January 5, 2025 • 68 mins
To learn more, please visit Amineddoleh & Associates LLC and view Leila Amineddoleh performing Chopin Polonaise, Op. 26, No. 1 and Liszt Liebestraum No. 3.
Show Notes:
1:00 Amineddoleh’s background and work in music and law
4:00 Patty Gerstenblith
7:00 building Amineddoleh & Assoc.
8:45 Amineddoleh's work with Greece
10:00 perspective as musician aids in work as attorney to other artists
11:00 Amineddoleh's experience with plagiarism
14:20 Amineddoleh’s practice
15:45 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
19:50 artists’ perspectives in hiring an attorney
22:50 Jerry Alonzo: what brings artists to seek out Amineddoleh
26:00 return of golden coffin of Nedjemankh
31:45 use of AI
36:30 AI-assisted Beatles song
37:45 analogy of photography to AI outputs
38:20 Japanese photographer Hiroshi Sugimoto
39:45 suit over copyright of monkey selfie
41:45 Thaler v. USCO
44:30 Rupali Gujral: negotiating on a client’s behalf
48:30 Stefania Salles Bruins: history of art collecting
52:30 Bruins: Amineddoleh's balancing of legal and musical practices
54:00 Amineddoleh’s perspective on sharing her music and performing
56:30 Liszt’s Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 played by Bugs Bunny
57:20 Amineddoleh’s performance of Chopin Polonaise, Op. 26, No. 1 and Liszt Liebestraum No. 3
59:00 under-appreciated composer Brahms
1:01:20 injustices in art law
1:04:30 Amineddoleh’s definition of justice - access
1:06:00 John Cage’s 4’33”
Please share your comments and/or questions at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.com
Music by Toulme.
To hear more episodes, please visit Warfare of Art and Law podcast's website.
To leave questions or comments about this or other episodes of the podcast and/or for information about joining the 2ND Saturday discussion on art, culture and justice, please message me at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.com.
Thanks so much for listening!
© Stephanie Drawdy [2025]
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
You can, you know, defend people through art and
get people to understand youthrough art, and I feel I feel
really honored to do thatthrough my work.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Welcome to Warfare of Art and Law, the podcast that
focuses on how justice does ordoesn't play out when art and
law overlap.
Hi everyone, it's Stephanie,and that was Leila Aminadouli,
an art and cultural heritage lawattorney and pianist.
What follows is a recording ofa recent Second Saturday
(00:35):
conversation, during which Leilashares about her work in the
legal and musical fields and howher perspective as a musician
influences her work as anattorney.
Leila Aminadelay welcome toWarfare of Art and Law and
Second Saturday.
Thank you so much for beinghere.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Oh, thank you for inviting me.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
You are an attorney and an artist.
Would you kind of walk usthrough how you came to both of
those fields?
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Well, I started playing the piano when I was
very young I was around fouryears old.
So music's always been a partof my life and it's been an
important part of my life, andmy first job was actually as a
musician.
When I was in high school Itaught the piano to kids in my
town and then eventually, when Iwent to college, I worked in a
(01:29):
restaurant where I played weeklyat a restaurant in downtown New
York.
I had gone to NYU and thenduring that time I also worked
playing some weddings and eventsand parties, and that continued
while I went to law school.
So I always knew music wasgoing to be part of my life, but
I didn't necessarily want tomake music my career.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
What made you gravitate towards the law and
how did that progress for youinto the career you have now?
Speaker 1 (02:01):
So when I was an undergrad I found so many
different areas very interestingand one of the areas that I
studied I had a minor inphilosophy and so I knew that I
was always interested in thistype of philosophy logic
discourse, and while I was inundergrad I was exploring
(02:23):
different areas.
And another area that reallyinterested me was in publishing.
So I ended up interning atScholastic and I love books and
I love the book industry.
So I initially thought that Iwould go to law school to work
in the publishing industry andperhaps work with copyright, and
that kind of evolved eventuallyinto working with artists in
(02:45):
general, so working withmusicians, book publishers, any
type of creative individualprotecting them with, you know,
through their intellectualproperty rights.
And ultimately my first job asa lawyer was as an IP lawyer.
But during those years in lawschool I was also introduced to
(03:05):
the area of art law and it wasthis very striking moment, I
would say, or the striking hourin my life, where I realized I
really wanted to work as an artlawyer Because I had read I
should have been studying.
Actually I remember it was likea Saturday or Sunday and I was
in front of my computer and Ishould have been studying for
(03:27):
one of my law school classes andI happened to be reading the
news instead and I was readingabout the looting at the
National Museum in Iraq thatoccurred in April of 2003.
And that museum was extensivelylooted during the US invasion
of Iraq and kind of went downthis rabbit hole, reading about
(03:50):
the looting, about other typesof looting and about measures
that were being done to protectthese works and recover works
and I realized that day.
I really want to do this and Ihad read the work of Patty
Gersenblith, who's a reallywell-known scholar in art law
(04:14):
and cultural heritage lawscholar, and I had read her work
.
I found it so inspiring and Ithought to myself, wow, I really
want to do this one day.
And I have to say that I'mincredibly fortunate because
I've gotten to know Patti GersonBlitz so well and I work in
this area now.
But my work really is a mix ofthose two things Intellectual
property, because I still dowork with many artists and
writers and I also.
(04:37):
The other part of my work isworking with either fine art or
cultural heritage, and I've beenvery, very honored to work on
some major cultural heritagematters.
So I feel very fulfilled andvery lucky in my career.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
The progression from that moment, that hour, as you
say, into this firm of yoursthat has blossomed.
How did you build it Like?
Could you just kind of of likefor those who are looking at you
and wondering how would theypossibly come into this field
one day, could you kind of breakdown like the big moments where
(05:14):
you saw the transitions happenin your practice?
Speaker 1 (05:18):
So I'd say there were two components that were very
important.
One was luck.
I think there's always a littlebit of luck in being in the
right place at the right time,and I think being in New York
was really, really helpful.
So kind of strategic luck andbeing in New York that allowed
me to meet some very importantpeople that helped me and
(05:40):
mentored me during my career.
And the other part, obviouslythe other part of the recipe is
a lot of work and dedication,not giving up, because it's
really difficult to make yourway into the field of art law.
So I started my career at anintellectual property law firm,
the law firm of FitzpatrickCella.
It's a wonderful firm,wonderful people.
(06:02):
It's now part of Venable and Iwas there for three years.
But I realized during my timethere that I wasn't getting the
type of work that I reallywanted, because a lot of my work
was focused on patent law,because I do have a bit of a
background in science as well.
So I was working in patentpharmaceutical work, trying to
(06:22):
get more of the trademark andcopyright work at the firm,
realizing that wasn't comingthrough, and so after three
years at the firm, I joined asmaller law firm that was
interested in developing an artlaw group.
