Featured Research

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

In his recent article, UC Berkeley associate professor Benjamin Porter explores the unique positioning of university-based anthropology museums to pursue nuanced decisions concerning the disposition of collections in their care, setting best practices for the field.

Professor Pamela Samuelson examines a dispute about whether Andy Warhol infringed Goldsmith's copyright in a photograph of Prince by creating 16 works based on it.

DePaul Law Professor Patty Gerstenblith contributes to the volume, discussing the tension between different constituencies seeking to reconstruct cultural heritage sites in post-conflict situations.

In their introduction to the Winter 2024 edition of Grey Room, editors Amy Adler and Noam Elcott argue that the incentives of copyright protection are meaningless in the context of visual art where “authenticity” is the measure of value and copies are essentially worthless.

UCLA Law Professor Xiyin Tang discusses the nexus between contemporary art on the one hand, and branding and trademark law on the other -- a connection increasingly strengthened by the transformation of contemporary art into a kind of luxury good where the artist becomes the brand.

Berkeley Law Professor, Pamela Samuelson, underscores the provisions of the EU's Directive on Copyright for the Digital Single Market (DSM) and questions whether the new rules will have the desired effect.

Peter Menell, Berkeley Law Professor, analyzes the meaning and implications of the recent Supreme Court watershed fair use decision in Warhol v. Goldsmith.

Brian Soucek argues that whether or not expression can be considered “art” has never been relevant in the US Supreme Court’s analysis of First Amendment protection of that expression.

Amy Adler explores the importance of artificial authenticity in an age of limitless copying, the art market, and the NFT phenomenon.

In Art After Warhol, Professor Tang highlights an art world grappling with the problematic politics and potential inequities in using copyrighted works.

In Reflections on Music Copyright Justice, Professor Peter Menell argues that the digital revolution has upended many aspects of the copyright system, particularly as it relates to music.

Sonia Katyal explores the legal revolution that is swiftly unfolding regarding the relationship between technology, user interactivity, and cultural institutions, both inside and outside of the law.

Shyamkrishna Balganesh and Peter S. Menell argue that the Court in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith would benefit from a close reading of Campbell, which presciently foreshadowed and thoughtfully addressed the very questions before it today.

Professor Pamela Samuelson breaks down the recent oral arguments over whether an Andy Warhol print of a Prince photograph violates the photographer’s copyright.