defendants.Since when is the purpose of anything in the courthouse meant to "improve the well-being of defendants?" Assuming Defendant's interest in court is that of self liberty, the only way he can achieve this in totality is to fight all the way to the end and be found not guilty. In a plea negotiation situation Defendant isn't trying to improve his well-being, he's trying to mitigate the harm society is going to inflict upon his liberty interest in order to further what it has decided are important ends.
(4) Thus, we can no longer count on the fact that plea bargains are entered voluntarily to argue that they are desirable for all parties involved.Were plea bargains ever entered "voluntarily?" Were they ever desirable for all involved? Let's be serious here. In a perfect universe every lawyer, prosecutor and defense, would have one case and all the time and resources in the world. Judges would be assigned one case at a time and have no docket pressure. Jurors would be bright, attentive, and take their duties seriously. There would be no reason for even a plea at the beginning of trial; we'd just assume a not guilty plea and have at it. In such a system defendants would probably benefit in that more of them would probably be found not guilty. The citizens would also benefit in that there would be no need for the government to discount sentences; those convicted would be segregated from society for as long as they optimally should be.
However, this isn't reality. Judges are coerced into plea agreements because they need to keep their dockets moving. Prosecutors are coerced into plea agreements because it is problematic to gather all the witnesses and all the evidence for each and every single case they are prosecuting, concern about witnesses/evidence, speedy trial concerns, &cetera. The defense is coerced into plea agreements because of the probable worse consequences if the agreement is not entered into. Sure, no one's free will is overborne, but it isn't exactly as though everyone gets there without some force within the judicial system pushing him in that direction.
Just as true is the fact that plea agreements aren't desirable for all involved. They turn the esteemed, legally brilliant judge into a clerk for the prosecutor and defense attorney who are basically just filing their agreement with him. The prosecutor generally offers less than she really thinks is the optimal punishment for the defendant. And what defendant desires his liberty interests to be imposed upon?
Yet, plea agreements aren't going away anytime soon. They are the oil which keeps the judicial system flowing and unless someone comes up with something better they're going to be with us for a long time.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Cleveland Wins
Orphan Works Program
The Art Law and Copyright and Literary Property Committees of the New York City Bar Association, together with Columbia Law School's Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts, are presenting a program entitled "Lost and Found: A Practical Look at Orphan Works," Oct. 20, 6-8pm, at the Bar Association, 42 West 44th Street. Details here.
"This whole thing stinks"
The New York Times: "The sheriff’s office of Monterey County, Calif., said that a reported theft of millions of dollars’ worth of artworks from a home in Pebble Beach appears to be a scam perpetrated by the alleged victims."
You can watch the sheriff's press conference here.
Greg Allen asks "did I call it or what?" (He called it.)
You can watch the sheriff's press conference here.
Greg Allen asks "did I call it or what?" (He called it.)
"The forces leading to [the move] are far more human, contradictory, and mundane than any Manichean conspiracy theory would have it"
The Philadelphia Inquirer's excellent Stephan Salisbury has a piece in today's paper taking on the Barnes conspiracy theorists:
"Ultimately, it was Lincoln [University]'s control, not greedy city elites, that led to the fateful 1990 decision to install prominent attorney Richard Glanton as foundation president, which launched the series of events leading to the Parkway move. . . .
"By the late 1990s Glanton was out and the foundation was bleeding money. The trust indenture barred most investments; Glanton's litigious excesses took a spectacular toll on the dwindling endowment. The Barnes ... cast a wide net seeking solutions.
"Beginning in the Glanton era, when financial issues began to press sharply, casual talk of a possible move to Philadelphia ... was discussed by many interested parties. In early 2001, [Raymond] Perelman, then chair of the [Philadelphia] art museum, openly speculated about it in the New York Times and The Inquirer, as did former Mayor Ed Rendell - now Pennsylvania's governor - and others.
