louisiana: state of the art October 30, 2007
Here is some interesting reading from the Louisiana Civil Code. Believe it or not, Louisiana is one of the 12 states that have codified certain “moral rights” of artists. We haven’t gone quite so far as some countries, though, where an artist has a cause of action against anyone who “excessively criticizes” or makes a “vexatious or malicious attack on” his work. Heh Heh. That law wouldn’t fly here, ’cause we got a little old thang called the First Amendment.
LSA-R.S. 51:2153
Chapter 34: Artists’ Authorship Rights Act
§ 2153. Public display of altered works of fine art
Except as limited by R.S. 51:2155, no person other than the artist or a person acting with the artist’s consent, and in the case of joint creators with consent from all of them, shall knowingly display to others, make accessible to the public, or publish the following:
(1) A work of fine art of an artist in an altered, defaced, mutilated, or modified form.
(2) A reproduction of a work of fine art of an artist if the work is depicted as, or the reproduction is, in an altered, defaced, mutilated, or modified form.
(3) Work, if it is in its original or reproduced form and is displayed, made accessible to the public, or published as being the work of the artist, when the work is known to be generally regarded by the public as that of the artist, or under circumstances in which it would be reasonably regarded as being the work of the artist, and damage to the artist’s reputation is reasonably likely to result therefrom.
§ 2154. Artists’ authorship rights
A. Except as limited by R.S. 51:2155, any person who displays to others, makes accessible to the public, or publishes a work of fine art or a reproduction thereof shall do so in such a manner that the authorship of the work of fine art is shown to be that of the artist, unless:
(1) The name of the artist is not known to the person and it does not appear on or in connection with the work of fine art in such a manner that it can be discovered with reasonable ease; or
(2) The artist expressly agrees otherwise.
B. Except as limited by R.S. 51:2155, the artist shall retain at all times the right to claim authorship of his or her work of fine art. This right shall include the right of the artist to have his or her name appear, as the artist, on or in connection with the work of fine art or any reproduction thereof.
C. Except as limited by R.S. 51:2155, the artist shall retain at all times the right to disclaim authorship of his or her work of fine art for just and valid reason. This right shall include the right of the artist to prevent his or her name from appearing on or in connection with the work of fine art or any reproduction thereof. Just and valid reason for disclaiming authorship shall include that the work of fine art has been altered, defaced, mutilated, or modified without the artist’s consent and damage to the artist’s reputation is reasonably likely to result or has resulted therefrom.
D. The rights created by this Section shall exist in addition to any other rights and duties which may now or in the future be applicable.
§ 2155. Scope of applicability
A. Alteration, defacement, mutilation, or modification of a work of fine art resulting from the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials shall not by itself constitute a violation or create a right to disclaim authorship under R.S. 51:2154, provided such alteration, defacement, mutilation, or modification was not the result of gross negligence in maintaining or protecting the work of fine art. For purposes of this Section, the term “gross negligence” shall mean the exercise of so slight a degree of care as to justify the belief that there was an indifference to the particular work of fine art.
B. In the case of a reproduction, a change that is an ordinary result of the medium of reproduction does not by itself constitute a violation of R.S. 51:2153 or create a right to disclaim authorship under R.S. 51:2154(C).
C. Conservation or restoration shall not constitute an alteration, defacement, mutilation, or modification within the meaning of this Chapter unless the alteration, defacement, mutilation, or modification would not have occurred but for negligence in the conservation or restoration work.
D. This Chapter shall not apply to work prepared under contract for advertising or trade use unless the contract so provides.
E. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply only to works of fine art or reproductions thereof knowingly displayed to others, made accessible to the public, or published in this state or to acts in violation of this Chapter by a person who is subject to the jurisdiction of this state.
F. (1) If a work of fine art cannot be removed from a building without substantial physical defacement, mutilation, alteration, or destruction of such work, the rights and duties created under this Chapter, unless expressly reserved by an instrument in writing signed by the owner of such building and properly recorded, shall be deemed waived. Such instrument, if recorded, shall be binding on subsequent owners of such building.
