Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

America’s First Female Muslim Judge Found Dead in the Hudson River

Yesterday, police found the body of Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam, the first female Muslim judge in U.S. history, floating in the Hudson River. Abdus-Salaam was 65 years old and had been reported missing earlier that day. Authorities said there were no signs of foul play so far, but the investigation is ongoing. Abdus-Salaam made history as the first black woman on the New York Court of Appeals–she was nominated in 2013 as part of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s effort to diversify the court. Many described her as a professional and intelligent but above all a warm and empathetic judge who often sided with vulnerable parties. Many high-profile New Yorkers expressed their condolences on social media.

Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam was a trailblazing jurist and a force for good.

On behalf of all New Yorkers, I extend my deepest sympathies. https://t.co/hnic07Shp1

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) April 12, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who has seen the HBO hit show “Game of Thrones,” (or read the books on which the series is based) would recognize the phrase “Winter is Coming.” A popular catchphrase for the show, “Winter is Coming” has been used on multiple advertisements and pieces of merchandise. And it has certainly made its way into fans’ vernacular–so much so that a 13-year-old British girl used the phrase in a piece of art, and then uploaded it to a few different artist sites. One is called Redbubble, and can be a venue for artists to sell their work. At that point, HBO, which owns the trademark to the phrase issued a takedown notice, and she had to take the art down. Her family is now upset, and many are outraged that the company took such a harsh action against a young girl’s work.

The girl’s father, Jeffrey Wilcox, told the Register:

My daughter, who happens to be autistic, was doing an art challenge called Huevember which consisted of doing a piece of art based on a different [color] as you worked your way round a [color] wheel.  She was uploading her pictures to a variety of sites and sharing them on Facebook. For this particular piece, she decided to title it ‘winter is coming.’ I do not believe she uploaded the picture to RedBubble to make any particular financial gain, she just thought it a sensible place to put it.

Wilcox also had some angry words for HBO:

My first reaction to the letter was FFS. HBO should get a life or stick something where the sun doesn’t shine. On further investigation, it appears HBO are doing this all over the place regarding this phrase. It seems to have upset a lot of people on Etsy and elsewhere who have had the same or similar letter.

The Register also uploaded a copy of the art to its site, with the caption, “the teen’s digital painting targeted by HBO … Come at us, bro.” See it here. 

Takedown notices based on trademarked phrases aren’t unheard of. Taylor Swift went after vendors on Etsy for the exact same thing. But HBO’s attacks on a young girl’s art may have crossed the line.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post HBO Demands Takedown of Girl’s Art that Uses “Winter is Coming” appeared first on Law Street.

Sometime last week, a mysterious billboard showed up in Pearl, Mississippi, and residents couldn’t figure out whether to be upset or not. The message could be interpreted as either racist or anti-racist. Along Highway 80, Donald Trump’s message “Make America Great Again” is printed on a famous photo of civil rights protesters the moment before they clashed with police in Selma in 1965.

“I don’t really know what to think,” Pearl resident Madeline Nixon said. “It’s definitely offensive, but it’s their right at the same time. And that’s what we as people need to understand: That everyone is entitled to their First Amendment.” On social media, some seemed to think it was posted by Trump himself and is symbolic of how he wants to crack down on minorities.

In case the billboard’s message isn’t clear – Trump picked Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. h/t @Prof_WCByrd https://t.co/1nMsLDHNY6

— Dorothy Roberts (@DorothyERoberts) November 19, 2016

‘Make America Great Again’? Or ‘Empower Racism Again’?

https://t.co/zqPMGSy5IQ

— monroe (@tdotmonroe) November 20, 2016

But it was actually an arts group called For Freedoms, co-founded by Eric Gottesman, that put the billboard up. The group wants to inspire political discussion and dialogue through controversial projects. Gottesman said there is no specific intent behind the picture, and it is neither pro-Trump nor pro-Clinton. It was rather an effort to get people talking; when was America great? He said to CNN:

What we hear today in some political rhetoric is that making America great means enforcing a single vision on America. What we’re trying to do is use art to provoke people to talk about these things and bring them to a different kind of conversation, one that goes beyond symbolic gestures of what America is supposed to stand for.

Mayor Brad Rogers told local media, “I don’t like the ad, but there’s a lot of things in life I don’t like and sometimes there’s nothing I can do about it. This is one of these cases.” Originally he said it didn’t violate any laws and therefore could stay. But on Friday he asked For Freedoms to take it down, which they agreed to do sometime this week. Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant called the artwork reprehensible and divisive, but residents seemed to view it positively, once they found out about the origins of it.

SEE: This is what I’m talking about. Artists forcing the question. Big love to @forfreedomspac.https://t.co/KwcelQsrEp

— Jeff Chang (@zentronix) November 19, 2016

“I don’t see anything wrong with it. That’s true that there have been too many killings that’s senseless to me,” said resident Lizzy Brackett. “So yeah, we need to get back to where we can trust the police again, where we feel safe.”

According to Gottesman, they wanted to put the artwork up in Selma, but there were no billboard spaces available. So they looked at other places with a historic connection to race relations, and picked Pearl. And they feel that if people are talking about the billboard, then they completed their mission.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mississippians Confused by Weird “Make America Great Again” Billboard appeared first on Law Street.

** Warning: As the title would suggest, this post will contain and link to some NSFW nudity

Some brazen broads in the #NeverTrump movement have devised a new tool to use against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee–female nudity. In an effort to stop Trump from making it to the oval, and to make the Republican National Convention (RNC) as awkward as possible, women are baring it all for anti-Trump votes and female empowerment.

Tramps Against Trump

This movement, comprised of mostly sex workers, has promised to exchange #Votes4Nudes in order to steal votes away from Trump.

#votes4nudesusa #trampsagainsttrump @election2016 pic.twitter.com/hxt98TnC2Q

— Tramps Against Trump (@votes4nudesusa) June 4, 2016

The Tramps Against Trump creator, who goes by the pseudonym “Jessica Rabbit,” told Motherboard, “In the past we had Rock the Vote and other ways to get the vote out, but what do young people like now? They like naked people on the internet. So, we’re using naked people on the internet to make a change and get people excited about something.”

Rabbit and her cohorts are in strong opposition to Trump’s anti-abortion (and some would say anti-women) stances, which threaten both their bodies and their livelihoods.

“Whoever becomes president will have a direct effect on what we can and can’t do with our bodies, and how the law will move forward relating to us,” Rabbit said. “For sex workers, this is a really important election.”

In order to receive nudes, 18 and up voters need only provide a selfie with proof of vote (i.e. a voter receipt).

But don’t even think about bullying any of these ladies to send you pics. This site has a strictly enforced zero tolerance policy for “harassment, racism, homophobia, transphobia or body shaming of ANY KIND” and violators will immediately be blocked.

Nude Art Installation Outside RNC convention

As a disclaimer let me admit that this isn’t a protest of Trump per se, but the nudity will be directed right at him.

Photographer Spencer Tunick, who is best known for organizing large-scale nude shoots, is seeking 100 women volunteers to pose naked in a group art installation in July during the week of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio.

This piece, which will be titled “Everything She Says Means Everything,” will involve women holding large mirror discs aimed at the convention center in order to “reflect the knowledge and wisdom of progressive women and the concept of ‘Mother Nature.'”

Tunick explained the piece’s philosophy on his site writing, “By holding mirrors, we hope to suggest that women are a reflection and embodiment of nature, the sun, the sky and the land.” Adding, “The mirrors communicate that we are a reflection of ourselves, each other, and of, the world that surrounds us. The woman becomes the future and the future becomes the woman.”

You can volunteer to pose naked in Tunick’s Cleveland installation here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Women Bare Their Naked Rumps to Protest Donald Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Banksy is a famous graffiti artist, political activist, and film director whose “real” identity has never been released. For years, there has been rampant speculation about who exactly Banksy is, but his true name has remained under wraps at least in part because graffiti is still a crime. However, his identity may now be easier to figure out than ever before, thanks to some British criminologists who have tested a new system of “geographic profiling” to help catch serial offenders.

Geographic profiling is not new–in fact you’ve probably seen some early derivations of it on your favorite crime procedural. At its most basic, it can be used to pinpoint origins of all sorts of things, including disease outbreaks. When applied to criminology, it can be used to pinpoint serial offenders, by taking crime scenes and then using mathematical formulas to map where an offender may live or frequent.

Researchers at Queen Mary University of London have been trying to create improved versions of geographic profiling, and in order to test their new system, inputted incidences of Banksy’s graffiti in both London and Bristol. The formula spit back the name Robin Gunningham, which shouldn’t really surprise Banksy fans because Gunningham’s name has come up as a Banksy suspect before. The researchers published these findings in the Journal of Spatial Science. However, they were clear to point out that they didn’t think that their method was going to work as well as it did. Steve Le Comber, one of the authors of the study, stated:

What I thought I would do is pull out the 10 most likely suspects, evaluate all of them and not name any… But it rapidly became apparent that there is only one serious suspect, and everyone knows who it is.

As with almost any application of academia, there have been criticisms of the study, including the fact that the researchers didn’t include some outliers, and that because Banksy’s work is anonymous, they could have unknowingly included copycats. And Le Comber and the other researchers are careful to say that Banksy is not definitely Gunningham, but just that their research offers additional support for the theory.

After the findings of the study became known, Bansky’s legal team contacted the researchers, apparently taking some issue with a press release that was going to accompany the study’s journalistic publication. That press release has since been yanked. The paper itself, which apparently Banksy’s legal team did not take issue with, was published Thursday.

The researchers’ findings certainly don’t prove anything definitively about who Bansky actually is–but the fact that they match up with a man who has been accused of being Banksy before isn’t a coincidence. This look into Banksy’s identity was certainly an interesting application of geographic profiling, but if this kind of technology works it could have a huge impact on tracking serial offenders of much more vicious crimes.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Statistics Meet Art: British Scientists May Have Tracked Down Banksy appeared first on Law Street.

