- Clothing Brand Says It Will Phase Out Logo Amid Controversy With Street Artist, But Questions About “Fluid Trademarks” Remain
In early 2021, the street artist known as Futura filed a lawsuit against the North Face Apparel Corp. (“NFA”) for unfair competition, alleging that NFA illegally adopted Futura’s iconic circular atom for its outerwear line called “FUTURELIGHT.” Recently, NFA issued a public statement regarding the lawsuit, and NFA has committed to discontinuingthe use of their FUTURELIGHT logo out of deference to Futura. However, the lawsuit remains unresolved and involves novel legal issues that could affect the landscape of trademark law.
- Possible Class Action Lawsuit Against NYPD and City Raises New VARA (and Civil Rights) Questions
We have written often about the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA), and in particular the emerging legal conversation about how VARA applies to street art. Now, a recently-initiated case—against New York City and the NYPD—may break new ground on that topic.
- Indonesian Theme Park Filled With Art Knockoffs Loses Copyright Suit By Artist’s Estate
A couple of years ago, we wrote about “Rabbit Town,” a “selfie tourism” theme park in Indonesia where visitors can take photographs set against fantastical backdrops. The park charges admission for access to the park, which features several attractions that essentially recreate famous art installations from around the world, including works by Yayoi Kusama and imitations of scenes from the Museum of Ice Cream. The Rabbit Town versions often have different titles and do not credit the original artist. Now, Rabbit Town is facing a court order to destroy one of its attractions, an installation called “Love Light,” which is strikingly similar to Urban Light, a work by the late artist Chris Burden.
- Another Epilogue In the Long Saga Of A Looted Pissarro Painting
The long-running dispute over a Pissarro painting has come to a close—yet again—after years of legal wrangling in multiple forums, and after a complex settlement arrangement collapsed in spectacular fashion. As is sadly the case in many stories involving Nazi-era art litigation, there is no dispute that the artwork at issue here was outright looted by Nazi forces in Nazi-occupied France, yet the artwork will not return to the family from whom it was wrested.