3/10/2014

Defaced Art and the Law | MAW-LAW Web Site

Defaced Art and the Law

March 10, 2014( 2014-03-10T12:53:21+ 00:00) by marie-andree@maw-law.com<ht t p://www.maw-law.com/aut hor/marie-andreemaw-law-com/>

<http://www.maw-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2215900549_4ec748f858.jpg>Last month,

a Miami-based artist, Maximo Caminero, smashed

<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/arts/design/behind-the-smashing-of-a-vase.html>one of the

ancient vases dipped in modern paint which form the Colored Vases installation by Chinese artist Ai Weiwei. They were shown at the Ai Weiwei: According t o What ? <http://www.pamm.org/exhibitions/ai-weiwei-according-what> exhibition currently on view at the Prez Art Museum in Miami. The exhibition will be presented at the Brooklyn Museum in New York later this year. Mr. Caminero has since told
<http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2014/02/miami_artist_maximo_caminero_s.php>the press

that he did it to protest the fact that the work of local artists are not shown in Miami museums. He has been charged with criminal mischief. I will not focus in this post about the legal actions Mr. Caminero is likely to face, but rather about the injuried party, the artist who created the work. Ai Weiwei This is not the first time that a work of art is being defaced as a sign of protest. Mr. Ai himself did so to create his Dropping a Han Dynast y Urn work in 1995, a photographic triptych showing him dropping a 2,000 year old Chinese Han Dynasty urn to the ground and breaking it. Mr. Ai, probably one of the most famous contemporary artists, helped design the Birds Nest national stadium in Beijing, built for the 2008 Olympic Games. The same year, on May 12th, an earthquake devastated the Sichuan province, killing more than 70,0000 people. Mr. Ai started collecting the names of the children who had been killed when their schools, built using shoddy material, collapsed. He launched a citizens investigation on his blog and also asked his Twitter followers to forward him names, a move which did not fare well with Chinese authorities, who had tried to keep the death toll a secret. He was beaten up by the police in 2009 and had to undergo emergency brain surgery. Mr. Ai nevertheless created <http://www.npr.org/2013/01/23/169973843/in-according-to-what-ai-weiwei-makes-mourningsubversive>a series of art works to commemorate the tragedy, such as a wall of backpacks to commemorate the children who lost their lives in the tragedy. In 2011, Mr. Ai was arrested and was secretly detained for 81 days. He was released later that year and he is currently living in China, albeit not completely free as he is still denied a passport. Is it Legal to Destroy a Piece of Art that we own? Coming back to Mr. Ai dropping ancient vases to create new art In the documentary, Ai Weiwei Never Sorry<http://aiweiweineversorry.com/>, his younger brother said during an interview: Things of our past often influence our
http://www.maw-law.com/copyright/broken-vases-law/ 1/4

3/10/2014

Defaced Art and the Law | MAW-LAW Web Site

future. Mr. Ai owned the vase he dropped, which he had bought in an antique market. This point is made by the Hirshhorn museums interim director Kerry Brougher in an interview <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/styleblog/wp/2014/02/19/after-an-art-attack-on-ai-wei-wei-works-hirshhorn-leader-discusses-the-line-between-art-and-vandalism/>with

the Washingt on Post , noting there that the fact that Mr. Ai owned the vase he smashed, while Mr. Caminero did not own the piece of art he destroyed, made a huge difference, as Mr. Ai had the authority to destroy the urn while Mr. Caminero did not have that authority. British artists Jake and Dinos Chapman were also the owners of one of the last remaining sets of the 80 etchings of Goyas Disast ers of War printed from the artists plates. They drew
<http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2003/mar/31/artsfeatures.turnerprize2003>clowns and puppies heads on them, and

named their work Insult t o Injury<http://artobserved.com/2013/06/new-york-jake-and-dinos-chapman-insult-to-injury-at-yoshiigallery-through-june-29th-2013/>. Is it insulting to Goya? Does it injure the public?

In these two cases, the original work destroyed to create a derivative work of art had been created several centuries ago, and thus nobody owned a copyright anymore. However, owning a piece of art does not necessary give the ownership in the copyright of the work we own. Therefore, t would be illegal, under Section 106 of the U.S. Copyright Act <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106>, to buy a piece of art still protected by copyright, while not owning the copyright, and destroy it . Destroying Art and Ethics Even if one has, in some cases, the right to destroy a work of art we own, destroying or defacing art nevertheless raises ethical issues. Did Mr. Ai have the right to destroy a remnant of ancient China to protest the contemporary Chinese regime? Shouldnt it be preserved for future generations? Do we have the right to balance our own assessment of the artistic, or, more crassly, of the market value of an original work of work, against the value of the derivative work created by destroying/defacing the original work? Is it unethical to make a unilateral decision that the general public will not have the right to see a particular piece ever again? That argument was made <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9742467/Yellowist-vandal-who-defaced9million-Rothko-painting-jailed-for-two-years.html>by the British judge who sentenced the man who had defaced
<https://twitter.com/WrightTG/status/254951911126605825>a Mark Rothko painting on view at the Tate Modern gallery in

