ࡱ> !q` hbjbjqPqP 4n::)nUZZZZZZZn8.l\n2"$$$$χh7\QZ%%%ZZ$$W%r Z$Z$%Y`ZZc$ 19 ~H]\Tm0]lacZcD!m[X%%%%nnn\RbZnnnRbnnnZZZZZZ Art and the First Amendment Intoduction ( the (sometimes irrational) power of the visual First Amendment (1791): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Exodus 20, Ten Commandments ( 4: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth David Freedberg, The Power of Images (1989) (Introduction) ( people have powerful emotional responses to images Talisman/anthropomorphism/animism/aura ( think of the story of students being unable to cut the eyes out of photographs of their mother Jim Lewis, Amy Adler Interview ( the court is just another cultural institution The Artists Right to Free Expression: Censorship Law and Theory OBSCENITY LAW ( basically, obscenity is not protected speech; how do we draw the line between art (protected speech) and obscenity? Why does art get protection? Background note re: Mapplethorpe trial ( there is tremendous tension between the elite art world and the common American Two big picture problems: How do you define obscenity? What is the justification for excluding obscenity from First Amendment protection? Regina v. Hicklin (UK 1868): regarding a pamphlet called The Confessional Unmasked ( court defines the test for obscenity as whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall ( depraving and debauching the minds with impure and libidinous thoughts Considered the effect of isolated/individual excerpts (not the work as a whole) on particularly susceptible people (children, not the average person) Roth v. United States (SCOTUS 1957): mail order porno magazines in NY and CA ( (Brennan) court holds that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press ( makes the definition of obscenity a constitutional question ( rejects Hicklin test; new test: whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest Community standards is a national, not local standard ( Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) What is prurient? ( tendency to inspire lustful thoughts; morbid or lascivious longings (Websters); appeals to a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex or excretion (ALI) From whose perspective? Creator or viewer? Intention or effect? Doesnt address problem of art that is explicitly prurient (e.g., Koons) Obscenity has little or no redeeming social value and is not an idea (marketplace of ideas theory of 1st Am. from JS Mill ( let truth and falsehood grapple) Other incarnations of the marketplace of ideas: search for truth (Mill), search for political truth, or emphasis of liberty (free speech = individual liberty) Problem: isn t being offended a sign of the presence of some idea? NOTE: sex `" obscenity; porn `" obscenity One interpretation: Sex is about body, not mind; it s not political (as opposed to violence) Memoirs v. Massachusetts (SCOTUS 1966): about the novel FANNY HILL ( modifies Roth test to include the following three elements: (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value Plurality opinion by Brennan, sets the bar very low (utterly) ( no majority Problems: gives judges too much discretion to decide the social value prong; requires judges to actually view the material; protects everything but badly-written obscenity (White); offers no predictive guidance Redrup v. New York (SCOTUS 1967): court says it cant agree on a definition of obscenity, and has to make a fact-based inquiry ( leads to 31 decisions reversing obscenity convictions (in case of doubt, better not to send someone to jail) Provides no notice about definition of obscenity (its what 5 judges think is obscene), which has a tremendous chilling effect NOTE: another important case, Stanley v. Georgia (1969), Marshall said you can possess obscenity in your own home, you just cant distribute it (privacy right) Miller v. California (SCOTUS 1973): mass mailing of adult brochure ads ( court (Burger) establishes the modern obscenity test: (1) appeals to a prurient interest; (2) patently offensive; and (3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value (LAPS) First two tests are judged by contemporary community standard; LAPS is based on reasonable person standard (national ( see Pope v. Illinois) Brennan (dissent): says the third prong is too vague, gives judge too much discretion; serious is too subjective (no longer about the distinction between idea and no idea) Also, think of Linda Yablonsky: new art is always shocking and will often not be considered serious ( Mike Diana case as well Marks shift from marketplace of ideas to moral rationale (some ideas are just not as good as others, some speech is bad, etc.) Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (SCOTUS 1973): about an adult theatre with a sign on the door banning minors and warning adult viewers ( provides the moral rationale behind the Miller test; emphasizes the right to maintain a decent society; public interest in the quality of life and the total community environment; also, tone of commerce and public safety ( these are moral rationales for using serious as the exception, rather than just distinguishing idea/no idea Problem: these are fairly soft rationales in light of normal strident defense of 1st Am. rights in this country NOTE: why do we allow serious LAPS work to be protected, even if its otherwise prurient and offensive? (maybe a balancing of good and bad value) Brennan (dissent): only two reasons to prohibit this kind of speech: protecting children and protecting non-consenting adults ( majority thinks its more than just consent, its morals Jenkins v. Georgia (SCOTUS 1974): about film Carnal Knowledge with Jack Nicholson ( court decides that the film doesnt meet the second prong of the Miller test because there is no focus on genitals, bodies during sex, etc. ( still rely on Court to decide what is obscenity (chilling effect, etc.) Movie was serious because it had appeared in a number of top-10 lists Seems to make the first prong of Miller irrelevant Doesnt eliminate the need for case-by-case assessment Pope v. Illinois (SCOTUS 1987): court refines the third prong of the Miller test ( serious LAPS value is based on a reasonable person (national) standard rather than community standard proper inquiry is not whether an ordinary member of any given community would find serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value in allegedly obscene material, but whether a reasonable person would find such value in the material, taken as a whole. Scalia (concur): says that a reasonable person standard is meaningless in esthetic judgments; would get rid of Miller test Stevens (dissent): advocates subjective test, which Scalia says would be too broad, would let everything in Mike Diana: first obscenity criminal conviction of a visual artist ( he was a comic book artist, which probably made it difficult to find his work serious Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y. 2005): photographer with nudes/sexual images challenges the CDAs obscenity provisions (re: transmission to children on the Internet) ( court rejects Nitkes over-breadth argument (that this provision of the CDA chills protected speech); court says you have to show substantial over-breadth (nearly impossible) NOTE: this requires an extraordinary amount of empirical proof of chilling effect (AA: bad statement) Court was probably trying to avoid asking about community standards in the context of the Internet ( a question that hasnt been addressed yet Nitkes website has a disclaimer page ( makes it less likely people will see her work, stigmatizes her site, and affects the viewers response Cincinnati v. Contemporary Arts Center (Ohio Mun. 1990): Mapplethorpe exhibition leads to charges against museum, etc. ( when finding that each photograph is a whole image, the focus will be on each picture taken as a whole, not on the entire exhibition; court rejects arguments that otherwise obscene photographs become non-obscene in the context of the exhibition Case is important for looking at the question of the work considered as a whole Court says the pictures speak for themselves and says they are a frozen moment in time that can never be legitimately changed ( underlying assumptions about the reality in photographs Compare to Carter v. Helmsley-Spear On remand, the museum won ( the prosecution didnt rebut defense experts Problem: Mapplethorpe might be an easy case, because he was famous, his work was very classical (formal), and it was very political (about AIDS and homosexuality) Adler, Postmodern Art and the Death of Obscenity Law Many aspects of PoMo art challenge the seriousartisticvalue idea directly by questioning what art is ( art can be anything so designated by the critical community or anything that makes us ask what is art? Tacky, prurient art/attacking art ( Jeff Koons (Made in Heaven show), Terry Richardson, Amy Adler Duchamp, Dada, Warhol, Fluxus, Chris Burden (Shoot) Appropriation ( Sherrie Levine, Richard Prince, Michael Mandiberg, Koons Anonymity ( Bernadette Corp., Hell Frozen Over; Reena Spaulings Low/trash ( Paul McCarthy, Jason Rhoades, Damien Hirst NOTE: obscenity prosecutions essentially disappeared under Clinton, but they are making a comeback under the current administration Alternatives to Miller, each with its own problems: Intent of the creator ( too broad Effect on the viewer ( too subjective Context/commercial? ( is it for art or for sale ( not a valuable distinction CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LAW ( court refuses to protect art in this area ( anything that is child pornography is not protected speech Background: expanding efforts to curb child pornography and child sexual abuse The rationales for excluding this from 1st Am. protection are considerably more urgent: Preventing physical harm to children Preventing the psychological harm to those children Essentially takes obscenity test and eliminates the LAPS exception and criminalizes possession as well (Osborne) New York v. Ferber (SCOTUS 1982): upholding NY law making child pornography illegal ( Court (OConnor) says child pornography is not protected by the 1st Am.; basic state interest is in preventing harm to children (they are harmed in the production of the child pornography) NY statute bans using a child in a sexual performance Performance: any play, motion picture, photograph, or dance, but NOT text Sexual Performance: performance which includes sexual conduct of a child under 16 Sexual Conduct: intercourse; sexual bestiality; masturbation; sadomasochistic abuse; or lewd exhibition of the genitals (Congress changed lewd to lascivious ( difficult term, see Dost and Knox) NOTE: after Ferber, Congress passed the Child Protection Act of 1984, essentially adopting the NY statute Court articulates five rationales: (i) safeguarding children; (ii) prohibiting distribution to prevent harm (porn is a permanent record and no distribution = no production); (iii) prohibiting ads/sales to reduce production; (iv) such speech has little or no value (if necessary, use older actors); and (v) not the first categorical approach to censorship (e.g., obscenity) Think of the moral bases cited in Paris I: here, its a fear that exposure leads to behavior (not proven) and a general concern about people have wrong ideas (this is implicit, but raises big privacy concerns) Osborne v. Ohio (SCOTUS 1990): upholds OH law that criminalizes possession of child pornography ( court says the ruling in Stanley v. Georgia doesnt apply to child pornography; states have a stronger interest in eliminating child porn than obscenity ( rationale: it hopes to protect the victims; to destroy the market; and to prevent the use of child pornography for seduction There must be a mens rea element in any state statute re: possession ( but what kind? The creator? The viewer? The possessor? United States v. Dost (S.D. Cal. 1986): establishes test to define lascivious exhibition of the genitals ( used by many states The six factors: whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the childs genitalia or pubic area; whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity; whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child; whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude; whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity; whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer United States v. Knox (3d. Cir. 1994): about tapes of clothed girls, zooming in on genitals, advertised as hot and legal ( court says its illegal and there is no nudity or discernibility requirement to be lascivious ( even pictures of clothed children can be child pornography Makes the category very broad ( would probably include Sally Mann (and definitely Jock Sturgess), but they might get off under the 6th prong of Dost (designed/intended to elicit sexual response) What about Spiritual America by Richard Prince (no actual harm to the child, the photo was already out there)? NY Times stories ( a number of people (Mr. Feuers pictures of 6yo daughter in art class, Groskys enlarging 18yo photo of their 5yo son) getting into trouble over photos of their children ( lab technicians (duty to report) become government censors Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (SCOTUS 2002): court rejects virtual pornography provisions of the CPPA (enacted in 1995 after Time article that was later retracted) ( rejects appears to be a minor and conveys the impression language as overbroad (suppresses legal speech in attempt to get at illegal speech); court rejects seduction rationale from Osborne Rejects seduction because the harm is contingent and indirect ( not sufficiently proximate ( says candy and cartoons could also be used for seduction The Courts drawing a line beyond which Congress cannot regulate Adler, Inverting the First Amendment Arguing that child pornography is no longer about protecting the child from harm, but really a thought crime ( we de not like people thinking pedophilic thoughts (this is contrary to 1st Am. principles of separating speech from what it represents or causes) Many artists have taken up the issue of child sexuality ( but now their work is unprotected Larry Clark: clearly lascivious ( would only be protected if there were some sort of exception for serious artistic value Same true for Sally Mann or Jock Sturgess ( its only prosecutorial discretion protecting Mann (because shes famous?) Though a grand jury did refuse to indict Jock Sturgess ( seems to be some discretion in the system that allows for consideration of artistic value Adler, The Perverse Law of Child Pornography Argues that the more we regulate and obsess over child pornography, the more we sexualize the