The Art Law Report’s very first post was on the revival of efforts to pass federal legislation on resale royalties, yet there was little movement after that. Earlier this year, the California Resale Royalty Act was struck down on constitutional grounds, a case now on appeal.

We launched the Art Law Report one year ago tomorrow. Several dozen posts, thousands of visitors and many more views later, a very special thank you to everyone who has read and followed the blog. The connections made literally all around the world are humbling and enlightening. We continue to strive to provide an interesting selection of legal updates and issues, while offering an opinion and perspective that tries to improve the understanding both of those familiar with legal concepts, and those less so. The continuing developments in copyright, FSIA, immunity from seizure, and other resitution issues in particular are certainly keeping us on our toes, and collections issues like the Barnes case are never too far away either. Your links and comments are appriated, and we will keep linking to all those viewpoints from which we are learning too. Here's to another year of substantive conversation.

The U.S. District Court in Manhattan has dismissed the copyright claim filed by the Velvet Underground against the Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts over the iconic “banana” image from the cover of the legendary The Velvet Underground and Nico album. Without reaching the merits of the claim, the court ruled that the Velvet Underground had agreed previously not to sue on any copyright theories. Reporting of the decision has been spotty at best, however, ranging from declaring a “win” for the Foundation, to suggestions that the copyright question was decided. In fact, the Court did not reach the copyright issue, and the Velvet Underground still has other trademark-based claims that remain very much alive and unaffected by the decision.

Consistent with expectations after reports from the court hearing in March, the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles dismissed the case brought by artist Chuck Close and others that alleged violations of the California Resale Royalty Act (the “CRRA”) by Sotheby’s, Christie’s and eBay, and ruled that the CRRA is unconstitutional in its entirety. Similar claims against eBay were also dismissed in a shorter opinion referencing the Sotheby’s and Christie’s decision.

The Art and Museum Law Group issued today a client advisory on the implications of Golan v. Holder.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Golan v. Holder the constitutionality of a U.S. statute (§ 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)) that “restored” U.S. copyright protection to millions of foreign-authored works that, for much of the twentieth century, had none at all. The Court found no constitutional bar to making foreign works that once were free of copyright protection now subject to the full regime of rights. The decision raises far-reaching implications for anyone who has copied, sold, or otherwise published foreign works of the 20th century that were assumed to be in the public domain, and raises anew the importance of considering the various layers of copyright protection that follow a single work.

Patrick Cariou has filed his much-anticipated responsive brief in the Richard Prince/Gagosian Gallery copyright infringement appeal. Cariou’s brief makes its stand on the question of transformative use. The degree to which a derivative work is transformative of a protected work is, of course, a central element of a fair use analysis about which Prince will have to persuade the Second Circuit to overturn the judgment below. In so doing, however, one starts to wonder if this case will be of less precedential value—less transformative, if you will—than it has seemed since the judgment last year.

The 8^th Circuit recently weighed in on the topic of public domain images and copyrighted characters. As my colleagues Kimberly Herman, Michael Matzka and Laura Stacey explore in greater detail in an advisory about the decision, a number of merchandisers were using images from public domain posters and lobby cards from movies like The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, and Tom & Jerry. Although the posters themselves were in the public domain (and complete reproductions of those posters were not infringing) the 8^th Circuit analyzed further the status of the characters, not merely the images of them. A balance is struck between the right to make derivative works from public-domain images (protected) versus uses that conflict with further development of the character by the copyright holder (infringing). Also discussed is the difference between a character from a public-domain book (e.g. The Tin Man) and an original creation in the film (Tom or Jerry). My colleagues’ treatment of the decision fleshes these points out in fuller depth.

After several months of inactivity, the first brief is available in the Richard Prince appeal of the judgment against him and the Gagosian Gallery earlier this year for infringing on the works of Patrick Cariou. Prince’s arguments of “fair use” of Cariou’s photographs failed to persuade the District Court and the infringing works were ordered impounded, a harsh and unusual remedy.

The Richard Prince copyright case is in the news again, though probably more than it deserves. Patrick Cariou, whose photographs Prince was found this spring to have infringed, moved to dismiss Prince’s appeal arguing that the injunction concerning the impoundment and destruction of the existing works (Prince was ordered to deliver them for destruction) was mooted by a stipulation between the parties. Thus, Cariou argued, there was nothing at the moment to appeal (i.e. Prince appealed to soon).

Picking up a torch last carried by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, lobbying efforts are underway to enact into U.S. federal law a droit de suite right enjoyed in the U.K. and elsewhere, that is, a right for an artist to be compensated upon subsequent sales of his or her work. American law has long resisted the concept of secondary market compensation for artists, and Kennedy’s efforts to write droite de suite into American law failed in the course of the enactment of the Visual Artists Rights Act in 1987. European nations have struggled to quantify the effect of inconsistent droite de suite legislation; some argue that the piecemeal regime has simply pushed sales into countries without it, others note that U.K. art sales have continued to rise.