pact of climate change on tropical nations’ artistic archives. According to the statement, "much of the world's cultural heritage" is made of biodegradable materials which in "prolonged warmth and dampness, attract mould, micro-organisms and insects, causing decay and disintegration." The global temperature increase associated with climate change is thus proving disastrous for national museums and archives across the globe. As such, the report reintroduces the necessity of expanding and clarifying existing ownership laws as impoverished nations clamor to save their cultural legacies (see right). When preservation is at stake, however, difficulties historically arise as to accepted levels of multinational involvement. Not surprisingly, host nations often feel their claims at ownership are threatened when they are unable to properly maintain their archives. Establishing guidelines consequently becomes exceptionally difficult and is often mishandled. The primary concern of the creative community must thus be to ensure the safety and perseverance of art through the establishment of finite laws.With regards to issues of climate change, this is best facilitated by encouraging involvement not only from the international community but within the host nation itself. Many of the affected countries have sought to preserve their nation’s visual culture but simply lack the financial capacity to do so. The recent financial collapse has only exacerbated an already pressing issue, threatening to destroy some of the world’s greatest artistic treasures. Politics aside, the obligation of ensuring artistic preservation now rests in international hands. Current laws, however, leave the legality of such actions vague. While ensuring the preservation of existing artifacts is vital to the future of art history, the issue prompts necessary discussion concerning ownership laws and the need for further clarification. As it is, current laws attempt at establishing rightful ownership, but fail at providing absolute directives. Proprietary rights are thus left to be determined by subjective juries, the nonspecific dictates failing to standardize proceedings and leaving room for interpretation.
This need for further explication is not only relevant to issues of preservation, but extends into matters of artist’s rights and personal patronage as well. In a lawsuit symptomatic of this ambiguity, Florida resident Peter Sachs has found himself embroiled in a legal battle with Deutsches Historisches Museum. According to court papers, his father’s massive poster collection, which was seized by the Gestapo in 1938, now sits in the Berlin museum. Estimated collectively at $5.8 million, each of the 4250 posters is clearly stamped with his father's seal though only one of them has been legally returned. Judge Norbert Stobbe's asserts that the return of the poster “establishes Sachs as the rightful owner of the collection,” but the future of the remaining works is still in question. While it is likely Sachs will receive the majority of the collection, several of the posters, including the famed "Die Blonde Venus", will remain in the museum's archives. Laws concerning Nazi era art have thus been largely left unsettled. The 1998 Roundtable Discussion on Nazi-Looted Art sought to apply “international pressure” on owners and institutions of plundered works, but many of the issues raised in the proceedings failed to reach conclusion. Most significantly, many claimaints "found it difficult or impossible to lodge claims in some countries in which art, returned at the end of the war, was nationalized.” Even for those capable of filing suits, a substantial number of owners are unable to afford the exorbitant legal fees required to take these institutions to court. Until such laws are further expanded upon, many of the injustices served under the Holocaust will continue to go unaddressed and the legality of the art market will be undermined.
This failure to properly establish property laws not only threatens legal claims of ownership, but also jeopardizes the rights of
artists and their expressive freedom. Just last month, controversy erupted over the Associated Press’ decision to sue artist Shepard Fairey over the modeling of his enigmatic Obama poster after an AP photograph (see left). Though the company attempted to file suit, claiming the poster was in violation of the Fair Use Doctrine, Fairey preemptively asked a federal judge to declare him "protected from copyright infringement claims.” The artist argued that he adequately altered the portrait, “transforming” the image to “create a powerful new meaning and… a radically different message that has no analogue to the photograph.” The failure of the United State’s copyright law to properly clarify the terms of “fair use” has resulted in the heated exchange between the two parties and has ultimately prompted the photographer to get involved. Against the negative handling of Fairey, photographer Mannie Garcia has challenged the AP's ownership claims, asserting that “at no time did [he] sign the [company's] freelance contract.” As such, the problem is twofold. First, the United States has failed to adequately explain the parameters of “fair use,” a subjective term which currently rests on the personal determinations of judges. Second, while the purpose of such laws is meant to maintain the integrity of the artist, the photographer approves of Fairey’s adaptation of the image. Not only is artistic expression at stake, but the laws meant to protect artists are thus being subverted for monetary gain. In a society ridden with unnecessary lawsuits, artistic freedom will continue to be threatened until proprietary laws are clarified and standardized.Ultimately, the purpose of these statutes is to best represent the interests of artists, their works and their patrons. Ownership must no longer be determined by the partial judgements of courts but by reasonable and clear dicta. Preserving the integrity and safety of visual culture requires government involvement and sponsorship, a matter which demands extension beyond the interests of the art world. Maintaining artistic projects not only nurtures visual education and culture, but imparts societies with a means of better understanding human interaction and experience. In revisiting laws of art preservation, the international community is provided with a unique opportunity to create more concrete proprietary statutes. Artworks looted over 70 years ago have yet to be returned to their rightful owners, and new achievements are questioned for their legality. Parameters of artistic expression are being unfairly established and innumerable treasures are now threatened. As the safety and legitimacy of art is challenged, now is the time for new laws to better define and reflect the challenges of our time. Until then, the future of visual culture will be left in the hands of a select few, subjective rulings dictating the legality and preservation of the multinational art market.