It was one of the founders ofthe firm was one of my
colleagues at FitzpatrickCellist, so we had known each
other, we had worked togetherwell and he thought I had a
(06:44):
really great idea.
He said you know, I see thatthis is a growing area.
We're reading a lot about artlaw in the news, so I think we
should try it.
We'll keep on with our IP workbecause we know there's a lot of
work in this area and we bothhave expertise in this area.
But if you'd like to start anart law group and bring in
clients, that would be wonderful.
So that's what we did, where Ijust really hit the ground,
(07:09):
where I went to every kind ofart event events through the New
York State Bar Association, theNew York County Lawyers
Association and the ABAVolunteer Lawyers for the Arts,
different copyright lectures andtry to meet people, try to meet
potential clients as well.
As I mentioned, as you know, I'ma musician, so I know a lot of
(07:31):
musician clients, so I actuallystarted working representing
musicians and fashion designersand writers and people I'd met
during my time at NYU, during mytime living in New York,
through my social circles.
So really a lot of emergingartists, more like kind of
smaller matters, helping withtrademark applications and sales
(07:56):
agreements for my clients thatwere being hired and that
eventually kind of grew.
I started developing more andmore business that way until
eventually collectors startedcalling me as well and I guess,
going forward, I just developedclients through referrals and I
think part of it is, I think I'mjust very passionate about this
(08:21):
area and I think that a lot ofpeople get that kind of vibe
from me, get that energy from me.
So some of the things that Idid was even I traveled to get
clients.
So at one point my mother and Isaid you know, you're in
discussions with some people inGreece.
You have written, I've writtensome op-eds on sorry, some
(08:43):
editorial pieces on the returnof the Parthenon marbles.
So I had met some individualsin Greece that were also
passionate about this cause.
So when my mom and I weretraveling we said let's go to
Greece, we're already in Italy,let's fly over to Greece and
meet some of these people andmaybe something will come of it.
And ultimately it was a greatdecision.
I met some people that workedfor the government in Greece and
(09:06):
a few years after that trip,when Greece was facing a lawsuit
in the United States, I was theperson that Greece called, so I
took some chances, I put myselfout there and it took a very
long time for it to all cometogether, but it was something I
enjoyed doing and I think maybethat's what made a difference,
because even going to thoselectures, meeting artists,
(09:28):
meeting creative people eventhough it was part of like
developing a potential business,I think I also just really
enjoyed it.
I never, I never bore, I nevertire of going to art lectures
and being in the art world.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
I've heard you say, or you've written about the
influence that your perspectiveas a pianist has had on your
legal practice.
Would you also speak to that?
Speaker 1 (10:02):
I think my background as a musician helps me relate
to some of my clients and Iunderstand it's through that
that I understand the importanceof protecting artists rights
and understanding that manyartists struggle.
Many artists don't have thesame type of bargaining power
(10:23):
when they're negotiating witheither collectors or companies,
public institutions or museums.
So I think my background as amusician really helps inform a
lot of my work and,interestingly you know, besides
my role as a musician, I alsoauthor a lot of publications.
(10:43):
I really enjoy writing.
It's something I really enjoy.
It's one of the aspects of beinga lawyer that I really love and
I've actually been plagiarizeda couple of times and that also
has informed my work and I'vehad to represent myself in
taking down works that wereplagiarized.
So a lot of my personalexperiences as a writer and also
as a musician, I think, helpedme relate to some of my clients
and being plagiarized.
So a lot of my personalexperiences as a writer and also
(11:04):
as a musician then helped merelate to some of my clients and
being plagiarized is a terribleexperience.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Yeah, I was going to ask did you want to share a
little more about that?
How did you stumble across thisand what were your steps.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
So it was really funny.
So I've been plagiarized twice,once by a lawyer who took
credit for some of my work,which is really just hurtful.
And I ended up just contactingthe law firm and saying please
take down that information fromyour website because it's not
true.
And they were very cooperative.
I sent them the informationabout what I wrote and it was
fine.
It was over within like 24hours.
(11:40):
The other instance was reallyinteresting.
A friend of mine had posted apaper on Facebook Like this is a
really wonderful paper, give ita read.
So I clicked on it Like wow,the title is very intriguing.
It's actually about artforgeries and I've written a lot
about art forgeries and I'veworked in the area of
(12:03):
authentication.
So I said this is right up myalley.
I have to read this paper.
So I clicked on it, I read thefirst paragraph and I thought
instantly I realized I wrotethis paper, these are my words,
I know how I write and these aremy words.
And so I ended up downloadingthe entire paper and doing a
side-by-side analysis and a fewsentences were moved around and
(12:27):
it was by a lawyer actuallyanother lawyer, a lawyer, a very
junior lawyer in India, and sothey used British English.
So some of the only changeswere changing some of the
American English words to theBritish English spelling, which
for me, I thought was reallyfunny that she went through that
effort.
I ended up reaching out to herand she made some excuses that
(12:50):
she ran out of time and she hada deadline and she's very sorry.
She'd be happy to add my nameto the paper and I said that's
absolutely unacceptable.
You need to actually removeyour name.
And there was some back andforth and in the meantime I
thought it was so funny so I putit on my law firm's blog and
(13:10):
the ABA the American BarAssociation ended up picking up
the story and they ran their ownstory about a lawyer being
plagiarized on a paper aboutforgeries.
So I had this really funnyoutcome where the story is still
up online on a few differentlegal websites, like the ABA's
(13:31):
website.
I think there's a blog calledthe IP Watchdog, so it was on
their website as well.
So it ended up being a funnystory.
In the end her name was removedfrom the article I think my
name's on the article where itwas taken down I don't remember
which and then she ended upinviting me to speak at a
(13:53):
conference on plagiarism out inIndia and I ended up turning
down the opportunity because Ihad other things scheduled and I
just thought that the wholething would be very awkward.
Anyway, it was resolved, sothere was really no need to
speak about it at a conference.
Thank you for sharing both ofthose.
Yeah, I don't think there's anyuse to really copy anyone.
(14:13):
When there's a deadline, youjust ask for a deadline
extension.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
With that, I wonder too if there are any examples
from your practice.
I know there must be many ofsome of the highlights from the
work you do Sure.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
So one of the things that I'm very grateful for in my
career is that I have such avariety of issues that I get to
work on.
So I represent artists,collectors, dealers, museums,
foreign governments, and eachone of those stakeholders has
different interests.
So I've worked on somehigh-profile matters, probably
(14:52):
my favorite one being for thegovernment of Greece because it
was such an interesting case.