"Ultimately, it was Lincoln [University]'s control, not greedy city elites, that led to the fateful 1990 decision to install prominent attorney Richard Glanton as foundation president, which launched the series of events leading to the Parkway move. . . .
"By the late 1990s Glanton was out and the foundation was bleeding money. The trust indenture barred most investments; Glanton's litigious excesses took a spectacular toll on the dwindling endowment. The Barnes ... cast a wide net seeking solutions.
"Beginning in the Glanton era, when financial issues began to press sharply, casual talk of a possible move to Philadelphia ... was discussed by many interested parties. In early 2001, [Raymond] Perelman, then chair of the [Philadelphia] art museum, openly speculated about it in the New York Times and The Inquirer, as did former Mayor Ed Rendell - now Pennsylvania's governor - and others.
"That political and cultural leaders welcomed the notion of the Barnes in Philadelphia was no secret at all, and three major foundations, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Lenfest and Annenberg foundations, ultimately devised a plan to make it happen. Their proposal was announced in September 2002.
"Virtually simultaneously, the state legislature authorized use of up to $107 million in capital funds for move-related construction - if the state money ever became available, and if state lawmakers decided to spend any of it.
"At the time of the authorization, no Barnes move had been approved by the courts. But then again, no money was appropriated. The authorization/appropriation distinction seems lost on those whose criticism of supposedly secret funding has supplied grist for the conspiracy mill.
"Yet it was Barnes himself who set the highly restrictive terms of the trust indenture; who incorporated no penalties for the foundation should trustees violate the indenture's terms; who failed to resolve tension between a supposedly public facility and exclusionary admissions practices; who staffed the board and foundation with apostles to ensure his will in perpetuity.
"Instead, for nearly 20 years the Barnes has been the subject of rancorous dispute and litigation, leading to what some would call farce and others, tragedy. No conspiracy has been necessary."
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
"The architecture is that good" (UPDATED)
More from Philadelphia Inquirer architecture critic Inga Saffron on the new Barnes design:
"What has happened to the Barnes is a tragedy, and as with all tragedies, many deserve blame: the neighbors, Lower Merion Township, Lincoln University, the Barnes' management under Richard Glanton. Together this unlikely cabal drove the Barnes into insolvency, necessitating a rescue from Philadelphia's philanthropists.
"What has happened to the Barnes is a tragedy, and as with all tragedies, many deserve blame: the neighbors, Lower Merion Township, Lincoln University, the Barnes' management under Richard Glanton. Together this unlikely cabal drove the Barnes into insolvency, necessitating a rescue from Philadelphia's philanthropists.
"Is it any wonder that, when those donors agreed to bail out the Barnes, for the better part of $200 million, they demanded to call the shots?
"Shipping the entire collection to Philadelphia wasn't the only way to save the Barnes. But it was the way chosen by the people paying the freight. The public pay-off is that four times as many people - some 250,000 visitors a year are projected - will see the art because the gallery's hours will no longer be restricted.
"To their credit, the donors - the Pew, Annenberg and Lenfest foundations - recognize that the Barnes is greater than the sum of its paintings. The collection derives its power from the unusual, some might say nutty, system that Barnes devised for hanging paintings in the '20s. That arrangement will be replicated exactly in the Philadelphia galleries, with the notable exception of Matisse's 'Joy of Life,' which will be hung in its own alcove."
UPDATE: A different view from NYT architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff:
"[T]he biggest problem with the design is not the fault of the architects: it has to do with the public the museum will serve. Part of the beauty of the Barnes Foundation is that it is so far removed from the tourist economy that drives major cities today. To get to it, visitors have to make an appointment, then take a train or a car to Merion, a half-hour from Philadelphia. These steps put you in a certain frame of mind by the time you arrive: they build anticipation and demand a certain commitment. They also serve as a kind of screening system, discouraging the kind of visitors who are just looking for a way to kill time.
