> Ken Brown[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > "Trei, Peter" wrote: > > > As an example, consider the Richard Serra's 'Tilted Arc', a 12 foot > > high, 120 foot long, 70 ton slab of rusty (and usually grafitti covered) > > steel which blocked the entrance to the main Federal building in > > lower Manhatten for several years. After about a zillion complaints, > > it was moved, and Serra sued the GSA for $30million, on the grounds > > that the piece was "site specific", and that by moving it the GSA had > > destroyed it. > > > > http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/tilted_arc.htm > > But the important point about that is that the artist lost! According > to the website the tried "breach of contract, trademark violations, > copyright infringement and the violation of First and Fifth Amendment > rights" and lost all of them. So the new law has no real effect other > than to give a few days work to some lawyers. > > [...] > > > http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/WkngPprs_101-25/123.WL.VARA.pdf > > discusses the 'Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990, which is highly > > relevant to this topic. > Serra's work was moved in 1989, about a year before VARA went into effect. I suspect that 'Tilted Arc' affair was one of VARA's motivations (though any legislator who voted for it should have been condemned to have a Serra sculpture placed in front of his house for a year).
Peter