(2) If the owner of a building wishes to remove a work of fine art which is a part of such building, but which can be removed from the building without substantial harm to such fine art, the rights and duties created under this Chapter shall apply, unless the owner has diligently attempted without success to notify the artist in writing of his intended action affecting the work of fine art, or unless he did provide such notice and the artist fails within ninety days either to remove the work or to pay for its removal. If such work is removed by or at the expense of the artist, title to such work of fine art shall be deemed to be in the artist.
G. The provisions of this Chapter apply to any works of fine art regardless of when created.
§ 2156. Relief
A. An artist aggrieved under this Chapter shall have a cause of action for legal and injunctive relief.
B. No action may be maintained to enforce any right under this Chapter unless brought within three years of the act complained of or one year after the actual or constructive discovery of such act, whichever is later.
that’s no lady, that’s our d.a.!
I had criminal procedure class today and everyone in there was buzzing about Eddie Jordan’s resignation. Some people have more inside perspective than others, so the rest of us eagerly asked about Keva Landrum-Johnson, the new District Attorney. As the Times-Picayune says, she has lately been the head of screening and she has some high-profile cases in her background.
I gather that Landrum-Johnson has a reputation for working hard, and no one has anything negative to say about her. In other words, no eye-rolling. Apparently, she has remained the head of screening while taking on some of the duties of the first assistant while Gaynell Williams ran for judge. It was my impression that Gaynell Williams was resigning as well, but that is not in the Times-Picayune. Before we found out that Landrum-Johnson would replace Jordan, we all assumed it would be Williams. I can’t imagine she would want to stay there after being passed over. I feel bad for Williams. She hasn’t been accused of wrong-doing, but she’s paying any way. She must think Eddie Jordan is a dark cloud that is following her around.
It’s too bad that it had to happen this way, but it’s kind of a kick in the pants to me that New Orleans now has a woman District Attorney. I’ve wondered, each time we’ve been confronted by some fresh idiocy from Eddie Jordan, how things would have been if Dale Atkins had been elected D.A. in 2002. It’s clear now that Atkins, the Clerk of Civil District Court, is not in the Jefferson camp. People in civil law firms always complain about the clerk’s office, and it is certainly less efficient than the clerk of the federal court. But when compared to other branches of the justice system in New Orleans, it has been a model to emulate. For comparison, I remind you of former criminal clerk Kimberly “Disneyland” Williamson-Butler. If Atkins had beaten Jordan, our first woman D.A. would have also been the first black person to hold the job.
I was reminded while reading the Jordan coverage that we have another federal judgment hanging over our heads, dating from Harry Connick’s days as District Attorney. We owe Mr. John Thompson, lately of Death Row, $14 million. We aren’t going to be able to wheel and deal our way out of that one. There is no one left to fire.
dangerblond political celebrity watch October 29, 2007
So, I grabbed a coffee at Dunbar’s and crossed the street to the Law School. There were two guys sitting on a bench in front. I didn’t recognize them, and they had that “not from around here” look (I can’t describe exactly what I mean by that - something about a dark, double-breasted suit, but no military-looking haircut). Loyola has been interviewing professors, so I thought one of these guys must be a candidate.
I went up to the third floor and hung around in the hallway, waiting for our classroom to clear out. There was something going on across the hall. My friend investigated and reported that it was a “congressional hearing on labor and employment in New Orleans.” Well, that sounded cool. The two guys from the bench came out of the elevator, and a crowd started to form around them, with a few people speaking Spanish. I was looking at the one guy and thinking, “you know, I know him from somewhere. He must be a lawyer with one of the big firms.”
Then another classmate came up to us and said, “Dude. What’s Dennis Kucinich doing here?”
So, typically, I failed to recognize a national celebrity. I think I could stumble over George W. Bush himself and not recognize him. They just don’t look like themselves. As with almost every celebrity that I’ve ever seen except for Tommy Tune and Muhammed Ali, Kucinich is shorter than you would think.
smarty party October 28, 2007
I’m still smarting a little over the party I attended on Friday. Most of the other guests were residents of Stacy Head’s city council district, and everyone had heard about my councilwoman Shelley Midura’s meltdown at the retreat. They were incredibly smug about the fact that their councilwoman knows how to act like a guy and mine doesn’t. I remained civil enough not to say, “well, if you had grown up with the name ‘Head,’ you’d learn how to fight, too! Yes, of course Stacy Head is smart and perfect - she HAD to be!”
