Professor Rachel A.J. Pownall draws on over a century of auction sales data (1909–2024) to examine how income and wealth inequality shape art market pricing, fueling both booms and fragility. The paper also offers a framework for cultural leaders seeking to address these disparities as part of a broader arts management strategy.
Art Prices, Disparities, and Cultural Leadership
Artificial Code
In “Artificial Code,” BYU Law Professor Clark D. Asay argues that while AI copyright battles rage in music, journalism, and visual art, the software industry has stayed on the sidelines. The reason? Much AI-generated code may not qualify for copyright protection under current U.S. law — a gap with major implications for the industry.
Dancing About Architecture: A Case For The Attenuation of Trademark Ownership In Favor of Cultural Property
STCL Houston’s Assistant Professor of Law Telia Mary U. Williams explores the contested legacy of the “Washington Redskins” name, arguing that its significance extends beyond corporate trademark into the realm of cultural property, invoking theories of cultural appropriation, collective ownership, and indigenous and black self-actualization.
The Ascension of Indigenous Cultural Property Law
Professor Riley from UCLA Law examines how tribal law has become a critical tool in advancing Native self-determination and good governance across Indian country. Drawing from extensive empirical research, the article highlights how tribes are crafting laws that reflect their values, traditions, and sovereignty, aiming towards a broader movement of the revitalization of tribal governance and the assertion of Indigenous legal authority.
Legislating Generative Artificial Intelligence: Can Legislators Put a Box Around Pandora?
Michael Murray from the University of Kentucky, J. David Rosenberg College of Law, explores how contemporary generative artificial intelligence tools have revolutionized the creation of images, videos, and audio. In turn, this allows users to “fake” the appearance, voice, performances, and actions of real people with unprecedented speed and ease, leading to state and federal legislative actions.
Legal Personhood for Artwork
Associate Professor Sergio Alberto Gramitto Ricci from Hofstra University’s Maurice A. Deane School of Law presents a compelling framework for artwork legal personhood, arguing that art itself deserves fundamental rights. His analysis addresses the unjust monetization of indigenous cultural pieces and artwork’s social significance. Central to his argument: each artwork possesses distinct social existence independent of creators and owners—potentially reshaping our legal paradigm to focus on the art itself rather than artists and proprietors.
Takings, Private Property & World Cultural Heritage
Anne-Marie Carstens, Associate Professor, University of Baltimore School of Law, examines Octagon Earthworks, a 2,000-year-old indigenous site, to highlight the tension between private property rights and the World Heritage Convention’s requirements for cultural “authenticity” and “integrity”, and questions about using eminent domain for aesthetic and cultural heritage purposes.
Tax Law as Muse
Co-authors Brian Soucek, UC Davis Law, and Jennifer C. Lena, Columbia, discuss taxation of the arts through a case in which Chicago officials targeted clubs hosting rock, hip-hop, country, and DJ performances, arguing these genres weren’t part of the “fine arts” and thus not tax-exempt.
Iconology of Justice. Rhetoric and Law in The Calumny by Sandro Botticelli
In his recent article, Iconology of Justice. Rhetoric and Law in The Calumny, University of Padova Law professor Pablo Moro presents a rhetorical analysis of The Calumny by Sandro Botticelli, a tempera painting created between 1494 and 1497. Moro explores how Botticelli uses classical concepts of justice and trial to depict an unjust legal process, highlighting the absence of truth in judgment
The Art Belongs to the Artists
UNC Law professors Deborah M. Weissman, and Louis A. Perez dissect the US government’s refusal to grant Guantánamo Bay detainees ownership of the art they created during their detention, framing the confiscation of these works as a form of cultural plunder.