Artisti Ai Weiwei is back in the headlines this week for his battle with Lego over “censorship and discrimination.” According to the artist’s Instagram, he requested a large-scale shipment of Legos in September, but was denied because Lego does not support the use of the blocks for “political works”. However, Weiwei argues that Lego dismissed him for financial gain: the company announced plans to build a Legoland in Shanghai this month.

Ai Weiwei planned to use the blocks for an upcoming exhibition in Melbourne but without a bulk shipment from the company, completing the installation on time seemed impossible. Overnight, the #legoforaiweiwei crowdfunding movement was born. The news spread like wildfire across social media, with fans around the world volunteering to donate their own Legos to the artist. Ai Weiwei is now establishing collection points, the first of which is a parked car in Beijing, where fans can drop off blocks. Crowdfunding has, until now, been a cash transaction–Kickstarter and GoFundMe let donors add to a recipient’s bank account, not their stash of plastic toys. Does #legoforaiweiwei signify a shift in crowdfunding or is it an isolated phenomenon?

Who is Ai WeiWei?

In order to understand his fans’ enthusiasm, it is first necessary to explore Ai Weiwei’s artistic and political importance. Weiwei, a Beijing native, has been an active artist since the 1970s, beginning his career with film and animation studies but ultimately focusing on sculpture and architecture. Weiwei’s work has explored topics such as human rights and freedom of expression, but his artwork is not the only factor in his transformation into one of China’s most prominent dissidents. In 2006, he launched a controversial blog that openly criticized the Chinese government, signifying his transition from an apolitical artist to a political figure. One of centerpieces of his blog was the “Citizen’s Investigation” he launched to explore the inefficient response of the government to the Sichuan earthquake of 2008. Weiwei attempted to testify in court in support of fellow dissident Tan Zuoren, but was beaten so violently by the police he had to receive emergency brain surgery in Munich to combat internal bleeding. His blog was shut down in 2009 and in November 2010, Weiwei was briefly placed under house arrest.

A year later, Weiwei was arrested for unclear reasons–it was initially reported he tried to leave the country without the proper documents but the Foreign Ministry later claimed he was arrested for economic crimes. Weiwei was held for two months without being formally charged with a specific crime. The arguably false pretenses on which Weiwei were arrested sparked international outrage and led to the creation of FreeAiWeiWei.org and FakeCase.com. After a three-month sentence for “tax evasion,” Weiwei was released from prison but was forbidden from leaving Beijing for at least a year. For several years, Weiwei’s movements were closely monitored and restricted by the government, until July 2015, when his passport was returned and he was permitted to leave the country. Unfortunately, Weiwei’s freedom may only be superficial–this October, Weiwei found multiple listening devices in his Beijing studio.

Crowdfunding and Art

Over the past several years, artists have taken advantage of the crowdfunding movement to finance everything from studio space to paintbrushes. There are even crowdfunding websites tailored to the needs of the art community. When artists want to sell their work, they can use Etsy and Amazon’s new “Handmade” marketplace to set their own prices and connect with individual clients. As the artistic process becomes more reliant on digital interactions, art becomes a more attractive and financially stable source of income.

Yet Ai Wewei’s case is unique in that he was not sent funds via PayPal or Venmo that he then translated into a creative product. He was explicitly banned from purchasing Legos in bulk, which required others to not just send him money but to deliver the physical components of his artwork to him. This is a far greater commitment than anything artists have received thus far from the crowdfunding movement. Granted, dropping off Legos in an abandoned car has a certain adventurous appeal that doesn’t parallel with delivering palettes and canvases to an artist’s door. Yet, if Ai Weiwei’s fans feel comfortable going the extra mile to ensure he can complete his installment, will other popular artists receive the same support? Weiwei did not explicitly ask for donations–that occurred organically through social media. Should other prominent artists who promote their art as a political tool receive the same donations? This time next year, Yayoi Kusama and Shepard Fairey may be getting paint delivered to them in the mail by fans every week instead of buying their own–but I doubt it. The impetus for #legoforaiweiwei emerged not from Ai Weiwei asking for Legos, but from Lego’s response to his request.

Lego’s Complicated Relationship with Art and Politics

Ai Weiwei used Lego blocks in his 2014 project Trace, which presented massive portraits of 176 political prisoners across the globe.  In the wake of this week’s scandal, Lego spokesperson Roar Rude Trangbaek said

We refrain — on a global level — from actively engaging in or endorsing the use of Lego bricks in projects or contexts of a political agenda…. [we do not accept] donations or support for projects — such as the possibility of purchasing Lego bricks in very large quantities, which is not possible through normal sales channels — where we are made aware that there is a political context.

Although Lego did not block Weiwei’s 2014 exhibition, they have asked other artists not to use their products in artwork in the past. Multiple political and advertising campaigns have used Lego characters and blocks, only to be asked by Lego to remove their photos and videos. Legos were also used in the infamous model of a concentration camp created by Zbigniew Libera in 1996. In Libera’s case, Lego donated bricks to the artist but had no idea what the piece would ultimately become. Once the final product was revealed, Lego attempted to prevent the exhibition of the artwork.

While it is clear that Lego’s leadership is uncomfortable being associated with controversy, they are usually responsive to consumer complaints. After a seven-year-old girl wrote a letter complaining about the lack of female Lego action figures, Lego promptly launched a set of female scientist toys that promote gender parity in STEM fields. With the massive outpouring of support for Ai Weiwei, it would be smart for Lego to adapt and roll with public sentiment–yet at the same time, if Weiwei’s fans are purchasing Legos in massive amounts to drop off at donation centers, the company still turns a profit. The initial pressure from Weiwei’s fans may have seemed like a public relations disaster, but now that Weiwei’s project is steaming ahead,  Lego has no reason to acquiesce to Weiwei’s demands.

Weiwei’s fans seemingly reacted strongly to Lego’s statement because it contradicted their past involvement in Weiwei’s work. Fans immediately categorized the company as a hypocritical lackey of the Chinese regime. It was ultimately a perceived violation of morals and free speech that led Weiwei’s fans to crowdfund the Lego project. A quick scroll through Instagram reveals that the artist’s fans consider Lego’s refusal to be a demonstration of solidarity with Chinese oppression. With Lego painted as a capitalistic demon shaking hands with a corrupt government by many,  it is no wonder that fans have had a strong reaction. Ai Weiwei’s popular appeal lies not only in his talent as an artist but in his ability to mobilize political sentiment. Most artists don’t have a complicated past with a major company nor do they have a fan base with strong political and moral beliefs–therefore, Weiwei’s case should be considered an isolated incident, not the start of a new age of crowdfunded art. An artist running short on supplies does not pack the same emotional punch as a man only just freed from prison being denied his right to freedom of speech. Ai Weiwei has done a masterful job of morphing the Lego project from an artistic statement into a grassroots political movement.  Donating Legos lets fans protest the Chinese regime, but not in a way that puts them in any danger or requires a significant time commitment. Ai Weiwei may have found the solution to the collective action problem: let them buy toys.

Conclusion

Ai Weiwei’s artwork and political activism makes him a controversial figure but that does not necessarily give Lego the right to deny his request for a bulk purchase. Weiwei’s fans have reacted with a powerful, well-organized display of support by buying him individual Legos but their donations do not signify a larger shift in the crowdfunding movement. Artwork that is tied to political motivations can elicit a strong reaction and rally supporters around a cause, but in this case, it has not changed the policies of the Lego corporation.

Resources

Primary

Instagram: Ai Weiwei

FreeAiWeiWei

Additional

CNN: Ai Weiwei is not alone: LEGO’s history of hiding from politics.

Barnaby Martin: Hanging Man: The Arrest of Ai Weiwei.

The Guardian: Ai Weiwei

For-Site Foundation: Trace.

BoingBoing: The World’s Most Controversial Lego Model

The Atlantic: Ai Wei Wei vs. Lego

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post GoFundAi: Crowdfunding and Ai Weiwei’s Battle with Lego appeared first on Law Street.

They say “Art is what you can get away with,” but how does one know when they’ve crossed the line? That was the essential question at the recent panel discussion “After Charlie: What’s next for art, satire, and censorship?” The event, co-hosted by the French Institute Alliance Française (FIAF) and PEN American Center and held at FIAF’s Florence Gould Hall in New York, was mediated by WNYC’s Leonard Lopate and featured four political cartoonists and journalists: Art Spiegelman, Molly Crabapple, Emmanuel “Manu” Letouzé, and Françoise Mouly.

I went in thinking that it was going to be a depressing evening as I listened to the panelists rehash the horrible events that happened in Paris last month, and more recently in Copenhagen, but they turned out to be a very insightful yet comical group of people. (They are cartoonists after all!)

The event was not meant to focus on the tragedy but rather on the future of art and journalism. The reason behind terrorist attacks like the one on Charlie Hebdo is to attempt to reshape what journalists write. Especially after these kinds of incidents, satirical journalists may feel pressure from two sources of censorship: censorship under the law and a form of self-censorship in which they may subconsciously feel inclined to censor their work to protect others’ feelings.

This doesn’t appear to be an issue for the particular panelists who spoke here. Spiegelman, who has drawn a number of covers for the New Yorker, even went so far as to say that political correctness is one of his pet peeves. The main inspiration behind the Taliban attack on Charlie Hebdo was the publication’s tendency to depict the Muslim prophet, Mohammed. “I would have no interest in drawing the prophet unless someone told me I couldn’t,” explained Spiegelman.

Courtesy of PEN American Center via Flickr.