I pointed out that I wasn’t too impressed with the results of years of civility and collegiality on the city council. They all congratulate each other, shake hands, and then go wash the slime off. Remember Eddie Sapir? Maybe it’s me, but when council members spend our money on stupid things, cast votes based on political alliances (or worse), and skim patronage money off everything that isn’t nailed down, I wouldn’t mind seeing them get a public beat-down.
I would like for all city council members to be forced to factor in the possibility of having to answer for themselves whenever they do anything. As long as they can count on all this phony civility, where is the downside of corruption? There must be some mathematical equation that tells you when you have crossed over from being civil for a reason to being civil just for the sake of being civil. It’s like making a plan to make a plan.
It creates cognitive dissonance when we see council members doing things that make no sense in terms of public service and responding to questions with double-talk, while the other council members, whom you KNOW know better, quietly go along with it. Next thing you know, Oliver Thomas, who everyone thought was such a nice guy, is caught strong-arming citizens for money. Don’t you think everyone on the city council knew what kind of person he was for many years before we found out? It’s like realizing that all your friends knew your husband was cheating on you and no one told you. Thanks a lot, guys. With friends like ya’ll, who needs enemies?
I can’t help but notice that Fielkow, Head, Carter and the temporary guy are the council members who can keep their cool no matter what kind of absurdity is happening, and they are all experienced lawyers. They are not about to reveal themselves. On the other hand, I enjoy seeing the Cynthias and Midura reveal themselves. It’s interesting. Fielkow is probably up to all kinds of interesting things, and I wish I knew more, but I’ve decided that he will never pull back the curtain completely. Although I admire the quality in lawyers, I don’t think it’s such a bad thing to watch someone who is still learning how to play with cobras and not get bitten. I think Shelley should toughen up, but I don’t want her to shut up. For better or worse, I live in her district and she truly represents me.
waking the dead October 27, 2007
I’m housebound tonight, but I can hear the music from Voodoo Fest wafting from City Park, all the way across the cemeteries and I-10Â and into my closed-up house. Heh. Never heard that before. They must be shaking the leaves off the Oak trees. Rawk on.
you don’t drink, don’t smoke. what do you do?
Cynthia “Speed-Racer” Hedge-Morrell says Shelley Midura is a “Goody Two-Shoes.” Ooooooh. That hurt. Midura stormed out of the room. I don’t blame her. The Heathers Cynthias then went on to protest entirely too much about how Shelley Midura is the only person on the City Council who isn’t on the take. Of course, that’s ridiculous. There is no proof whatsoever that Shelley Midura isn’t on the take.
Obviously, Shelley needs a make-over. I suggest that she show up at the next council meeting wearing a bright purple mohawk, a couple of fleur de lys tats on her tatas, a short skirt and tank top that says “Shuck me, Suck me, Eat me raw,” rip-roaring drunk and smoking a pack of Kools. If that doesn’t shut those bitches up, Shelley should steal their husbands. We’ll see who’s a goody two-shoes.
sasquatch sighting
I had pizza with a friend tonight at Slice. During dinner, he looked over my shoulder toward the door and suddenly got a shocked expression on his face.
“What is it?”
“The Mayor!”
Sure enough, Ray Nagin was sliding his sexy self into a booth, one booth from us. I’m happy to report that 1) the Mayor is looking good; he looks rested, and he’s keeping himself in shape. 2) The Mayor was with his wife and daughter, who both looked great, and 3) The Mayor, his wife and his daughter were having dinner in New Orleans tonight, and not Dallas, Texas, like so many other New Orleanians.
When we left, I said, “would you be horribly embarrassed if I just thumped the Mayor on the head on the way out?”
“Normally, I wouldn’t mind, but tonight’s not real good for getting you out of jail.”
Later, I was at a party where I talked with a guy I’ve met once before. As the conversation progressed, I realized he is one of the plaintiffs in the Eddie Jordan case.
“You were fired by Eddie Jordan?”
“Yeah. You didn’t know that?”
