Copyright Law

Pop Quiz (UPDATED)

By Intellectual Property Law, Esq.

"The art can be the art anywhere. It can be seen anywhere."

"[S]omewhere such as the High or Seattle would be delighted to beef up their American paintings collections, and if/when they do so ..., they'd likely beef up their curatorial focus on such work."

"[N]o, it doesn't matter much to me that the work stay in NYC. The art is more important than the geography."

. . . you'd probably guess that person would be pretty relaxed about the whole idea of deaccessioning, wouldn't get too worked up about things if, say, a painting moves from the National Academy to LACMA, or from the New York Public Library to the Crystal Bridges Museum.

Guess again.

UPDATE: In an update, Tyler accuses me of "intellectual dishonesty" for taking the above quotes "out of context" (even though I included links back to both relevant posts, so people could see their full contexts). But the whole point of my post was that in this debate people say one thing in one context and other, often inconsistent things in another context. It's the same point I've been making (ad nauseum) about sales to fund the purchase of more art vs. sales to fund other worthy purposes. In the first case, people don't bat an eye; in the second case . . . well, you know by now.

Full post as published by The Art Law Blog on January 07, 2009 (boomark / email).