child in our culture and adopt the pedophilic gaze ( fascination, fetish, taboo, and transgression Cultural examples: fashion advertising, Britney Spears, Kate Moss, CK ads (porn TV ads and toddlers in underwear) A lot of false positives ( idea is that the harm is so grievous that its justified Why photography? Betrayal between the photographer and the subject (Janet Malcolm re: Sally Mann) A certain violence in photography ( alienation, exploitation (Sontag) Photographs as reality, as talismans, etc. But, there are a lot of recent artists dealing with child sexuality in photography: Anna Gaskell, Collier Schorr, Tierney Gearon; others just dealing with child sexuality: Chapman brothers THE FEMINIST ANTI-PORNOGRAPHY MOVEMENT Catharine Mackinnon Pornography is central in the subordination of women ( it is the subordination of women ( not only inspires violence against women but perpetuates subordination Two kinds of harm (echoed in child pornography law) The harm of the production ( brutal coercion; all porn is a documentation of a rape (because made under conditions of subordination) ( women who participate willingly are collaborators (the bewildering modes of female collaboration) who live with a false consciousness The harm of representation once its out in the world ( Along with the rape and prostitution in which it participates, pornography institutionalizes the sexuality of male supremacy, which fuses the eroticization of dominance and submission with the social construction of male and female Similar to psychological harm of child pornography Also like the idea of seduction that was rejected in Ashcroft Attacks the marketplace of ideas: Pornography creates a market failure because the free speech of men silences the free speech of women Pornography is not actually speech, but action (see Roth re: obscenity) ( doesnt implicate the marketplace of ideas (porn is not an idea) Analogizes it to Whites Only signs that are more like acts Power of the image: the image is sex, not the depiction of sex ( has some talismanic power Pornography is the subordination of women, not the depiction of it Advocates civil approach (criminal law enhances the sexiness of pornography) ( anti-discrimination law, pornography is discrimination against women There is no exception for value ( like OConnor in Ferber (there is no redeeming value that can outweigh the harm) ( redeeming value to a man might enhance the harm to a woman She has failed to enter 1st Am. law, but succeeded in obscenity law in Canada (Regina v. Butler) and impacted the child pornography law framework Prominent criticisms: Shes wrong in the harms she attributes to pornography She infantilizes women/denies human agency Refuses to acknowledge sex positive approach for women (esp. in art) Her approach seems inapposite to gay and lesbian communities Marketplace of ideas criticism ( let the market decide Adler: she gets a lot of her ideas about the power of photography/image meaning/interpretation wrong, even if the harms she identifies are right American Booksellers v. Hudnut (7th Cir. 1985): Indianapolis enacts civil anti-pornography statute drafted by Mackinnon (similar to anti-discrimination law) ( Easterbrook says its unconstitutional even if we grant that pornography perpetuates subordination; he emphasizes all the negative speech protected by the 1st Am.; rejects this as thought control and viewpoint discrimination ( says all of the unhappy effects of pornography require mental intermediation and we dont ban things just because they have the potential to incite a response Restores agency on the part of viewers Separates speech and action (Mackinnon attacks the idea of separating these things) ( we protect pornography because its controversial (has ideas in it) The Indianapolis ordinance directly rejects Miller by not considering value Think about Ashcroft ( consistent with Hudnut because it says the harm of seduction is too attenuated (essentially, it needs mental intermediation) Examples: UMich closes show after students remove video art about prostitution ( controversy Also, think of the Sol Lewitt Muybridge I piece, which Broun wanted to remove from the show because of its voyeuristic focus on the womans pubic area (peephole) Andrea Fraser ( uses sex positive embrace of sexuality for institutional critique artwork Comments on subordination of women; woman artist as prostitute; she profits from it BUT, there are problems of intent v. effect ( teenage boys watching Untitled as porn rather than art Or think of Melanie Pullen: fashionized recreations of crime scenes against women ( commentary or participation? Brief history of art, pornography and the subjugation of women: Titian, Venus of Urbino ( nude female body ( pin up art for the elite Velazquez, Venus ( slashed by Mary Richardson in 1914 Manet, Olympia Guerilla Girls Courbet, Origins of the World Judy Chicago, Dinner Party ( too simple? Essentializing the womans body? Carolee Schneeman, More than Meat Joy or Interior Scroll ( female body as object of male gaze but also as the source of her work ( confusion of subject/object position Yoko Ono, Cut Piece ( audience could approach her Ana Mendieta ( rape/murder series ( uses vocabulary of sexual violence to comment Barbara Kruger ( using vocabulary of advertising to talk comment on women/society Cindy Sherman ( familiar depictions of female stereotypes to comment on identity, etc. ( has more staying power than Kruger according to Collier Schorr Lisa Yuskavage/John Currin HATE SPEECH ( parallels the issues in the anti-pornography movement Background Two lines of cases under which we have banned offensive speech The Chaplinsky line (quoted in Roth) ( fighting words You can ban speech that would cause somebody to fight you ( arguably a racist and sexist standard (a white male would fight back, but other groups have reasons to run away) The Brandenburg line ( incitement to imminent lawless action Is the speech directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and likely to incite or produce such action? ( the temporal nexus between speech and action must be very tight Also, speech is regulated in other contexts (contract law, securities law, etc.) when it has independent legal significance ( when its more of an act BUT, its extremely difficult to ban speech based on its content alone ( the protection of controversial (political) speech is at the core of the 1st Am. ( marketplace will sort it out Mari Matsuda, Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victims Story The harms of hate speech ( breaks down speech/action divide (like Mackinnon re: porn) Pain and psychic harm for individual victims ( spirit murder Social harm ( hate speech as a mechanism of subordination Her definition of hate speech: Message is of racial inferiority Directed against a historically oppressed group Message is persecutorial, hateful, and degrading AND in hard cases, you look to the victims story Problems: There is often a diversity of responses from the victims ( think of Jewish response to Nazi show at the Jewish Museum ( Matsuda essentializes victims Also, doesnt include women, or gays/lesbians ( only racial minorities Often uses the speakers identity as a proxy for intent ( very problematic (and racist) Also, intent is not necessarily ever discernible ( think of the mixed meaning of Andres Serranos Klan portraits ( embracing the openness of meaning rather than trying to control meaning Or, we might rely on context to determine intent ( raises similar problems Amy Adler, Whats Left?: Hate Speech, Pornography, and the Problem for Artistic Expression ( this is overbroad because it prohibits speech/art that appropriates the vocabulary of hate speech to comment on or criticize it ( the line can be difficult to draw Is it better to draw it wide and stop all hate speech or to protect the lawful art/speech? Think about Norman Kleeblats Nazi show at the Jewish Museum ( defended the works by saying the artists were part Jewish or had relatives die in concentration camps Also, said there is no way hed show Neo-Nazi work Sample of contemporary artists/issues complicating this issue: Nazi show ( Lego systems and Its the Real Thing ( Sontag: were deadened to these images, but these interventions wake our emotional responses Kara Walker Fred Wilson ( institutional critique in pieces like Museum Guards Ali G ( throw the Jew down the well Dave Chapelle Prophet Mohammed cartoons (about free speech, not hate) ( important issue right now Mapplethorpe, Matsuda, and Mackinnon Is Mapplethorpes work hate speech (portraits of black subjects by a white man)? Is it pornography (showing subordination of men (representing the female?))? Raises problems of distinguishing hate speech from activism ( one response is to rely on the marketplace of ideas: put it all out there and people will respond Glenn Ligon, Notes on the Margins of the Black Book ( is this hate speech (or not, because Ligon is black?)? ( exploring ambiguities of meaning and appropriating language of hate speech in art WHAT IS ART AND (WHY) IS ART PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT? Background ( this question is important across the board: art gets 1st Am. protection in obscenity law (the value exception), in hate speech, in pornography, but not in child pornography (because the horrible harm is dispositive, overwhelms any value) General definitions: Everything which we distinguish from nature ( from Encyclopedia Britannica A process ( the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others ( Sweet Briar College Art and customs ( the definition first came up in the customs context ( we wanted to exempt art from heavy customs so we could bring it here from Europe to expose us to greatness and educate/edify ourselves United States v. Perry (SCOTUS 1892): whether stained glass is art ( court sets up four categories of art: (1) fine arts ( intended for ornamental purposes only (paintings, original sculpture, etc.); (2) minor objects of art ( ornamental but susceptible of an indefinite reproduction; (3) objects of art ( primarily ornamental and incidentally useful (stained glass, tapestries, etc.); and (4) useful objects ( even if they have an ornamental/pleasing appearance ( only the first category gets in free, so the stained glass is not art Concerned about distinction between high v. low, originality v. reproduction ( fine art must be beautiful and ornamental United States v. Olivotti (Customs 1916): whether marble seats and fonts are art ( art must imitate nature, chiefly the human form ( the seats/fonts are not art even though beautiful Brancusi v. United States (Customs 1928): re: Brancusis Bird in Flight ( court acknowledges changing notion of art (to portray abstract ideas rather than to imitate natural objects) ( says the sculpture is art even though its abstract, because its still beautiful (pleasing to look at and highly ornamental) U.S. Copyright Law, 17 USC 101 ( painting, drawing, print or sculpturein a single copy[or] a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author and a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes onlyin a single copyor in a limited edition of 200 copies Bery v. City of New York (I) (SDNY 1995): Cedarbaum denies artists right to sell work on NYC sidewalks ( viewed as a narrow reading of art: says words are at the core of 1st Am., but art is at the fringes because (i) it isnt verbal (if it doesnt have verbal elements), (ii) it doesnt convey a particularized message, and (iii) it isnt political/social (this raises intent/effect questions) Bery v. City of New York (II) (2d Cir. 1996): trial decision reversed on appeal, artists have 1st Am. protection ( rejects Cedarbaums approach ( says art merits strong 1st Am. protection because it informs who we are and always involves expression aboutart; art has a power to transcend language and communicate ideas even to the illiterate, across cultures (implies sanctity/necessity of protecting art) AA: maybe this glosses the problem a bit ( intent/meaning/context problems involved in finding the political in all art Mastrovincenzo v. City of New York (SDNY 2004): graffiti artists making hats/shirts ( Marrero finds that their hats are art ( seems to focus on the idea that they are unique rather than mass produced ( focused on originality; idea that uniqueness is a proxy for the presence of personhood/expression/communication; Artis intentionally produced by the artist to communicate some idea or message Lays out the following factors for determining if something is art: The individualized creation of the item by the particular artist (original/unique) The artists primary motivation for producing and selling the item (intent) The vendors bona fides as an artist (reputation) Whether the vendor is attempting to convey his/her own message (expression/intent) Whether the item appears to contain any elements of expression or communication that objectively could be understood (effect) Concerned about calling everything art ( would subject all legislation to 1st Am. challenge Emphasis on uniqueness summons romantic notion of tortured artist ( see Hurley v. Irish-American Parade (the 1st Am. unquestionably shields Jackson Pollock) ( Pollock is the paradigmatic tortured artist expressing through his paintings But what about people like Warhol (factory) and Duchamp (ready-mades) Dichotomies in Mastrovincenzo: Image v. text ( text definitely protected, images sometimes (if art/expressive) Art v. craft ( implies that craft is not protected (is commercial) ( has class (poor = craft) and gender (women = craft) overtones Art v. fashion Art v. commerce ( what about art as pure investment (Andre Levels investment fund) Your own speech v. someone elses speech ( is the vendor selling his own work? Particularized v. general message Possible list of factors in determining if something is art: sale, uniqueness, aesthetic, technique, creativity, choices, communication Arthur Danto: Warhol/pop art (and PoMo) make drawing the distinction of high v. low or unique v. mass-produced even more difficult BUT, Warhol and others have made art more conceptual ( by proving that no visual criterion could serve the purposes of defining art) ( moved it closer to the realm of ideas ( looks a lot more like philosophy ( raises problems in copyright context On high v. low ( think of Damien Hirst, Last Nights Party TEXT V. IMAGE Background: this distinction appears in Bery I and Mastrovincenzo; also child pornography doesnt include text (only images) and Mackinnon doesnt care about text as much as images Kaplan v. California (SCOTUS 1973): book with no pictures, SUITE 69, is deemed obscene ( court says text can be obscene and thus not