Crabapple, my personal favorite speaker of the night, claimed art is different from written journalism in that it “can be yanked out of context” and it only “irritates assholes.” At the same time, she said that “context is over for media,” due to the fact that most of it is now consumed online via social media. However, that certainly does not stop her from stirring controversy–it even makes it better for her. One of the most controversial comics she ever made–she said she even got death threats as a result of it–was one that she drew of Guantanamo Bay. She wasn’t allowed to draw the faces of anyone who works there, so she substituted the guards’ faces with smiley faces. On one side of the fence some of them are drinking and fooling around, while on the other side some are force-feeding a prisoner. The prisoner, however, is depicted with a normal face, as opposed a smiley face. Above she writes, “It Don’t Gitmo Better Than This.” She described Guantanamo Bay as “one of the most censored places in the world” and finds it amusing that people were so upset that she “was misrepresenting the wonderful place that is Guantanamo Bay.”

There’s a distinct difference, however, between the way that French and American cultures react to controversial comics like these. Editor and art director of the the New Yorker, Mouly, could attest to that explaining that in U.S. there’s a sort of “fear of the cartoonist,” while cartoons in France are a more ubiquitous form of journalism. Also the U.S. has a different “tradition of the free press” in that secularism is so ingrained into our politics. For example, the French are unable to understand why it’s so important what religion a politician is or whether or not he’s had an affair. Mouly’s husband Spiegelman agreed, claiming that “Steven Colbert and John Stewart are the closest thing the U.S. has to cartoonists.” 

French-born Manu attested to experiencing such a cultural divide himself, claiming that American publications have been “surprised that I would use a cartoon for such a serious [news] publication.” Manu probably had the most first-hand experience with this as not only had he met some of the cartoonists at Charlie, but also grew up dreaming of drawing for the publication. In fact, after the attacks he made a tribute cartoon that read “They killed my idols.”

My favorite part of the night was the panel’s analysis of various New Yorker covers from over the years, many of which were drawn by Spiegelman. The New Yorker’s covers are the most analogous to the work in Charlie Hebdo of all American cartoons. And now with the internet, their impact on history has become even more apparent. Remember the cover with Sesame Street’s Bert and Ernie from June 2013 when gay marriage was passed in New York? What about the satirical covers of President Obama during his 2008 campaign run? While not nearly as subversive, New Yorker covers are an ingrained part of American history just as Charlie‘s are for French culture.

One Charlie cover however, reminded me of a recent cover of Paper magazine featuring a certain pop culture celebrity. The 1978 cover features “the ass of a Jewish woman,” as the headline roughly translates. And even though it’s only a drawing, Charlie seems to take it a step further than Kim K by including pubic hair at the crotch.

Courtesy of PEN American Center via Flickr.

As Spiegelman perfectly summed it up: “Cartoons are really primitive language.” In a lot ways you can get away with being more controversial with a drawing than with words or even photographs. While words can be taken out of context too, art definitely leaves more to the reader’s imagination. So in a way, “Je suis Charlie” makes sense as we as viewers contribute just as much to the publication as its creators.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I Am Charlie, and So Are You: How Terrorism Affects Censorship appeared first on Law Street.

In the age of the internet, phones with cameras, and digital picture-taking, it’s become much easier to “steal” artistic property. Both the United States and the international community try their best to prevent the theft of artistic and intellectual material through copyright laws. In addition to regular copyright laws, there also exists something called “moral copyright.” Moral rights are artists’ rights to protect the integrity and ownership of their copyrighted works. They include the right of attribution, the right to have the work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work.  Preserving the integrity of the work creates limitations upon the rights of others to distort the work, alter it, or do anything that attenuates the artist’s relationship with the work.

Read on to find out how both artists’ copyright and moral copyrights are protected by law, the effectiveness of the laws, and the arguments for and against the different laws in place to protect artists’ rights.

U.S. Copyright Law

The stated purpose of U.S. Copyright law is “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Copyright law protects many forms of artistic works including literary, musical, dramatic, pantomimes and choreographic works, pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, audiovisual works, sound recordings, derivative works, compilations and architectural works. Even though the realm of works protected is wide, there are differing levels of protection that apply for some of these works.  For example, sound recordings are protected in a different manner than written documents are.

Copyright law protects the author’s manner of expressing the idea but it does not protect the idea itself.  This means that copyright-protected works of authorship can still be plagiarized under the law. For example, a paper that describes a scientific theory may be protected from reproduction or distribution, but someone else can restate the theory with a different manner of expression and circumvent the original creator’s copyright protection.

Copyright protection ensures that the protection of the work lasts longer than the person who created it. Current law mandates that an individual person’s copyrighted works are protected for the duration of his or her life, plus 70 years afterward. For works created by multiple authors, the length of the protection is based on the life of the last surviving author. If a work is made for hire, an anonymous and pseudonymous works (where the author’s identity is not in Copyright Office records), the duration of protection will be ninety-five years from publication or one hundred and twenty years from creation, whichever is shorter. This makes it less likely that an author’s work will fade into the public domain before he or she has a chance to reap its full commercial value. This also serves as somewhat of a safeguard to an author’s legacy after he or she has passed on.

Copyright protection does not exist for articles that have a “useful function.”  For example, an artist’s drawing of a train would be protected by copyright, also the creation of a 3D model of the train would be actionable. However, creating an actual, working version of the depicted train would not be actionable under copyright law. Some creators’ work have both useful and non-useful, aesthetic attributes. Copyright law protects the aesthetic attributes but not the useful ones. If the aesthetic attributes cannot be separated from the useful ones, then the owner does not receive federal copyright protection. This means that owners can potentially lose copyright protection because their creation has applications that are useful to society.

Why do proponents argue in favor of current American copyright laws?

Proponents of the adequacy of U.S. copyright law argue that the duration of the rights gives authors time to effectively profit from their work without fear of having their labors stolen. The law properly makes exceptions for certain socially valuable non-commercial uses of copyrighted material by providing such users with Fair Use as a defense to an infringement claim. This allows copyrighted works to be used for socially beneficial purposes before the expiration of protection without infringing on the author’s commercial or economic interests. The substantiality requirement prevents frivolous uses of copyright protection e.g. for single words.

Why do opponents argue against current American copyright laws?

Opponents of the adequacy of U.S. Copyright protection argue that the exceptions are too broad and too easy to invoke. In certain situations, alleged infringers can cause significant economic damage to a creator’s interests and still be protected by a defense granted by copyright law. Copyright protection only protects the author’s manner of expression, not his ideas.  Ideas can often still be plagiarized without giving rise to a copyright infringement claim. Also, useful articles that don’t qualify for patent protection still don’t get copyright protection. Since patent protection is more difficult to obtain and has a shorter duration than copyright protection, some authors are disadvantaged by the usefulness of their work, which is contrary to the purpose of the Copyright Clause of the Constitution. Finally, if content is too minimal then copyright law does not protect it.

Moral Copyright Laws in the United States

U.S. Copyright law does not recognize moral rights beyond the extent to which they are recognized by the Berne Convention, of which the U.S. is a member.

The rationale for the lack of additional moral rights protections in federal law is that Congress believed that they were unnecessary because other areas of law are sufficient to protect artists’ interests. U.S. copyright law, governed by the Copyright Act of 1976, already grants artists the exclusive right to create derivative works. Defamation laws, unfair competition laws and trademark laws governed by the Lanham Act grant artists sufficient civil claims against entities who intentionally or recklessly mislead the public about an author’s work and those who attempt to profit from such conduct. Moreover, certain states have created their own moral rights laws, mitigating the need for a federal statute.

Furthermore, the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) provides increased moral rights to certain types of art i.e. paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures and still photographic images that are produced for exhibition only, and existing in single copies or in limited editions of 200 or fewer copies, signed and numbered by the artist. These rights include the right to claim authorship, the right to prevent the use of one’s name on any work the author did not create, and the right to prevent use of one’s name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation. Authors of works of “recognized stature” may prevent the grossly negligent or intentional destruction of their work. The phrase “recognized stature” has not been statutorily defined, but there is a lot of case law interpreting the same. VARA rights only apply to a limited set of works but the protections for those works are substantial. Buyers of the works must get written waivers from the copyright owners if they wish to employ any VARA rights. If the rights are not waived then the author or last surviving author of a joint work generally retains them for life.

What are the arguments for keeping the moral copyright laws as they are? 

Proponents of the sufficiency of U.S. moral rights law argue that VARA grants vast protection to artists. VARA rights generally last for life and they can only be extinguished by signed, written waivers. They are secure enough to ensure that artists have recourse to act when owners of individual instantiations of their work infringe their creative rights. Furthermore, even when VARA rights don’t vest in an artist’s work, he or she can still utilize copyright, defamation, unfair Competition laws, or any relevant state statute, to defend moral rights of their work.

What are the arguments against keeping the moral copyright laws as they are? 

Opponents argue that there are many works that VARA does not protect. For example, VARA doesn’t apply to written works or to works made for hire. Also, since copyright law does not protect ideas, an author who is known for innovating an idea cannot utilize copyright law to protect the moral rights to that idea. Finally, state moral rights laws vary and it is difficult for an artist to know if the state he or she is located in will have jurisdiction over the alleged infringer of their Moral Rights.

Conclusion

Given that art is so subjective and so rarely indexed, it can certainly be difficult for artists to protect their work. There are many different kind of laws in place to protect artists’ copyrights, including some laws that loosely protect moral copyrights. While there are disagreements about the effects and implementations of the laws, its clear that artists’ works do need to be protected.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: 17 USC 501 Infringement of Copyright

Cornell  University Law School: Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990

U.S. Congress Committee on the Judiciary: Copyright Law Revision

Additional

McClanahan Powers: Innocent Copyright Infringers: The Importance of an Adequate Copyright Notice to Defeat Them

Electronic Frontier Foundation: New Study Affirms Fewer Copyright Restrictions Benefit the Economy, Amid Renewed Calls for SOPA 2.0 

Copyhype: Who Benefits from Copyright?