We made new law but the caseinvolved an ancient bronze horse
that was being sold at auctionat Sotheby's and the Greek
government ultimately reachedout to Sotheby's, told the
(15:16):
auction house to remove theobject because of its
problematic provenance.
And you know there were somefacts going back and forth and
you know there were some factsgoing back and forth and
(15:37):
ultimately Sotheby's and itsconsigner sued the Greek
government in the US in a NewYork court to have the Greek
government the case under theForeign Sovereign Immunities Act
.
It was a really notable casebecause it was actually the
first time that an art seller.
So it was a very high profilecase for this because we were
making a new law where it wasreally surprising to the art
(15:58):
market that an art seller sued aforeign government through its
ministry of culture for anantiquities case.
Usually it's the other wayaround.
Usually it's a foreigngovernment coming in and suing
to stop the sale and in thiscase it was actually the seller
suing Greece, requesting thegovernment through a declaratory
action to prove title.
(16:20):
So it's a case of firstimpression and we ended up
having the case dismissed underthe Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act, which was reallysurprising for me that I'd
become an expert in the ForeignSovereign Immunities Act
something I never anticipated inmy career, although it's a
really interesting area of thelaw and I've enjoyed my work in
(16:41):
this area.
But it was really excitingbecause we made new law.
It was the first case of itstype and the court clarified one
of the exceptions of theForeign Sovereign Unities Act
stating that if a foreigngovernment is involved in the
art market through this type ofpolicing activity by regulating
(17:03):
the market for antiquities, thatforeign government can't be
hauled into court in the US.
So it was an exciting case andit was really gratifying,
obviously, that we won on behalfof Greece.
But that case led to two othercases where there were kind of
these copycat cases.
The one in which these dealerssued the Swiss government in
(17:26):
Switzerland was also dismissed,and then a third case against
the government of Italy and Iended up representing Italy in
that case, where a dealer suedItaly for Italy's involvement in
contacting law enforcement inthe United States because an
(17:47):
object that was stolen from orwent missing I shouldn't say
stolen, an object that wentmissing from an Italian museum
ended up for sale in the US.
So we represented Italy andobviously Italy was also
dismissed from this case in theUS.
I thought it was a little bitof an absurd case that the
country was being sued forcalling the police essentially.
(18:09):
So those were reallyhigh-profile cases that were
really gratifying.
But on a daily basis, I workwith, you know, all types of
stakeholders, including emergingartists, and that's really also
very gratifying.
These artists that perhapsaren't well known yet or having
(18:32):
these artists might be havingtheir first exhibition or their
first show or making their firstsale, and that's extremely
gratifying to help these artistsnavigate the art market,
because it really is acomplicated area and there's so
many things to think aboutbesides just the law, but also
long-term goals, reputationalinterests, relationships and
(18:57):
developing relationships withdealers, collectors, patrons.
So that's also another reallygratifying area of my work
working with people new to thefield and having an opportunity
to educate them and also protectthem legally.
But I love working with all mydifferent types of clients and
each one has something reallyinteresting that they offer.
(19:21):
Like working with museums.
Museums is incredible andhaving access to some of these
collections and getting to knowcurators and the people
responsible for eitherorganizing exhibitions or
acquiring objects.
So every day is kind ofdifferent, which is really nice.
It's never boring.
The job of an art lawyer is notboring.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
For the emerging artists that you work with?
Do you notice reticence to dealwith the law or have an
attorney?
Is there a bridge that has tobe crossed to get over that?
Speaker 1 (19:58):
Sometimes there is, I think a lot of people are
scared or intimidated by workingwith lawyers, for, you know, a
lot of reasons, so many of thethings that we see in popular
culture about lawyers beingscary or intimidating or too
costly.
I think it helps that I have abackground in music and, as you
(20:20):
know, as a performer, so I thinkit makes some artists feel more
comfortable that I can relateto them in that way.
So I think that's reallyhelpful in bridging that gap.
But I always try with clients,especially new clients and
emerging artists I try to makethe process very, very
(20:42):
approachable and easy tounderstand.
Explaining the benefits ofusing the law and the advantages
because often these artists arenegotiating against people with
lawyers, and so artists don'twant to be at a disadvantage.
They need to understand thelanguage being used in these
agreements, their long-termgoals.
(21:05):
Some of these artists are justso eager to have the support of
a gallery or a patron thatthey'll just jump on board and
not really critically examinethe terms that they're asked to
sign.
And being able to explain that,I think, is really helpful.
Also explaining to the artistand this is what I explain
(21:27):
actually to most of my clientsthat legal decisions are also
very closely related to businessdecisions.
So if there's a matter wherethere's not much value, you
might not want to invest a lotof legal costs.
On the other hand, if it'sreally important to you and you
(21:48):
see a really wonderfulopportunity, then the legal
costs are just part of theinvestment.
But there's also a way to besmart about those investments.
So I will sometimes tellartists it might make sense for
you to ask for the first draftof an agreement from the other
side.
Let the other party do thedraft of the initial agreement
(22:09):
and then my time will probablybe reduced significantly because
all I'll have to do is gothrough the editing.
I'm not dealing with puttingtogether more of the standard
clauses, but rather justnegotiating on your behalf.
So instead of spending four orfive hours on an agreement, I'll
just need one or two hours tonegotiate and edit.
So I think that a lot ofclients are really appreciative
(22:30):
of that and it makes the processa little easier and it helps to
develop trust with clients aswell, knowing that lawyers
aren't always trying to maximizetheir bill and maximize their
hours, but rather happy to workin a really collaborative way
that makes sense for everyone.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
Ray, can I got a little problem.
Let me talk to somebody and afriend mentioned your name.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
So here I am.
So what problem caused them tocome to me usually, or how did
they find me?
Speaker 3 (23:24):
What is the most common area that the let's say,
the emerging artist would beseeking assistance?
Speaker 1 (23:34):
So I see two areas.
One is and it's a very positivereason, a really great reason
to come to me is that an artisthas an opportunity.
There's a gallery that wouldlike to have a relationship with
the artist, so perhaps thegallery is looking for an
(23:54):
exclusivity agreement, so, orthere could be a commission.
So it's either for relationshipor a commission of art, and
that's always a really greatopportunity.
And I think it's really wisewhen an artist comes to a lawyer
before just jumping on boardand I'm always happy to be part
of that process because it'salways really positive and part
(24:15):
of my job then is to warnagainst certain things.
So I might tell an artist thisis a really great opportunity,
but you don't necessarily wantto be locked in for five years.
Maybe you could try an initialone-year term with a renewal for
initial year.
Or another thing to consider isaccounting.
You want to ensure that youknow what the gallery is selling
(24:37):
your art for.
You want to have a say.
