Authenticity in Art and Law: A Question of Attribution or Authorization?
藝術和法律的真實性:是歸屬問題還是認證問題?


 

Footnotes

 

1. Per Evershed M.R. at p.94 in Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2.K.B. (CA).

 

2. Andy Warhol in (Gerard Malanga) ‘Conversation with Andy Warhol’, Print Collector’s Newsletter, No.1 January/February 1971, p.127.

 

3. Walter Benjamin, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ (1934) in ‘Walter Benjamin: Illuminations: Essays and Reflections’, Hannah Arendt (ed.), Schoken Books, New York (1969)(1st edition), pp.217-251.

 

4. Bert Demarsin and Eltjo J.H. Scharge, Chapter 19, ‘Great Expectations and Bitter Disappointments: A Comparative Legal Study into Problems of Authenticity and Mistake in the Art Trade’, in ‘Art & Law’, Demarsin, Scharge, Tilleman & Verbeke (ed.), Hart Publishing, Belgium (2008), esp. pp.560 to 569.

 

5. Ibid. pp.560 to 569.

 

6. Martha Buskirk, Chapter 1, ‘Authorship and Authority’ in ‘The Contingent Object of Contemporary Art’, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London (2003) pp. 22-53.

 

7. See the claims of the English collector, David Joel and the refusal of the Wildenstein family to authenticate his painting as being created by Claude Monet: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13785393.

 

8. See the collector, Joe-Simon Wheelan’s dispute with the Andy Warhol Foundation and its Authentication Board: Simon-Wheelan v Andy Warhol Foundation For The Visual Arts, Inc., No.07 Civ 6423 (LTS), 2009 WL 145177, 2009 US.Dis.t LEXIS 44242 (S.D.N.Y. May 26 2009) .

 

9. See, Ronald D. Spencer, ‘Authentication in Court’, in ‘The Expert versus the Object: Judging Fakes and False Attributions in the Visual Arts’, Ronald Spencer (ed.), Oxford Univ. Press (2004), pp.189-225.

 

10. Peter Kraus, ‘The Role of the Catalogue Raisonne´ in the Art Market’ in Ronald Spencer, op.cit, pp. 63-77, especially, p.70.

 

11. Francis V.O’Connor, ‘Authenticating the Attribution of Art: Connoisseurship and the Law in the Judging of Forgeries and Copies, and False Attributions’ in Ronald Spencer, op.cit, pp. 3-27.

 

12. Richard Shone, ‘Copies and Translations’ in ‘Dear Images: Art, Copyright and Culture’, Daniel McClean and Karsten Schubert (ed.) Ridinghouse/ICA, London (2002) p.354.

 

13. See section 1 of the UK’s Forgery and Counterfeiting Act (1981) for example.

 

14.  The main three moral rights of authorship are: (1) the right to be identified as the author of the work; (2) the right to object to false attribution of the artwork; and (3) the right to object to ‘derogatory treatments’ of the work are reflected in Article 6 bis of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1888): “Independently of the author’s economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.”.The Berne Convention is an international legal convention ratified by many different signatory states, including the UK and US who have incorporated moral rights into their legislation as well as civil law countries such as France and Germany who have strong national traditions of protecting authors’ (including artists’) moral rights.

 

15. See Nourse L.J. in Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1985] 1.Q.B. 564 (CA) at p.578.

 

16. Richard Drake v Thos Agnews & Sons Ltd [2002] WL 237113.

 

17. Per Denning L.J. in Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2.K.B. (CA) at pp.87-91.

 

18. Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1985] 1.Q.B. 564 (CA).

 

19. De Balkany v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd [1997] Tr L 163, The Independent 19 January 1995 (Transcript).

 

20. Luxmoore-May v Messenger May Baverstock [1990] 1.W.L.R. 1009.

 

21. Taylor v Thomson & Christie Manson & Woods Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 555 (CA).

 

22. Rogarth v Siebermann F.3d (1997 WL 703455 2d. Cir).

 

23. See ‘Warhol Brillo boxes downgraded to “copies”‘, in The Art Newspaper, October 2010.

 

24. French Law No.570-298 of March 11, 1957. See discussion of Van Kirk Rees, ‘Establishing Authenticity in French Law’, in Spencer, op.cit. pp.227-241.