protected under the 1st Am., even without pictorial content Court emphasized the books ability to encourage antisocial behavior, especially among youth But, Burger notes preference for text over image ( A book seems to have a different and preferred place in our hierarchy of values, and so it should be (without explanation) Texas v. Johnson (SCOTUS 1989): Texas anti-flag-burning statute ( Court (Brennan) holds the statute as applied to expressive flag burning violates 1st Am.; it all depends whether the conduct is expressive; Brennan rejects the government interests (threats of breaches of peace from sight of burning ( not implicated here; preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity ( amounts to viewpoint discrimination) ( wants to preserve the open meaning of the flag (of images) Two steps in expressive conduct case: Is it expressive? ( the Spence test: (i) whether an intent to convey a particularized message was present; (ii) whether the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it (effect); and (iii) the context of the conduct Particularized need not be a narrow, succinctly articulable message (Hurley) NOTE: the Spence test is rarely invoked If it is expressive, can it still be prohibited? ( the OBrien test (intermediate scrutiny): Is regulation within the governments Constitutional power? Does it further an important/substantial government interest? Is the government interest unrelated to suppression of free expression? Most OBrien cases turn on this prong Is the incidental restriction on speech no greater than essential for furtherance of interest? ( narrow tailoring Rehnquist (dissent): seems to merge the flag with the idea(s) it represents, like Mackinnon and Matsuda (eliminating the action/speech distinction) ( speaks of mystical reverence Think of Freedberg on iconoclasm ( historical idea of god actually being in the image (and that images could become idols, usurping gods power) Matsuda at least offers the possibility of interpretation (without acknowledging the intent/effect problem), as opposed to the absolutism of Rehnquist (and Mackinnon) NOTE: the Courts emphasis on the flags importance and the significance of burning it as expressive conduct suggests that images can have as much/more power as/than text The flag has a multiplicity of meanings that cant be circumscribed by the government Amy Adler, The Art of Censorship ( use the Courts thinking about (the importance of) flags as a way of breaking down the text/image divide ( could use the Courts attitude about flags to mount a vigorous defense of arts protected status Wall text ( Adam Gopniks study (50 seconds per text, 0-8 seconds per image in museums) Wall text can (does) change the meaning of art; change the effect ( is wall text a form of censorship? Are all curatorial decisions a form of censorship? People feel an obligation to look at (and understand) art, but many dont actually like it Think about artists who use text in their work: Barbara Kruger Glenn Ligon ( the word Dead in white in the center of a black field; I Feel Most Colored When Thrown Against A White Background on a canvas; texts quoting fallacious descriptions of Mapplethorpes work Richard Freedberg, Idolatry and Iconoclasm ( iconoclasm is a big part of our understanding of images: Serranos Piss Christ, diCorcias photos of orthodox Jewish man, images in war of toppled statues Gender ( we fear the sensuality of images (fused with anxieties about female sexuality) Class ( it used to be that images made ideas accessible to the illiterate (dangerous), now its the opposite (art is only accessible to the elite) ( wall text makes images accessible Fusion of image/prototype ( religious character of images ( idolatry; Benjamin/Marxs aura ( images are alive/mystical/talismanic Prejudices about images (less protected than text) in 1st Am. law might stem from these longstanding traditions of idolatry and iconoclasm DANCE Miller v. South Bend (7th Cir. 1990): whether nude dancing is protected speech ( court says non-obscene nude dancing performed as entertainment is expression and as such is entitled to limited protection under First Amendment; regardless of what our tastes may be Notable debate between Posner (concur) and Easterbrook (dissent): Art v. entertainment High v. low ( Posner says 1st Am. doesnt allow us to make this distinction Ballet v. stripping ( Posner: if we get rid of stripping, we lose protection for ballet Good v. bad (quality) ( think of seriousvalue prong of the Miller test Rational v. irrational Ideas v. emotions ( Posner says emotions get protection too; Easterbrook: no Verbal v. non-verbal Choreographed v. non-choreographed Speech v. conduct Painting/film v. live performance ( Easterbrook makes this distinction (we protect recordings/porn, but not live performance), but Posner says its all in or all out Barnes v. Glen Theater (SCOTUS 1991): same case on appeal ( Rehnquist (plurality) says nude dancing is only marginally expressive, so its on the outer perimeters of 1st Am.; says regulation requiring G-strings passes OBrien: about societal order and morality (not suppression under the third prong) and it is only an incidental restriction of speech (fourth prong) Souter (concur): says its about secondary effects, not moral interest ( NOTE: he changes his position later in Ashcroft (secondary effectsseductionis not enough) Scalia (concur): dancing is not expressive at all (same as Easterbrook in Miller) ( concerned about opening the floodgates and subjecting everything to 1st Am. protection White+3 (dissent): the G-strings are more than incidental ( targets communicative aspect of dance, violates 1st Am. Carolee Schneemann, More than Meat Joy and Interior Scroll ( nude female body not just as the object, but as the subject/source of speech Adler, Girls! Girls! Girls!: The Supreme Court Confronts the G-String These cases are built on a foundation of sexual panic, driven by dread of the female body Courts analysis unwittingly replicates a deeper cultural trope ( the nude female body is dangerous, dirty, criminal, violent, diseased, threatening to heterosexuality, and even deadly G-string requirement was not an insignificant burden on the meaning of the speech (agrees with dissent in Barnes) Idaho example: giving patrons pencils/sketch pads while women do nude dances ( doesnt work PHOTOGRAPHY Background: a lot of law (obscenity implicitly), child pornography, Mackinnon, etc. ( focused on images, especially photography Photography is more vulnerable to censorship than other art: No clear speaker ( lack of authorship/voice Ideas about the mechanical nature of photography; just click a button and a picture is made; anybody can do it; parasitic relation to the world/truth ( Sontag: photographs are more like found objects We assume a relation between photography and truth ( think of photojournalism Relates to ideas in child pornography about the underlying act This is challenged in the age of digital manipulation Confusion of the photograph and the subject of the photograph ( think of iconoclasm; photo becomes the thing itself, not just a representation NOTE: the capacity of photos to lie is particularly dangerous because of the assumption that they tell the truth ( think of Robert Capa or Sally Mann Openness to multiple meanings ( photographs are open to multiple interpretations, like the world Question of complicity ( the photographer doesnt stop/help the event in the real world, and maybe encourages it Think of photographs of RFK assassination Think also of Janet Malcolm/Sontag ( photographer doing violence to/betraying the subject Sontag: when choosing between a life and a photo, choose the photo Photographs are pretty shallow, so we dont lose much by regulating them ( Sontag Also, because the meaning of a photo is so context-dependent, theres less harm in censoring Easy to dismiss as not art ( the mechanical nature of photography, the lack of authorship, the parasitic relation to truth Photos appeal to our passions/emotions ( not about the rational realm of ideas Photos of war, torture, 9/11 Debate about whether news organizations should self-censor: Why they should: Might inflame passions that dont belong in the marketplace of ideas Can distort truths Sontag: exposure to horrific photographs can deaden us to what they depict (pictures of the holocaust, etc.) Why they shouldnt: Maybe passion is good for the marketplace of ideas Can communicate things that words cant communicate ( think of Abu Ghraib photos or Rodney King video Images make these issues explosive BUT, maybe people are more acclimated to torture since the Abu Ghraib photos Some photographs seem beyond the pale ( charred Americans hanging in Fallujah, people jumping from the WTC; Bush asking people not to photograph coffins Theres a taboo against photos of the dead/fascination with the same Think of W.J.T. Mitchell ( magical quality of photographs ( students cant cut eyes from pictures of their mothers Two central contradictions: Truth v. deception ( We are increasingly suspicious of the ability to manipulate context and content of photographs (they can lie), but we believe in their truth and ability to reflect the world (we live in a surveillance society) Ideas v. action/emotion ( photographs are dangerous and incendiary and might distort the marketplace of ideas Museums, Galleries, and the Public: The Politics of Art ( this is about the culture wars and forms of attenuated censorship: government funding (at what point does denial of funding = censorship?); curatorial decisions (problems of self-censorship, chilling, etc.); public art (how does public display change the 1st Am. discussion?) GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF THE ARTS Background: culture wars raged in late 80s and early 90s, focused on issues about race and sexual identity, AIDS, etc. ( artists were targeted in Congress as mocking America at the taxpayers expense ( claims about art as elitist Not traditional censorship (where government criminalizes speech), but rather about when limits on funding amount to suppression of speech ( Scalia says never Targeted artists: Robert Mapplethorpe ( denounced in DC, Corcoran closed show Andres Serrano, Piss Christ ( Helms called him a jerk ( targeted by Donald Wildmon and American Family Association (AFA) David Wojnarovicz ( NEA chair tried to remove funding for show/catalogue that included Postcards from America: X-Rays from Hell ( big AIDS activist ( also targeted by AFA/Wildmon Marlon Riggs ( PBS documentary about gay black men was featured in Pat Buchanan ads saying look what the NEA has funded ( Riggs died of AIDS Mary Alpren ( telephoto shots of downtown NYC brothel; mentioned on Senate floor Renee Cox, Yo Mamas Last Supper ( she appeared nude as Jesus Karen Finley Holly Hughes John Fleck NOTE: no targeted artists were straight white males ( these were outsiders (not really the cultural elite) National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley (SCOTUS 1998): NEA Four who were defunded, challenge amendment to NEA/NEH legislation ( challenging artistic excellence and artistic merit are the criteria by which [grant] applications are judged, taking into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American people ( Court (OConnor) rejects their claim; reads this amendment as hortatory to avoid a 1st Am. conflict ( says the 1st Am. has limited application in the subsidy context (government can use criteria that would be impermissible in direct regulation), but even in the provision of subsidies the Government may not aim at the suppression of dangerous ideas Two reasons for this strange statutory interpretation: The existence of the NEA was at stake ( if its a 1st Am. violation, the ability to discriminate has to go ( the NEA will likely lose its funding/be eliminated Avoids deciding whether in providing funding the government acts as a speaker (Rust ( it can choose its speech) or a patron (Rosenberger ( cant discriminate ( but it already does this because it requires consideration of excellence and merit) Scalia (concur): funding has no 1st Am. implications; Congress can do what it wants; the majoritys reading of this amendment as hortatory is ridiculous ( its a clear response to Mapplethorpe and Serrano ( describes the artists performances literally, defusing/disarming them and making them appear ridiculous Souter (dissent): agrees with Scalia that this language has meaning ( but comes to opposite conclusion ( it is a 1st Am. violation because it suppresses speech and must be struck down AA: this is unhelpful precedent The Brooklyn Institute of Arts & Sciences v. City of New York (EDNY 1999): Giuliani threatens museum because of Chris Ofilis The Holy Virgin Mary with elephant dung ( court grants museum injunction because it is a retaliatory penalty aimed at the suppression of a dangerous idea Quotes Texas v. Johnson: If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable Court cites Bery II ( we protect art because of its communicative power Differs from Finley, which was prospective policy (not a retrospective/retaliatory penalty) NOTE: after all of this activity (the culture wars, etc.), the NEA is much smaller, eliminated funds to individual artists, and (anecdotally) only funds very safe institutions Government funding ( should the government fund art? Maybe art that lacks money has been rejected in the marketplace Is there a market failure that requires government intervention? Should the government insulate artists from external pressures (to create marketable art)? Maybe government funding requires conformity ( another kind of self-censorship NEA grant is a stamp of approval ( it helps artists get other funding, get shows, etc. What is the purpose of government funding? ( instrumental (helps the economy, tourism, encourages diversity) or intrinsic value (we want good art) Komar & Melamid: if art were left to the marketplace, it would produce trash ( Americans like crappy paintings (like Thomas Kinkade) But maybe this problem is not corrected by letting the government decide whom it funds MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES: SELF-CENSORSHIP Robert Hughes: the inquiry doesnt end with the 1st Am. ( private actors self-censor in response to the cultural pressures/anxieties (and pressures from their sources of funding) ( museums/galleries change and remove shows, control the marketplace NOTE: censorship has the effect of making work incredibly valuable (Mapplethorpe, Serrano) Five themes: What is censorship? ( Moving a piece? Wall text? Curation? Selection of work for exhibitions or collections? What policies should govern museum/gallery display? ( Who are the shows for? Are they for