许可证:作为许可收藏者的艺术品收藏者

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Patrick J. Karol
{"title":"许可证:作为许可收藏者的艺术品收藏者","authors":"Patrick J. Karol","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3295181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Artists have been dramatically reshaping the fine art certificate of authenticity since the 1960s. Where traditional certificates merely certified extant objects as authentic works of a named artist, newer instruments purported both to authorize the creation of unbuilt artworks and instruct buyers how to manifest and install them. Such “Permissive Certificates” have fascinated contemporary art historians ever since. Prior scholarship has shown how such documents, essentially blueprints for art creation, force us to confront fundamental ontological questions on the nature of art, the relationship between artist, collector and viewer, and the influence of money and acquisitiveness on art generation. But rarely, if ever, have they been approached as legal instruments. \n \nThis Article accordingly fills that gap by construing Permissive Certificates through the complex but potent array of legal rights that they define. It argues that Permissive Certificates are not unitary instruments, but in fact an amalgamation of two distinct legal structures. They couple narrow retrospective warranties on the one hand with prospective copyright licenses and rights of source association on the other. Critically, as with all copyright and source-based permissions, they are conditioned on the owner/licensee complying with use guidelines. Material variations from such terms place the owner/licensee outside the scope of the license, or otherwise in breach, and at risk of claims of infringement by the artist. \n \nThis approach to Permissive Certificates yields two important insights. First, they harbor an unappreciated power as a tool for artist control, particularly in jurisdictions such as the U.S. where moral rights remain relatively weak. Second, and more broadly, as art becomes increasingly more dematerialized, digitized, and duplicable, and ever more legalized in turn, Permissive Certificates will grow more and more into the locus of value for such works. Over the long run, museums and other collectors of fine art will become collectors, not of objects, but of permissions. The aura of the artist’s hand will be that of a signature and not of a brushstroke.","PeriodicalId":46514,"journal":{"name":"Washington Law Review","volume":"94 1","pages":"1175"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Permissive Certificates: Collectors of Art as Collectors of Permissions\",\"authors\":\"Patrick J. Karol\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3295181\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Artists have been dramatically reshaping the fine art certificate of authenticity since the 1960s. Where traditional certificates merely certified extant objects as authentic works of a named artist, newer instruments purported both to authorize the creation of unbuilt artworks and instruct buyers how to manifest and install them. Such “Permissive Certificates” have fascinated contemporary art historians ever since. Prior scholarship has shown how such documents, essentially blueprints for art creation, force us to confront fundamental ontological questions on the nature of art, the relationship between artist, collector and viewer, and the influence of money and acquisitiveness on art generation. But rarely, if ever, have they been approached as legal instruments. \\n \\nThis Article accordingly fills that gap by construing Permissive Certificates through the complex but potent array of legal rights that they define. It argues that Permissive Certificates are not unitary instruments, but in fact an amalgamation of two distinct legal structures. They couple narrow retrospective warranties on the one hand with prospective copyright licenses and rights of source association on the other. Critically, as with all copyright and source-based permissions, they are conditioned on the owner/licensee complying with use guidelines. Material variations from such terms place the owner/licensee outside the scope of the license, or otherwise in breach, and at risk of claims of infringement by the artist. \\n \\nThis approach to Permissive Certificates yields two important insights. First, they harbor an unappreciated power as a tool for artist control, particularly in jurisdictions such as the U.S. where moral rights remain relatively weak. Second, and more broadly, as art becomes increasingly more dematerialized, digitized, and duplicable, and ever more legalized in turn, Permissive Certificates will grow more and more into the locus of value for such works. Over the long run, museums and other collectors of fine art will become collectors, not of objects, but of permissions. The aura of the artist’s hand will be that of a signature and not of a brushstroke.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46514,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Washington Law Review\",\"volume\":\"94 1\",\"pages\":\"1175\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Washington Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3295181\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Washington Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3295181","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自20世纪60年代以来,艺术家们一直在戏剧性地重塑美术真品证书。传统的证书仅仅证明现存的物品是某个指定艺术家的真迹,而较新的证书声称既可以授权创作未完工的艺术品,又可以指导买家如何展示和安装这些艺术品。从那时起,这样的“许可证书”就吸引了当代艺术史学家。先前的学术研究表明,这些文件(本质上是艺术创作的蓝图)如何迫使我们面对艺术本质、艺术家、收藏家和观众之间的关系以及金钱和占有欲对艺术产生的影响等基本本体论问题。但它们很少(如果有的话)被当作法律工具来对待。本文通过对许可证书所定义的一系列复杂但有力的法律权利的解释,相应地填补了这一空白。它认为许可证书不是单一的工具,而实际上是两种不同法律结构的合并。它们一方面结合了狭义的追溯保证,另一方面结合了潜在的版权许可和资源关联权。关键的是,与所有版权和基于源代码的许可一样,它们的条件是所有者/被许可人遵守使用指南。这些条款的实质性变化将使所有者/被许可人超出许可范围,或者违反许可,并有被艺术家侵权索赔的风险。这种许可证书的方法产生了两个重要的见解。首先,作为艺术家控制的工具,它们拥有一种未被赏识的力量,尤其是在道德权利相对薄弱的美国等司法管辖区。其次,更广泛地说,随着艺术变得越来越非物质化、数字化和可复制,以及越来越合法化,许可证书将越来越多地成为这些作品的价值所在。从长远来看,博物馆和其他艺术品收藏家将成为收藏家,而不是物品的收藏家,而是许可的收藏家。艺术家的手的光环将是签名的光环,而不是笔触的光环。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Permissive Certificates: Collectors of Art as Collectors of Permissions
Artists have been dramatically reshaping the fine art certificate of authenticity since the 1960s. Where traditional certificates merely certified extant objects as authentic works of a named artist, newer instruments purported both to authorize the creation of unbuilt artworks and instruct buyers how to manifest and install them. Such “Permissive Certificates” have fascinated contemporary art historians ever since. Prior scholarship has shown how such documents, essentially blueprints for art creation, force us to confront fundamental ontological questions on the nature of art, the relationship between artist, collector and viewer, and the influence of money and acquisitiveness on art generation. But rarely, if ever, have they been approached as legal instruments. This Article accordingly fills that gap by construing Permissive Certificates through the complex but potent array of legal rights that they define. It argues that Permissive Certificates are not unitary instruments, but in fact an amalgamation of two distinct legal structures. They couple narrow retrospective warranties on the one hand with prospective copyright licenses and rights of source association on the other. Critically, as with all copyright and source-based permissions, they are conditioned on the owner/licensee complying with use guidelines. Material variations from such terms place the owner/licensee outside the scope of the license, or otherwise in breach, and at risk of claims of infringement by the artist. This approach to Permissive Certificates yields two important insights. First, they harbor an unappreciated power as a tool for artist control, particularly in jurisdictions such as the U.S. where moral rights remain relatively weak. Second, and more broadly, as art becomes increasingly more dematerialized, digitized, and duplicable, and ever more legalized in turn, Permissive Certificates will grow more and more into the locus of value for such works. Over the long run, museums and other collectors of fine art will become collectors, not of objects, but of permissions. The aura of the artist’s hand will be that of a signature and not of a brushstroke.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Washington Law Review is a student-run and student-edited scholarly legal journal at the University of Washington School of Law. Inaugurated in 1919, it is the first legal journal published in the Pacific Northwest. Today, the Law Review publishes Articles and Comments of national and regional interest four times per year.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信