Posts Tagged ‘art and artists’

Compelled expression and the New Mexico photographer case

A New Mexico court has upheld state-levied fines against a photographer who refused a job taking pictures at a same-sex wedding (Elane Photography v. Willock). Eugene Volokh, who has written about the case previously, now has a series of posts on the implications of the court’s effort to force creators to “create speech that they don’t want to create.” He also adds posts on the religious accommodation angle, the inevitable what-about-racists objection, and the role of state laws prohibiting “discrimination” against customers based on their political beliefs. More: Timothy Kincaid, Box Turtle Bulletin (“time for New Mexico to change its law. …ultimately what kind of freedom will we have won to live our lives as we see best if it costs the freedom of others to do the same?”).

“Colorado Supreme Court upholds ban of smoking on stage”

The state’s high court “voted to uphold lower-court decisions barring cigarette use in performances. … a coalition of state and national theater groups [had] argued in multiple courts that the ban infringed on free-speech rights and interfered with their abilities to accurately produce plays.” [Denver Post, OnPoint News (outspoken dissent by Justice Gregory Hobbs), Michelle Minton/CEI “Open Market”, Declarations and Exclusions]

October 14 roundup

  • Uh-huh: new report from federal Legal Services program calls for gigantic new allocation of tax money to, well, legal services programs [ABA Journal]
  • “Judge: Man’s a ‘vexatious litigator'” [Cincinnati.com]
  • Wisconsin governor signs bill requiring prescription to buy mercury thermometer [Popehat]
  • “Injured by art?” Woman sues Museum of Fine Arts Houston after fall in artist-designed light tunnel [Mary Flood, Houston Chronicle “Legal Trade”]
  • On Carol Browner and the cry of “environmental racism” (a/k/a “green redlining”) [Coyote]
  • New York: “Lawyers implicated in $9 million mortgage fraud” [Business Insider]
  • In Canada, as in the U.S., medical privacy rules hamper police investigations [Calgary Herald]
  • Stalin’s grandson loses lawsuit in Russia against newspaper that supposedly defamed the dictator [WSJ Law Blog, Lowering the Bar, Volokh]

“EU to Extinguish Lightbulb Art?”

This fall’s proposed European ban on incandescent bulbs, barbed with $70,000 fines, apparently makes no allowance for the upkeep of “works that take the lightbulb as a primary material, such as Laszlo Moholy-Nagy’s Light-Space-Modulator, which uses 140,” among works by Rauschenberg, Olafur Eliasson and a long list of other well-known artists. Another unpleasant effect on the art world will be to constrain the way installations can be lit, even if curators and others believe particular works are best served by incandescent illumination. [ARTINFO.com via Andrew Hazlett]

April 24 roundup

“‘Greedy’ Stanford Law Grad Must Pay $630K in Legal Fees Over Meritless Art Suit”

As the Blog of Legal Times and ABA Journal note, the D.C. Circuit has upheld an order that Washington, D.C. art dealer and attorney Robert Fastov pay more than $630,000 to compensate Christie’s, the auction house, for meritless litigation aimed at extracting a settlement on an untenable claim. In a summary judgment order last year, the trial judge cited Fastov’s “well-documented proclivity in this case to engage in obstructionist litigation tactics” and ordered him to pay fees: “a greedy individual, with the advantage of a legal education and a claimed litigation experience, has initiated and maintained this lawsuit, which anyone with a modicum of common sense would have realized was without merit.”

Art and the law: “Against moral rights”

“My argument is that moral rights laws endanger art in the name of protecting it”. [Amy Adler (NYU Law), 97 California Law Review (Feb.) (PDF), via ConcurOp] The best-known American application of the moral-rights concept in art is the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, which (among other provisions) gives visual artists a right to sue in some circumstances if later lawful owners of their artworks alter or destroy the works.