"The new Barnes is after a different kind of audience. Although museum officials say that the existing limits on crowd size will be kept (albeit with extended hours), it is clearly meant to draw bigger numbers and more tourist dollars. For most visitors the relationship to the art will feel less immediate.
"And this, alas, is a problem no architect could have solved."Amazing Stories
The LAT's Mike Boehm has an update on Steven Spielberg's stolen Rockwell, which I last wrote about, more than two years ago, here. Boehm reports that the case (between the owner at the time the work was stolen in 1973 and the dealer who sold it to Spielberg in 1989) is scheduled to go to trial, in federal court in Las Vegas, in January.
Monday, October 5, 2009
On purity
The Deaccessioning Blog points to an article in the Brandeis Hoot on the university's budget problems and sums it up:
"Possible solutions: dipping into its reserve fund, but that would only take the university through 2013. The other alternative: 'the sale of artwork from the Rose Art Museum.' According to The Hoot, even if Brandeis increases enrollment by 400 students (impacting class size and professorial teaching loads) and lays off 35 staff members, Brandeis will still face a budget gap."
This is another illustration of a point I've made here before, which is that it's all well and good to oppose the sale of art -- no one wants to see the art sold -- but anti-deaccessioning absolutists should acknowledge that there are costs to that stance. You can't sell the art and you can't raise admission fees and you can't move to Philadelphia. But something has to give.
So maybe you eliminate the volleyball team (or perhaps all athletic programs).
Or do you drop the philosophy department?
Or do a bunch of people lose their jobs?
Or maybe you close the museum another day each week.
Now it may be that keeping that 220th Eakins you have in storage is more important than any of those things. I'm not arguing here that it's not. I'm merely suggesting that you can't really evaluate whether a sale is justified until you fully come to grips with the costs of not selling.
"Possible solutions: dipping into its reserve fund, but that would only take the university through 2013. The other alternative: 'the sale of artwork from the Rose Art Museum.' According to The Hoot, even if Brandeis increases enrollment by 400 students (impacting class size and professorial teaching loads) and lays off 35 staff members, Brandeis will still face a budget gap."
This is another illustration of a point I've made here before, which is that it's all well and good to oppose the sale of art -- no one wants to see the art sold -- but anti-deaccessioning absolutists should acknowledge that there are costs to that stance. You can't sell the art and you can't raise admission fees and you can't move to Philadelphia. But something has to give.
So maybe you eliminate the volleyball team (or perhaps all athletic programs).
Or do you drop the philosophy department?
Or do a bunch of people lose their jobs?
Or maybe you close the museum another day each week.
Now it may be that keeping that 220th Eakins you have in storage is more important than any of those things. I'm not arguing here that it's not. I'm merely suggesting that you can't really evaluate whether a sale is justified until you fully come to grips with the costs of not selling.
"No one in their right mind brings a collection like that to a private home without security"
San Jose Mercury News columnist Scott Herold takes note of the art world's "odd reaction" to the Pebble Beach theft: "In my reporting, I've detected skepticism about aspects of the crime, particularly about the lack of insurance and the finding of a ransom note a few days after sheriff's deputies combed through the house."
Among those he talked to is Art Theft Central's Mark Durney, who says "says the experts he's talked with see a number of curious aspects to the case":
Among those he talked to is Art Theft Central's Mark Durney, who says "says the experts he's talked with see a number of curious aspects to the case":
"Durney points out that it's unusual, though not inconceivable, that a collection worth as much as $80 million would have been as little known as this one was. He also notes that the Pollock ... has never been put up for auction or public sale, so it's hard to judge its value. And last, he joins ex-FBI agent McShane in noting that it wouldn't make sense for collectors of this caliber to go without insurance, particularly when they are moving art."
Greg Allen has some further thoughts (see also here).
Heade-less
"If arming guards is too hotly contested a solution, then what can be done to thwart violent art thefts?"
