Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a victory for several aerosol artists and for what are commonly referred to as "moral rights," the Second Circuit Court of Appeals gave its seal-of-approval to the legal framework applied in a substantive decision on the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA). In Castillo v. G&M Realty, L.P., the Second Circuit affirmed a $6.75 million judgment against a real estate developer for willfully violating VARA rights for 45 works of visual art. Nos. 18-498-cv (L), 18-538-cv (CON), 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5228 (2d Cir., Feb. 20, 2020). The lower court's finding of willfulness increased the maximum amount of statutory damages the defendant could be liable for by a factor of five, and then it awarded the maximum amount of damages possible. While the case expounds upon a body of law seldom explored, it also serves a sobering reminder to litigants on just how much their candor can impact credibility and damages. In particular, the court found that "if not for [the defendant's] insolence, these damages would not have been assessed." Cohen v. G&M Realty, L.P., 320 F. Supp. 3d 421, 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (Cohen II). By affirming the decision, the Second Circuit and lower court have created a framework to evaluate a work's "recognized stature," as required by VARA.
VARA amended original copyright protections to add two "moral rights," which commonly exist in European countries for works of visual art. See, Robert J. Sherman, Note, The Visual Rights Act of 1990: American Artists Burned Again, 17 Cardozo L. Rev. 373 (1995). Works of visual art include aesthetically creative works that exist in a single copy or limited edition copies of 200 or fewer. See, 17 U.S.C. §101. VARA afforded authors of these works two categories of rights beyond that of typical copyright protection. The first is the right of attribution, i.e., an artist's right to claim authorship and prevent incorrect attributions of authorship. The second is the right of integrity i.e., an artist's right to prevent intentional destruction of their work. See, 17 U.S.C. §106A(a). Both rights exist regardless of ownership of the work and are afforded the same damages — actual and statutory — as other copyrighted works. See. 17 U.S.C. §106A(b); Cohen II, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 429-430. Statutory damages range from $750-$30,000 for each work and that amount can be increased in the cases of willfulness up to $150,000 per work. See, 17 U.S.C. §504.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.