Jeff Koons is at it again. He’s been sued for copyright infringement, this time by an artist who created an advertisement for a French clothing brand, Naf Naf.
You can see images of the original advertisement and of Koons’s adaptation at the following links:
Koons has been sued often enough that it’s reasonable to conclude that he is not merely playing with impressions of art (well or poorly? – opinions are divided). Koons, I think, is using the copyright system itself as a canvas. Back in law school, the great Robert Ellickson pointed me to a reflection by Christo (“Running Fence,” the Central Park “Gates,” etc.) that has been stored in the back of my mind for nearly 30 years:
Christo endured years of zoning battles with local authorities before erecting his “Running Fence” in Sonoma County, California: “‘It’s hard to explain that the work is not only the fabric, steel poles, or Fence. Everybody here [at the zoning hearing] is part of my work. Even those who don’t want to be are part of my work….”’ (quotation from Milner S. Ball, Good Old American Permits: Madisonian Federalism on the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf, 12 ENVTL. L. 623, 656 (1982)).
Does Koons think that he is … Christo?
I am speaking on a couple of panels at the upcoming AALS (Associaton of American Law Schools) meeting in Washington, DC. The more provocative of the two is the “AALS President’s Program – Implementing Innovation in Law Schools,” which will be presented at 10:30 am on Saturday January 3 2015.
The program description is this:
“As law schools seek to compete in a changing and challenging global market for legal education, many are striking out in new directions with innovative programs and ideas. The process of innovation in legal education is not unlike that of other businesses and organizations. That process must include the right incentives and culture for forming new ideas, as well as a process for vetting them, prioritizing them, implementing them, and assessing their effectiveness. This session addresses the innovation process and probes how to both spur innovative ideas and then to also move efficiently to implement the ones that seem right for the institution. The session’s speakers bring a wide range of experience with innovation at diverse institutions.”
The speakers are
Dan Rodriguez (Dean of Northwestern University School of Law and AALS President), will moderate.
I don’t know precisely what we’ll say, but I know that Paul, for one, will come prepared to challenge the academics.
Twitter links: @SturmCOL, @UWSchoolofLaw, @PaulLippe, @DeanDBRodriguez, @profmadison
IP law seems to be moving so quickly these days that figuring out how to teach it and what to teach is ever more challenging. This month (December), I’m grading final Fall papers and preparing for Spring courses, and that means deciding — again — what to do with Copyright Law.
Last year a student comment made me pause in a way that student comments rarely do. Reviewing last Spring’s Copyright Law course, the student expressed satisfaction with the course as it was but disappointment that my work on knowledge commons had not been expressed in the course — even indirectly.
That comment motivated me to look under the hood of the course in a way that I had not done in a long time.
Changes in the works:
- Reducing the coverage of the “traditional” principles and doctrines of copyright, focused on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner and limitations and exceptions thereto.
- Expanding the coverage of problems associated with secondary liability and service provider liability.
- Expanding discussion of “regulatory” copyright, meaning compulsory and statutory licenses and collecting societies.
- Introducing discussion of comprehensive copyright reform. Congress is talking about it, the Copyright Office is talking about it, the American Law Institute is talking about it — so I’ll talk about it with our students.
All in all, the revisions are designed to capture more explicitly an “institutionalist” focus on this area of the law, meaning how the law interacts with formal and informal groups of various sorts, not just with individual authors or copyright owners or copyright users and re-users. That’s closely aligned with the theme of the knowledge commons work, even if “commons” stuff as such will make a cameo appearance at best.
Along the way, I am getting rid of the traditional casebook. I’m in the middle of editing a package of cases, and for secondary material and context I will be using parts of the excellent Open Intellectual Property Casebook from the Duke Center on the Public Domain, via Jamie Boyle and Jennifer Jenkins, plus some stuff of my own devising.
And … because software copyright is much in the news these days, courtesy of Oracle and Cisco Systems, my writing assignments for the students (no exams in my IP courses – only client memos!) will all focus on that subject.
All in all, there is a fair amount of experimentation ahead.
for the innovation-minded friend, colleague, or family member. This amazing book, published by Oxford University Press in September 2014, features a stunning and colorful cover (below!), a framework for empirical investigation of innovation institutions that will will hold its value in the decades to come, and more than 10 fascinating and diverse case studies of knowledge sharing mechanisms in context.
Buy the book at Oxford or at Amazon.com, or order it through your local independent bookseller.
[This post is inspired by the recent publication of the 2014 New York Times Gift Guide.]
The American Law Institute has announced plans to produce a Restatement of Copyright. (Announcement here, including the names of the Reporter (NYU’s Chris Sprigman) and Associate Reporters (Lydia Loren, from Lewis & Clark; Tony Reese, from UC Irvine; and Molly Van Houweling, from UC Berkeley).
In light of global concerns about the role of IP law in the production of, distribution of, and access to innovative things and creative works, I hope that the team of Reporters will take an inclusive view of their subject. Copyright is not an end in itself, and even for lawyers and policymakers working with and for the producers of creative stuff, often copyright is only one of several important legal and cultural institutions that they need to understand and use. A “Restatement of Copyright” can make a terrific contribution by putting copyright explicitly in its broader contexts.
[A longtime reader wrote recently to ask: Is the blog still alive? And it is.]