If the gallery wants to lowerthe price, perhaps the gallery
should be allowed, permitted, tolower the price by 10%, but not
any more.
And if the gallery lowers the10%, that comes from the
gallery's commission, not fromyou, um, or the gallery's
portion, not yours.
So there, that's one reason thatartists will come to me to help
(25:00):
with those agreements.
The other reason is theunfortunate reason that an
artist is not being paid by agallery, and that, I think, is
happens, it's very common, sothey'll have.
So the problem is with some ofthese issues is if the value of
the art is low and let's say andthis is all relative, but let's
(25:23):
say a gallery owes an artist$20,000, a gallery is probably
very much, very cognizant of thefact that someone won't sue for
$20,000 because litigating isvery costly.
So that's often a problem withthese artists that after
something goes wrong and they'renot paid, they'll come to a
(25:44):
lawyer, and I always think it'smore cost effective to actually
use a lawyer when you enter intothese agreements rather than
after a problem arises.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Touching on some of your work that you do with the
Manhattan DA's office.
The cover image this episode isa representative of a
repatriation ceremony of thecoffin of Nedjemunk, and I
wonder if you might want tospeak to that case.
Speaker 1 (26:14):
Sure, so I have never been employed by the district
attorney's office, so I justwant to make that clear.
But I served as an independentcultural heritage law expert for
the district attorney's officefrom about 2015 till about 2020
or 2016,.
So about four or five years,and it truly was an honor.
(26:38):
So I'll say one thing, goingback to one of our earlier
discussion points about thelooting of the museum in Iraq
how that was so inspiring for meto move into this area of the
law or to pursue this area ofthe law.
So the head of the AntiquitiesTrafficking Unit at the
Manhattan District Attorney'sOffice is Matthew Bogdanos, who
(27:01):
was responsible for recovering alot of those works that were
removed from the Iraqi Museum.
So it was really it's been anhonor working with him.
It was really it's been anhonor working with him, and he
has been.
He and his unit have beenresponsible for recovering many
of the looted objects that havebeen in New York or have gone
through New York, and the goldencoffin of Nedremonk is one
(27:24):
example, and that was such aninteresting case where the
outcome was just reallyunfortunate for the Metropolitan
Museum of Art because the Metended up buying this gorgeous
golden piece, for I think it wasabout $3.9 million and when
they purchased the coffin, ithad a provenance with it had a
provenance that included acertificate from the Egyptian
(27:48):
government.
However, that provenance wasforged and it turned out that
that coffin was looted aftercivil unrest in 2011, during a
period of really heavy lootingin Egypt, and it went through
the smuggling network and itended up being sold by a dealer
(28:10):
in France, and that dealer nowis under investigation and it's
multinational investigation intohis sales, into his looting
ring, but at the time it wasn'tknown that he was involved At
the time that the Met hadacquired the coffin.
The Met didn't know, and thepublic the collecting public
didn't know this either, and thepublic the collecting public
(28:33):
didn't know this either.
So what was really unfortunateis that this golden coffin was
actually the centerpiece of adisplay at the Metropolitan
Museum of Art and the DA endedup seizing the coffin and the
exhibition shut down, and it wasvery public.
It appeared in the New YorkTimes with a really kind of like
sensational headline likeexhibition closed, looted object
(28:55):
at the Met.
So it was just really bad pressfor the Met.
The Met obviously lost money onthat, which again is bad press,
really bad for donors, reallybad for the museum's reputation,
although I do have sympathy forthe museum because they
actually did have the rightpaperwork.
It's just that the paperwork isforged.
But it did bring up a lot ofthese questions as to how much
(29:17):
due diligence is needed,especially by an institution
like the Metropolitan Museum ofArt, one of the leading museums
in the world with leadingexperts.
So there were a lot ofquestions about whether or not
the Met could have, or shouldhave done more than rely on
documents from the dealer.
(29:38):
But the object the Golden Coffinended up being returned to
Egypt in a really wonderfuldisplay of cooperation and it
was really used in a very publicway to draw attention to
looting networks.
And it happened with a littlebit like a tone of diplomacy
(30:00):
involved, because it wasreturned during the big week at
the UN, where diplomats fromaround the world like the
meeting like the high levelmeetings at the UN in September
of 2019.
The meeting like the high-levelmeetings at the UN in September
of 2019.
So there was this kind ofdiplomatic air about the return
and it was a very public returnwith, say, at least 100 people
(30:22):
in the room, with many reporters.
The DA had a number ofrepresentatives there.
Representatives from theMetropolitan Museum were invited
and they had attended, and Iwas lucky enough to be there
because I served as a culturalheritage law expert for Egypt.
So looking at Egypt's laws andhow they enforce their cultural
heritage laws, it was really funand actually I know it's a
(30:47):
little off topic so we won't getinto it.
But Egypt and so many countrieshave these fascinating cultural
heritage laws that reallyharken back to a time when
European collectors weretraveling through countries like
Italy and Greece and Egypt andjust kind of gobbling up these
(31:07):
antiquities to bring home andform these beautiful collections
, but really involved in lootingand the destruction of sites.
So in looking at these laws forthe DA and through my work, I
get a chance to look into thehistory of art collecting, which
is another wonderful part of myjob the more like academic part
(31:29):
of my job, but really fun andfascinating.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
Emerging tech has been around for a while.
How have you seen it increaseduring your practice with the
different areas that you work in?
Speaker 1 (31:45):
I think it's so wonderful to have emerging
technology that could reallyhelp with a number of things,
including archiving artwork,which could be used for scholars
, for artists, foundations, forcollectors to, because it's so
(32:06):
important.
It's something that I hadwritten about maybe over a
decade ago, as people werelooking at repatriations and
tracking art and identifyingstolen art.
It's really important that wehave these inventories and
archives so that if there everis a problem, like if a museum
(32:28):
experiences a theft that's justone example.
Museum experiences at that.
That's just one example thatthey have an archive.
That's clear, that there areimages that are useful in
recovering works and the casethat I mentioned earlier, where
(32:48):
I had represented the governmentof Italy, the Italian
authorities were able to contactUS law enforcement because that
museum in Italy had an archivewith images of the artwork that
was stolen.
So it's really wonderful thatwe have these archives that can
be digitized and actuallysecured, either using blockchain
technology or in a way tocreate records that people
(33:12):
cannot alter, that they can'tchange.
So I think that's one way thatit's really helpful.
So it would help withrestitutions, repatriations and
really just more closelymonitoring artwork, and one
example that kind of just sticksout in my mind, are kind of
like the archives themselveslibraries, libraries that have
(33:35):
experienced looting and thefts,and the fact that some of those
libraries are really easytargets, because these books,
these editions, these rareprints, they are not archived
and tracked, perhaps as well asmuseum collections.