“No, I didn’t. Let me ask you something. Did Laurie White have anything to do with you and the other plaintiffs being fired?”
“What? What are you talking about?”
“Someone commented on my blog that Laurie White worked on Eddie Jordan’s transition team and that she may have had something to do with the firings of all the white workers in the DA’s office. Have you heard anything like that?”
He said he had heard nothing like that at all, as far as everyone knows it was William Jefferson, Stephanie Butler and Eddie Jordan who were responsible for the whole debacle.
The Eddie Jordan case is a case that actually went to trial, and the trial reached a verdict. It was not settled. That means the case went through the discovery process, where the evidence is turned over, and evidence and testimony were presented in court. I’m not aware of anything being sealed. This guy I talked with was a plaintiff in the suit. He has been through the whole thing. If he does not think Laurie White is one of the people who had him fired, then that is good enough for me, and I consider that issue closed.
This guy still works in the criminal justice system in another area, and he is a leader in his neighborhood group. He said that most of the plaintiffs aren’t going to get a lot of money, and they know it, but they are not doing it for money. They were treated badly, but just as important was the dismantling of programs that were on-going at the DA’s office, such as diverting people from jail to prison alternatives. The high-handedness of the whole thing was stupefying, it seems.
He had not read my proposed settlement terms, but he thought the Saints tickets and the rides on Mardi Gras floats were something that should definitely be discussed.
i think you better call tyrone, October 24, 2007
and tell him I said come on, help you git your shit.
De corte, et al. v. Jordan, et al., USDC - EDLA No. 03-1239
May it please the Court. The Dangerblond Center for Citizens Who Have Had Just About Enough presents the following Settlement Proposal for consideration in the above captioned matter:
In exchange for dropping all their claims against the Defendants, Plaintiffs each agree to accept an amount corresponding to three months’ salary at the jobs from which they were illegally fired, adjusted to 2007 dollars. Plaintiffs’ attorneys agree to accept 75% of their customary fees, exclusive of costs, etc., and defendants’ attorneys agree to accept 50% of their customary fees, exclusive of costs, etc. All plaintiffs and attorneys of record shall get four free 2008 Saints season tickets, plus lifetime passes to ride the St. Charles Streetcar.
Additionally, each Plaintiff shall be honored as a celebrity monarch, grand marshall, duke or princess in at least one 2008 Orleans Parish Mardi Gras parade, parades to be matched up with Plaintiffs by a committee consisting of Blaine Kern, Arthur Hardy and Errol Laborde. Should any Plaintiff attend any Mardi Gras parade at any time during the 2008 carnival season as a spectator, said Plaintiff shall be pelted by any and all float-riders, both neutral ground and sidewalk side, with such an amount of trinkets, necklaces, doubloons and other “throws” so as to constitute a “serious bag of loot.”
Defendant Jordan agrees to step down as Orleans Parish District Attorney, effective immediately. The time remaining on his term in office, approximately one year, shall be filled by an ad hoc district attorney to be chosen by a three-person committee. The three-person committee shall consist of NOPD Chief Warren Riley, US Attorney Jim Letten and one representative judge chosen by the sitting judges in Orleans Parish Criminal Court. Defendant Jordan does not get Saints tickets, and he does not get to ride on the streetcar. Although defendant Jordan shall not be prohibited from running for public office in future elections, should he be elected, he shall agree not to serve, and shall announce that “being vindicated is enough.”
Defendant The City of New Orleans (”We”), agree to promptly pay the agreed-to damages and attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of the actions of our elected District Attorney. The funds for these payments shall be added to the city revenues via a temporary “Incompetence Tax” assessed upon each citizen of voting age, identified through the voters registration rolls and the Department of Motor Vehicles. Citizens shall be strongly encouraged to ”think about that” before entering any voting booths during future elections.
Respectfully submitted,
Dangerblond
if i had to choose between wraths of god… October 23, 2007
The fires in Southern California will soon have driven more people out of their homes than Katrina did in New Orleans. How awful for them. The photos are terrifying. I think, on the whole, I would rather have to periodically face down a wall of water than a wall of fire. How long will it be before those people can smell anything but smoke?
older posts »