education, veneration, celebration, criticism, commentary? What do these incidents tell us about interpretation, meaning, and authorship? ( Is it possible to have a neutral show? Can you get at a works true meaning? Should different policies apply to art v. history? Chilling effects made visible ( its sometimes hard to see the things that museums/galleries would have done if they werent afraid ( Mackinnon: silence is not eloquent A few examples of altered/removed exhibitions: Enola Gay ( tension between celebratory and critical approaches ( it becomes impossible to have a neutral show, because even having the show makes a comment For some, the admission of multiple viewpoints is unacceptable/offensive Back of the Big House ( show about culture during slavery installed and removed from Library of Congress before it was displayed ( objections by African-American staff The West as America ( took classic paintings of the west and added heavy wall text to reveal violent, racist, even genocidal underpinnings of Manifest Destiny Seasons of Life and Land ( photos of Arctic wildlife that Ted Stevens had moved into the basement because he thought they were propaganda against the Alaskan oil pipeline Sol Lewitt ( Muybridge piece ( Broun wanted to move it, the curators insisted the show be cancelled Brouns acts were censorship of the original curators, but isnt all curation a form of censorship ( the meaning of the Lewitt piece is altered by its context (in the Muybridge show or in another room with text about its peephole and focus on the pubic area) David Leventhal ( photos of racist objects cancelled because it was not transformative enough ( he said it was because he was white Fred Wilson, similar work (but he alters the objects or adds text) ( gets shown ( he is black ( his work is about institutional critique (think of Museum Guards) NOTE: if Leventhals show is cancelled because of his identity, that is consistent with Matsudas approach ( shows that her approach has been adopted in terms of self-censorship, even if not in the 1st Am. law ( Leventhal is not the victim; Wilson is Nelson v. Streeter (7th Cir. 1994): student painting in Art Institute of Chicago museum of mayor Washington in lingerie covered and removed by alderman; artist sues under 1983 ( Posner says this is a simple case; it is a clear 1st Am. violation ( the government has no right to censor a private show; analogizes it to going into someones home and burning books Says it might be more difficult if the city owned the museum (citing Piarowski) NOTE: a year later, Dread Scott showed a piece that required people to walk on the American flag to write in a book ( huge protests, etc. ( the piece was displayed, but people werent allowed to walk on it, Scott couldnt use it for his thesis, and government cut funding to $1 Piarowski v. Prairie State College (7th Cir. 1985): teacher at community college makes sexually-explicit stained glass; school wants to move them ( Posner rejects the 1983 claim, saying that (i) there was no political message (any reference to Aubrey Beardsley was too obscure); (ii) relocation is an act or regulation rather than suppression; and (iii) plaintiff was an administrator (his work reflects on the school) NOTE: its a fact-intensive opinion, probably to avoid interfering with curatorial judgments (avoid large interpretive issues) ( reserves the possibility that the 1st Am. might apply to cases like this Posner considers the audience response (effect) rather than the artists intent ( decides the people wouldnt know Aubrey Beardsley (thus making it not political, but art for arts sake) Close v. Lederle (1st Cir. 1970): university removed sexually explicit Chuck Close paintings ( the court rejects Closes 1st Am. claim, relying on arts minimal value as speech ( says theres no evidence the art was intending to express political or social thought Paintings were displayed in corridors (to which children had access) and were nudes displaying genitalia in clinical detail NOTE: court said university could protect the privacy of a captive audience, even if there was no legal obscenity This wouldnt fly in the 2d Circuit after Bery II CONTROVERSIAL PUBLIC ART: GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONS AND MONUMENTS Serra v. U.S. General Services Administration (2d Cir. 1988): affirming summary judgment against Serra re: removal of Tilted Arc ( court rejects Serras 1st Am. claim; says [a]rtwork may under some circumstances constitute speech for first amendment purposes (pre-Bery); government has legitimate non-content-based interestobstruction, security, captive audiencefor removal (akin to third prong under OBrien) Court says removal is different from destruction ( Serra objects to that because the piece is site-specific (so it is destroyed, it is now scrap metal) The idea that removal was not content-based poses problems when you recognize the multiplicity of meanings of artwork (especially site-specific work) Serras work is sublime and dangerous/threatening Expert testimony/affidavits: said the public didnt understand the work, said it should be given more time (like the Eiffel Tower) ( BUT, reinforced notions of condescension and elitism (culture wars) The government owned the work, which might have made its case easier Serra was really making a moral rights claim about the right of integrity, but clothing it in the 1st Am. Should there be different standards for determining the protection of public art? What if the public doesnt want it? PUBLIC MONUMENTS & MEMORIALS Sanford Levinson, Silencing the Past: Public Monuments and the Tutelary State State can censor in the form of drowning out private speakers with its superior resources ( can act as tutor of its citizens in the form of public monuments/use of sacred spaces ( people tend to listen more when the state says something than when a private actor does (maybe?) Talks about the Liberty Monument in New Orleans ( changing meanings, changing texts, etc. Tension between keeping the monument to expose the foundations of the culture/to never forget v. purging/altering the records of the past (moving or destroying the monument) ( there is a concern that keeping the monument creates the impression of government-sanctioned racism Maya Lin, Vietnam Memorial ( people reacted negatively initially (think of Tilted Arc) but its now the most popular memorial ( brings people close to the names of the dead 9/11 Memorial ( bitter struggle about how to create the memorial Tension about the governments role/statement What kind of architecture? What kind of museum? What kind of memorial? Should it be commemorative or critical or educational? Who is the audience? Is the monument for the families, or NY, or America, the world, the present, the future? There is an ongoing/evolving struggle over the meaning of 9/11 Also, how to use the space ( its tremendously valuable property NOTE: the towers of light were a beautiful memorial ( made the towers absence present NOTE: controversy over texts in Arizona 9/11 memorial, some of which are commemorative and others more critical ( same problems as in Enola Gay Intellectual Property in Art Moral Rights of Artists ( idea that art is different from other property and artist has a continuing interest in her work even after its been sold or transferred (art is like a child) ( contrasts with freedom of contract and strong private property rights in U.S. Four kinds of moral rights (only integrity and attribution matter in the U.S.): Integrity ( artist can prevent alteration of his work (may not include destruction) Think of Buffets refrigerator in the Merryman article Attribution/paternity ( in both an affirmative and negative form Affirmative ( artist can insist that his work be distributed/displayed only if his name is connected with it Negative ( Artist can insist his name not be associated with works that he did not do Disclosure/divulgation ( artist can refuse to make work public if incomplete/unsatisfactory and retains right to decide when work is complete Think of the Whistler/Lord Eden case Retraction/withdrawal ( artist can withdraw/retract his work even after it has left his hands United States pre-moral rights regime National Historic Shrines Found., Inc. v. Dali (NY Sup. 1967): Dali contracts to make a painting for a charity, then tries to pull out ( court rejects Dalis divulgation claim; treats dispute as a simple contract law case Vargas v. Esquire, Inc. (7th Cir. 1947): Varga had contracted to make drawings for Esquire, they used them without attribution after dispute; Varga makes attribution claim ( court approaches it as a contracts case, says Varga waived his attribution right; court dismisses so-called moral rights claim as the civil law of certain foreign countries (xenophobic) Freedom of contract and property rights are fundamentally American ( we want to encourage incentives to buy, increase alienability, decrease transaction costs (moral rights does the opposite) You cant waive the right of attribution in most moral rights regimes Robert Hughes: America has a sense of its cultural impoverishment ( we import art from the old world Gilliam v. ABC (2d Cir. 1976): ABC alters Monty Python show ( court enforces Gilliams right of integrity and attribution through unfair competition and copyright law; says the cuts constituted an actionable mutilation the edited version broadcast by ABC impaired the integrity of appellants work and represented to the public as the product of appellants what was actually a mere caricature of their talents NOTE: this case is hailed by moral rights advocates ( could be seen to show that VARA doesnt exhaust the inquiry NOTE: AA ( the validity of this case is dubious; SCOTUS precedent seems to undermine some of the courts moves State and Federal Moral Rights Statutes CALIFORNIANEW YORKIntegrityAttributionPublic interest ( public has standing to preserve art that merits substantial public interestArtists interestFine art of recognized qualityFine art and reproductions ( damage to reproductions damages reputation tooPrivate and public work both protectedApplies to public display only ( consistent with reputational concernDestruction forbidden (except by artist)Destruction permissible ( doesnt damage reputationRight survives artist (life + 50 years)Limited to artists lifeNOTES: - drafted by Merryman - Botello v. Shell Oil (1991): mural is a painting - Massachusetts same as CA, but with broader coverage, including craft, film, video, etc. ( Moakley v. Eastwick (MA 1996): act doesnt apply retrospectively to work created and transferred before enactment - problem with allowing artist to destroy own work: artist doesnt always know whats best for public ( think of Chaim Soutine or Franz Kafka/Max BrodNOTES: - NY is center of art market, with lots of private collectors, so it didnt want to invade their private activities - Re: destruction ( what obligation does the owner have to maintain work that is falling apart? ( think of Eva Hesse ( VARA has a gross negligence standard ( what if the work is supposed to fall apart?Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq. (copyright laws) ( protects integrity and attribution Protects visual art ( painting, drawing, print, or sculpture; photography for exhibition purposes only (anxiety about when a photo becomes art) Doesnt include posters, etc., merchandising/ad material, portions of the above, work made for hire, and anything not subject to copyright protection Can be waived, but not transferred Any modification which is the result ofthe public presentation, including lighting and placement of the work is not a destruction, distortion or other modification unless caused by gross negligence. 17 U.S.C. 106A(c)(1), (2) ( curatorial decisions arent actionable Preemption ( this is up for grabs ( VARA preempts state statutes that provide equivalent rights, but might not preempt causes of action under statutes that provide more extensive rights ( such as MAs broader scope, CAs public standing, NYs right of integrity for reproductions, and rights that extend beyond the life of the artist Carter v. Helmsley-Spear (2d Cir. 1995): new building owner wants to remove crappy installation sculpture ( court finds that the art is one piece (contrast to Mapplethorpe); it was made for hire (court applies the Reid test), so excepted from VARA protection NOTE: its not clearly work for hire, but the court didnt want the building to be saddled with the work forever (crappy art, reduced alienability, lack of private property control) Reid factors: hiring partys right to control manner and means; skill required; source of tools/instrumentalities; location of the work; duration of relationship between parties; whether hiring party can assign artist more work; extent of hired partys discretion over work; method of payment (salary); hired partys role in hiring/paying assistants; part of regular business of hiring party; whether hiring party is in business; provision of employee benefits; tax treatment of hired party Flack v. Friends of Queen Catherine Inc. (SDNY 2001): Audrey Flack starts but doesnt finish big sculpture model, then her assistant is hired to fix/finish it ( court holds that clay model is a work of visual art under VARA (using legislative history and common sense); VARA doesnt prevent modification based on passage of time (leaving the sculpture outside) or allow the artist to compel completion; but it does prevent grossly negligent conservation (hiring the unqualified assistant) Wojnarowicz v. American Family Association (SDNY 1990): Wildmon mails brochure with 14 excerpts of Wojnarovicz work (photos taken by Wildmon from catalogue) ( under NY AARA (which applies to reproductions), court says Wojnarovicz wins ( expert testifies that it stigmatized the artist, might have prevented his getting other shows/representation Court awarded $1 and an apology from Wildmon, because Wojnarovicz couldnt prove damages NOTE: AA ( this is a bad decision ( undervalues Wildmons 1st Am. rights He had a political message This is a pretty good claim of fair use Might not even be a misrepresentation of Wojnarovicz work ( plus, attribution might alter the effect on the viewer The value of destruction ( often it is a part of the creative process Think of the man who hammered at the urinal by Duchamp Jake & Dinos Chapman ( drawing clown faces on prints of Goyas Desastres Rauschenberg, Erased De Kooning Drawing (1953) Sanford Levinson ( sometimes theres value in erasing/forgetting ( destroying the liberty monument in New Orleans? Sometimes theres a battle between the artists interest and public interest ( Soutine/Kafka Hansmann & Santilli, Authors and Artists Moral Rights Non-pecuniary rationales: art is expression of artists innermost being (constitutive, art as child, personal anguish, reputation) Pecuniary rationales: reputation can affect artists income (think of franchise); also collectors and museums have an interest in maintaining the artists reputation Public interest rationales: common/shared reference points; value to the public of keeping it (unaltered) But, think of clash between artists interest and public interest: Tilted Arc, Kafka, Soutine Also, think of Greenberg stripping paint off late David Smith sculptures ( making them better but against the artists interest These points challenge the romantic notion of artist as genius/creator Whats special about art? ( unique/individual work; substantial skill/effort; peculiarly strong attachment; expressive/decorative character means no need to modify to maintain function Copyright Law and the Problem of Postmodernism Introductory Copyright Issues Constitution, Art. 1, cl. 8, sec. 8: to promote science and the useful arts 17 U.S.C. ( apples to original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium 102(a) ( applies to literary, musical, and dramatic works, pantomimes/choreography, motion pictures, audio works, and pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings including architectural plans ( regardless of merit Exception for utilitarian objects 102(b) ( doesnt apply to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle or discovery Includes right to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform the work, display the work publicly, transmit sound recording digitally Duration ( very complicated, but being extended constantly (Bono Act) ( culture is getting more locked up Originality ( much lower bar for copyright than in other areas of the law (moral rights, obscenity) Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (SCOTUS 1884): photograph of Oscar Wilde ( court finds that photograph gets copyright protection because the photographer did considerable work arranging the subject and lighting Unclear what level of creativity/originality is necessary ( only need a spark of creativity/originality (Feist Publications) What about Cartier-Bresson (who walked around taking snapshots)? Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. (SCOTUS 1903): circus ads ( Court says the circus ads get copyright protection, even if they have little merit and are designed for the uneducated classes ( because ads are original, but you cant copyright copies ( stands for principle that copyright is not merit-based Opinion is elitist ( court talks about people less educated than it Satava v. Lowry (9th Cir. 2003): glass jellyfish sculptures ( court says you cant copyright elements from nature (the original) because elements of that expression naturally flow from the idea ( allowing copyright would preclude others from doing realistic glass jellyfish sculptures NOTE: the work is left unprotected because of its realism A combination of unprotected elements can be copyrighted if theres enough of them in a unique combination to constitute and original work ( it must contain elements of personality/personhood NOTE: this case is about the courts vigorously policing the line between idea and expression ( you cant copyright the idea, only the expression of the idea Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. (SDNY 1987): ad for movie copies Saul Steinberg NY-centric drawing ( court says it is copyright infringement; elements of proving infringement: (1) there is a copyrighted original (not useful article or work for hire); (2) direct or circumstantial evidence of access to original (to avoid coincidence of independent creation); and (3) substantial similarity Substantial similarity ( rejects severe Learned Hand test (where the ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same) ( instead, asks whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work NOTE: only the particular expression of an idea is protectable, while the idea itself is not Useful Article (Utilitarian objects) doctrine ( only those elements that are independent of the utilitarian aspects of the article are copyrightable Esquire, Inc. v. Ringer (DC Cir. 1978): elegant outdoor lighting fixtures ( not copyrightable because the aesthetic elements (overall design) were inseparable from the utilitarian aspects Seems to punish well-designed objects Mazer v. Stein (SCOTUS 1954): beautiful lamps on statuettes ( Court holds that statuettes/lamp bases are copyrightable because separable from the lamp equipment ( about physical separability Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories By Pearl, Inc.: cheap metal copies of artistic belt buckles ( court allows protection because the design of the buckles, which are primarily ornamental (sometimes used as necklaces), is conceptually separable from their function Policy for useful article doctrine ( we dont want to lock up the development of useful objects, we want to encourage rapid development and innovation Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction ( in the age of mechanical reproduction, the idea of a works aura becomes less relevant; art no longer serves a ritual purpose, but rather a political one This has significant consequences for (romantic) notions of originality, creativity, and authorship Fair use Background: copyright enshrines a notion of the creative process (romantic, individual, creative, unique) that is inconsistent with the artistic tradition of borrowing and allusion ( fair use attempts to reconcile this and to deal with the 1st Am. implications of copyright law Examples of challenges to notion of originality (Venus/Olympia by Titian/Manet/Sally Mann or Duchamps L.H.O.O.Q.) and of individuality (Reena Spaulings or Bernadette Corp.) 17 U.S.C. 107 ( the fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright Fair use test considers four factors: The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; ( (is it transformative? A parody?) The nature of the copyrighted work; ( (is it creative?) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and ( (this doesnt mean much if theres transformative/parody) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work ( (about usurpation/market substitution, not impact of critique) Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. (SDNY 1987): fair use excerpt of above decision ( court rejects claim that the ad was a parody and subject to the fair use exception Rogers v. Koons (2d Cir. 1992): Rogers sues Koons for sculpture of couple with puppies (String of Puppies) ( court hates Koons; he loses on the first prong ( cites his bad faith (removal of copyright symbol); rejects parody claim (the work must be publicly known or acknowledged by parodist; parody must be directed at the work itself, not at society at large); also fixates on Koons profit motive; court says the fourth factor is most important ( harm to copyright owner Changing medium without transforming work is derivative, not fair use NOTE: affidavits focused on showing that the work was not even a copyright infringement (not substantially similar) ( this failed: court says it doesnt require copying every detail NOTE: the outcome of this case would probably be different after Acuff-Rose ( its pretty clearly transformative and any harm to Rogers is not from substitution, but rather from critique Policy: Koons was attacking notions of originality, participating in tradition of imitation/appropriation ( do we want to discourage that? Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (SCOTUS 1994): 2 Live Crew redoes Pretty Woman ( court upholds fair use claim because work is a parody (it is transformative); finds that the harm of the fourth prong must be one of market substitution, not critique First prong ( all about transformative ( almost exclusively has to be parody (critical) rather than celebratory ( it doesnt matter if its for profit/nonprofit Problem: defining transformative is very subjective ( M. Heims: theres no predicting the outcome of fair use cases NOTE: courts seem to care a lot about bad faith Fourth prong ( only concerned about market substitution ( you cant be compensated for the market decline of your product if that decline results from critique, only if it results from substitution (usurpation) Appropriation art ( all about conceptual transformation, that copyright law is ill-equipped to handle Richard Prince, Spiritual America ( rephotographs ( PoMo critique of originality, etc. ( the transformation is a conceptual, rather than physical transformation Sherrie Levine, After Walker Evans ( rephotographs of famous work (but not copyrighted, because too old) ( physically, its straight rip off ( AA: she would absolutely lose on a fair use defense if the works were copyrighted NOTE: Koons claims Levine ripped off this idea from him! Policy: saying that this work is transformative would protect any kind of copy ( would make fair use so large it would eviscerate copyright protection Also, maybe the fact that this work is unprotected/illegal makes it more interesting; and the price of doing this work is you get no protection ( think of Michael Mandiberg, After Sherrie Levine Liebovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. (2d Cir. 1998): ad for Naked Gun 33 1/3 copies Annie L. photograph of Demi Moore pregnant/naked ( court applies Acuff-Rose and rejects Liebovitz claim; says the ads are parody (of the originals pretentiousness); even though they are designed for-profit, they are also related to the content of the movie (which involves pregnancy) ( so they still get some indulgence as parody Fourth factor: ads did not interfere with any potential market for Annie L.s photographs Court notes that the second factor would favor AL (her work was creative), but isnt important, and the third factor has no weight if the first and fourth factors are satisfied Policy: we only care about profit when it arises from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions (9th Cir. 2003): Tom Forsyth uses barbies in parodic photos ( court rejects Mattels claims; upholds Forsyths fair use claim ( work is transformative and parodic ( pretty clearly doesnt usurp the market for Barbie NOTE: Mattel is very aggressive; Forsyth would have folded without aggressive pro bono representation ( this is how a lot of IP disputes get resolved (intimidation, cost of litigation, settlement) Cowan, Liebowitz cease and desist letters to Edwin Vera & Jonathan Adler ( Vera did what they told him to do, even though he had a strong fair use claim against CK/Meisel NOTE: recent victory for Koons (Blanch v. Koons) ( 2d Cir. found his use transformative (even though not a parody) and no harm to copyright owners market we still primarily only protect parody (it is the paradigmatic transformation) but not homage Joy Garnett ( we protect work thats transformative, but the more transformative, the more the copyright owner gets upset Examples: Damien Loeb/Tina Barney ( use of image in painting of girl giving blowjob ( no lawsuit, but gallery removed painting for fear of being sued ( wealthy family (subjects) complained Bound by Law comic book ( how documentary film makers cant get permission to use clips, etc. ( about the increasing culture of control (Heins) Simon Doonan/Jack Pierson ( policing the line between art and commerce Pierson and Cheim made huge PR campaign defaming Doonan for copying Piersons ransom-note found letter words in his Barneys displays ( called Doonan a dirty, disgusting window-dresser ( Doonan could have sued for defamation But, this is common reference (ransom notes) Seemed to be really about the line between art (special) and commerce (not special) ( which is an illusion (think of Warhol) Illegalart.org ( copyright law has produced a whole body of art commenting on it Joy Garnett/Susan Meiselas ( Garnetts painting was probably transformative; Meiselas was really making a moral rights claim (integrity) Policy problems: The Internet is changing everything for IP/copyright ( everything is reproduced/reproducible (think of Joywar); change WBs mechanical reproduction into digital reproduction A lot of this stuff happens not in court, but in cease-and-desist letters and 512 letters (to ISPs) ( theres a lack of information and a lot of intimidation; people dont even know that they might have fair use defenses, and even when they do, the costs of fighting can be enormous Think of the Grey Album by DangerMouse (EMI/Capitol intimidated it away) Tremendous chilling effects There is a general presumption of copyright control, probably all the more voluble because of the threat of infinite reproduction posed by the Internet The Right of Publicity Background: State-created law of recent origin ( rooted in the right to privacy/right to control commercial use of your identity Gives rise to cause of action in tort Pits 1st Am. (free speech) against right of privacy Status of art as speech is recurring inquiry Policy questions: Is it important or necessary as a matter of policy (as incentives to celebrities)? Is it good policy in terms of rich free speech? How do various tests resolve these questions? Simeonov v. Tiegs (NY Civ. 1993): artist sells busts made from cast of Cheryl Tiegs ( court rules in favor of the artist, whose 1st Am. rights trump the statutory right of privacy ( [a]n artist may make a work of art that includes a recognizable likeness of a person without her or his written consent and sell at least a limited number of copies thereof ( the fact that they were sold was incidental to the expression Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc. (Cal. 2001): t-shirts with drawing of the Three Stooges ( court adopts transformative (first prong of fair use) as the measure for balancing right of publicity against 1st Am. defense; rejects Saderups 1st Am. claim (he loses); asks if the work is primarily the artists expression (where likeness is one of the raw materials) or is the depiction the sum and substance of the work This work was realistic; the marketability and economic value of Saderups work derives primarily from the fame of the celebrities depicted Policy: if it protected Saderups derivative/realistic drawing, it would eviscerate right of publicity NOTE: seems to punish skill/realism NOTE: also, Saderup isnt famous (thus, court thinks hes more dependant on the fame of the celebrities depicted) ( Warhol depended on the celebrities fame too (Patty Hearst, Jackie O), but he was famous in his own right NOTE: this is about protecting famous people/people who make money from their image (maybe celebrity has worked hard to make their image valuable) The subject of the di Corcia photograph had no right of publicity claim Concern