So this technology for trackingart should be used across the
(33:57):
board.
I also do think it can bereally helpful with
authentication, and I've readabout and seen some really
interesting ways that computerscan, and this technology can
kind of track or calculatefeatures of art that may not be
(34:18):
visible to the human eye.
That being said, though, Ithink there still is a really,
really important place in theart world for connoisseurs,
because there is something to besaid about that sixth sense,
and those connoisseurs thatrecognize something in a hand of
an artist that even computertechnology hasn't picked up on
(34:40):
yet, because we're the onesprogramming computers, and so
there's going to be thatlimitation, but I do think it's
a really helpful tool to be usedin concert with the human eye
tool to be used in concert withthe human eye?
Speaker 2 (34:57):
And for the artists that you work with, have you had
experience where they have beenusing AI, for example, and
blending it in their practice orfound that their work was
included in training data?
I was just curious yourexperience with that and your
opinion about where things standwith that in the US.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
So I haven't had any of my clients come to me telling
me that their art had beenmined or had been used in
training data.
I'm not sure if any of themhave had their art taken in that
(35:35):
way.
I had a number of artistsreally active in the NFT space,
which I feel like was the hotart tech issue a couple years
ago, and that was a reallyinteresting space.
But I do find the AI space tobe even more intriguing,
especially with its relationshipwith copyright.
I haven't had artist-basedproblems with AI yet, but I
(36:10):
think there's going to beapplications of how it's being
used, not just with fine art butalso with music.
It's so interesting that therewas this AI creation of a new
quote, unquote new Beatles song,which wasn't very good actually
.
So I think it's a testament toAI's weakness, in contrast to
(36:31):
these actual creative peoplemaking new things and not just
basing everything off of oldrecreations and trying to mix up
new things to create somethingnew.
But I think we're going to beseeing more and more of it.
But what I think is moreinteresting, right now at least,
(36:51):
are the discussions with thecopyright office and AI and
everyone kind of scrambling tofigure out what can be
copyrighted with made throughthe use of AI.
So it's just so manyinteresting questions
practically, but alsointellectually, academically,
(37:15):
looking at the history of thedevelopment of intellectual
property law and what it meansfor the future of intellectual
property, and how difficult someof these questions are
interesting diverging pointsthat I've seen people go into
different camps on.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
Talking about that is can you compare photography to
AI outputs?
Do you have a place yet whereyou firmly settled, or are you
still debating?
Speaker 1 (37:45):
So I think there's so many gray areas.
I think it's a really, reallygood analogy, because decades
ago, the court was strugglingwith this Well, can you
copyright a photograph?
And there was that struggle of,well, someone's not painting
the image, they're just using amachine to click a button.
(38:06):
And ultimately, it's so muchmore than that.
And I have to say I have thehonor of working working with, I
think, one of the world's bestknown photographers, the artist
Hiroshi Sugimoto.
He's a long-term client of mineand I see photography.
I mean, I've always likedphotography, but I see
photography in such a differentway now, working with someone
like him and being exposed tohis not exposed is not exposed
(38:37):
be exposed to his long exposureprints, and I see photography as
such an incredible art form andI think most of the art world
does now, today, and I wouldliken it to our discussions
today about AI, it's not justputting something into a
computer, and I think there arereally creative ways to use AI.
And then there are probablyjust those more mundane ways,
like anyone could click aphotograph, and it's not a work
(39:00):
of art.
Anyone could put something intoAI.
It's not necessarily a work ofart.
I think there's, I think AIcould raise to a level where it
is a work of art and where youcan actually consider there
being a human component, wherethe human component is just
using AI as a resource, as atool, just the way a
(39:20):
photographer uses a camera as atool.
And one of the cases I talkedabout in my law school class
because I teach art law atFordham Law School and I have so
many wonderful discussions withmy students and we've really
dug into this area by looking atsome comparisons with AI and
(39:42):
photography there was thatwonderful case with an animal
taking a photo.
Someone set up a camera in likea jungle or a forest and a
monkey came along and took aphoto.
Someone set up a camera in likea jungle or a forest and a
monkey came along and took aselfie.
And there was that questionabout whether or not someone
could get a copyright and PETAcame in and tried to say the
(40:03):
monkey had a right and the courtsaid no, no, no, it has to be a
human component.
But it left that question openand there were the arguments
about the human component.
Well, a photographer or a human, whether or not it was a
photographer, let's just say ahuman a human went into the
jungle and set it up set upwhere the camera would be, gave
that animal an access, had thisconcept, and for me that does
(40:27):
seem like there's a strong humancomponent and that he's created
this environment for the monkeyto just do that final tap on
the camera and it was held thatthat there was no copyright,
that that wasn't the humancomponent.
So I think there's still thatreally interesting debate with
even photography and the, thenecessity to have a human
(40:54):
component into getting acopyright, and it'll be really
interesting to see how thatdebate extends into AI and how
much do we have to put into AIto give it that human component.
But I think we're all waitingfor clarification on this and
the copyright office has alsokind of been scrambling with
(41:14):
this a bit, and I think it wasin early 2023 that the Copyright
Office released a bulletin onits guidelines on copyright and
the necessity for a humancomponent.
But since then there have been anumber of cases that have been
filed, a number of applicationsthat have been rejected by the
(41:35):
Copyright Office and litigationsin court with the one that's
the most, to me, the mostinteresting in terms of, or the
most clear in terms of the humanrequirement is Thaler versus
Perlmutter.
(41:55):
Requirement is Thaler versusPerlmutter, and I'm not sure if
you're familiar with that caseand if you kind of followed it
and read the court's opinion,but it's so interesting that it
was this artist that had createdthis machine.
He created this computer systemthat he gave a really cute name,
the Creativity Machine, andthat machine created a work of
art that Thaler then tried tocopyright and he registered for
(42:18):
the copyright and it wasrejected.
And then he had asked forreconsideration twice, and both
times the copyright officerejected it twice, and both
times the copyright officerejected it.
And so Thaler ended up suing inDC and at the end of the day
(42:43):
the DC circuit had affirmed thecopyright office's decision,
saying that human creativity isthis bedrock principle for
copyright law and it always hasbeen, and that even as copyright
stretches and its applicationsget broader, as art and
creativity changes over time,that there needs to be this
guiding human hand.
(43:04):
And I think that's just sointeresting to decide what you
know for us to see as the lawevolves and it just keeps
developing.
What is a guiding human hand?
Hey, rupali, how are you doing?
Speaker 4 (43:18):
hello, I'm good.
How about you long time?
Speaker 2 (43:22):
good, it's good.
Yes, long time no see.
Good.
Good that you could join ustoday.
Speaker 1 (43:26):
It's wonderful to see you sorry, rupali, I didn't
meet you.
