"You can’t copyright an idea." (UPDATED)

Lit pigeons edition.

UPDATE:  Once again, a dissenting view from Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento:  "This isn’t so much about copyright as it is about an Artist with a well-known art institution backing him up burying another artist for the exposure and the seemingly new 'idea.' Will the hypocrisy ever end?"

"What I found was an art world that is this closed, secretive world."

Barbara Pollack profiles Meridith Savona and the FBI's Art Crime Team.

60 Minutes did a thing on the Knoedler case this weekend

You can see it here.  Features appearances by friends of the blog (and Advanced Topics in Art Law guest speakers) Jack Flam, Greg Clarick, and Jamie Martin.

M.H. Miller has some thoughts here.  AFC points out the segment "reveals little," which is true.  I think the problem is it's impossible to explain what happened to a lay audience in a format like this. If you get it -- if you understand how implausible it was that there would just be this vast trove of undiscovered works by the giants of Abstract Expressionism -- you get it.  But if you don't see that, Anderson Cooper isn't going to convince you of it in 10 minutes.

"That magic trick illustrates the fundamental absurdity of treating contemporary art as an investment vehicle." (UPDATED 3X)

"In one simple statement, the creator took these 'assets'––ostensibly worth thousands of dollars each––and rendered them worthless to the market. So the next time you hear a silver-tongued broker explaining the wisdom of adding living artists' works to your portfolio, ask him how he'd feel about investing in Facebook if Mark Zuckerberg could suddenly 'de-authenticate' a few thousand shares any time Goldman Sachs pissed him off : )"

Tim Schneider on the Simchowitz-Mahama settlement.

UPDATE:  Brian Frye asks some good questions in the comments at Schneider's blog:  "I wonder about the metaphysics of 'de-authentication.' In other words, does it always work? And to what extent? If so, why does the market (i.e. investors) allow the artist to unilaterally determine the 'authenticity' of the work? Can you imagine a circumstance in which the market would ignore the artist's ipse dixit?"

Cady Noland is of course relevant here.

UPDATE 2:  And I should have linked to Amy Adler here:  "A recent lawsuit involving the artist Cady Noland illustrates the way in which a living artist’s disclaimer of a work, even when everyone knows it’s 'real,' can still transform it into a fake."

UPDATE 3:  A different view from Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento:  "Put simply, we don’t think this is more than another attempt by certain artist to bite the same hand that feeds them, and that feeds them well. In other words, it’s marketing ploy with little teeth, because unless your head is still stuck in the sand you’ve come to understand that it’s the collector and the art market that dictate what is a work of 'art.'"

So This Is Chrismas

"The outlook for Douglas Chrismas, the founder of one of Los Angeles’s oldest and largest galleries, seems to be growing bleaker by the day.  Sam Leslie, the forensic accountant who now runs the day-to-day operations of the gallery, has officially terminated Chrismas’s role with Ace Gallery and has filed a lengthy status report to the court, documenting millions of dollars diverted to mysterious accounts and dozens of works of art that have been moved to private storage."

"Prosecutors allege that Zukerman engaged in a complex scheme to avoid paying New York State sales and use taxes on the purchase of those paintings."

Sales tax crackdown continues.

"A settlement was reached in a skirmish over ownership of Pablo Picasso’s plaster 'Bust of a Woman,' according to a filing in New York federal court."

Breaking news.  Background here.