Law and Economics Consulting Associates: Agreed Use and Fair Use: The Economic Effects of Fair Use and Other Copyright Exceptions

Harvard Law School: Moral Rights Basics

Library of Congress: Waiver of Moral Rights in Visual Artworks

Washington University in St. Louis: Economists Say Copyright and Patent Laws Are Killing Innovation; Hurting Economy

TechDirt: Yet Another Study Shows That Weaker Copyright Benefits Everyone

Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal: A Case of Bad Credit? The United States and the Protection of Moral Rights in Intellectual Property Law

Washington and Lee Law Review: Toward an American Moral Rights in Copyright

Boston University International Law Journal: Protecting Moral Rights in the United States and the United Kingdom

Information Today: Moral Rights for Authors and Artists

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Intellectual Property

Brian Leiter’s Law School Reports: Protecting Philosophical Ideas With Copyright?

U.S. Copyright Office: Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians

College Art Association: Intellectual Property and the Arts

Leech Tishman: Litigation; a Counterfeit Pays

Golden Gate University Law Review: The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990: Further Defining the Rights and Duties of Artists and Real Property Owners

vLex: VARA Rights Get a Second Life

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Copyright Law: Enough Protection for Artists? appeared first on Law Street.

Egyptian political artist Ganzeer was first featured in Political Graffiti two months ago after the Egyptian government and state-sponsored media conducted a campaign to tarnish the artist’s image. Since then, Ganzeer was profiled in The New York Times and is in New York City. After meeting him for the first time after his talk at Interference Archive in Brooklyn on July 23, he agreed to sit down for an interview.

Ryan Purcell: Where does the name “Ganzeer” come from? 

Ganzeer: Ganzeer is Arabic for “speed chain,” the sort of chain typically seen on bikes. My thinking behind the name is that these chains aren’t usually the source of motion on a bicycle, but as a mere connector it enables the motion to happen, which is very much how I feel about the role of artists in society.

RP: Can you describe the first time you produced graffiti? 

G: The very first time was in 2008. I knew nothing about making street art; I was not very much a hands on person. I was sketching a lot, but a lot of the work I was doing also involved using the computer a lot as opposed to using paint and spray-paint, and like messy tools. You know? Some friends of mine in Alexandria, much younger than myself — Aya Tarek, Wensh, and Nabil — they had already been doing street art for a while in Alexandria, and they were telling me that I should come up to Alexandria, which is a few hours away from Cairo by train. We scouted some walls, each one of us came up with an idea, and we helped each other. Without their knowledge, I wouldn’t have been able to make my first piece. 

It was three monkeys, but instead of the hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, it was reversed. So there was a monkey looking — seeing through binoculars — another monkey who was speaking through a mega phone, and another monkey who was listening through this listening device. I sketched it out first on a piece of paper, and then had it scanned and fixed it up digitally. We printed the image on transparent sheets, and cut through them to make a stencil. Then you staple them to the wall you’re doing.

That piece lasted only about a week before it was censored, covered in black paint. But my friends had been doing street art for two years, and none of their pieces were ever censored. 

RP: When you were making art during the Egyptian revolution, were you aware of how it was influencing the protests? 

G: Everyone cheered for my slogan “Down with Mubarak and his Family;” it was meaningful to a lot of people to see it in public space. Imagine you and everyone you know knows something, which is spoken at little cafes and on the street. And one day that thing is finally chanted out loud in big numbers; and not only that, but that thing is written in public space; this thing that everyone knows but no one’s allowed to talk about in public. It’s kinda like that, but this thing has kinda been weighing on people’s chests for so long, just being spoken, and being written in public space was so massive and so important. 

Sarah Carr cc via Flickr

Of course, the more its written, though, the more it exists in public space, the less significant it is. You need to up your game. For example, if you spray the same slogan the people cheer the first time they see it, and maybe the fiftieth or the hundredth it just becomes so normal and so whatever in public space. But maybe there are still things that need to be pushed, and there are still nerves that need to be pressed, right? There will always be an elephant in the room. 

You realize that you always have to up your game, whether that means saying the same thing differently, or saying something different. So, maybe just a shitty little slogan sprayed quickly is not impactful anymore, and you need to do a nice designed stencil and that grabs people’s attention. And when you have more of those, you take it bigger to a mural size. Also, maybe the message itself must be changed. So when Mubarak was out of the picture, “Down with Mubarak” is out, and now we have to move on to “okay, actually the military that everyone is cheering is actually the problem.” 

Everyone was ready for “Down with Mubarak” — it had been thirty years, everyone was sore. But with the military, everyone was like “What do you mean, they were with us?” And maybe they’re not so ready about it. That’s when things become a little tricky, a little more difficult, when you start tackling things people are maybe no so willing to accept so easily. You have to become more subversive, less direct. 

So, with the Tank vs bicycle piece, the subversiveness is in the process of making it, where the tank takes the most time to make. When people pass, especially military police, they think you’re making a pro-military piece; they only see you drawing a really big tank. But once you’re done with the tank and you put in the bicycle, the message becomes complete, which alters the entire message of the piece. So the aspect that gives it bite should take the least amount of time so you can do it quickly and get away.

Courtesy of Ganzeer

Courtesy of Ganzeer

Courtesy of Ganzeer

RP: Who censors Egyptian political graffiti? 

G: When it’s officially a government decision, the military would cover the murals and graffiti with paint — this really horrible color on most walls in Cairo, this beige, off-white “blah” color. It’s kind of the official government supply of paint they use to cover all the walls in Cairo anyway. But for the most part, acts of censorship have been done by citizens, more so than the government.

Courtesy of Ganzeer

RP: What is the greatest source of inspiration for the content of your art?

G: It’s there in the public discourse. It’s what people are taking about; it’s an important issue. We’re all aware of it, it’s there. Other pieces require actual research for concrete information. But in general, it would be based on some kind of idea. 

One of the pieces I am working on right now, has to do with a cop who was charged with the murder of a suspect [Eric Garner]. Everyone knows about it, and it was in the news for a while, and now its just gone. 

RP: Do you perceive injustice in the United States? 

G: Police brutality, which in probably endemic everywhere in the world. The United States, and New York City in particular, is not exempt from that problem. The last incident is the guy who was choked to death for no reason whatsoever. He did not have any weapons on him, and all the eyewitnesses even claimed that he was breaking up a fight. The police arrested him for selling cigarettes illegally — which were not in his possession — and in the process of arresting him, choked him to death. The NYPD does not show shame for these acts. 

Police brutality definitely exists in Egypt and Bahrain. I think it exists in most places. Maybe we must reexamine the very concept of a police force in general, because there was a time when police forces did not exist. 

“Be Brutal” (2014) courtesy of Ganzeer

RP: Do you perceive economic injustice in the world today?

G: The global economic system, as a whole, which is heralded by the United States in particular, is to a large extent to blame for injustice throughout the world. There is already a lot of evidence pointing to the United States and the IMF leading to a lot of huge economic gaps in a lot of places in the world, and the United States itself is not exempt from that issue. There are places like Switzerland or Sweden, which have a more mixed economic system where the government is involved in providing public services; but in the United States you find that almost everything is done by a private company, and private companies only seek profit. So that is the problem. Then there is the problem of exporting that mentality throughout the world. 

Courtesy of Ganzeer

Courtesy of Ganzeer

Courtesy of Ganzeer

I think the United States has done a pretty good job at propagating the notion that a dictatorship  is somehow linked to communism and socialism, because a lot of America’s enemies in the past have been countries like Russia or Cuba. Now, to a large extent, it has a touchy relationship with China. And it’s not like China is communist anyway, for that matter. But where I come from, the notions of dictatorship, fascism, and authoritarianism can very much be linked to capitalism, because we in Egypt have been suffering from a capitalist dictatorship for a very long time, supported by the United States — it is a capitalist dictatorship. Somehow in the vocabulary of Americans, capitalism does not go hand-in-hand. Where I come from, it is exactly the same thing, because that is what we had for a very long time; we have never experienced capitalism and democracy, it’s only been capitalism and dictatorship combined. Having capitalism obviously doesn’t mean that you’re living in a free world. Finally enough, dictatorships can also relish in capitalism — having power consolidated between yourself and a handful of businessmen, that’s pretty much the idea. 

RP: Do you have any advice for artists who want to use graffiti as a political force today?

G: Street artists are going to go out there and do something risky and dangerous, but they are going to put their ideas in public space. My only advice is make it worth while, whatever it is — worth the risk, and danger of putting it out there.

— 

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [Wolfgang Sterneck via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Egyptian Political Artist Ganzeer on Street Art and Political Protest appeared first on Law Street.

“It’s in the nature of graffiti that it can’t be contained by any established institution, commercial or educational. As a site-specific art form, it dies when separated from the where and when of its creation. Also, its energy comes from the artist’s self-identification as an aesthetic and social outlaw.“

-Ken Johnson, New York Times

Martin Wong came to New York City in 1978 as an openly gay painter and sculptor from San Francisco. He settled in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, Loisadia, full of home artist communities like the Nuyorican Poets Café. Along with the South Bronx this was an epicenter street graffiti in New York during the late 1970s and 1980s. As an outsider from the West Coast, Wong was immediately spellbound by the radiant graffiti around him, passionately seeking out graffiti writers and their art around the city. In 1982, Wong began working at Pearl Paint, an art supply store on Canal Street, and would trade art supplies with graffiti writers in return for graffiti sketchbooks, drawings, and paintings. Through the 1980s, Wong amassed a colossal collection of graffiti art of 300 objects — including 50 sketchbooks, more than 100 canvases, and more than 150 works on paper. Artists range from the well-known art stars such as Jean-Michel Basquiat and Keith Haring to graffiti writers such as Christopher “DAZE” Ellis, FUTURA 2000, LAII, LADY PINK, and Lee Quiñones.