Speaker 4 (43:30):
I saw you on the screen hi hi, how are you?
I've been reading your linkedinpost for a long time and it's
been very effective.
Yeah, so I've been wanting totalk to both of you.
It's been amazing to connectagain.
Oh, thank you so much for thisopportunity oh well, you know
what why I'm so.
Speaker 1 (43:48):
One of the reasons it's like so fresh in my mind
the thaler case is I'm going topost that on linkedin where I'm
writing a blog post now aboutthat case and it's just so
interesting and I reallystruggle with it myself so um
Rupali, uh, just before we moveon, did you have any questions?
Speaker 4 (44:06):
yeah, I do have one question, considering I'm very
new to the field of art law andI'm also trying to discover how
it works.
So, when it comes tocontractual side of things, how
does the negotiation happen?
Like, is it all?
Like, do you use othertechniques, like arbitration and
mediation as well when it comesto negotiation, or do you add
(44:26):
such clauses to your contractswith artists and galleries?
Speaker 1 (44:31):
So each one of these negotiations is very different.
So arbitration and mediationwould only arise if there was a
dispute, and usually our goal isto resolve the dispute through
negotiating between the partieswithout having to rely on a
third party, because arbitrationcan be costly and also
(44:54):
mediation it's time consuming,it involves another party.
My goal is usually just toresolve it without the
involvement of a third party, tofind the best solution for
everyone and, obviously, to havemy client get the best solution
possible.
Have my client get the bestsolution possible.
So when we do come up withthese contracts, the
(45:22):
negotiation's different inalmost every case.
Sometimes I negotiate againstlawyers, sometimes my client
wants to speak directly with thegallery.
So it really depends on therelationship.
Sometimes my clients have areally good relationship with a
gallery already and they don'twant to damage that relationship
by kind of raising everyone'stemperature by bringing in a
lawyer.
People get scared when lawyerscome in and so sometimes a
(45:44):
client will say I really likethis gallery, I have a good
relationship, I trust them, butI know I need an agreement.
What should I do?
And I'll say well, have thegallery send you the terms or I
can draft something and you canactually just present it to the
gallery yourself and I'll bewriting the information, I'll be
drafting things, but I don'teven really need to talk to the
(46:04):
gallery.
I don't need to get in themiddle of your relationship.
If you think it's going todamage your relationship in some
way or make things awkward, youcan have the discussions
yourself.
Here's the document, but don'tsign anything until I like sign
off on it.
If the gallery changes thingson you, don't just sign it,
please.
You know, confer with me first.
(46:24):
So the negotiations happen indifferent ways.
Other times it is just betweenme and the other lawyer.
I just finalized a really,really big agreement that has
been in the works since 2018.
It's a really large public artproject that's funded by the
(46:46):
government and the budget isvery large, obviously, and we
began negotiations in 2018.
Everything was set and thenthere were some delays due to
COVID and the work hasprogressed.
The designs have progressed,but it's a very, very large work
and we just this week, justyesterday signed the agreement
(47:08):
for the final fabrication,transportation and installation,
for the final fabrication,transportation and installation,
and that obviously is verydifferent than negotiating a two
or three page contract for anartist in a smaller gallery.
This was obviously for a very,very large institution funded by
the government, so the contractis massive.
So definitely a differentprocess.
(47:29):
And it can be a little morecontentious when it's just two
lawyers, because there are nopersonal feelings involved, it's
just two lawyers advocating fortheir clients.
So you can push a little harderand the vibe is definitely a
little different that makescomplete sense.
Speaker 4 (47:44):
I don't really get what you're saying.
So, yeah, I understand that forthe dispute resolution, that
the first step is negotiation,that you might be going for, but
like considering these hugeinstitutions in, place then
definitely you would be.
You know, putting uparbitration clauses and
mediation clauses just to be ona safer side in case of a
dispute.
Speaker 1 (48:01):
Resolution in case of a dispute, sorry of course,
yeah, we prefer to go througheither arbitration or mediation
before going to litigation.
Just to avoid all the kind ofthe nastiness, the contention,
all the money spent onprocedural issues that you can
avoid going through alternativedispute resolution.
Speaker 4 (48:22):
Right, perfect.
Thank you so much.
That absolutely answers myquestion.
Speaker 2 (48:26):
And we also have a question from Stefania.
Speaker 5 (48:31):
Yeah, thanks.
I actually have two questions.
One is you mentioned it brieflyand I don't know if you could
delve a bit further into it whenyou mentioned the academic side
of the history of collectorsand collections.
I would love to just hear moreabout that.
And second, just if you'd liketo share more on a personal note
(48:52):
, how you balance your legalpractice and keeping up with
your piano skills.
I'd love to hear about that too.
Speaker 1 (49:00):
Okay, so the first question I think the history of
art collecting is fascinating.
So I teach two courses.
I teach art law at Fordham inthe fall and then I teach art
crime and the law toundergraduates at New York
University and in that class wedo spend a lot of time looking
at the history of collecting,because most of the students in
(49:23):
my course will not go to lawschool.
Most of them will, I guess.
Maybe, I guess most of themprobably end up working in the
art world and many of them haveended up working at auction
houses, galleries, museums,different art institutions,
advising collectors.
So we spend time talking aboutcollecting and collecting
practices and the law to avoidproblems, because I think it's
(49:45):
important for people in the artworld to have some information,
some knowledge about the law sothat they can avoid problems
like acquiring stolen art, andit's important to know how to
look into provenance and to dothis research and understand how
to better collect and moreresponsibly collect.
So the history of collecting, Ithink, is just fascinating and
(50:08):
one of the things that I talkabout in my class is the rise of
collectors during the GrandTour in Europe and it was during
this time that some reallyunfortunate things happened in
collecting, and one example thatI'll give is collectors who
went to Egypt.
So after the Napoleonic Wars,when countries were going into
(50:32):
Egypt and developing theseincredible collections,
collectors also wanted to buyitems and there was this
fascination with ancient Egyptand with mummies, and collectors
would actually buy mummies andmummy parts on the market in
Egypt, in bazaars and in thestreets, and they would take
these human remains and unwrapthe mummies and then have
(50:58):
parties where they would unwrapthe mummies.
Sometimes they would ingest thedust from human remains, which
is just absolutely disgusting,totally unhygienic.
They would do that and thenthey would throw away body parts
and it's something so unethicaland so troubling.
And that's why Egypt's law notonly protects these antiquities
(51:22):
and these objects, but alsoprotect human remains.
And it's interesting to see howcountries around the world
protect different things.
So in Mongolia, dinosaur bones,fossils are protected because
so many of these bones have beenfound there and there's a
market, a really big market, forfossils.
