Comments on: Mass MoCA v. Buchel Update http://madisonian.net/2007/09/22/mass-moca-v-buchel-update/ a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:59:42 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: James Grimmelmann http://madisonian.net/2007/09/22/mass-moca-v-buchel-update/comment-page-1/#comment-224160 James Grimmelmann Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:19:15 +0000 http://madisonian.net/archives/2007/09/22/mass-moca-v-buchel-update/#comment-224160 I haven't looked closely at the legal issue, but the museum's litigation position strikes me as so unsympathetic as to make me wonder how it can be a coherent reading of VARA. They argued, in effect, that BECAUSE the work is admittedly unfinished, they should be able to exhibit it as they please. If the work were actually finished, however, Buchel wouldn't have a problem with what they're doing. That seems exactly backwards: the law shouldn't give holders of unfinished works more right to show them as-is over the artist's objections than holders of finished works have. The museum should more properly be in the position of arguing that Buchel isn't the sole arbiter of whether the work is finished, and that what they have is a finished work. If they can't do that, then they should have negotiated a better contract with him in the first place--e.g., to make him reimburse them if he improperly refuses to declare the work finished and ready for exhibition. In the end, this isn't really even a VARA case when it comes to the policy angle; it's a garden-variety falling-out in the wake of a badly-drafted contract. I haven’t looked closely at the legal issue, but the museum’s litigation position strikes me as so unsympathetic as to make me wonder how it can be a coherent reading of VARA. They argued, in effect, that BECAUSE the work is admittedly unfinished, they should be able to exhibit it as they please. If the work were actually finished, however, Buchel wouldn’t have a problem with what they’re doing. That seems exactly backwards: the law shouldn’t give holders of unfinished works more right to show them as-is over the artist’s objections than holders of finished works have. The museum should more properly be in the position of arguing that Buchel isn’t the sole arbiter of whether the work is finished, and that what they have is a finished work. If they can’t do that, then they should have negotiated a better contract with him in the first place–e.g., to make him reimburse them if he improperly refuses to declare the work finished and ready for exhibition. In the end, this isn’t really even a VARA case when it comes to the policy angle; it’s a garden-variety falling-out in the wake of a badly-drafted contract.

]]> By: don't know law http://madisonian.net/2007/09/22/mass-moca-v-buchel-update/comment-page-1/#comment-224159 don't know law Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:03:46 +0000 http://madisonian.net/archives/2007/09/22/mass-moca-v-buchel-update/#comment-224159 info to interpret - http://anaba.blogspot.com/2007/09/buchel-vs-mass-moca.html info to interpret –

http://anaba.blogspot.com/2007/09/buchel-vs-mass-moca.html

]]>