In all, Wong’s collection of graffiti art is, perhaps, the largest of its kind. Wong “wanted to become the Albert Barnes of graffiti,” recalled Ellis, referring to the famous collection of Post-Impressionist and early Modern works amassed by the chemist. He was “interested in far more than collecting the artists’ works, since he became a mentor to several of them,” Sean Corcoran, the curator of prints and photographs at the Museum of the City of New York, told Art in America. “He often traded with them, sometimes selling one of his own paintings and turning around and spending all the money buying work from graffiti artists.” For a short time, Wong even operated a museum of graffiti art in a row house on Bond Street until rising real estate values forced the venue to close. When Wong was diagnosed with AIDS in 1994, he donated his entire collection to the Museum of the City of New York before he died on October 12, 1999 at the age of 53. “He could have sold off the collection piecemeal, and there were interested European buyers,” said Corcoran. “[B]ut he felt strongly that the collection should remain in New York, and he donated it wholesale to the Museum.”

Curated by Cocoran, “City as Canvas” at the Museum of the City of New York is the first exhibition of Martin Wong’s graffiti art. “The collection was never able to be seen,” said Charlie Ahearn, an early graffiti aficionado and director of the movie Wild Style. Viewers can see a wide array of artifacts from sketchbooks to graffiti painted on canvas, as well as photographs that documented the New York graffiti movement during the ’70s and ’80s. Yet underneath this vast presentation — and the pieces, especially the photographs, are stunning — lurks an unsettling suspicion. Does graffiti belong on a canvas, or in a museum?

Wild Style flyer, Courtesy of Delete via Flickr

“Graffiti is really defined as some one who writes their name in an illegal fashion on public property,” Ahearn mused before “City as Canvas” opened. During the ’70s and ’80s graffiti was a “direct response to the crumbling city,” according to urban historian L.E. Neal. For graffiti writers, tagging was political; it was an “act of defiance.” Graffiti was an act of appropriation, making the city one’s own by claiming the space, says RxArt. Amid the destruction of communities, and the failure of the government to protect working-class communities in urban crisis, the graffiti movement was a “fight for space.” Removed from the street, the graffiti aesthetic on canvas is devoid of political meaning, it is an inauthentic representation of street politics, though it might present sentimental value to viewers who can remember New York City during that time.

One canvas graffiti piece illustrates this point for the entire collection. Lee Quiñones’ “Howard the Duck” (1988) is an oil on canvas reproduction of a street mural, originally produced in the early 1980s. It depicts a cartoon duck, in suit and tie, shielding himself with a garbage lid from Lee’s tag emblazoned on a brick wall. Above the scene a message reads in graffiti script: “Graffiti is art and if art is a crime, let go forgive all.” While the colors are vivid, and the message provoking, the piece would have been more poignant, and interesting if it was presented as graffiti mural on the street, as originally intended. On canvas, however, the piece is unengaging. “[T]oday that work doesn’t interest me aesthetically in the same way it might have interested writers or just art fans back in the early 1980s” said R.J. Rushmore, a young contemporary graffiti artist, and editor-in-chief of Vandalog. Initially, Ahearn considered it a mistake for Wong to bequeath his collection to any institution, but now values the exhibition at MCNY because “it places the emphasis on the historical picture of [graffiti], rather than the art world context.”

Photography is, perhaps, an appropriate method of presenting graffiti because it captures its urban context. The New York graffiti subculture was an insular world during the 1970s; the writers depended on their anonymity to continue their work while police crackdowns intensified. As a result, the graffiti writers let few outsiders into their lives, among those were photographers Henry Chalfant, Martha Cooper, Jon Naar, and Ahearn, a cinematographer. “City as Canvas” presents a section of their photographs that candidly capture the graffiti subculture with raw passion. One photo, taken by Naar, depicts a gang of writers in a graffiti-festooned subway entrance, proudly holding papers marked with their respective tags. An iconic Cooper photograph dramatically portrays a graffiti writer at work straddling the gap between two subway trains, one foot on either train. These photos, along with the sketchbooks, in my mind, are the real gems in “City as Canvas.”

“I think we’re in the right window to look at what these kids were doing and [the] effects on culture,” said Corcoran. “For us, this show is partly about how graffiti originated in New York and became a global phenomenon…Thanks to photographers like Martha Cooper and filmmakers like Charlie Ahearn, it was disseminated worldwide. The materials in the show say a lot about what New York looked like in the 1970s and 80s.”

“It’s all over the world,” Corcoran told the New York Times, ”You have kids in Europe painting trains because of what they saw in ‘Wild Style.’” Moreover, “City as Canvas” holds particular relevance today; after Banksy’s month-long “residency,” the destruction of 5 Pointz and the subsequent surge in illicit graffiti over the course of the last six months, graffiti is once again a poignant and divisive issue in New York.

“City as Canvas: Graffiti Art from the Martin Wong Collection” is on view through September 1, 2014 at the Museum of the City of New York, 1220 Fifth Avenue New York, NY, 10029.

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Feature image courtesy of [Igal Malis via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ‘City as Art’ Exhibition Brings Massive Graffiti Collection to the Public for First Time appeared first on Law Street.

Currently on view at NYU’s Grey Art Gallery, “Energy That is All Around: Mission School,” features a group of subversive San Francisco street artists from the late-1990s. Emanating from San Francisco Art Institute (SFAI), the Mission School was a direct reaction to gentrification in the Bay Area spurred by the dot-com boom that brought an influx of young professionals, upscale boutiques, restaurants, inflated rents, and threats of eviction to the primarily working-class Latino families of San Francisco’s Mission District.

“A lot of people were displaced,” said artist Chris Johnson, “everybody got fucked over.” The art of the Mission School focused on the social, political, cultural and economic aspects of everyday life in the Bay Area during this period, embodying a radical activism railing against gentrification and rampant consumerism. “They were part of a community that responded acidly to the social and aesthetic values associated with ’80s consumer culture and corporate hegemony in the dawning of the age of the internet,” said Natasha Boas, a San Francisco-based independent curator. “With their raw, immediate, and gritty street and studio practices, these post-punk, key artists of the Mission School would soon [become] international icons for new generations of art students and makers.”

The artists — Chris Johanson, Margaret Kilgallen, Alicia McCarthy, Barry McGee, Ruby Neri — share a similar aesthetic, described by McCarthy as “urban decay,” “graffiti-based,” and “Do-it-yourself.” The art is informed by lowbrow visual culture including cartoons, billboard advertisements, graffiti, and folk art. According to Lynn Gumpert, director of NYU’s Grey Art Gallery, the artworks critique society “literally standing our culture’s notion of ‘high art’ on its head.” Often employing found objects and dumpster diving for materials, their art is bound by an “anti-establishment” and “anti-capitalist” ethos, according to art critic and curator Dian Pugh whose essay ”Off The Tracks: Ethics and Aesthetics of Recent San Francisco Art” is featured in the exhibit catalogue. “Juxtaposed against the dot-com boom culture, these artists represented the moral and political voice of our cultural community — a community that was being threatened by gentrification.”

Like a modern-day John Sloan or George Bellows, Chris Johanson refers to his art as “documentary painting;” streetscapes chronicling everyday life at the dawn of the digital age. The Survivalists (1999) is a jarring installation among the pieces in the show. Flimsy wooden beams painted yellow protrude from panels on the wall, forming catwalks on which lonely consumers push shopping carts toward the viewer, perhaps conveying the alienation of labor in capitalist society. Speech bubbles from multiple figures in the panels read: “Get out of the Mission,” “Yuppies Out Now,” “Turn the building into condos,” “For Sale: Cozy One Bedroom Basement Condo, $300,000,” “Theres [sic.] no place to stay…keep on moving.”  As a whole, the scene is too much to take in at once; only after reading each panel does the larger picture come into focus. “When people see this piece, they see the social anxiety,” said Chris Johanson. “I wanted to share the complexities of the socio-economic situation that everyone just had to deal with.” Voices are illustrated in a cacophonous and vexing exchange. It’s a “celebration of multiplicity,” said Dina Pugh, “that earnestly comments on existential issues of human identity comprised by consumer culture.”

Graffiti is a galvanizing force in each piece of this show. Barry McGee, also known by his tag “Twist,” presents a more cartoon-inspired aesthetic than Johansen, which is nonetheless political. “Growing up I used to see a group of activists, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), who would spray-paint aggressive statements on Bank of America, government buildings, and freeway underpasses,” McGee recalled in a 2004 interview. “They shed light on atrocities being committed by the Reagan Administration’s policies in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba and so on. I like that — the rawness of it.” McGee’s squat, droopy-eyed cartoon and seemingly depressed cartoon figures reflect the underside of inequitable urban change; not only the exasperated slaving masses, but also perhaps homeless, downtrodden vagabonds.

At Grey Art Gallery, the first East Coast venue to showcase the Mission School, this show is not only historically significant; it’s also relevant, according to Hi-Fructose citing “siliconvalleyization” of the Bay Area. Yet what is so striking is that the same process is currently taking place in New York City; rapid gentrification, from the city center to the periphery. Looking at the Mission District of the late-1990s, one cannot help but think of Bushwick, Brooklyn today. Both neighborhoods were inhabited by primarily working-class Latino families who, over time, have been priced out of their homes; factory buildings have been converted into artists’ lofts, and bodegas have become high-end boutiques. Public art can exacerbate the rate of gentrification, transforming working-class communities into trendy neighborhoods to which hipsters flock. But it has the potential to counter this affect as well, as Art Practical mentioned in its review of the NYU show, “there are still lessons to be learned here.”