So in Mongolia, one of thethings that's in their law is
(51:44):
sorry, it addresses fossils.
So it's interesting to see howthese laws have developed with
collecting practices over thecenturies, and I think it's
fascinating because it's notjust looking at the law, but
it's looking at the history ofcollecting and the history of
what we value and ultimatelythat's what the history of
collecting is the history ofwhat we find valuable, what we
(52:08):
find interesting, the importanceof provenance and where you get
objects and the history of thecollecting and who owned them
before you.
So that fascinates me.
Art collecting, I think, isjust such an interesting area to
be in and if I was not a lawyerI think I'd be a provenance
investigator and writer becauseI love books.
(52:29):
In terms of how I balance musicand my work, it's really hard
and sometimes I'm really ashamedof myself because I'll go a
while without practicing.
But I'm reminded to practicebecause I have a seven-year-old
and I'm teaching her to play thepiano and I force her to
practice.
So then it forces me topractice.
(52:50):
But the way I stay on top ofpracticing is I perform at least
once a year.
I commit to doing that early inthe year and I don't want to be
humiliated by being unprepared.
And when I perform I reallywant my music.
I want to be really proud ofwhat I perform.
I really treat it asprofessionally as possible.
(53:13):
When I was younger I would domusic competitions and I would
perform, say, at least everyother month I would do a
performance.
So I really try to hold myselfto that standard, not just for
myself and like my ego, but alsofor the music.
I love music and I feel likeit's a really wonderful
opportunity to give life tomusic.
(53:34):
And one of my favoritemusicians composers to play is
Chopin.
I'm a pianist.
I feel like most pianists loveplaying Chopin.
It's just so beautiful For thepiano.
He just wrote such beautifulthings and so many styles of
works and it's just fun enough,like the waltzes.
I can just pick one up any dayand just kind of play one for
fun.
But I think it's such an honor,it's such an opportunity to
(53:59):
bring him alive again somethingso beautiful he created, and to
share that.
And I really don't say that ina hokey way, I really, really
mean that.
When I was in high school I hada teacher who told me that she
said stop thinking about makinga mistake when you're on stage.
Stop thinking about this, justthink about the fact that it's a
(54:21):
gift and you're sharing it.
If you make a mistake, so youmake a mistake, but it's your
chance to give life to the music, to express yourself and to
share it and to listen toyourself and as a musician, I
think most musicians would saythat's the most important thing
to listen to yourself, toactually like feel the music
when you're performing.
So I always like to be at thatpoint when I can actually feel
(54:43):
the music, rather than thinkabout the notes and the
techniques, but actually feel it.
And that just means I have topractice, even when I'm tired
and I get home from work and I'mjust exhausted because in the
end it totally pays off.
And that's what I keep in mindthat, oh my gosh, five months
from now I need to play this andI want it to be amazing and I
want to share it and I love it.
(55:04):
So if you love something,you're going to work hard for it
.
Thank you, you're welcome, andI have to practice today.
Today I'm practicing.
I built in my practice time.
I know exactly what I'm goingto practice Poor birthday cake.
Speaker 2 (55:22):
What's the piece and the performance that you will do
this year?
Speaker 1 (55:26):
So last year I was.
It was really fun.
I'll tell you last year's,because this year I'm still on
the fence and I really need todecide, like I really need to.
Last year I performed the threeGershwin piano preludes.
They're so fun and they'rereally different Each one.
It's so different from oneanother.
And it was really fun because Iperformed them at the New York
(55:47):
City Bar Association, which istwo blocks from where Gershwin
premiered them about a centuryearlier, like 97 years earlier.
So that was so much fun.
I played that.
And then I also played Clairede Lune, because, even though I
learned that in high school, Ihad never performed it and I
thought I'm like, wow, everyoneloves this piece.
I never performed it, I justhad to play it in front of
(56:10):
people.
I'm probably going to do aBeethoven sonata.
I think it's the fifth, Iforget if it's the fifth or the
seventh, I can't remember thenumber.
So I think that Beethovensonata I'm going to do.
And then there's a piece I'vealways, always wanted to play,
but I really need time.
I've always wanted to playLiszt's second Hungarian
(56:34):
Rhapsody, which is so grosslydifficult to play it well, I
mean, it's grossly difficulteven to play it poorly, I guess,
but there are so many peoplewho play it don't play it well
and I really want to play itlike Bugs Bunny.
I mean he played it reallyreally well, so I want to play
(56:54):
it like Bugs Bunny.
I'm not sure the person whoplayed it, the actual pianist,
was on that recording for thecartoon, but I would really like
to play that and it's somethingI've always wanted to play.
So within the next couple ofyears I think next year, because
this year has just been anincredibly busy year for work
thinking next year that might bethe piece I choose.
Speaker 2 (57:16):
I had the opportunity to hear two pieces online that
you have, that you performed aChopin and a Liszt, both so
beautiful, so thank you forsharing it and hopefully you'll
post more in the future.
Speaker 1 (57:29):
Ah, thank you.
Thanks so much.
The Liszt was really nice.
I don't so, and that's why I'venever done a second Hungarian
Rhapsody.
There are certain composers thatsuit certain pianists better,
and Liszt is also just sodifficult.
He was known as being one ofthe best technical pianists.
He had these long fingers.
He was a prodigy I mean, he wasa rock star musician.
(57:52):
Like his female audiencemembers would go crazy, but he
was just so incredible.
So I guess he's difficult formost people.
But certain composers suitcertain hands and Liszt was so
difficult for me.
But playing Lieberstern, numberthree, that was a challenge for
me and I was really proud atthe end that I think I performed
(58:14):
it well.
I think I played it well and itwas really a challenge for me.
I'm really suited for like Ilove Rachmaninoff, and you need
big hands for Rachmaninoff, andsome, some pianists really don't
like playing him.
I love him, my hands are suitedfor Rachmaninoff, and some
pianists really don't likeplaying him.
I love him, my hands are suitedfor Rachmaninoff, but Liszt is
difficult.
So I am going to take up thatchallenge in the near future
(58:36):
because I really, really want todo it, but right now I think
I'm sticking with Beethoven,which is, just you know,
standard repertoire.
When you study classical musicgrowing up, you have to learn
some Beethoven sonatas, so insome ways it's familiar,
although Beethoven is difficultas well.
Speaker 2 (58:50):
And just, I mean such a genius, maybe the greatest
genius I'm not sure if it'sMozart or Beethoven, but it's
always amazing working onBeethoven.
Is there a composer that you'vecome?
Speaker 1 (59:11):
across that you think maybe is underappreciated and
that you have really been movedby.
So I do love Brahms, where Ifeel like not enough people love
Brahms.
I love Brahms.
I feel like not enough peoplelove Brahms.