about false endorsement ( making it look like a celebrity has endorsed a product Hoepker v. Kruger (SDNY 2002): MoMA hangs up billboard ad/makes gift shop items of Kruger works that uses a photograph by Hoepker (of plaintiff Dabney) ( NY statute prohibits use of someones image without consent for advertising purposes or purposes of trade; this case falls under the ancillary use exception ( it is an ad, but in conjunction with an art exhibition (a use protected by 1st Am.); Kruger (and MoMA) wins Question is whether ad is art or commerce ( see Doonan/Pierson dispute This art/commerce problem is important ( many artists moved away from tortured vision (Pollock) and embraced commercial opportunities/forms ( Warhol, Holzer, etc. NY has robust tradition recognizing 1st Am. protection for art (Bery II) ( where 1st Am. is seriously implicated, it triumphs over right of privacy/publicity NOTE: this is questionable (the use is clearly in advertising) ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publg, Inc. (6th Cir. 2003): Tiger Woods sues artist who uses his image in sports montages ( court rejects Woods claim because the images are transformative and unlikely to interfere with Woods economic interests ( right of publicity must yield to the First Amendment The Art Market Authenticity Background: we are obsessed with authenticity (not just fakes, but works by imitators/disciples, etc.) Seems to come from romantic idea of aura or something magical (Merryman) in the artwork ( creative genius/persona/sense of history This is challenged by artists like Warhol, a lot of PoMo work and, as Walter Benjamin points out, the photograph (arguably there is no aura in the photograph) ( maybe Warhol explored the way that photography undermines the whole notion of originality/authorship/aura Think of Warhol: ask my assistanthe made a lot of my paintings or on the back of a painting, I did not make this. Andy Warhol. Also Rembrandt (and Warhol and others) had schools/factories/assistants, and let the assistants help or even touched up and signed paintings by them ( this complicates the ideal Ideas about aura or magic of image come up in Mackinnon, Matsuda, SCOTUS discussion of flag in Texas v. Johnson (maybe) Lescaux caves ( government copied the original meticulously to preserve them (copy feels not the same); but seeing the Mona Lisa in person, its a little disappointing (AA) In the art world, authenticity is determined by: connoisseurship (this is most important/most subjective ( experts = scholars, collectors, `" dealers); provenance; and scientific evidence/testing NOTE: CAA has ethics for experts (fee can t be tied to value) Authenticity has HUGE impacts on the market, but it s a very slippery concept Authenticity is particularly difficult in photography ( think of Seydou Keita (small photos printed large & high contrast) or Walter Benjamin ( negatives are manipulable; someone makes prints (& decisions in doing so) NYTimes: authenticity is impossible in a medium like photography Balog v. Center Art Gallery-Hawaii Inc. ( victims have reputational incentives for hiding the fact that they purchased forgeries Boggs v. Rubin ( artist painting trompe loeil fake dollars, barters the drawing in exchange for goods/services, but never intended to defraud anyone ( nonetheless they were seized and not returned Greenberg Gallery, Inc. v. Bauman (DDC 1993): Calder mobile no longer hangs correctly ( court rules that even though expert said it was a fake (Perls), he wasnt very credible and there was competing expert testimony that said it was real; plaintiffs lose because they didnt meet preponderance of evidence to support claim that it was a fake Calder NOTE: the art may be worthless in the art market because Perls is a known expert, but the court doesnt use the same standard ( art world standards are vague and arbitrary NOTE: the law seems ill-equipped to deal with the irrationality of the way art is valued and authenticated ( often, authentication boards are created to avoid lawyers/court (think of Warhol board or Pollock board) Arnold Herstand v. Gertrude Stein, Inc. (NY 1995): regarding Balthus sketch that he claimed was not by him ( drawing had good provenance and certificate of authenticity from Balthus ex-wife; Balthus denied authorship in 3 affidavits ( court rejects Balthus statements as hearsay, plus notes that artist cant necessarily be trusted (doesnt get last word) and didnt repudiate work on earlier occasions (in catalogue raisonne or in Venice exhibition) In moral rights regime, it would be inauthentic because artist has last word re: attribution Reveals tension between art world and legal world approach to authenticity NOTE: its probably a Balthus, which hes repudiating as revenge on his ex-wife Warranties and Seller Liability Jendwine v. Slade (UK 1797): old English case about paintings advertised in catalogue that turned out to be copies ( said there is no implied warranty in the catalogue, its up to the buyer to exercise judgment (not a fraud) NY Arts & Cultural Affairs Law and UCC: create default rules re: express warranties in contracts for sale (such as presentation of certificate of authenticity creates express warranty, etc.) Contracts are carefully designed to protect against the possible authenticity problems ( Christies standard form contracts limit guarantees of authenticity, protect them from buyer and seller, and set up procedure for rescission in the event of problems Appraisals and Expert Liability Kirby v. Wildenstein (SDNY 1992): product disparagement claim; expert said Berrault painting was skimmed (damaged in restoration); it then didnt sell at auction; plaintiff claimed expert burned the painting ( court rejects claim because there was no proof of a whispering campaign NOTE: this kind of thing does happen To prove product disparagement in NY, plaintiff must establish (i) falsity of statement; (ii) publication to a third person; (iii) malice; and (iv) special damages Experts often contract to avoid product disparagement claims before appraising work Struna v. Wolf (NY 1985): Met curator says its a nice Elie Nadelman sculpture, plaintiff then buys it and contracts to sell it to museum donors, who then rescind contract because its not authentic ( plaintiff loses on all claims; court takes negligent appraisal claim seriously, but dismisses it because curator didnt have knowledge that his statement would be acted upon (curator thought dealer already owned it, not that he was interested in acquiring it) In NY, you have to show a special relationship between appraising expert and purchaser ( explicit employment relationship making it clear that purchaser would rely on experts advice IFAR-Authentication Service ( they will authenticate works for you based on photos or, if its a close call, based on real inspection by an expert in NY ( they are not liable Will only review work for an owner or official agent, or for a prospective buyer with the owners consent Restoration ( At what point does restoration affect the authenticity of a work of art? Think of Flack ( was the restored sculpture still an authentic Audrey Flack? ( shed say no Sistine Chapel ( James Beck argues that cleaning was too deep, that Michelangelo actually used darker paint and intentionally layered it that way ( restoration changed critical response to Michelangelo in some cases; but some argue that the restoration actually distorted the work Eva Hesse ( her work was intended to be installed randomly each time ( also, its falling apart (Was that intended? Should it be restored/maintained? Or let it fall apart?) ( as of now, they havent done much with it Do we care if its real or fake? ( especially if its just as pretty either way Mona Lisa ( at some point its so famous, we dont care about the original ( think of Walter Benjamin Japanese Temple at Ise ( two temples razed and rebuilt every 20 years since 690 AD The Getty Kouros ( concerns about its being a forgery ( ongoing dispute, even with scientific analysis Its on display with a sign saying Greek, about 530 B.C., or modern forgery (awesome!) Marion True (on trial in Italy for purchasing looted art): I always considered scientific opinions more objective than aesthetic judgments. Now I realize I was wrong. Auction houses (visit from Jo Laird of Christies) They have airtight contracts that protect them from liability, dont make warranties for authenticity of older work or for changes in scholarship People try to exploit auction houses ( get appraisals, then sell on eBay; or Eli Sakhai (who was busted for elaborate forging scheme, would buy second-rate paintings) Deal with a lot of confiscated art; do a lot of research; have sold (esp. recently) a lot of restituted art Re: restitution (see below) ( its important if it redresses harms; but its not good if its all about wealth transfers (i.e., people making opportunistic claims just to make some money) ( Michael Kimmelman wrote about this (its all about money) Art Crime Selected Federal Criminal Statutes ( did we do this? It is criminal to import stolen goods, to move them across state lines, and to commit fraud by sending fake art across borders, through the mails, etc.; it is a federal crime to steal art more than 100 years old/worth more than $5K, or any art worth more than $100K from a museum Looted Art Cultural Policy Cultural Property and Repatriation Cosmopolitanism (part of our shared history, should be in places that can take care of it, etc.) v. Nationalism (belongs in its country of origin) Think of Elgin Marbles (Merryman) and the Euphronius Krater There is a strong emotional appeal to repatriation ( art has magical significance or importance for the cultural identity of a nation Merryman: the marbles could easily be made accessible to the Greeks through reproductions as through originals. There must be some cultural magic inherent in the authentic objectthat speaks only to the Greeks or the argument fails But, theres a moral argument for keeping things well preserved, studied, accessible ( also, if we force repatriation it will devastate major collections around the world; and, a lot of work will just go underground, with fewer guarantees of protection/conservation Note the difference between legally acquired art (has a history) and looted art (the tongue has been cut out; no history) UNESCO Convention (1970) ( prohibits the import of stolen cultural property 18 U.S.C. 2315 (National Stolen Property Act) ( a NY dealer was convicted of conspiracy to acquire art in violation of Egyptian law (U.S. v. Schultz (2d Cir. 2003)) WWII Looting ( restitution of holocaust-era looted materials and artworks Raises a lot of similar issues Matthew Bogdanos ( stolen art in Iraq ( it was an inside job; part of the heritage of the country; goes hand in hand with drug trade, funding terrorism, etc. Howard Spiegler ( its taken a while for people to swallow the idea of foreigners coming and taking art away from the U.S. Cultural property law: Basic rule: nobody can obtain good title to stolen property, not even a good faith purchaser Rightful owner can reclaim property unless barred by statute of limitations or laches Different in Europe (good faith purchaser can acquire title) ( creates conflict of law complexities; U.S. might respect foreign rules, but this hasnt come up in a case yet Many countries have changed the rule for holocaust restitution Statute of limitations/laches (usually 3 years; longer for holocaust cases) ( 3 approaches: Discovery rule ( begins to run after plaintiff knows/should have known location of property ( puts burden on plaintiff to be diligent Demand-and-refusal rule (in NY) ( begins to run after demand for property and refusal by current holder ( gives claimant control, but claimant cant sit around and wait to make a demand (see DeWeerth v. Baldinger) ( subject to laches defense Actual Discovery rule (in CA) ( begins to run when the claimant finds out where the property actually is ( most favorable to plaintiff Nazi looting ( massive, programmatic (kept detailed records), exhibited then destroyed and sold degenerate art; looted/coerced sale for state museum and private collections ( 1/5 of western art objects (~$20B in work today) After the war, the Allies restituted work to rightful owners in Germany and gave it to victim governments to restitute in their countries, but countries (esp. Austria) didnt do that, kept the work for state functions, etc. ( a lot of it went underground U.S. v. Portrait of Wally (SDNY 2002): painting of Wally Neuzil by Schiele held when MoMA tried to return it to the Leopold in Austria (still in litigation) ( painting stolen by Nazis, misattributed when donated to a museum, acquired by Leopold with knowledge of proper ownership, and again misattributed (in provenance) in catalogue ( court rejects motions to dismiss (except motion to dismiss illegitimate claim by non-heir); says the government can proceed with its effort at forfeiture MoMA wants to get it back to Leopold to avoid breach of contract Leopold had scienter ( he added a faked entry in the provenance in the catalogue This case had huge reverberations for the WWII restitution cases ( led to Austrias changing its policies to allow claimants to reassert their restitution claims Republic of Austria v. Altmann (SCOTUS 2004): about the Klimt Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I; about the FSIA ( court rules that FSIA could be applied retroactively, because there was no concern about the Nazis not having notice (Breyer: that would be absurd) Restrictive view in the FSIA: when a sovereign acts like a private party (in a commercial capacity) it is subject to US jurisdiction Expropriation allowed in instances (3) in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue and that property or any property exchanged for such property is present in the US in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the US by the foreign state;or by an instrumentality of the foreign state Opened the door to retroactive claims against foreign sovereigns, but only if an agency of that government had engaged in commercial activity in the U.S. ( the bar has been pretty low NOTE: theres no predicting what position the U.S. government will take in these cases ( its highly political (that was the problem pre-FSIA; getting State Dept opinions on commercial or sovereign was subject to political pressures ( a lot of litigation turned on this distinction) Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam (DDC 2005): about Kazimir Malewicz paintings that were left for safe-keeping in Berlin; paintings were given to Stedelijk Museum, which refused claim; they were included in show that came to U.S., but U.S. museums got permission