According to Barry McGee, the landscape of contemporary public art is politically benign. “The stuff people do now doesn’t antagonize anyone at all. It has become like the mural art, which is fine in its own right but doesn’t anger people when they see it…[T]here was a time in graffiti when it was fun to do images. In hindsight, it opened the floodgates to tons of terrible art school graffiti and non-abrasive images.” McGee now advocates illicit “fundamental graffiti acts” such as tags and throw-ups, which, precisely because of their illegality, have the potential to affect social change. In such a way, the Mission School teaches us to produce graffiti as a “social practice” based on “radical pessimism” about the social environment.

The takeaway message from “Energy That is All Around: Mission School” is that art not only documents, but also has the potential it change society. And that power is open to the people.

You can see the exhibit “Energy That is All Around: Mission School” featuring artwork by Chris Johanson, Margaret Kilgallen, Alicia McCarthy, Barry McGee, and Ruby Neri at the Grey Art Gallery, New York University, 100 Washington Square East, New York, NY 10003. The exhibit is open until July 13, 2014.

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [victorgrigas via wikipedia] 

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Subversive San Francisco Street Art on Display at NYU’s Grey Art Gallery appeared first on Law Street.

….at least, on one man’s menu. The source of the meat? Himself. Now there’s a fine example of self sufficiency for you. According to an article in the New York Daily News, a 25-year-old artist in Norway, Alexander Selvik Wengshoel, managed to acquire an unusual keepsake; his deformed hip after a replacement surgery. Of course, the best ideas come to us spontaneously, and as he was boiling a once integral portion of his skeletal system to remove the flesh surrounding it, he concocted just such a bright idea. Though initially planning to remove and discard the meat so he could use the bone in an art exhibit, he must have figured “hey, how many times does one get to experience the quality of their own meat? Am I fatty? Am I lean? Would I pair better with a nice Merlot or a Chardonnay?”

Well, Wengshoel got to answer the aforementioned questions that only burn in the minds of very unique types of meat enthusiasts. After prepping his own meat, decided the best side dish would be potatoes au gratin. The side dish was needed to complete the meal, as Wengshoel noted that the amount of meat obtained did not equate to an entree, but more of an appetizer. He lifted his first fork full, and I imagine the suspense was as thick as the strange odors that were likely wafting throughout his kitchen. He eventually claimed, according to an article in USAToday, that it tasted like “wild lamb.”

It had this flavor of wild sheep, if you take a sheep that goes in the mountains and eats mushrooms. It was goaty.

-Alexander Slevik Wengshoel

With his new ability to delve into the flavor of his innards, Alexander will now have a way to stand out amongst job candidates during interviews. The initial question, “describe yourself” holds myriad possibilities for the young artist.

He made himself into dinner while his girlfriend was away, sparing her the chance (or robbing her of it) to get to know her man in a way that most lovers never do. At least she will be able to see his complete art project chronicling the removal of his deformed hip which caused him years of pain. His project is currently on display at the Tromso Academy of Contemporary Art in an exhibition called “No Guts, No Galaxy.” The project includes the removed bone as well as a video of the replacement operation, which took him a year to convince doctors to allow him to use. To Wengshoel, morphing his innards into art was the obvious thing to do.

It had been so hard to have it in my body, and when I took it out, it turned into something else, something romantic. It was a natural process I felt I had to do to move on.

-Alexander Slevik Wengshoel

I generally wouldn’t consider bones to be romantic, but then again I don’t call myself an artist. At least the fact that he ate himself as opposed to someone else is slightly reassuring in an odd way. Perhaps he isn’t that strange, simply spearheading a new generation of foodies. “Shockingly,” Wengshoel’s statements have been met with much skepticism.

The story is the story. Either you believe it and we can start a discussion and talk about it, or you do not believe. It’s not up to me to make people believe it. I’m just saying it.

-Alexander Selvik Wengshoel

Well, he certainly started a discussion…

[USAToday]

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Joel Mills via Wikimedia Commons]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Human Meat on the Menu appeared first on Law Street.

This weekend marked the eighth annual Bushwick Open Studios (BOS), a local arts festival in Brooklyn, NY. BOS has become an annual summer festival, growing in size and intensity since volunteers formed Arts in Bushwick, a non-hierarchical council of artists and community members in 2007. The event now encompasses five districts (nearly 600 venues), featuring open air concerts, food trucks, and even community garden initiatives. According to Arts in Bushwick, BOS has become “one of the largest open studio events in the world,” which I am nearly inclined to believe.

Last summer was my first Open Studios experience, and while I was not wholly impressed with the art, I was overwhelmed by the event as a community-oriented phenomenon. BOS 2013 coincided with numerous local block parties, hosted by working-class Hispanic families who welcomed me with free food and drink; it was an altogether heartwarming experience. This year, while there very well may have been neighborhood block parties, BOS was much different. I surveyed the scene on Sunday, accompanied by my partner, Amy Lucker, an art librarian, and Lee Mandel, the founding manager of Boswyck Farms, an urban farm based in Bushwick. Amy and Lee, who both served on the inaugural Arts in Bushwick council in 2007, were astounded by how large BOS had grown. “Can you believe this is Troutman Street?” Lee asked rhetorically as we navigated through the crowds of spectators, painted burlesque dancers on stilts, food vendors, and blaring concert stages. “When I moved here, this was a street you did not walk down alone.” We continued down St. Nicholas Avenue, stopping to notice a restaurant that opened that week on a site that was once a car dealership and mechanic warehouse. Bushwick is changing rapidly, we concurred; even I, who was new to the area, recognized the new boutiques, galleries, restaurants, cafes, and bars opening in the neighborhood.

It is no secret that the incursion of the “creative class” spurs gentrification. Since Lee moved to Bushwick in 2006, rent has almost tripled. Ten years ago, a two-bedroom apartment priced at $1,100 a month would have been expensive in Bushwick, according to Diana Reyna, who represented the 34th District (Williamsburg, Bushwick, and Ridgewood) on the New York City Council from 2001 to 2013. “Today we’re talking about people who are charging $3,000.” In 2011 alone, the average monthly rent for a studio apartment in Bushwick increased 27 percent, according to MNS, a residential and investment sales brokerage. Average monthly rents for one- and two-bedroom apartments have also increased commensurately. With the exponential rise in rent and cost of living it is becoming more and more difficult for working-class communities to raise families in Bushwick; it is no wonder then that I could not find bock parties at BOS 2014 as I did the year before. What is more concerning, though, is that from 2000 to 2010, the number of white residents in Bushwick has nearly doubled. “There is a lot of anxiety about the pace at which Bushwick is changing,” said Deborah Brown, an artist who served on the local community board in 2013. “It’s been faster than I could imagine.”

Beneath the surface of BOS 2014 — or rather on the surface— however, a voice of opposition raged. We noticed stenciled tags on the sidewalks throughout Bushwick, messages that critiqued the gentrification of the area.

Courtesy of Ryan Purcell

Courtesy of Ryan Purcell

The tags were strategically placed: two tags read “Build Community Not Condos” outside of a newly renovated apartment building and next to a low-income housing unit along Maria Hernandez Park; “increase in minimum wage = increase in living wage” outside a new health foods store.

Courtesy of Ryan Purcell

Courtesy of Ryan Purcell

The tags were targeted at specific indicators of gentrification, like new cafés, restaurants, and luxury apartment buildings, and the messages seem to have come from victims of gentrification. “Which is more criminal,” asked Lee, “these illegal tags, or the trash next to them on the sidewalk?” Amid Bushwick Open Studios these subversive tags challenge culture authority, asking tersely “Art For Whom?”

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [Ryan D. Purcell].

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ‘Art for Whom?’: Bushwick Open Studios 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

“Spray a square around the tag and then fill it in.”

This is a new anti-graffiti tactic described in the latest NYPD internal directive issued May 2, 2014. Police officers now carry black, red, and white aerosol spray paint with orders to photograph graffiti, then “box it out” and paint it over “in a professional manner.” According to the directive, officers should target “identifiable tags, not large murals” such as those produced legally by the Bushwick Collective in areas such as Williamsburg and Long Island City, where the internationally famous graffiti mecca 5 Pointz was recently white-washed by developers. Graffiti patrols are currently stalking Bushwick, Brownsville, and Bedford-Stuyvesant, and the policy will be under way in all five boroughs this summer. “It’s supposed to discredit their work,” an officer said to the New York Post, “and break their manhood.” The May 2 directive is only one part of a new anti-graffiti campaign, as Police Commissioner Bill Bratton alluded to on Wednesday while speaking to reporters. “The issue of graffiti is something we will be addressing more significantly…We can’t just keep doing the same old thing all over again,” said Bratton, rationalizing the new tactic. “We need find new ways to basically make the arrest.”

Commissioner Bratton, perhaps, misinterprets graffiti though, and in doing so, his re-ignition of the “Graffiti Wars” between artists and police will cost the city millions of dollars, not to mention destroy the lives of artists whose “crime” is victimless, while diverting valuable police resources in a city where shootings have spiked seven percent over the last year.

We should read graffiti instead as political statements; or as a response to the inequities of urban development, as criminologist Jeff Ferrell argued in his 1993 landmark study of the indigenous urban art form. Ferrel saw graffiti as an “anarchistic resistance to cultural domination, a streetwise counterpoint to the increasing authority of corporate advertisers and city governments over the environments of daily life.” Moreover, graffiti was a protest against the “aggressive disenfranchisement of city kids, poor folks, and people of color from the practice of everyday life; and finally, the careful and continuous centralization of political and economic authority.” Aesthetically, it attempts to break the “hegemonic hold of corporate/government style over the urban environment.” This interpretation of graffiti is quite convincing, especially considering the rampant gentrification of Brooklyn and Queens — indeed the very neighborhoods the NYPD has chosen to deploy its new campaign.

