Would you accept a stolen Van Gogh as a gift? Of course not.
What if the work wasn’t so much "stolen," as it was "nationalized" for the good of the homeland? To help fund stimulus grants, say the work was sold twenty years later to an old college friend of yours, and thirty years after that your college friend gave it to your son or daughter as a graduation gift. Should your child accept?
What if your child is the President of Yale University at the time?
On the week’s eve before Chicago’s Art Institute christens its new modern art wing, some thoughts on Chicago art located (or which used to be located) outdoors. Throughout the 80′s and 90′s, Chapman Kelley’s meticulous display of native wildflowers graced Chicago’s Grant Park. In 2004 they were "mutilated" or reconfigured – depending on your perspective. Kelley’s recent (April 13, 2009) Brief before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals of the matter at hand can be found here.
Over at The Art Law Blog, not to be confused with our blog on Artlawteam.com, the Kelley Brief reignited some exhaustion over the September 2008 decision concerning Kelley’s Wildflower Works. In the September 2008 decision, Kelley’s works were denied protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) under the notion, among other considerations of "originality," that precedent excluded so-called "site specific" works (works which are built specifically for the place where they are located, not meant to be transplanted - pardon the pun – anywhere else) from VARA’s reach.
While there is much to be written and waxed upon concerning what should and what should not be covered or protected by VARA (which the Kelley Brief does in spades and the Art Law Blog seems to do well here and here), perhaps the real consideration when advising clients should be "Can we get it in writing?"