Second Circuit - Art Litigation: Claim Over Painting Time-Barred But Claim For Frame Timely

In Marchig v. Christie's, 11-461-cv (July 12, 2011)(summary order), a plaintiff consigned an artwork to Christie's in 1997 she thinks it was painted by Michelangelo's tutor.   Christie's tells her it is a nineteenth-century German work. Christie's advises her to change the frame, then sell it.   She ok's the sale, but says nothing about the frame. Christie's sells the painting in 1998 for $21,850.  In 2009 Christie's tells her it is probably a work by Leonardo da Vinci.   She sues in 2010, claiming the work is worth $150 million.

A short, informative and Solomonic opinion on the law of consignments, sales, and authentication claims.

Marchig v Christie's

Result:  claim against the painting is time-barred, but the Second Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the claim for the return of the frame was timely.

 http://www.dunnington.com/rdowd_bio.html
 Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here  

Fair Use Friday: Exploiting the Mona Lisa

\Partial image of Double Mona Lisa, After Warhol, (Peanut Butter + Jelly) 1999 Full image here

A basic tenet of copyright law is that once a copyright has expired, it enters the public domain, for all to use.  But when someone adds a copyrightable contribution to a public domain work, that contribution is copyrightable.   So when Andy Warhol made Double Mona Lisa:

Double Mona Lisa (Andy Warhol, 1963)

It is clear that Warhol was using Leonardo Da Vinci's public domain image of the Mona Lisa.   He probably took the image from a photograph of of the Mona Lisa.    The case law says that exact images of public domain works are not protected by copyright.

But now we see Vik Muniz taking Warhol's arrangement of the "double" Mona Lisa - and putting Warhol's name in the title of the work - part of an ancient artistic tradition.  Muniz selects the fine art medium of peanut butter and jelly to execute his work.

Is the borrowing of Warhol's name and arrangement of a PD work ok?  Does the selection of peanut butter and jelly drive the transformative nature of the work?   And would the answer change if Warhol's work were an entirely original composition NOT based on a public domain work?   And does the number of copies matter?

I think Muniz's composition is strikingly original and beautiful masterpiece of 20th Century art. 

Some thoughts for Fair Use Friday.  Meanwhile, watch the video to see whether scientists now believe that the Mona Lisa was pregnant.