 

25.  See Andrew Wilson, ‘This Is Not By Me’: Andy Warhol and the Question of Authorship’ in McClean & Schubert (ed) op.cit. pp. 375-385.

 

26.  Joe Simon-Wheelan v The Andy Warhol Foundation For The Visual Arts,(2009), op.cit.

 

27. Hahn v  Duveen 133 Misc. 871, 872; 234 N.Y.S. 185 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co.1929).

 

28. Kirby v Wildenstein 784 FSupp.1112 (SDNY, 1992).

 

29. Lariviere v E.V. Thaw, the Pollock-Krasner Authentication Board, et al (2000) N.Y. SlipOp. 5000.

 

30. Greenberg Gallery Inc v Baumann, 817, F. Supp. 167 (D.D.C. 1993) affirmed (1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 27517).

 

31. Spencer, op.cit. pp.196-198.

 

32.  French Law No.570-298 of March 11, 1957. See also the case of Roualt v Vollard, Civil Court of the Seine (First Part) July 10 1946, reported in 16 Liturgical Arts No 3., p.91 (May, 1948).

 

33. See Seth Siegelaub, Poster (24 February 1971) with explanation on how to use ‘The Artist’s Reserved Rights Transfer and Sale Agreement’ (1971) co-drafted with Bob Projansky. See the ‘Enforcement’ section of the Poster.

 

34. http://www.carlandre.net/Certificates.html (‘the Carl Andre Website’).

 

35. This information was provided to me by the co-curators of the exhibition ‘In-Deed: Certificates of Authenticity in Art’ (2011), Cornelia Lauf and Susan Hapgood.

 

36.

 

37.

 

38. Martha Buskirk, op.cit,  Chapter 1, esp. pp.34-38 , 40-42.

 

39. Ibid. p.42.

 

40. For Andre the materiality of the work is fundamental and he refuses to allow his works to be re-fabricated if they have been lost or stolen. See on the Carl Andre Website, ‘POLICY REGARDING LOST WORKS’In the event that a sculpture is lost, misplaced or stolen in its entirety, neither Carl Andre nor the Carl Andre and Melissa L. Kretschmer Foundation will give consent to the replacement of the work, regardless of the existence of the original certificate. However, Andre does allow some replacements of damaged material elements of his work, see ‘CONDITIONS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF MATERIALS’.

41. See Buskirk’s discussion in particular, op.cit p.41.

 

42.  Sol Lewitt quoted in Buskirk, ibid. p.45.

 

43. Authenticity in Art and Law: A Question of Attribution or Authorization? By Daniel McClean was originally commissioned by Susan Hapgood and Cornelia Lauf for the publication ‘In Deed: Certificates of Authenticity in Contemporary Art’ (2011). 1st edition was Roma Publications, Amsterdam, in co-production with SBKM/De Vleeshal, Middelburg.

 

 

該文章原本由Susan Hapgood和Cornelia Lauf委托Daniel McClean撰寫,並登於2011年出版的In Deed: Certificates of Authenticity in Contemporary Art,第一版由阿姆斯特丹的Roma Publications,米德爾堡的SBKM/De Vleeshal聯合出版。

 

作者簡介:

Daniel McClean is a lawyer specialising in Art and Cultural Property Law and Intellectual Property Law at the London based law firm, Finers Stephens Innocent LLP. He is also an independent curator and was co-curator with SUPERFLEX of the exhibition ‘In-Between Minimalisms’ and the project ‘FREE SOL LEWITT’ at the Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven, 2010.

丹尼爾·麥克林,專攻藝術文化產權法和知識產權法,現任倫敦Finers Stephens Innocent LLP律師事務所的律師,同時也是獨立策展人。2010年,他與荷蘭藝術家組織Superflex在艾恩德霍芬(Eindhoven)的Van Abbemuseum博物館聯合策劃了展覽“In-Between Minimalisms(極簡主義之間)”和“Free Sol LeWitt”項目。

 


<<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12