Art Theft Central's Mark Durney considers the question: "One solution may lie in police response time .... In every art theft case mentioned in this post, the armed thieves easily escaped the scene of the crime. If the police had been able to respond quicker, then the thieves' getaways may have been spoiled. Would it be feasible for museum security directors to coordinate with local police to have a greater officer presence in the neighborhood during the hours when the institution is most vulnerable to theft (opening/lunch/closing times)? Hopefully, this would shorten response time and also be a deterrent to potential thieves."
Prosecution: And So It's Been Three Years: Blogging
About three years back I switched from being a defense attorney into the role of a prosecutor. As the third year passes I thought that it might be interesting to look back upon those three years.
I used to wonder, back when I was a defense attorney, why there were so few prosecutors blogging. Now I understand. There are some considerations which are obvious enough, but some of which really hadn't occurred to me.
Of course, critiquing fellow workers and/or the Boss in a blog is just stupid and should be avoided. Anybody who doesn't disagree with a fellow worker once in a while is a saint or a rug, but if a conflict isn't major enough to leave the job a prosecutor should either work to resolve it in shop or just let it be. Nothing good can come of putting it in a blog.
Politics is also obviously a concern. As a deputy prosecutor you have a duty not to cause trouble for the Boss. This means watching out for the sensitivities of voters, other office holders, powerful people in the community, LEO's, judges, news agencies and anyone else who might impact the Boss and/or his office. So, if 5% of the people in the prosecutor's city believe the color Blue is God's color and refuse to swear an oath which does not in end "so help the Blue God" the prosecutor really can't comment on it for fear of offending a significant voting block.
Additionally, there is the concern that anything a prosecutor blogs about a case may be used against her either in trial or in an appeal or habeas. It's obvious that anyone who blogs about a trial while it's in progress is inviting trouble because of its potential to cause a mistrial (e.g.: if a juror stumbles upon it) or give away trial strategy to the other side. As a prosecutor she also has the problem of not knowing if a case is finished. A defendant can file post trial motions, or appeals, or habeases, or even a petition for a writ of actual innocence (in Virginia). Blogging about an important case coming out of the office the prosecutor works in invites these things, particularly in an era when people are overreacting to jurors text messaging or twittering. Sure, the motions filed based on a blog post would, almost always, be spurious, but a prosecutor just shouldn't go out of his way to provide ammo for a convicted offender.
One thing which makes it hard to blog is that a surprising amount of the interesting stuff which happens in a prosecutor's work is prior to court. You vet an interesting indictment before it goes to the grand jury. You help a deputy get a search warrant. Prosecutors and officers discuss what charges to file against someone. You discuss with officers ongoing investigations or the local drug trade connections. A lot of this is truly interesting and has some amazing stories attached. In fact, all sorts of interesting stories pop up precharge. Yet, a prosecutor can't blog about this stuff for both ethical and practical reasons.
Personally, I've been lucky in that both my elected bosses knew about my blog ahead of time and agreed to allow me to continue to blog. I've tried to honor their trust by not doing anything too stupid which might cause the Boss trouble. As anyone who has followed this blog for a while knows my style of blogging has changed somewhat. The strongest part of this blog used to be the stories of what happened in court with theory and news thrown in. Now, I think the strongest is the discussion of theory and law, usually with a concentration on Virginia. There are still some stories here and there, but not near as many. News stories don't often make it into my posts anymore, but that's more of a result of me putting a friendfeed up and just posting news links to it.
I used to wonder, back when I was a defense attorney, why there were so few prosecutors blogging. Now I understand. There are some considerations which are obvious enough, but some of which really hadn't occurred to me.
Of course, critiquing fellow workers and/or the Boss in a blog is just stupid and should be avoided. Anybody who doesn't disagree with a fellow worker once in a while is a saint or a rug, but if a conflict isn't major enough to leave the job a prosecutor should either work to resolve it in shop or just let it be. Nothing good can come of putting it in a blog.
