tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post3226882547675297282..comments2024-03-26T10:41:35.852+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: Compromise, and a Victory for Moral Rights?Marie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-87544688221248601222014-06-25T00:10:18.274+01:002014-06-25T00:10:18.274+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 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 (as noted in this final blog post on the case). What I wanted to highlight in the follow-up blogs, is that a number of issues of interpretation surrounding VARA are controversial, and could use some clarification. 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 represent radical departures from copyright theory, and it's fascinating to see them played out in the United States. All the best, MiraMira Sundara Rajanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16571339127007477410noreply@blogger.com