In order to understand the antagonism between graffiti artists and police today, however, we must revisit the genesis of contemporary graffiti in the hip hop movement during the 1960s in the South Bronx, and the evolution of the city’s response to graffiti developing as cultural and political force. During the mid-1960s — at the outset of urban crisis — graffiti taggers, or writers, began signing urban surfaces such as park benches, buildings, and subway trains with marks distinct to each artist. The practice grew through the 1970s as the marks became more elaborate. New York graffiti was subsequently met with strict public policy, and police directed anti-graffiti campaigns to eradicate graffiti from the urban environment, especially on subway trains where it was particularly noticeable. Mayor John Lindsay outlawed the sale of graffiti paraphernalia in 1972; Mayor Koch militarized train yards with razor wire and attack dogs in the early 1980s and  declared vandalism a felony, sentencing offenders to community service or jailing graffiti artists at Rikers Island. The “Graffiti Wars” between artists and police persisted till the 1990s when graffiti crime tapered under the Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations due to increased police enforcement of “quality of life offenses” such as the ubiquitous squeegee-men, and homelessness — a trend that paralleled the exponential gentrification of Manhattan and surrounding boroughs of the City.

If the NYPD’s May 2 directive is indicative of a new “Graffiti War,” as Bratton’s comments suggest, it will come at a great cost to the city. “This whole graffiti program is ridiculous,” one officer said. “Some of these neighborhoods are really dangerous. There should be more of a focus on serious crime.” A high-ranking officer commented to the New York Post: “Summer is right around the corner. Shootings always go up in the warmer months. This year is no exception. You can’t have officers wasting their time on graffiti taggers.” If one thing is clear from these statements, it’s that police are not happy with their new duties, and citizens should not be complacent either. The May 2 directive will divert police resources away from crime and problems that actually affect the city, and thus will cause more harm than good.

But much larger issues are at stake here. Instead of experimenting with new ways to eradicate graffiti, New York City government should spend more time addressing systemic problems that cause graffiti in the first place. If we accept Jeff Ferrel’s assertion that graffiti is a response to inequitable conditions of urban life, as I believe has been the case in New York since the 1980s, then the real problem facing the city today is not graffiti, but the structural inequities of urban development such as the alienation of lower-middle and working-class communities displaced from the rising cost of city living.

If graffiti is on the rise in New York, as Bratton would have us believe, then we should read this trend as a sign that something is terribly wrong. “We’ll be dealing with that graffiti as far as the vandalism aspect, the gangs or crews, if you will, use that to spread messages,” said Commissioner Bratton, “as a way to mark their territory.” This is a dated view of graffiti, based on unfounded analyses from the 1970s that border on racism. Do graffiti writers really “mark their territory,” as would a dog or a wild animal? Of course not. Perhaps the real problem at stake here is with the leadership of the NYPD, and the obsolete ideology that informs their tactics.

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [Youngking11 via Wikipedia]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYPD Reigniting the Graffiti Wars appeared first on Law Street.

Good afternoon folks! How many of you are David Choe fans?

He’s a pretty fascinating dude. A Korean-American hailing from Los Angeles, Choe is an artist, an author, a reality TV star, a podcast host, and he’s spent time in prison. He got his start as a graffiti artist in LA — an angsty, rebellious teenager if ever there was one. He dropped out of high school, spent a few years traveling the world as a hitchhiker, and then returned to spend a few years in formal art school.

Since then, he’s gone on to become a wildly successful and subversive artist. Facebook commissioned him to paint murals in their first Silicon Valley office, making him a millionaire when they paid him in stock options instead of cash. Now, Choe’s work graces every Facebook office, as well as the White House. He stars in a Vice show called “Thumbs Up!” that documents his life as he hitchhikes all over the place, and he hosts a podcast with porn star Asa Akira where they talk about sexy things. Plus — added bonus — he’s a ballin’ gambler who did jail time in Japan for punching a security guard. Truth.

Lovers of bad boys, rejoice. David Choe is kind of your dream. He’s artsy, he’s rebellious, he can’t deal with authority figures, and his entire career is like a giant middle-finger to the concept of respectable and gainful employment.

But don’t get too excited. Because dude doesn’t seem to understand the concept of enthusiastic consent.

In a recent podcast, Choe recounted an eyebrow-raising sexual experience to his cohost, Akira, that he says he had with a masseuse called “Rose.” The podcast went relatively unnoticed — WHY THAT IS I DON’T KNOW (throwing shade at you, patriarchal rape culture that doesn’t bat an eye at this shit) — until xoJane unearthed it and asked the Internet a giant WTF. Thank you, xoJane, for being awesome. You win the Internet this week.

According to Choe’s own account (which he has since stated was an extension of his art and not fact), he was getting a massage and started masturbating right there in front of Rose, without asking her or informing her of his intent to turn this massage into a sexual experience. Here’s how he described the incident:

“It’s dangerous and it’s super self-destructive. I’m at a place and there’s potential for a lawsuit… and she has given me no signs that she’s into me or that this is appropriate behavior. In my head I go, Do you care if I jerk off right now? and it sounds so creepy in my head that I go I can’t say that out loud … So I go back to the chill method of you never ask first, you just do it, get in trouble and then pay the price later.

…So then her hands get off my leg and she just stops … I go ‘Look I’m sorry I can’t help myself — can you just pretend like I’m not doing this and you continue with the massage?’ And she’s like ‘All right’ and she does … I’m like ‘Can I touch your butt?’ and I reach out and touch her butt and she pulls away. She doesn’t want me to touch her butt.”

OK dude, so you should stop it. When someone doesn’t want you to make sexual advances, you need to stop making them. Obviously. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

His cohost, Asa, picked up on that little detail, and clearly says to him in response to this awful story, “So, you raped her.”

He responds:

“With the rape stuff…I mean, I would have been in a lot of trouble right now if I put her hand on my dick and she’s like “F**king stop I’m gonna go call security.” That would have been a much different story. But the thrill of possibly going to jail, that’s what achieved the erection quest.”

So by his own account, this is a guy who describes getting off by pushing someone to do something she’s not comfortable doing. That’s the personification of rape culture, folks. It’s a culture where women’s bodies are viewed as objects, as property to be handled and exploited. Women don’t have to say yes for other people to feel entitled to us, and even when we say no, it’s often not enough.

Whether or not Choe is confessing to actual rape, he describes knowingly pushing Rose to do things she said no to. And that’s really, really not OK.

Folks, rape doesn’t always look the same. There are lots of different ways to rape someone, or to be raped. It doesn’t have to be a strange man in a dark alley. It doesn’t have to be someone who beats you. It doesn’t have to be someone who’s got a knife to your throat.

Sometimes rape is less dramatic. Sometimes it’s a partner who doesn’t take no for an answer. Sometimes it’s a person who takes advantage of you when you’re disempowered. And sometimes, it’s a random creep in a massage studio.

None of these things are, or ever will be, OK. No means no, David Choe. Fucking stop it.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [jm3 on Flickr via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Means No, David Choe appeared first on Law Street.

From 1933-1945 in Germany, thousands of pieces of valuable art were collected, confiscated, or stolen. There were Nazi military units called the “Kunstschutz” who were tasked with acquiring, for lack of a better word, plunder. They took anything of value from Jewish residents and others sent to concentration camps, including money, art, books, and religious items. It is estimated that about 20% of the art existing in Nazi-occupied territory was taken. Hitler planned a massive museum in his hometown of Linz, to display these works, but many went missing after the war. Some of this art was also used for propaganda purposes, featuring certain types of art as “degenerate” and promising to destroy it. They created an almost “freak show” museum, meant to highlight the corrupting influences from which they were supposedly saving the German people. Much of it ended up being stored after this display had finished. Other timeless pieces were simply destroyed. Over the years, stashes of this art have been located in homes, storages areas, basements, and other hidden places. Some of it may never be found.

Last year, a gigantic stash of 1,400 pieces of artwork was discovered in a Munich apartment, although details were just released by German authorities. They were in an apartment owned by a man named Cornelius Gurlitt. The works in the discovery may total more than 1 billion euros. They include pieces by Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, Otto Dix, and Marc Chagall. His father, Hildebrand Gurlitt, who had worked as an art dealer for the Kunstschutz, had passed them down.

The legal statuses of these recovered works of art are nothing if not peculiar. Many of the people who originally owned these pieces have since died, and the family members who are still searching for them may have never even seen them in person. There have been resources put in place to help—there are lost art registries, and immediately after the war, there was a group of Allied soldiers, called the Monuments Men, who attempted to return art to their rightful owners. But for the most part, families are left on their own to attempt to regain their relatives’ stolen possessions.

Germany originally did have restitution laws that would allow art to be recovered by individual owners, but most of the provisions expired in the 1966, and others in 1992. There are no active restitution laws for individual owners in Germany. As allowed by the 1998 Washington Conference Principles, the German government has worked hard to find many of the pieces that were stolen from museums and private collections, and return those to their rightful places. But private owners don’t have the same resources, and often cannot lay claim to recovered items. Usually, ownership of the item remains with whoever currently owns the piece, although once these new owners find out how it was acquired, they often do make attempts to return it to its rightful owners, or at least compensate them.

The discovery of these works, and the German government’s inability to provide aid to the private owners created an emotional backlash from the art community. Germany has set up a task force to attempt to investigate the backgrounds of some of these recovered pieces. The lack of legal precedent, outdated restitution laws, and complicated history behind these works of art make it difficult for people to regain the stolen masterpieces. While it’s nice to hope that these works eventually make their way into the hands of their rightful owners, given the inherent logistical issues, it’s unlikely. Yet the German government should take every step it can to make sure that when such works are found, actions are taken to give reparations to or compensate the rightful owners.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Bundesarchiv, Bild via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Art the Nazis Stole: Lost Forever? appeared first on Law Street.

