tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post9000834650978514882..comments2024-03-26T10:41:35.852+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: Saving Picasso’s Le Tricorne and other pre-1991 Artworks: Can VARA help?Marie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-51009850253149525372014-06-24T16:17:09.093+01:002014-06-24T16:17:09.093+01:00Dear Uncle Wiggily,
Thanks for your comment. My pe...Dear Uncle Wiggily,<br />Thanks for your comment. My personal view is that you're probably right about the Picasso case being a poor fit with the moral rights provisions outlined in VARA... But, "never say never" - as I pointed out in my blog, the issue turns on a number of factual considerations ("history and provenance of this work," as you say). For the sake of completeness, I do feel that I have to lodge my "1% doubt," and point out that we don't know everything about the history of this work and could, at least in theory, be missing key factual information. In the event, thanks for the link - to summarize for other readers, the case as it was heard by the court was essentially a collision of competing property rights, and the injunction was issued on the standard principle of irreparable harm; the dispute was then settled (please see my final blog post on the case). What I wanted to highlight in this blog, is that a number of issues of interpretation surrounding VARA could use some clarification, or represent controversies in various ways. I'm curious to know what you and other readers think about a few of these questions - how to deal with factual uncertainties surrounding the ownership of art, policy inconsistencies within VARA, and the possibility of "community moral rights"... Some of these points are radical in terms of copyright theory, and it's fascinating to see them played out in the United States. All the best, MiraMira T. Sundara Rajanhttp://professormira.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-33914764859504342962014-06-23T17:58:40.874+01:002014-06-23T17:58:40.874+01:00Dear Jeremy:
Given the history and provenance of ...Dear Jeremy:<br /><br />Given the history and provenance of this work, as widely reported, there never was and could never be any kind of “moral rights” case under the US Visual Artists Rights Act (“VARA”) and 17 U.S. Code § 106A. The facts and the dates just don’t fit. See also the latest available court decision from April 4, 2014 with nary a mention of moral rights or copyright and no indication of any involvement by the Picasso Estate. http://bit.ly/1lzyV2b<br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />Uncle WiggilyUncle Wiggilynoreply@blogger.com