ahead of time to immunize the works from seizure ( heirs brought suit under the FSIA (different law from the one that prevents seizure); court looked to Altmann and allowed the suit to proceed (said it was a matter of statutory interpretation) [t]here is nothing sovereign about the act of lending art pieces, even though the pieces themselves might belong to a sovereign ( its a commercial activity US joined on the side of Amsterdam NOTE: similar claims brought to MoMA and Harvard were resolved privately ( MoMA gave one painting back, which was sold for $17M; Harvard returned both and the heirs donated one back Who owns art? Cosmopolitanism v. national heritage Questions of title ( comes up in holocaust restitution cases Menzel v. List (NY 1967): a Chagall painting that was stolen, then sold by Perls gallery ( court upholds verdict for plaintiff because a thief conveys no title as against the true owner; and provision re: good faith of purchaser are disregarded in the context of holocaust looting Court says Perl should have taken precaution and guaranteed that title was legitimate; because he didnt he has to compensate List, who restituted the work to Menzel The law stands as a bulwark against the handiwork of evil, to guard to rightful owners the fruits of their labors DeWeerth v. Baldinger (2d Cir. 1987): woman loses her claim on Monet ( court rejects claim as untimely; creates an exception to NYs demand-and-refusal rule by requiring the owner to exercise due diligence in locating the work This decision was modified by Guggenhiem v. Lubell (1991) ( replaced due diligence exception with a laches defense ( must show that there was a delay and that it was prejudicial to the defendant The power of art, again The Nazis obsession with art ( speaks to the power of art, the magic or aura Maybe that power is amoral (rather than inherently uplifting) ( it can be used or abused for whatever end Think of Leni Riefenstahls work (beautiful, formal aesthetic) Think of iconoclasm and obscenity issues ( the political power of art Think of Wojnarovicz ( your power to participate in the marketplace of ideas depends on your power to put your image(s) out there Think of the photographs of Abu Ghraib ( people didnt necessarily believe things were so bad until the pictures came out Think of the impulse to own art and to ensure its authenticity ( the perseverance of the aura and the power Authenticity disputes ( about the aura/icon worship ( based on magical view of art Its all about Walter Benjamin ( the tension between the aura of art in its ritual function and the political power of the image Adorno: Art revolts against its essential concepts while at the same time being inconceivable without them. Warhol: What is art? Isnt that a guys name? '()XYhijno R K L j k l b  ǽǶǯǶǯǶǯǎꇃ| jh%h% h5f5\h5fh5f5>*\ h5fh Uh jh Uh U jhf h5fh5fhfhf5\hfhfh5f6]hfhf6] jhchch5f5>*\ h$5: h5f5:/Y S L  2 fl & FgdX & FgdV) & Fgd& & FgdX & Fgd5f & FxgdV= & Fgd U & Fgd5f & FxgdV= & Fxgd$Ohh A^d /7BKiź{ůwpw jhchch h6]h&h&6] h&h&h&h&5\ h5\ h&5\ *h&h&5\ *h&h5f5\ *h&h5f5>*\ *h&|h5f5>*\ h5fhXhXh5f h5fh5f jh&h&,gh#4DTefl&.49[]aoph pS jh7Ovh7OvhXhXH* hX6]hXhX6]hXhsAhNPhsAhV)5\ hV)>* jhV)h5fhsAhV)56\]hV)hV)5\ hXhX hc>* jhchchV)0f<G~,+ s !! & Fgd5 & Fgdj & FgdU & Fgd6U & Fgd5f & Fgd & Fgd pS & FgdV) & FgdXf<d !">?@IM6ƾƷyrg *h&h6U5\ h5fh6U jhDhDh6Uhh6U6] h6Uh5fhKFhKF5\ hKF>*hKF jhh h&hc *hc5\ *h&hc5\ *h&|h5f5>*\ h5fh~ h~ h^>8hhXh pS h pS6](YZ7FGew  ./fgh.A[efghkl|~#*+,IJ᨞ᐉ}ᐂ hj>* hj6] jhjhjh6Uh6U5\hUhU5\hUh6U5\ *h&|h5f5>*\ h6U>* h6Uh6U h6U5\h5fhN jh6Uh6U h&h6U *h&h6U5\ *h6U5\1,W]*+JUWXY&1hp  U W !!!!!!!!!!˼꟦}v˼ hjh5 jh5h5hjhjH*h5fhHW hj5\ hjhjhjhj5\ hj>* jhj h&hj *hj5\ *h&hj5\ *h&|h5f5>*\ h5fhjhj jhU hU6]hU.!""W"]"k"t""""""U#[############$%$X$Y$`%%%I&J&T&&&&&˾ۆxtmtx jh^h^ h5fh^ h5fhI  hI hI  hI 5\ jhI  hI >*hI  h&hj *hj5\ *h&hj5\ *h&|h5f5>*\ h5fhU hU>*hUh5fhjhj5\ hjhj hj>* jhjhj&!"4#g##Y$a%%J&&<((3))2++>,b,,N-- & Fgd,; & FgdH & Fgdf! & Fgdf! & FgdO & Fgdi & Fgd^ & FgdI  & FgdU & Fgd5f&&&&'''' ('(;(<((())Y)Z)))))9*:*;***1+2++,,>,I,ĽĶIJīīĞ{wmwiwe^eZhI~r jhHhHh5fhI~rhf!5\hf! jh0Nrh0Nr *h0Nrh5f5\ *h0Nrh5f5>*\ *h&|h5f5>*\ jh/h< h5fhi h/5\h/ jhihi *hihi5\ *hihi *hihi5>*\ *h&|hi5>*\!I,a,b,|,},,---N-g-h-~--------{.|.////0/4/;/F/G/X/l/}/////8090I0O0k0m00000000011ϵϨϝ h5fh5 jhJohJo hJohJo he>*h5fhU h5fheh4FhN, jheh[ihe heh5fheh5f5\hH jh,;h,; h5fhI~r hI~r>*4-Y...5Y5\555ķ܉܅܅~zpllhf%hf%h 5\h5f h 5\hh7k jh h*\ *h&|h5f5>*\ h hn hn>*h h H*hnh h5fh5f5>*\ jhchch5fh5f5\'55555555555646:6N6V6q6y6~6666666666666666777'7)7/797R7^7f7v7|777&8Z8[8d8j8s8x8z88ʽh*\ *h&|h5f5>*\ h5fhf%h9 hf%hf%hn h >*h hf%>* hf%6]hf% jhf%8567[89S:::@;;:<t<<7=U>??@ABBB & Fgd & Fgd|z & Fgdp & Fgdp & Fgd*\ *h&|h5f5>*\ h5fh*hn jhn';;;<<8<:<O<r<s<t<<<<<<<<6=7=H=L=M=\=]=^======>>>T>U>s>t>>>>>>>>>>ø䔍䅁z hG;hhhG;h5f h:]5\ hp5\ jhp h5fh5fh*\ *h&|h5f5>*\ h5fhphp hphph*hp5\ h*hp.>>>?????@1@2@D@E@F@@@@@@@@@@,A-AwAAAAAAAA/Bʽ{v{qg`\h& hh5fhpJhpJ>*\ hpJ\ h5 h\ h5\ jhhpJhh*\ *h&|h5f5>*\ h5fh|z jhq)hq)hd jh|zh|zhphG; hG;hG; h>*!/B0BKBLBMBBBBBBBBBCCLCMCZC[C\C]CCCCC)D*DLDMDYDoDpDDDDD'E?E@EAEGEiEvEwEʼʮʪʢʮʛzvhMX jhYhYh|z jhphp h5fh5f h5fh* hP~6]hP~hP~5\hP~ hX>*h%o hX5\ hXhX hX6] jhXhXhX5\hXh hX5\1ZLLLLWMMNzNNQOPPPP QRQQQWR}TT & Fgd_X & Fgd5f & Fgd_X & FgdP & Fgd  & Fgd  & FgdP~ & FgdX & FgdX & FgdX=N?NCN^N_NNN O O OPOZOfOgOpOqOrOOOOOOPPPPPP`PoPsPPPPQQ RRR$RVRWRoRvRɽɹ杖u *h_Xh5f5\ *h&h5f5\ h5fh_XhC jh_Xh_Xh"" h >*h h H* jh~h~ hP>* jhPhP jhqhq h 5\ jh h h h 5\h h 5>*\*vRRRRS#SSSSSSSSST*T|T}TTT>U@UNUjUpUUUUUUUUUUVVmVnVzV{V WW W!W.W/W0W^W˻˭˦{ jhPhPhPh5f5\hynq h5fh5f jhehe h5fhX jhX hXhX hX5\ hX>*hShXh5f h_X5\h_Xh_XH* h_X6] jh_Xh_X *h_Xh_X5\/T>UUV{V!W}WW8XXX3YkY|YYYYZZ)[{[\.\r\ & FxgdV= & Fgd} & FgdP & Fgde & Fgd5f & Fgd_X^WtWWWWW7X8XXXXXXXXXYYYY*h\h\6]h\h\5\ jh\h\h\>* h\h\h\h}hE#h}5\hE#h\5\h5fh5f5>*\3r\}\\\]]^.__6```a$aEauaaaazbbc & Fgd`G & Fgd`G & Fgd`G & Fgd% & Fgd% & Fgd} & Fgd} & Fgd} & Fgd5f____5`6`O`P``````````a aa"a2aDaXataaaaaaaaaabbZb[bdbqbbbbbbbbbJcKccccά jhmhmh`Gh`G5\ h`G5\ jh`Gh`Gh956h`G6] h%5\ jh%h%h%5\ h%h%h]K[ jh]K[h% h%h5fh%h5f5\ jh}h}4cccccccddd d!d{d|d}d~dddde!e|e}eee#f$fVfWfffffffBgCgggggggIhwhxhhiiͼޝޙޒޙh9>h9>5\h9>htV& h5fh956h5f jh956 h5fh5fhh5\ jh hu5\ jhh h5\huh5f5\h956 jh`G h`G5\hh`Gh,3hm0cc!d"e}e$fWff*g6gzgggh'hxhhei(jgjekzk & FgdP8 & Fxgd|v? & Fgd & Fgd956 & Fgd & Fgd5f & Fgd & Fgd`Giiiiii'j(jgjrjsjjjMkckekkkkkVlWl|l}llllm#m1m:m;mQm_m~mmmmmmnnmnnnnn o o oHoKoUozoooo౦ɟɛɟɟh\ jhkhk hP85\ *hP8hP85\ *hP8hP85>*\h^ jhP8hP8h-Sha ha H* jha ha h5fh5f5\ h5fh9>h9> jh9>7zkkll;mVoopqst+vv0xtxxyEyyzrz`{{ & Fgdp[ & Fgdp[ & FgdQ* & FgdQ* & FgdQ* & Fgd5f & FgdP8 & FgdP8 & FgdP8oooooooooooo p!p&p*p+p9pRpSpppppppppppAqBq]qvqqqqqq럒{t{t{j{j{{hPhP5\ jhPhP *hP5\ *hP8hP5\ *hP8hP5>*\ *hP5>*\ hP85\hP8hP85\ jhP8 *hP85\ *hP8hP85\ *hP85>*\ *hP8hP85>*\hP8 jhP8hP8 hP8hP8&qqqqss s!s(s,s-s.s/smsnssssssstt/tEtLtRttttttttttttuu"u#u)u*\ *h&|hQ*5>*\h5fhQ*hQ*5\ hQ*5\h.hQ*hQ*H* jhQ*hQ* *hQ*hQ* *hQ*5\ *hQ*hQ*5\ *hQ*h5f5>*\ *h&|h5f5>*\ jhPhP h5fh5f+uNupuuTvUvvvvvvvvwwww wJw\w]wjwkwlwxwwwww/x0xxxxxx y7yiyyyy=z>zazczrzszzļ食韣hQ*hQ*H*hp[hQ*5\h5fhf?hf?6]hf?hp[hQ*hQ*5\ *hQ*hQ*5\ *hQ*hQ* *hQ*h5f5>*\ *h&|h5f5>*\ jhQ*h BdhQ* hQ*5\hQ*hQ*5H*\0zzzzzzzzzzzz{{{{{{/{>{{{{{{"|#|H|X|Y|||||||$}%}H}I}l}}}~v~w~{~~~~~ 򟕑 jhS`h&Th5fhS`hSh5f6] h5fhQ*h56hqz jhX@bhX@bhp+4 jhf? hf?>*hf?hp[6]hp[hp[H* hp[>* hf?6] jhp[hf?hp[h#?-hp[5\3{{||||J}l}}w~pp1><< & Fgd|U & Fgd|U & Fgd|U & Fgd  & Fxgd|v? & FgdS & Fgd5f & Fgdp[ & Fgdf? & Fgdf? %&'HIJopopwǀȀԀ 01vnjjf_f jhhh h4eh4eH*h h4e5\ jh4eh4e *h4eh4e5\ *h4eh5f5>*\ *h&|h5f5>*\ h3h3 h3>*h3h5fh5f5\ h5fh`py jh`pyh`pyh5f jh&Th&T jhX@bhX@bh&ThS`5\#&'=>GNOW\^~҂Ԃڂ ij׃؃كźxngg`\h_n h|U6] jh|Uh|Uh|U5\h,jh,jH* h,jh,jh,jh,j5\ h,j6]h,jh|U jh h h4e *h4eh5f5\ *h4eh4e5\ *h4eh4e *h4eh5f5>*\ *h&|h5f5>*\ h5fhh_Thhrrh5\#كڃNOTZmqw %,نWYZ[kl !BCYZdez{| jhh h5fh5fhh5f5\hBh@Ch,j jhRMhRMhlh|Uh|U6]h|Uh|U5\ h|Uh|U h|U>* jh|Uh|U h|Uh5fh_n jh_n7NԆl!YZI;ƌՌmŎ & Fgd\l & FgdRM & Fgd5f & FgdB & FgdRM & Fgd,j & Fgd|U & Fgd|U & Fgd|UHISTϋЋ9;X͍΍ύlmtuˎ̎XYc{ُڏ79»̴̴̴̴̴̴̨̡̰} *hRh5f5>*\ *h&|h5f5>*\h5fh5f5\ h5fh\lh\lh\lH*hSb jh\l h5fh5fh\lh5f5\h\l h\lh\l h5fh2:h2:hzh5f jhRMhRM hh5fh1Ŏ|ۑ<ޒBWz2Hg; & Fgd`K & Fgd & Fgd & Fgd5f & Fxgd|v? & Fgd\l!.J\r ;OPQҒؒݒ0A12AHQ} *hh5\ *hh5f5>*\ *h&|h5f5>*\ h5fhhL h*h*hhH*hmPfh_" jh h5fh5fh *hh5f5\2 :;@dp|՘֘ט $*JNgj™*~羴 jh4sh4sh5fh5f5\ jhh h5fhhu hhu>*hhuhhuhhu5\ hhuhhu jh`Kh`Kh`K5\h`Kh`K6] h`Kh`Kh`Kh5f h5fh5fhh5f5\2N™*ݛ+j/ŝ&^ ٠ & Fgd'{ & Fgd4s & Fgd4s & Fxgd|v? & Fgd5f & Fgd`K֚ޜߜ5=>()ؠ٠LM@A|!üԵԮh5f5>*\h5fh5f5>*\ h5fh'{ h'{5\ hl5\h'{h'{5\ jh'{h'{ jhL#hL# jh4sh5fh4shu4h4sh4s5\=2CP٢&y|8W?ި & FgdW\ & Fxgd|v? & Fxgd@( & Fgd'{ & Fgd'{ & Fgd'{ & Fgd'{ & Fgd'{!"#gyĦ$&78WcͧΧϧЧ !"7>?ʨ˨ݨިJKfg+,?@A^_lm٪ڪ0»ƱƪƱ»œƪƪƪƪ»˜»»»h"1 jhuQhuQ hW\hG hGhW\ jhW\hW\hW\5\ jhGhGhW\h5fh5f5\h5f5>*\h@(h@(H* h@(6]h@(h@(6] jh@(h@(7ި,_?ò߳ƴj & Fgdz & Fgd*% & FgdG & Fgd5f & FgdG & FgdW\ & FgdW\0bc̫ѫث٫:CHIJ­˭حڭ)~ABNPۯyuqh-h5fhYvhYv6]hYvhYv5H*\hYvhYv5\ jhYvhYvhGhGH* hG6]hGhG5\ hGhG h5fh5fh; *h;h5f5\ *h;h;5\ *h;h5f5>*\h v; jhGhG,ۯݯ 068CDEYZ԰ְLMٱ߱/04RST]_n²ò}u *h;h; *h;h5f5>*\ *h&|h5f5>*\ h5fh]h9hPc jh.h.h5fhJ jh]h]hYvhYvH* h5fhGhYvhYv>* hYv6] jhYv hYv>*hYvhYv6]hYvhE. kl޳߳SĴŴƴҴٴڴ۴ܴ!9@T`j,-.Z[ ̻ڶڬڥڶڶڗړړzzzzph]h]6] jh] h]h] h5fhzh]hzhi, jh*%h*% h*%h*%h*%h*%6] h*%>* h*%h5fh*%h*%5\ h*%5\ jh*%h*% h5fh5fh; *h;h5f5\ *h;h;5\,O-|ӷfBiaɺ8ͻkIx`  & Fgdt & FgdL & Fgdsd & FgdL & Fxgd|v? & Fgd] & Fgd] & Fgd5f CReflnuvABiG`aߺlm"#I`xy !ƿǿcduv rɿht jhLhLh_R^ jhsdhsdhsdH*hsdh5fh5f5\h5fh]>*h]h5f>* jh]h*% h5fh5f h]h]h]h]6]h]:XIVc-sV & Fgdi & Fxgd|v? & FgdX9V & FgdT: & Fgd & Fgd5f & Fgd_R^ & Fgd_R^ & FgdL & FgdLrt#$XY UV012ķ h5fh_R^h h_R^>*h5f h5fh5fhh2[ *hh2[h5f5\ *hh2[hh2[5\ *hh2[h5f5>*\ *h&|h5f5>*\ hsdh_R^h_R^h_R^H* h_R^h_R^ jh_R^h_R^hLhLhL5\.NObc U[v|}~ GHdfszѼѴѰѰܘՁ}yhX9VhF*hv(hhT:hT:H* jhT:hT: *h&|h5f5>*\ h5fhh*hhH*h5fhh6] jhh h5fh5fhrH *hrHhrH5\ *hrHhrH *hrHh5f5>*\+Vu,bf)}snjjjfaf]h5f h>*hhz@ hi>*hihi6]hihiH*hi jhWhW *hWh5f5\ *hWhW *hWh5f5>*\ *h&|h5f5>*\h5fh5f5\ h5fh5f hT:>*hT:hX9VhAhX9V56\]hX9VhX9V6]hAhX9V6]!)*'(\BiIJglmn=>XYZ-.Ż̜̑ h5fh<9 jh%6h%6 jh<9h<9h<9h<95\ h5fh5fh<9h5f5\h5fh5f5\ h5fhh5fhihiH* hi6]h hhjMChihi5\hi jhi3(\%jJg*>.\H & Fgd%6 & Fgd%6 & Fgd<9 & Fgd<9 & Fgd5f & Fxgd|v? & Fgd & Fgd5f & Fgdi & Fgdi)234|}12aklmEFkl»»±»±ª±»ªª»ª»±ª»ªª jh\ h\ h\ 5\ h\ h\ h\ h\ 5\ jh\ h\ h=I5>*\h5fh=I5>*\h=Ih5f5: h=I5: h5fh<9h<9h%6 jh%6<)}bFl<B & Fgd4m & Fgd2% & Fgd4m & Fgd5f & Fgd\  & Fgd\  & Fgd=I & Fxgd|v? & Fxgd=I & Fgd<9-wxz{;<(-BŻ䳨झझ~w~ jhl|hl| *hl|5\ *h\ h4m5\huTh2% jh4mh4m *h4mh4m5\ *h4m5\ *h4m5>*\ *h\ 5>*\h\ h\ 5\ jh\ h\  *h\ h\ 5\ *h\ h\ 5>*\h5f,#F{|'(Pde{|()*YZ[ &'hiͿ⴩⴩⴩ jhW3hnCJaJhW3hW35CJ\aJ jhW3hW3CJaJhW3hW3CJaJhW3hnCJaJhW3hn5CJ\aJ h=Ih5f h=Ihn jhnhn jhl|hBGh4mhl| hl|5\-G(P[deNkd$$Ifl0$t  t0644 lap $$Ifa$gdA & Fgd5f & Fgdl|eo{|{zkd$$Ifl0$t t0644 la $IfgdAZ{{ $IfgdAzkd$$Ifl0$t t0644 laZ[{{ $IfgdAzkdR$$Ifl0$t t0644 la&{{ $IfgdAzkd$$Ifl0$t t0644 la&'Oh{{ $IfgdAzkd$$Ifl0$t t0644 lahip!(h{{{{{{{{ $IfgdAzkdo$$Ifl0$t t0644 la i+-0:;P\ghijpqxy򼱠{w{w{w{wsls{hh0T jhFRhFRhb(hnhW3hb(hb(6CJ]aJhb(hb(6>*CJ]aJ jhb(hb(6CJ]aJhb(6CJ]aJhW36CJ]aJh6CJ]aJ jhW3hW36CJ]aJhW3hW36>*CJ]aJhW3hW36CJ]aJ'hin'6?*|tllldd\\ & Fgd O & Fgdb( & Fgd0T & Fgd & Fgdnzkd$$Ifl0$t t0644 la mn &' 6@ABZ[;H\湵ꒅzvovevh Oh O5\ jh Oh O *hhFhhF5\ *hhFhhF5>*\hb( jhhh6] hI5\ jhIhIhhI5\h% jhhF hhFhhF hhF5\hhFhhF5\hhFh h0Th0Th0T jh0T&\`?C*R^?@KopLTιvng hf6]hfhfH*hfhf6]hfhf5\h5f jhfhf *hfhf5\ *hfh5f *hfh5f5>*\ hnhB hB5\ jhBhB *hBhB5\ *hBhB5>*\h Oh O>*hhFh O h O>*&*p-UF5M]?@o & Fxgd|v? & FgdO< & Fgd & Fgdf & Fgdf & Fgd5f & Fgd.[\>>?@NORS^_noҶ jhhh=Ih5f6] h=I6]h=I5>*\h5fh=I5>*\ jhO<hO< h=Ih5fhfh5f5\ jhfhfh5f jhhfh5\hfhf5\h h=Ihf.o(RXW. & FgdXD  & FgdXD  & Fgd\R & Fgd\R & FgdX & FgdX & Fgd & Fgd & Fgd=I & Fgd=I&'12Q23de  DWƻzrz *h\R5\ *hXh\R5\ *h\Rh\R5>*\ h\R>* jh\Rh\Rh\hXhX5\ jhXhX *hXhX5\ *hXhX5>*\hh6] hh jhh h>d5\hh5\, Z[v4B   !.'KLMֿyn *hXhG65\ *hG65>*\ jhkhkhXD hXD 5\ h6~@5\ jh6~@hIh6~@6]h6~@hI jhXD hXD  *hXD hXD 5\ *hXD 5\ *hXhXD 5\ *hXD 5>*\h\Rh\R5\h\R jh\R+2FWk56 tuWegrs軷譩~~~ *ho(5\ *hXho(5\ *ho(5>*\ ho(ho( jho(ho(hbho(5\hLhb hPhG6 hG65\hG6hG65\hbhG65\ jhG6hG6 *hXhG65\ *hG65\1u1W        'M.f & Fgd@+ & Fgd@+ $ & Fgd@0 & Fgd@0 & FgdL@ & Fgdo( & Fgdo( & FgdG6 & Fgd5f   D r s     > ?      7 ;                 Qĺ}v}o}o} h@+h@+ jh@+h@+hqho(ho(H*h=Ih5f6] h=I6] ho(hh@0ho(ho(5\ jho(ho(h5f5\ h=IhL@h5f hL@5\ jhL@hL@ *h&|h5f5>*\ ho(ho( ho(5\ho('Qf-2_$%&ef)+2378ƿƻƿƻ h?h@0 h?6] h?h?h?h?5\ jh?h? jh@0h@0 *h@05\ *hXh@05\ *h@05>*\hB jhBh@+h!3~h@+5\:?=<TWbE~ & Fgdu & Fgd5 & Fgd5 & FgdfGw & FgdfGw & Fgd>5 & Fgd: & FgdF & Fgd5f & FgdS & Fgd? & Fgd@0FP6@AB<=^_mno !-3;<HIefȻvqlqe hFh5f h!}\ h!}5hFhF5\ h!}5\h!}h!}5\h!} h=Ih5f h?h? *h?h?5\ *h?h5f5>*\ *h&|h5f5>*\ hShfGw jhfGwhfGw jhFhF h?>*hS jh? h=IhSh?'fSVWhijubp~kǶǬǬǨz *hXh>55\ *h>55>*\ hfGwh5 jh+ h+ jh5h5h+ hfGw6]hfGwhfGw5\ jhfGwhfGwh+ hfGw5\ h=IhFhFhF5\h? jh:h: jhFhF/deft~ST0;KLQxy  z {   !ƿw薈pfh:Yh:Y5\ h=Ih:Y jhoho ho5\ jho hohoho *hoho5\ *hoh>55>*\ *h&|h>55>*\ h=Ihu hw[Lhu jhuhu h:J>*h:J jh>5h>5 *hXh>55\ *h>55\(  !!"""##N$$z%%$&u&&'' & Fgd5Q & Fgd & Fgd0 & Fgd:Y & Fgd:Y & Fgd4} & Fgd% & Fgd:Y & Fgdo & Fgd>5 & Fgdu!"!#!z!{!!!!!!!!!!!!! """$"9"H"r"""""""# #Q#R#####$$&$M$h$i$$%%R%S%%%%#&$&3&4&u&&&''F'h5Q jhh jh0h0 h:Yh:Yh5f h=Ih%h4}h.h.6]h.h%6] jh%h.h.>*h%h. jh:Yh:Y*\ *h]5>*\h5fhhH* jhhh5fh5f5>*\h=I5>*\h5fh=I5>*\ h=Ihh jh5Qh5Qh jh*'(-)I)))*y***++e+++i- //090 & Fgd~+ & Fgdl, & FgdCX & Fgd] & Fgd & Fgd & Fgd & Fxgd|v? & Fgd & Fgd & Fgd5Q- .G.I.M.j.l.v..!/"/$/./7/d/e//0800011122M2^2j2z22222222T3n3}3333ÿڰ~tm jh?hh?5\h[ jh]h="h? *h]h]5\ *h]h]5>*\ jhUhUh ] jhhh`ph~+hl hCX5\hl,h`*[hCXhCXH*hCXh]h]H*h]hCXh]5\*90111M23=44~55666f778|9 & Fgd9 & Fgd[{ & Fgd[{ & Fgd5f $ & Fxgd1 $ & Fxgd1 & Fgd* & Fgd[ & Fgd] & FgdU & Fgd`*[ & Fgd`*[ & Fgd~+333 4!4<4=4d4e444455 5'5)5*52545~555555555555,6-6.6p6666666666Ⱦ䓏wpwpw h=I5:h=Ih5f5: h=Ih] jhE'hE'h=" jh] *h]5\ *h]h]5\ *h]h]5>*\ *h]5>*\h h[>*h[h[H* jh*h*h] jh[h[h?h?h?H*,6666677777777]8f8g88888|9::.::::::::::W;;;;;;;<<<,<8<ƻշxщщq hU6] jhhUhU6]hU jhGChGChDhD>*hDh[dh.B jh>Hh>Hh9 jhh1h jh[{hh[{h5fh5f5>*\h5fh=I5>*\h=Ih5f5: h=I5:,|9.::W;p<<=>>b?(@A2BCD*EuEEEF & Fgd & Fgd>h & Fgd>h & FgdC & FgdC & Fgd5f & FgdI  & FgdxR & Fgd & Fgd[{8<n<p<B=X=======R>S>>? ? ?a?b?p?q?r???????'@(@C@I@T@~@@BBBⲊ}rngngn jhChC *hx)6hC5\ *hx)6hC5>*\ *h&|hC5>*\hlhI hI 6] *h&|h5f5>*\ h=Ih5f jhx)6hx)6 *h*h5f5>*\ jhI hI hI 5\hI h5\hhxRh hU6]%B1BBBBBBBCC.C/C9C:CsCtCCCDDDDE)E*EuEEEEEEEEFF򍆂{naY *hQ<h>h *hQ<h>h5>*\ *h&|h>h5>*\ hhh h=IhXhX hCh>hh5fh>hh>h6] jh>hh>hhQ< *hQ<hQ<5\ *hQ<h5f5>*\ *h&|h5f5>*\ h=IhC jhCh_(hC6]hCh.BhC6]"FXFYFFF/GGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHxIyIIIIIIJJJJJJJK-KKöלג׃vieaehV4h| *hQ<hQ<5>*\ *h&|hQ<5>*\hLDh5f hQ<5\hQ<hQ<5\ jhQ< *hQ<hQ<5\ *hQ<hQ< *hQ<h5f5>*\ *h&|h5f5>*\ hQ<hQ<hQ< h=Ih3h;h>hh9 h=Ih>h jh3h3%FGHHIIJJLcMN|NN1OJP#QsQQ,RR & Fgd1p & Fgd1p & FgdgE & Fgd5f & FgdV4 & FgdQ< & FgdQ< $ & Fgd~+ & Fgd3 & Fgd3KKKK%L)L.L/LSLULLLLLMMbMcM~MMMMMNN{N|NNNNNNNNNNNNNNO O!O0O1O@OAOOOTPǼ} jhV?hV? jh h>*hh jh1ph1phh1p5\ h=IhgEhgEh5f jhh h=Ih5f h=IhV4hQ< hV45\hV4hV45\ hV46]hV4 jhV41TPUPPPPPPPDQEQ}Q~QQQQQQR=R>RcRdRRRSTTUU*V+VhVrVVVVWWWWWW XaXlXXXXXXžɳ h65\h6h4h)h45\ h46]h4h46]h4h45\h5fh=I5>*\ jhh h=Ih@eh5fh@e5>*\ jh{gh{g h1ph1ph+$hh1p jh1p1RRSS[TUnUhVrVWWWWXXTY>ZH[[ & Fgd& & Fgd, & Fgd4 & Fgd4 & Fgd4 & Fgd=I & Fxgd|v? & Fgd@e & Fxgd@e & Fgd{g & Fgd{g & Fgd1pXXYSYTYYY=Z>ZZZZG[H[[[[[[\\\\\\\\ \<\>\?