Politics is also obviously a concern. As a deputy prosecutor you have a duty not to cause trouble for the Boss. This means watching out for the sensitivities of voters, other office holders, powerful people in the community, LEO's, judges, news agencies and anyone else who might impact the Boss and/or his office. So, if 5% of the people in the prosecutor's city believe the color Blue is God's color and refuse to swear an oath which does not in end "so help the Blue God" the prosecutor really can't comment on it for fear of offending a significant voting block.
Additionally, there is the concern that anything a prosecutor blogs about a case may be used against her either in trial or in an appeal or habeas. It's obvious that anyone who blogs about a trial while it's in progress is inviting trouble because of its potential to cause a mistrial (e.g.: if a juror stumbles upon it) or give away trial strategy to the other side. As a prosecutor she also has the problem of not knowing if a case is finished. A defendant can file post trial motions, or appeals, or habeases, or even a petition for a writ of actual innocence (in Virginia). Blogging about an important case coming out of the office the prosecutor works in invites these things, particularly in an era when people are overreacting to jurors text messaging or twittering. Sure, the motions filed based on a blog post would, almost always, be spurious, but a prosecutor just shouldn't go out of his way to provide ammo for a convicted offender.
One thing which makes it hard to blog is that a surprising amount of the interesting stuff which happens in a prosecutor's work is prior to court. You vet an interesting indictment before it goes to the grand jury. You help a deputy get a search warrant. Prosecutors and officers discuss what charges to file against someone. You discuss with officers ongoing investigations or the local drug trade connections. A lot of this is truly interesting and has some amazing stories attached. In fact, all sorts of interesting stories pop up precharge. Yet, a prosecutor can't blog about this stuff for both ethical and practical reasons.
Personally, I've been lucky in that both my elected bosses knew about my blog ahead of time and agreed to allow me to continue to blog. I've tried to honor their trust by not doing anything too stupid which might cause the Boss trouble. As anyone who has followed this blog for a while knows my style of blogging has changed somewhat. The strongest part of this blog used to be the stories of what happened in court with theory and news thrown in. Now, I think the strongest is the discussion of theory and law, usually with a concentration on Virginia. There are still some stories here and there, but not near as many. News stories don't often make it into my posts anymore, but that's more of a result of me putting a friendfeed up and just posting news links to it.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
"Nine years after the Barnes Foundation stunned the art world with a high-risk proposal to escape its litigious Merion neighbors ..."
"... by moving its renowned collection of Impressionist art to Philadelphia, it is getting ready to reveal its most closely guarded secret: what its new home will look like."
Philadelphia Inquirer architecture critic Inga Saffron previews this Wednesday's presentation to the Philadelphia Art Commission:
"People in art and architectural circles have been especially keen to know how the designers would resolve the challenging problem of re-creating the Barnes' distinctive gallery experience in a modern building in an urban setting. The sequence of the Barnes' Merion galleries and the arrangement for hanging the artwork have long been considered nearly as important as the artwork itself. They reflect the theories that the patent-medicine mogul Albert Barnes developed in the 1920s as he amassed the world's greatest assemblage of works by Cezanne, Matisse, and Renoir. Barnes considered the 'hang,' as museum experts call it, so fundamental that he stipulated in his will ... that the artwork could never be reorganized or moved. The foundation's battles with its Merion neighbors and the resulting financial insolvency caused the Barnes to reassess that clause. When foundation officials petitioned Montgomery County Orphans Court in 2004 to break Barnes' will and move the collection to Philadelphia, they did, however, promise to replicate the Merion building's floor plan and the hanging scheme."