London to two years in jail. This man had written A potential piece of yellowism with a marker on the painting to promote a rather obscure art movement called yellowism. The judge who sentenced him noted that because such act would lead to a need for increased security in museums, the effects of such security reviews is to distance the public from the works of art they come to enjoy. However, in that case, the art defaced did not belong to the protester. Destroying Art and Droit Moral The man who had defaced the Rothko painting compared himself to Marcel Duchamp. Mr. Ai has also referenced the French artist as one of his sources of inspiration. One of Marcel Duchamps (in)famous pieces, Fount ain<http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573>, is a readymade work of art. Originally a mundane urinal, Marcel Duchamp stripped it from its original function, and presented as a work of art.
http://www.maw-law.com/copyright/broken-vases-law/ 2/4

3/10/2014

Defaced Art and the Law | MAW-LAW Web Site

The original piece has been lost. They are however several versions later created by Marcel Duchamp. One of these has been defaced in France, not once, but twice, and by the same person to boot. In 1993, Pierre Pinoncely, a performance artist, urinated in Fount ain, and then destroyed the piece using a hammer. He stated that he wanted to finish Duchamps work by giving the urinal its primary function back. However, this does not explain why he also broke it with a hammer, as noted by the French court which sentenced him to a suspended onemonth prison sentence and a hefty fine: if urinating in a urinal can render the work back to its first use, no one can claim that a urinal is used with a hammer. Fount ain is quite a provocative piece In 2000, Chinese artists Cai Yuan and JJ Xi also urinated on Marcel Duchamps Fount ain on view at the Tate Modern in London. They were arrested<http://www.global-contemporary.de/en/artists/53-caiyuan-a-jian-xi->, but no charges were filed against them.

Mr. Pinoncely reiterated <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/arts/design/07duch.html?_r=0>his act in 2006, when he once again destroyed Fount ain using a hammer, this time during a Dada exhibition in Paris, and was again sentenced to a suspended prison sentence and a fine. The French courts did not address the droit moral issues raised if someone willingly destroys a work of art. This right, which cannot be sold and is perpetual, is detailed by article L. 121-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code, under which [t ]he aut hor has t he right t o respect for his name, his nat ure/t alent and his work. This right is at t ached t o his person. It is perpet ual, inalienable and imprescript ible. It is t ransferable upon deat h t o t he heirs of t he aut hor. The right t o exercise it can be given t o a t hird part y by a will . While the U.S. does not have such a comprehensive droit moral , a section 106(A) was added to the Copyright Ac t in 1990 by the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA). Authors of works of visual art have the right t o prevent t he use of his or her name as t he aut hor of t he work of visual art in t he event of a dist ort ion, mut ilat ion, or ot her modificat ion of t he work which would be prejudicial t o his or her honor or reput at ion. As works of visual art are defined by 17 U.S.C. 101 as single copy drawing, print or sculpture, or a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer signed and numbered by the author, Mr. Ais works would be protected by VARA, although it is doubtful that Mr. Ai, a Chinese citizen, could asses any rights under VARA. However, China acceded <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15>in 1992 to the Berne Convention, which article 6bis<http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=283698#P123_20726> provides for moral rights. While Mr. Ai did not find Mr. Camineros gesture particularly amusing<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/19/ai-weiweivase_n_4814972.html?utm_hp_ref=tw>, he does plan any legal actions. His admirers are left with the regret of not being able to see the complete Colored Vases again. Image is Vandalism on Hans Kloepfer<https://www.flickr.com/photos/theowl84/2215900549/in/photolist-4nP52T-4rbNrT-4rfToN4rfUB7-4suTY8-4sEkd2-4CfTp7-4DwgcU-4GPPMD-4HMLZg-4HS22q-4HS26S-4QCZWD-4SdZnB-4YTxVb-559qQP-55F2nA-59VuM4-5fFakK5fFatK-5fFaEc-5fKwjw-5fKwmW-5fKwsy-5fKwvo-5fKwyC-5fKwDb-5fKwGE-5rideZ-5tCg2b-5vgxnM-5ygQa1-5Hf54q-5Q9JsW-5YQyN75YQyNh-5ZZfP8-63RagS-6akcEq-6akxLw-6c27RA-6eksBL-6gM4ff-6k8SBz-6oWHg2-6rgZrh-6uhRMV-6AjCRt-6FZCTB-6RTMRi6Vfhov/> courtesy of Flickr user Mathias<https://www.flickr.com/photos/theowl84/>, pursuant to a CC BY 2.0

license<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/>.

(Share on Facebook)
by
(WordPress Social Media Feather)

(Share on Twitter)

(Share on Google+)

(Share on Reddit)

(Pin it with Pinterest)

(Share on Linkedin)

(Share by email)

Filed Under: Copyright <ht t p://www.maw-law.com/cat egory/copyright /> Tagged: Art <ht t p://www.maw-law.com/t ag/art />, Berne Convention<ht t p://www.mawlaw.com/t ag/berne-convent ion/> , Droit Moral <ht t p://www.maw-law.com/t ag/droit -moral/>

http://www.maw-law.com/copyright/broken-vases-law/

3/4

3/10/2014

Defaced Art and the Law | MAW-LAW Web Site

Copyright 2014 Marie-Andre W eiss<ht t p://maw-law.com> Designed by Designer Blogs<ht t p://www.designerblogs.com/>

http://www.maw-law.com/copyright/broken-vases-law/

4/4