\\\\\\\\\\\]]ɾɷΰwsl hbYhbYhbYhbYh46]h4h46] h4h6hKhK>*hK jh6 h6h6h6 h6h, h,h, jht3ht3\ ht3\ h,\ h,h&h~h&5\h& h&h6 jh6h6\ h6\*[\\\]]7^N^^___I``aHb*c)d & Fgd"q & FgdG[ & Fgdg. & Fgd~+ & Fgd}y & Fgd}y & Fgd}y & Fgd5f & Fgd=I & FgdbY & Fgd4 & Fgd6].]/]0];]D]E]]]]]6^7^^^^___=_>_?_______(`7`9`:`I`W`X`Y````````6a7a8aaaaaaaaaaaaa⮪ hg.6] hv 6] jhv hv hg. hg.>*h}yh}y6]hG[hFh~+ h}yh}y h}y6]h=I jh}yh}y jhbYhbY jh4h4hN19aaa*b+bHbUbVbbbc cc)c*c d d)dBdNdddwexeefffTfifjfffGgegngrgsggggggggùê|x|x|q| jhKh IhK *hKhK5\ *hKh %5\ *hKh %5>*\ jh %h %h h"q5>*\h h 5\h  *h"qh"q5\ *h"qh"q5>*\ jh"qh"q jhG[hG[ jhg.hg.,)dfTffGgNhh%jjkmnnno|ooopqr & Fgd) & Fgd) & Fgd) & Fgd& & FgdEx & FgdKx & Fgd I & Fgd I & Fgd % & Fgd  & Fgd"qghhjjjj4k5kkkkl llll#l$l%lqll0m1m2m3mmmmmmxnynnnnnnnnnnoŽŽŹ|xtxtxplphmFhExhYhKh)q jh)qh)qB*aJphh)qB*aJphhth hthhth h@r>* jhKxh@rhmhKx *hKx5\ *hKhKx5\ *hKhKx5>*\ *hKx5>*\ jh Ih Ih I6]h %h I*ooOoRoSoWoiomono{o|oooooo-p.p7p8pepprrr(r*r1r4r5r7rXrYrqryrrrrrrs(s0s1sZs`sisjsssͭ¥¥囊~ h)6] h)>* h)h)h)h)6]h)h)5\ *h)5\ *h)5>*\ h)5\hnU *h)h)5\ *h)h)5>*\ jh)h&h)hq Thvh7ZhEx jhEx1rrss#tttuuv~vvXwYwZwwwOhQhRhThUhWhgdHcgd9 & Fgde & Fgde & Fgd) & Fgd) & Fgd) & Fgd)sctdtttu)u*uuuOvPvvvvvvvv#w)w;wDwXwYwZwbwcwwwwwhNhOhPhRhShUhVhXhYh[hchdhlhmh}h~hhhļhJhqX: h)B:hqX hqX:hJhqX5:>*\hJhqX5>*\hqX5:>*\hCkjhCkU h~\hHcUhHch9hehe5\ jhehe jhN,hN, jh)h)2E.H. Gombrich: There really is no such thing as art. There are only artists.     Art Law Outline Prof. Amy Adler Fall 2006 PAGE  PAGE 24 WhXhZh[hmhhhhhhhhhhhgd9 &`#$gda&$a$gd)B$a$gdJhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h~\hHchCkh)B0JmHnHu hqX0JjhqX0JUhqX21h:po^/ =!"#$% $$If!vh55t#v#vt:Vl  t655tp]$$If!vh55t#v#vt:Vl t655t]$$If!vh55t#v#vt:Vl t655t]$$If!vh55t#v#vt:Vl t655t]$$If!vh55t#v#vt:Vl t655t]$$If!vh55t#v#vt:Vl t655t]$$If!vh55t#v#vt:Vl t655t]$$If!vh55t#v#vt:Vl t655t<@<  ~Normal_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List<O< Z Body textd`4@4 JHeader  !4 @4 JFooter  !.)@!. %S Page Number:0@2: F List Bullet  & Fj@Cj f Table Grid7:V06U@Q6 5f Hyperlink >*B*phnnYSL2f l 3 v G~,+s4gYaJ<3 2"">#b##N$$Y%%%<&~&&9'm'''(((+)P)))+@+++,-.[/0S111@22:3t3374U56678999:M;;@<<==5>>>>1?\?@@@T@@)A8BZCCCCWDDEzEEQFGGGG HRHHHWI}KK>LLM{M!N}NN8OOO3PkP|PPPPQQ)R{RS.SrS}SSSTTU.VV6WWWX$XEXuXXXXzYYZZ!["\}\$]W]]*^6^z^^^_'_x__e`(agaebzbblc;dVffghjk+mm0otoopEppqrq`rrrssssJtlttwupvvvpw1xx>y{<{<|||}N}}}}l~!YZI;ƃՃmŅ|ۈ<މBWz2Hg;N*ݒ+j/Ŕ&^ ٗ2CPٙ&y|8W?ޟ,_?éߪƫjO-|ӮfBiaɱ8ͲkIx` XøIVc-sV(\%jJg*>.\H)}bFl<BG(P[deo{|Z[&'Ohip!(hin'6?*p-UF5M]?@o(RXW.u1W'M.f ?   = <  TWbE~!Nz$u- I   !y!!!""e"""i$ &&'9'(((M)*=++~,,---f../|0.11W23X3344D5 6h788: ;W;;;<g=f>>??m@@BECC^DDE,FGUGGHvHHxII=JJPKJLTLMMMMrNN6O P*QQQRRSST0TTTUU+VVW*X Y Z[6\\)]0^^``acwddPe^eeefgghiijqjjjxkk`ll:m;m 0> 0> 0> 0 0@ 0@@ 0@@ 0@ 0@ 08B 08B 0@@ 0C 0C 0WD 0@@ 0E 0@@ 0@@ 0@@ 0@@ 0G 0G 0G 0G 0G 0G 0@ 0WI 0WI 0WI 0WI 0@ 0M 0@ 0!N 0!N 0!N 0@ 0O 0O 0O 0O 0O 0O 0O 0O 0O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0.S 0rS 0}S 0S 0}S 0T 0rS 0rS 0.S 0V 06W 06W 0V 0X 0X 0X 0X 0V 0X 0X 0X 0Y 0X 0.S 0![ 0.S 0}\ 0.S 0W] 0W] 0W] 0W] 0W] 0W] 0.S 0_ 0_ 0_ 0_ 0 0(a 0(a 0eb 0eb 0(a 0lc 0;d 0lc 0lc 0(a 0(a 0(a 0k 0(a 0m 00o 00o 00o 00o 00o 0m 0m 0rq 0m 0r 0r 0r 0r 0r 0r 0(a 0(a 0t 0t 0 0v 0v 0pw 0pw 0v 0>y 0{ 0<{ 0<{ 0{ 0| 0| 0| 0} 0| 0>y 0l~ 0l~ 0>y 0Y 0v 0v 0I 0I 0v 0 0 0v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 02 02 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ݒ 0ݒ 0ݒ 0ݒ 0 0 0& 0& 0& 0 0^ 0 0 0 0ٗ 0 02 02 02 0 0 0 0P 0P 0ٗ 0& 0 0 0y 0y 0 0 08 08 0? 0ޟ 0ޟ 0ޟ 0ޟ 0ޟ 0ޟ 0ޟ 0ޟ 0ޟ 0 ޟ 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 0é 0é 0é 08 08 0 0O 0 0 0 08 0f 0 0B 0i 0B 0 0 0 0 0 0B 0I 0x 0I 0I 0I 0I 0X 0I 0ø 0ø 0B 0 0 0B 0 0 0B 0 0 0 0 0 0V 0 0 0V 0V 0V 0 0 0J 0g 0g 0 0J 0J 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0< 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 000 0  0( 0i 0 0 0 0i 0i 0 0 0i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0@ 0o 0o 0 0( 0( 0 0 0 0o 0X 0 0 0X 0W 0X 0 0 0 0o 0 0 0o 0 0u 0 0 0 0o 0 0@ 0 0 0 0 0' 0' 0' 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0=  0<  0<  0=  0 0W 0W 0b 0W 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N 0N 0N 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0  0! 0  0  0  0" 0" 0" 0  0  0i$ 0i$ 0i$ 0i$ 0  0( 0  0  0M) 0* 0M) 0M) 0  0 0- 0- 0- 0f. 0. 0f. 0f. 0f. 0- 0W2 0- 0- 03 0- 0- 0- 0 6 0 6 0- 08 08 08 0- 0; 0; 0< 0- 0f> 0> 0> 0> 0f> 0@ 0- 0EC 0- 0^D 0^D 0^D 0 - 0G 0G 0G 0H 0H 0 - 0xI 0xI 0xI 0xI 0- 0JL 0- 0M 0M 0M 0M 0rN 0N 0rN 0rN 0M 0M 0M 0R 0M 0M 0S 0T 00T 00T 0T 0T 0U 0U 0U 0S 0*X 0S 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0S 0)] 00^ 0)] 0)] 0S 0a 0a 0a 0M 0Pe 0Pe 0e 0e 0e 0e 0g 0M 0i 0i 0j 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i 0`l00000@0I00@0I00@0I00@0I00@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@I00 YSL2f l 3 v G~,+s4gYaJ<3 2"">#b##N$$Y%%%<&~&&9'm'''(((+)P)))+@+++,-.[/0S111@22:3t3374U56678999:M;;@<<==5>>>>1?\?@@@T@@)A8BZCCCCWDDEzEEQFGGGG HRHHHWI}KK>LLM{M!N}NN8OOO3PkP|PPPPQQ)R{RS.SrS}SSSTTU.VV6WWWX$XEXuXXXXzYYZZ!["\}\$]W]]*^6^z^^^_'_x__e`(agaebzbblc;dVffghjk+mm0otoopEppqrq`rrrssssJtlttwupvvvpw1xx>y{<{<|||}N}}}}l~!YZI;ƃՃmŅ|ۈ<މBWz2Hg;N*ݒ+j/Ŕ&^ ٗ2CPٙ&y|8W?ޟ,_?éߪƫjO-|ӮfBiaɱ8ͲkIx` XøIVc-sV(\%jJg*>.\H)}bFl<BG(P[deo{|Z[&'Ohip!(hin'6?*p-UF5M]?@o(RXW.u1W'M.f ?   = <  TWbE~!Nz$u- I   !y!!!""e"""i$ &&'9'(((M)*=++~,,---f../|0.11W23X3344D5 6h788: ;W;;;<g=f>>??m@@BECC^DDE,FGUGGHvHHxII=JJPKJLTLMMMMrNN6O P*QQQRRSST0TTTUU+VVW*X Y Z[6\\)]0^^``acwddPe^eeefgghiijqjjjxkk`ll:m;m 0> 0> 0> 0 0@ 0@@ 0@@ 0@ 0@ 08B 08B 0@@ 0C 0C 0WD 0@@ 0E 0@@ 0@@ 0@@ 0@@ 0G 0G 0G 0G 0G 0G 0@ 0WI 0WI 0WI 0WI 0@ 0M 0@ 0!N 0!N 0!N 0@ 0O 0O 0O 0O 0O 0O 0O 0O 0O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0.S 0rS 0}S 0S 0}S 0T 0rS 0rS 0.S 0V 06W 06W 0V 0X 0X 0X 0X 0V 0X 0X 0X 0Y 0X 0.S 0![ 0.S 0}\ 0.S 0W] 0W] 0W] 0W] 0W] 0W] 0.S 0_ 0_ 0_ 0_ 0 0(a 0(a 0eb 0eb 0(a 0lc 0;d 0lc 0lc 0(a 0(a 0(a 0k 0(a 0m 00o 00o 00o 00o 00o 0m 0m 0rq 0m 0r 0r 0r 0r 0r 0r 0(a 0(a 0t 0t 0 0v 0v 0pw 0pw 0v 0>y 0{ 0<{ 0<{ 0{ 0| 0| 0| 0} 0| 0>y 0l~ 0l~ 0>y 0Y 0v 0v 0I 0I 0v 0 0 0v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 02 02 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ݒ 0ݒ 0ݒ 0ݒ 0 0 0& 0& 0& 0 0^ 0 0 0 0ٗ 0 02 02 02 0 0 0 0P 0P 0ٗ 0& 0 0 0y 0y 0 0 08 08 0? 0ޟ 0ޟ 0ޟ 0ޟ 0ޟ 0ޟ 0ޟ 0ޟ 0ޟ 0 ޟ 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 0é 0é 0é 08 08 0 0O 0 0 0 08 0f 0 0B 0i 0B 0 0 0 0 0 0B 0I 0x 0I 0I 0I 0I 0X 0I 0ø 0ø 0B 0 0 0B 0 0 0B 0 0 0 0 0 0V 0 0 0V 0V 0V 0 0 0J 0g 0g 0 0J 0J 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0< 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000  0( 0i 0 0 0 0i 0i 0 0 0i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0@ 0o 0o 0 0( 0( 0 0 0 0o 0X 0 0 0X 0W 0X 0 0 0 0o 0 0 0o 0 0u 0 0 0 0o 0 0@ 0 0 0 0 0' 0' 0' 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0=  0<  0<  0=  0 0W 0W 0b 0W 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N 0N 0N 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0  0! 0  0  0  0" 0" 0" 0  0  0i$ 0i$ 0i$ 0i$ 0  0( 0  0  0M) 0* 0M) 0M) 0  0 0- 0- 0- 0f. 0. 0f. 0f. 0f. 0- 0W2 0- 0- 03 0- 0- 0- 0 6 0 6 0- 08 08 08 0- 0; 0; 0< 0- 0f> 0> 0> 0> 0f> 0@ 0- 0EC 0- 0^D 0^D 0^D 0 - 0G 0G 0G 0H 0H 0 - 0xI 0xI 0xI 0xI 0- 0JL 0- 0M 0M 0M 0M 0rN 0N 0rN 0rN 0M 0M 0M 0R 0M 0M 0S 0T 00T 00T 0T 0T 0U 0U 0U 0S 0X 0S 0Y 0Y 0Y 0S 0V 0W 0V 0V 0M 0[ 0[ 0[ 0G 0u^ 0u^ 0^ 0^ 0^ 0^ 0a 0G 0b 0b 0)c 0b 0b 0b 0b 0b 0e0000 ;FTTTW ,!&I,158;>/BwEJ=NvR^Wq\_cioqy^y^y<<A޺޺ɽɽѽg??""QQPP[((ssx x = =   '$$88GGGHH{N{N!S!STTHUHULYYY Z\\)])]5]``ddn      !"%#$&'()*+,-./1023456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIKJLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxzy{|}~ww &&)j/j//`1s1s1D4D4NGNGIINLNLzPzPTT]ccckckcdHdHdffjkwwwwCycycy@HHǐǐнֽֽn""FF&&XXZZc33{{ ~ ~ E E &//$$88GGGHHNN%S%STTLULUSYYYZ\\1]<]<]``ddn  !"$%#&'()*+,-./1023456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIKJLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxzy{|}~_*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-regionhttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/Z*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceTypehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/Z*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceNamehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/q*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState8http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:officom:office:smarttagsh*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity0http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsV*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplacehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/ib*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStreet/http://www.5iantlavalampft-com:office:smarttagskc*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsaddress0http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags cb'Yb AJag?D3 : S#[#$$%%%%+&4&n&s&t&}&&&44556666;;n<v<????oIuILL(M-MMMMMTO_OOPkPpPPPPPPPPQQQ SSS!S'S-SSSXXdYqY\\^^k`p```ffggggj j/j8jkk llmmrrrruuvvvvvvo|z|*3Zbۃ",HNgnoyݕ!ks̟ҟKM^f 9@ҫ֫fknu\benw|÷ 4:clɸҸʺŽV[ bf+0(/jo\a~#+  >EMR~W`W\ !chw$)FK  6 ;   I N KPJNty^eip}GLTZ&,TZy """"""##$$_%h%b&k&&&E'L'((((M)T)l)p)))))**&+,+++ ,$,,,,,..!/%/1133D4O44444e5k5l5r5667788'9.9999999::m;t;;;>>@@@@@A0F5FGGHHJJLLNNNNNN6O>OSSSSTTUUpWxW|WWWWDZJZNZUZ`ZdZ[[@]G]a]f]^^aabbbbmbvb{ccddddee ffzggggh hhii i>@@T@GGkPPR.SrS}SVV$XDXXX*^6^^^_'_ebzbrrssvv[~l~ƃՃۈk*ٗ2CؙyޟBiɱͲEk&gP|Oi6,bM- I  !""--n0|0;;f>>EEFF\IwIJLTLMMT0TY Z``Pe]e^eeiimmn(n)n)n+n+n,n,n.n/n1n2n4n5nGnMnbnbn}nn)n)n+n+n,n,n.n/n1n2n4n5n}nn+v L K , IA> n #?2 C 2Jd' ] (3#qy@rbrlZ`' A~(4 &bju# &-#E$r &~H(*s/4.yC0 tT+\2zG6Y;I );IޕK ZR^XIR(r]::]:s9^6ZX!b:lw,bEWcJ Vc>( 2Id b o Hp0gdBrq3@6@sT^;{VIAu/|6q|tST>}  hh^h`OJQJo(^`5o(hH() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`o(()h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.^`o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5o(hH() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH. hh^h`o(hH. ^`o(hH. 88^8`o(hH. ^`o(hH. ^`o(hH). pp^p`o(hH).   ^ `o(hH(). @ @ ^@ `o(hH().   ^ `o(hH.^`5o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`5o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5o(hH() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5o(hH() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5o(hH() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`5o(()h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h^`5o(()h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`5o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`5o(()h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.^`5o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`5o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h88^8`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHoh  ^ `OJQJo(hHh  ^ `OJQJo(hHhxx^x`OJQJo(hHohHH^H`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hH^`5o(() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.+' A(r]/4.]b);IZX!b+\2u# 2IdKl4 C0Au/|qy(3#G~H(s9^ b oK , rq' XHp{A> E$EWc Vc>} ZRY;Ilw,b-#q|6@sb?2 ++9x.        9x.        (jo                 B[_        ed        X        X        &        l?                 X}                 l        ȶd        H^                                 @                 r                 @                 k        V(        X}        9x.        z         l?                 \                          P%        KJg%t6X%cAnu6 &/;CXYXq K#5'1'DUwr{Q:PW#2FKUWs $Ab\rZ1AaK| n3;GJe}f0FJkN%gJtw_x{5L M ] :^ a ?f  V  + JR EV ~ R# 7 XD  ! , 7I J L \ f  x. ; _ w ~ #|Ua[oU J`~puR#8=pNY:]"d ~I ;LVmW[aksvK&W?8Yy!BRHKT"yP~k1i?CM[bho}]$mQRnU "\#9>LvY e?j}?J9Nj9#w+8MVvYpln|@(w)c5S  5&Q9D9<<@iI`6f?JUWZ}_n} %+45zMN~\d :E>_(B))Li!&0>cM{I " % ) ?8 +< k> fE N Q Z \ h gm 2x x ~ '!>!5J5O5`56!6%6%6x)6Y-6956E6-L6VR6Xc6h6Bj6a77 7'7A7F7>U788$8>&8^>8P?8P8Ja8d8n8<9L 99}!9C9[O9W9Z9/ :Z:2:E:T:Rx:,;^ ;) ; ; ;i;-;f;;G;S;c^; v;Vz;l$<&<*<yF<G<mN<O<Q<i<l<=l ==+3=3=A=V=lr=2u=z=~=#>->o>tr> ?z?V?)?^#?$?J?b?e?g?8j?|v?HrHcII$Id0I=IeIxkIpJ-J[HJrRJSlJ`K-KY1K5K3xK%LL L0L5LL{PLuWL^LqLRMMi0MQMiMNNN?N]`NlNmN OWOUIOJgOKuONPPPb(P00PLPTPQQQ$Q+Q2Qt@QuMQuQ4yQR1R9R,1VX9VWV.W9WHWQWdWsWrxWWXXl&X1X1X~8XGXMXTX7]XqX_XO2Y:YOYbYdcY/oYpYzYL ZZZ8Zw*Z7Zfw fff5fmPf~f-g~ g ggo,g-gq;g@g~_gflgog{g?}ghh=h]h^qh5sh{hY3iIi[i_oiti,jRj|j}jkkh7ksk|klllll%l/lw>ld?lBlyYl(m)m;1m ;mXm[m4mnKn_ngnvnhnoJo%oJo6ToLco7pp-pP.p1pKCp`pcpkpUyprqq=Xqynq rz&r&r0rEr1Fr0Nr\rYnrrrYzrI~rs4s=s>s``srpsHAtBt^Vt^Tudu5fuhuGouxu)@vJv7Ovk[v*w(w3:wBwfGwn\waw$xr xx8xmMx.Tx1Txtgxayy(yl,y3y3ygy`py}yzzz&z.z\LzNzSz@Xzqz|zm{{{{6#{'{[{b{~{ ||l|Vx|}}4}!}O=}dI}#_}z}~~~;"~-(~W~0*;>dghizo8TlH0Ln^ v5&IPR_dgsx} L"4ACW_sX"f%&*-1|NDK OOv.$#(GM~NOV @CLQ'ryMQ 5((?@N,P|Z*l8-?]q&(B*/5^{6 e&*:)BsCFLRSs?#Baw+3_FF^hk{+ !-x5D_Q%03FIH`kt %8D_ges3 2!=hMORWewvXbns}!1T4)^jqAYEGUZklTp <.=GAJhL5QQVRlpv 1A*@:\]^Qe?&*9 IGYnn0 TbPclp xhz| ')DNFRW\Cklgnt+47<A*.BVPqf+k..8R;>DkJLZ]`iP &<A L[v]3?,.!4A]BV!e>hiGPdmnpe[&x*,-V45==K"OSx$[*<--Djfo/(.)9RZv9;lA hiz TU"0BD,M T0Tjhop\$39\ock"mruyY!c#$;ApZ^d~h&..<{C,L0QXdkqru11'y8LOa@e]lmu V)rTXgZte96=KmN4XthuE{t wBeyR4>Y]S?\_ci,IOlX^[ar4te9SUcq=|g6Gcddh~q9[i 3Dv7"K(D>FuKxFy_2J KKO?QKx\{"8EOWZR^dkxN9=BJW}CQY% ]x!df)qv~+sdtEa#+$;]fMp  +Ciu?E#)K]_kee67:U*x6L\*ej]/29JJP_cor~ww ),G"|O9+;e?]eCoN"%8pJNaez 45BY\^>dYvw' *7EL^_})^:;AuT"qV#'1 HX6ar -!)m ?1IL\z PPE`aQ"})v.sah`s(,q4qH~4A!a&7<EMnLt,`-aOO6W]nbXBN,,m{2V=i"D'N)D5Y1b%y$ B0%%-./S3Zrb fjxq|zj.R~XX_]sC MNi8jllSX\lm*49G`dbj? hnyfG#MNRUlq{ |(=Ciy "(49KU]W]DgTv (1}@F~Br$%Rksx"2%6@FJXS?[\]gv"4Tu Y%%IX^Mjnn@qFo /"1DIMPT4]Qk?oyJR.<@m5yP[deo{|Z[&'Ohi!hir:= o "$j):>AqN(nnK'0K'0K'0K'0K'0<K'03K'0K'0K'0)<K'0<3~@DL 23mnP@PP,@P<P|@P@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial;Wingdings?5 z Courier New"1h}1lr 6767!4dnmnm 2qHP ?J2I Peter Nelson Peter Nelson+                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * Oh+'0x  4 @ LX`hpIPeter NelsonNormalPeter Nelson370Microsoft Office Word@@ @) ~67Root Entry FãData 81Table@KWordDocument4n     "  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q՜.+,D՜.+,, hp|   nm I Title4 $,   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./012345679:;<=>?ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~     Root Entry FPL9 ~Data 81Table@KWordDocument4nSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qRoot Entry F`կC ~#Data 81Table@KWordDocument4n     "SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8`CompObjq