Now that you’ve come of with a story, done the illustrations, and become an expert at protecting your comics, the hard part is over,  right? Well, actually getting your work published often takes even more effort. Many comic book creators find that they are out of their element when it comes to meeting and negotiating with publishers (especially some of the bigger names as seen below). Well, the panelists at Comic Con have some tips and tricks to help get you started.

Meeting and Negotiating with Publishers

Alan Robert and David Gallaher took the lead on this topic, which was only fair since they have first-hand experience of what it is like meeting and negotiating with publishers as comic book creators.

First off, it’s essential to understand the three types of comic ownership:

1. Publisher Owned – Such as Marvel or DC Comics
2. Creator Owned – You own and distribute yourself
3. Creator Driven – You and the Publisher share ownership

The type of ownership you have is determined by the publishing deal you develop, including licensing and which specific rights you wish to retain, and can differ depending on the type of media used (such as comics versus television or movies). The publishing deal will also determine the expected delivery date and expected deliverables (cover art, first draft, final draft, etc.). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the deal will hammer out the copyright ownership  and the royalty rates in each media form.

Generally, in a royalty pool, a comic’s royalties are shared as follows:

• 35% – Plotters/Scriptwriters
• 35% – Artists/Pencillers
• 15% – Colorists
• 15% – Inkers

However, in creator-driven projects, the royalties are paid to the creators and collaborators only after the publishing company recoups all the money it expended for the project. These recoupable expenses may include:

• Production, printing and advertising
• Agency fees
• Taxes and bad debts
• Returns for credit
• Lawyer fees (Yes, even lawyer fees for negotiating the publishing deal)

One of the biggest points the panelists emphasized is the need for promotion. Comic book entrepreneur Alan Robert shared with the audience his tips and tricks to getting your work published and highlighted three aspects of promotion:

Creating the Pitch – The pitch is a crucial part of any campaign. According to Mr. Robert, your pitch should include a logline, which lays out the summary of and realistic aspirations for your concept.

Using Social Media – Mr. Roberts testified to the use of social media to build relationships from first-hand experience. He received his first publishing deal through Twitter. This part of promotion includes following the leaders (people you like and admire), partnering with peers (building relationships with like-minded creators), and using marketing tips from companies like Issuu and Animoto. He also mentioned to get reviews of your work by hiring publicists and reaching out to journalists. Finally, he stressed the need to stay positive, expressing that this business requires persistence and thick skin.

Networking – Mr. Roberts compared this to “Working the Long Con” (as in Comic Con). Comic book creators look at Comic Con as a business convention above all else. The goal is to identify, contact, and meet and greet publishers who attend the convention. He stressed the importance of setting up meetings with publishers before the show even begins.

Preparing for Your Meetings – Once you’ve scored your big meeting you still need to do your homework.

• Have an agenda and move forward with it – Know what you are going to speak about with the publishers and execute that agenda the best you can.
• Dress nicely – This is a job interview. Remember, Comic Con is a business convention and you are a comic book creator.
• Bring business cards – This makes you look professional.
• Only bring published material – Mr. Roberts emphasized that is his most important tip. Don’t bring any ideas, spec scripts, or anything similar to meetings with these publishers. If you have previously published something then that is what you should show them.
• Follow up in a timely fashion – You want to remind the publishers of who you are, what you discussed, and maintain contact with them.

Not everyone may be able to get their first publishing deal via Twitter like Alan Robert, but some publishers accept online submissions of material. Marvel Comics does not accept any online submissions, however, its counterpart, DC Comics, accepts submissions via its Entertainment Talent Search program. IDW Publishing accepts online submissions from artists and colorists only. Dark Horse Comics accepts all types of online submissions.

Finally, Mr. Roberts gave us his tips and tricks specifically for working with publishers:

1. Hit you deadlines – Don’t bite off more than you can chew.
2. Plan ahead – Have solicitation materials ready early.
3. Be flexible – Publishers may have marketing ideas about your project to attract wider audiences.
4. Expectations – Know that publishers have priorities other than just you.
5. Plan your next idea – Stay in the game. Continue creating comic books and staying involved in the industry.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [numb – Hey Man Nice Shot via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC Comic Con: You’ve Protected it, Now it’s Time to Publish appeared first on Law Street.

As thousands flocked to the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center for the 2013 New York City Comic Con, Law Street Media was there to capture all the fandom, releases, and professional panels. But the most important part, of course, were the costumes.

From infamous duos…

To beautiful women dressed to impress the inner-geek in all of us.

Day one of Comic Con featured a professional panel designed to help up-and-coming comic book artists and writers protect and publish their work. So today’s blog is a step-by-step tutorial for all of you artists and copyright enthusiasts out there to protect your creations.

Creating and Protecting Your Comic Book Property

Part one of the panel focused on protecting the intellectual property of comic book creators, with particular emphasis on different copyright objectives that comic book creators need to take into consideration when taking on new projects. For example, the difference between an independent work and work-for-hire and various types of authorships.

First and foremost, comic book creators need to take into consideration whether or not their work is of sole authorship or a collaboration. Panelists warned against the dangers of working with your friend and what they called “collaboration sabotage,” or one person doing all the work.

Copyright law does not favor the person who does the most work or the person who comes up with the idea; therefore, a written contract ensures that working with your friends doesn’t turn them into your enemies. By default, copyright law will see any collaboration as a joint authorship, which means everything is 50/50, unless there is a collaboration agreement. This means equal pay, equal shares, and equal licensing rights since most publishers often want the exclusive rights to works that they purchase.

Collaboration agreements, as the panelists suggested, should be created at the very beginning before work begins on the project. This way you can agree with your collaborator on things like:

1. Business Formation – Partnership or Limited Liability Company (must be filed with the state).
2. Intellectual Property Ownership – Who owns the art, the story?
3. How are expenses paid?
4. How are the profits split?
5. Who has licensing rights and are they limited?
6. What is the work schedule and division of duties?
7. Can collaborators create derivative works (works based off of the original project)?
8. If things do not work out with the collaborators, how do you dissolve and continue the project?
9. How do you decide when a breach of the collaboration occurs and what viable remedies should be sought?

In addition to collaborating on a single project, there may come a time when you and your collaborator need to hire extra help, perhaps in the form of hiring more artists, inkers, or pencillers. Panelist Thomas Crowell suggested knowing specifics of service contracts and the difference between work-for-hire and independent contractors.

When hiring artists, the first consideration is whether you are hiring them as employees or independent contractors. This specific job description is important in order to determine work ownership. Work-for-hire is defined in Section 101 of the Copyright Act (found in Title 17 of the U.S. Code) as work by an employee under the scope of employment. If a work is made for hire, the copyright is owned by the hiring party. A work-for-hire hinges on who has more control over the creation of the work (i.e: hiring practices, type of compensation, work schedule, etc.).

If the artist you are hiring insists on working as an independent contractor, Crowell suggests that you ensure a services contract is signed, securing your ownership in the copyright of the work. A services contract may dictate how the intellectual property ownership is decided, how royalties are paid, the page rates, and a potential kill fee (the price you pay for artwork even if you choose to not use it). The panelists suggested that you have the independent contractor sign this contract before work begins (otherwise you’re bound to run into a major headache regarding IP ownership). Finally, it is important to include language in the contract that specifically dictates, despite the artist’s independent contractor role, that the work they create for you is a work made for hire.

Here are some of the panelists’ rules of thumb when it comes to creating and protecting your comic book property:

1. Register your work.

2. Establish your copyright — it’s the foundation of your legal power, so exercise it.

3. Put everything on paper — there’s no protection of ideas.

4. If you have collaborators create a collaboration agreement.

5. If you have a trademark, don’t just register it with the US Patent and Trademark Office, but actually use it.

And so we have covered the “protect it” part of the panel. Stay tuned for part two of our Comic Con coverage in order to learn how to “publish it.”

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [DowntownTraveler.com via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC Comic Con: Protect It and Publish It appeared first on Law Street.

Mayor Bloomberg has caught a lot of heat in the past few months with his efforts regarding the large soda ban, which ultimately failed. However, he has risen from the ashes as techie superhero.

In addition to introducing free Wi-Fi hotspots around New York City, the mayor of this great city announced his plan to keep the Big Apple ahead of the curve and establish its supremacy as an innovative tech hub.

With the infamous drummer of the roots, Questlove, by his side, Mayor Bloomberg announced his plans for the Made in NY Media Center, a space where “storytellers, creative professionals and entrepreneurs across multiple disciplines…can gather and create,” pretty much whatever they want as long as it bolsters NY’s image as an innovative techie paradise.

New York has been called the “business capital of the world“, the “fashion capital of the world“, and now Mayor Bloomberg hopes it will become the “global media capital of the digital age.” Made in NY will be creating over 3,000 jobs and will be an innovative hub where ideas come to life. See for yourself.

With Questlove as Made in NY’s first “Artist in Residence”, Made in NY looks like it will begin to thrive down on 30 John Street in DUMBO. NYC is currently the second-most funded tech hub next to Silicon Valley, however NYC is a place where the possibilities are endless. With techie start-ups for new media, mobile gaming and other forward-thinking companies popping up out of the woodworks to make a name for themselves in NY, this city is becoming the place to go to turn an idea into a reality.

Made in NY promotes the film and television industries that provided much needed revenue to New York City for years, bringing in over $400 million in tax revenue. It is definitely an exciting time to be in NYC and it should be interesting to watch as the Made in NY Media Center grows and evolves.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Scott Beale via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Made In NY” – A Techie’s Paradise appeared first on Law Street.