Philadelphia Inquirer architecture critic Inga Saffron previews this Wednesday's presentation to the Philadelphia Art Commission:
"People in art and architectural circles have been especially keen to know how the designers would resolve the challenging problem of re-creating the Barnes' distinctive gallery experience in a modern building in an urban setting. The sequence of the Barnes' Merion galleries and the arrangement for hanging the artwork have long been considered nearly as important as the artwork itself. They reflect the theories that the patent-medicine mogul Albert Barnes developed in the 1920s as he amassed the world's greatest assemblage of works by Cezanne, Matisse, and Renoir. Barnes considered the 'hang,' as museum experts call it, so fundamental that he stipulated in his will ... that the artwork could never be reorganized or moved. The foundation's battles with its Merion neighbors and the resulting financial insolvency caused the Barnes to reassess that clause. When foundation officials petitioned Montgomery County Orphans Court in 2004 to break Barnes' will and move the collection to Philadelphia, they did, however, promise to replicate the Merion building's floor plan and the hanging scheme."
Friday, October 2, 2009
"My immediate goal is that this auction be stopped"
A challenge to a planned deaccessioning by the Blanden Art Museum in Iowa. A local philanthropist isn't happy with how the sale is going down:
"That conviction centers on one specific thing: the absence of a list of items to be sold. When [the philanthropist] asked to see one, he reportedly was rebuffed. 'Miss Skove [the museum's Director] refused to tell me what was going to be sold,' he said. Skove responded Thursday: 'There is a list. It's 371 items exactly.' She said there is no reason to publish a list of the items being sold because her experience and education - she has a master's degree in art history - qualify her to make the culling decisions. 'The list will not be published before the auction,' she said."
"That conviction centers on one specific thing: the absence of a list of items to be sold. When [the philanthropist] asked to see one, he reportedly was rebuffed. 'Miss Skove [the museum's Director] refused to tell me what was going to be sold,' he said. Skove responded Thursday: 'There is a list. It's 371 items exactly.' She said there is no reason to publish a list of the items being sold because her experience and education - she has a master's degree in art history - qualify her to make the culling decisions. 'The list will not be published before the auction,' she said."
"Then there's the snobbery problem" (UPDATED)
Benjamin Mercer on the "suprising[ly]" "uncomfortable" Q&A following Tuesday night's showing of The Art of the Steal at the New York Film Festival:
"But about halfway through the Q&A, many [in the audience] began to express their displeasure with the film. They saw a measure of condescension to, perhaps even contempt for, the museumgoing public in the film, which features a talking head referring to a Barnes Foundation relocated more centrally to Philadelphia as a 'McBarnes,' and another chastising a young man who spent only an hour amid the masterworks at the foundation once it was opened to the public."
And Howard Feinstein concedes that "the topic is so compelling," but says "formally, the film is nothing."
UPDATE: More on the "vibrant" Q&A from indieWIRE's Brian Brooks: "'If you want to be spoonfed your art, then that’s fine,' said executive producer Lenny Feinberg. 'But there’s something to be said about understanding and viewing art on a higher level.'"
"But about halfway through the Q&A, many [in the audience] began to express their displeasure with the film. They saw a measure of condescension to, perhaps even contempt for, the museumgoing public in the film, which features a talking head referring to a Barnes Foundation relocated more centrally to Philadelphia as a 'McBarnes,' and another chastising a young man who spent only an hour amid the masterworks at the foundation once it was opened to the public."
And Howard Feinstein concedes that "the topic is so compelling," but says "formally, the film is nothing."
UPDATE: More on the "vibrant" Q&A from indieWIRE's Brian Brooks: "'If you want to be spoonfed your art, then that’s fine,' said executive producer Lenny Feinberg. 'But there’s something to be said about understanding and viewing art on a higher level.'"
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Obscene
The New York Times: "The Richard Prince exhibition 'Spiritual America,' which was planned to open Thursday at the Tate Modern museum in London, was withdrawn Wednesday, following a warning from Scotland Yard that its inclusion of a nude photograph of Brooke Shields taken when she was 10 years could violate obscenity laws."
"Pebble Beach Theft Gets Weirder"
The Art Market Monitor has the details. A ransom note and death threats are involved. (Background here.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)