I love Brahms and actually Ireally like playing his piano
(59:32):
music.
There are so many interestinglike so many levels to Brahms.
He does such amazing things withvoicing and I feel like he's
often overshadowed by the otherGerman Bs, bach and Beethoven,
and Brahms is just so amazingwhere you can get really lost in
(59:52):
his music, like sometimes Ifeel like the music is like a
flood that comes over you andit's just very sweeping and big
with lots of voices, and so Ireally love Brahms and I think
as a player of piano I likeBrahms, but also as a listener,
I love being in a Brahmsperformance, not just listening
(01:00:12):
to a recording, but if you havea chance to actually listen to
Brahms being performed by aquartet or by an orchestra,
you're just surrounded by voicesand I feel like it's easy to
get lost in.
Whenever I listen to Brahms, Iget lost in finding the voices,
which is so enjoyable.
So I love Brahms.
(01:00:33):
He's not my favorite, but I dothink he's underappreciated,
with, kind of, the generalpublic Like, everyone talks
about Beethoven and Mozart andBach, but I think Brahms is
absolutely wonderful, and thenthere's so many other, like more
obscure musicians, who arewonderful too.
But we can go on.
We can go on forever about that.
Speaker 2 (01:00:52):
Well, as we close out the interview, I was curious.
I often ask guests how theyhave viewed and if their
definition of justice hasevolved over the course of their
careers, and I'm curious whatyou think, and also if there are
any certain injusticescurrently percolating.
(01:01:12):
I think we might have alreadytouched on some, but if you have
any closing thoughts on that,so there is injustice even in
the law.
Speaker 1 (01:01:21):
Because there's injustice to, there's not equity
.
It's not equitable how somepeople have access to the law in
different ways than others.
So I've been honored to workwith artists and emerging
artists, but there's someartists who never really have
access to a lawyer, don't have,they might not have a network to
(01:01:41):
support them.
So within the art world there'sinjustice in that area.
There's also injustice inrepatriations and how art is
returned.
Not all institutions, not allcountries have the same
bargaining power in terms ofhaving art returned.
(01:02:05):
So Italy, historically, hasbeen very successful in
demanding the restitution ofworks.
Italy has been involved inmajor restitution and has had
thousands of works returned frommuseums, from private
collectors, and that in part isdue to the really strong
bargaining power that Italy hasin terms of art its ability to
(01:02:29):
withhold loans from museums, notcooperate with archaeologists,
with countries who are involvedin art tourism, Whereas there
are countries in South Americathat don't have that same
ability to recover looted art,that don't have those same
resources.
So even in the field ofcultural heritage, with
(01:02:52):
repatriations and restitutions,there's inequity.
I like to think that it'simproving and I think there is a
major role for the public toplay in demanding that justice.
And I think we really saw thatin the past few years with the
Black Lives Matter movement andhow that has affected
(01:03:15):
restitutions and the debateabout works that were taken
under very violent circumstancesin Africa, the fact that
institutions are now returningworks.
The Smithsonian Institution, Ibelieve, has returned I think it
was 23 objects to Africa andthese were objects that were
taken during the partition ofAfrica when colonial countries
(01:03:42):
went in and stole art from thekingdom of Benin.
So these Benin bronzes that arevery valuable, very coveted,
some of them have been returnedby the Smithsonian.
There have been a couple thathave been returned by the Met
and institutions around theworld, including university
collections.
So I think the public played areally big role in drawing
(01:04:03):
attention to those issues anddemanding the rightful and the
just handling of those objects.
So my hope is that with morewith public awareness and the
voices of the public, that wetreat some of these works more
equitably.
Speaker 2 (01:04:23):
And is there a personal definition of justice
that you have come to?
Speaker 1 (01:04:30):
I think that's a very , very difficult question, but
perhaps it's that everyone hasequitable, everyone has access
to justice.
I think part of justice is thateveryone has access to it and
that everyone's rights areprotected, whether you're an
(01:04:54):
emerging artist or a verywealthy collector or a
well-known institution or a newinstitution, a newly founded
artist collective, that youstill have rights, that they're
protected by the law and thatyou have access to that law in a
(01:05:18):
fair way.
Speaker 2 (01:05:20):
Leila, is there anything else that I have not
asked you that you would like toshare?
Speaker 1 (01:05:24):
No, you asked some really good questions because I
loved what we spoke about.
I love is it Stefania?
I love a question about, likeart collecting, because I
collecting history is sointeresting.
I love talking about music.
I can talk about music forever.
Speaker 5 (01:05:37):
Yeah, I have many more questions, so if you'd like
to join us in other sessions, Iwould love to pick your brain
on a few other.
Speaker 1 (01:05:45):
Oh, I'd be happy to.
It was really fun actually,stephanie, I asked you.
I'm like, oh, I saw that youdid something on like art,
lawyers and musicians.
I'd love to talk to you.
So this was like really fun.
Um, it was and this is totallyoff topic, but it's about music.
The other day a friend called meand we're talking about music.
He mentioned something aboutyou know, he's going through
(01:06:06):
some troubles in his life andand he's like I was listening to
some really good music to help.
And he's like get, get Cassie,my daughter, to listen to.
He said his daughter wanted himto listen to something.
I forget the name of it.
Is it 43-3?
Like John Cage piece?
And I couldn't remember thename of it and I don't know if
(01:06:26):
you're really into John Cage,but one of his famous pieces.
It's basically everyone justsitting there, the orchestra
just sits on stage and it'ssilence.
And so my friend sent me.
He's like, oh, you got to getCassie to listen to it.
I'm like this sounds familiar,what is it again?
And I clicked on it and I hadthe opportunity to talk to my
daughter about this.
I was like, well, it's music,but it's performance, it's like
(01:06:46):
an artwork and people use musicand art in different ways to
express things and to draw, andI get to, and that was just like
one example of thinking of likemusic as a type of artwork, not
musical art, but kind of likealso visual art.
You see these people justsitting on stage, all the
(01:07:07):
musicians are just sitting there, and my daughter was so
confused about it.
It was really fun to talk toher about it.
Speaker 2 (01:07:17):
There will be links in the show notes to learn more
about Layla's work.
If you were intrigued by thispodcast, it would be much
appreciated if you could leave arating or review and tag
Warfare of Art and Law podcast.
Until next time, this isStephanie Drotty bringing you
Warfare of Art and Law.
Thank you so much for listeningand remember injustice anywhere
(01:07:39):
is a threat to justiceeverywhere you.
You can, you know, defend people through art and
get people to understand youthrough art, and I feel I feel
really honored to do thatthrough my work.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Welcome to Warfare of Art and Law, the podcast that
focuses on how justice does ordoesn't play out when art and
law overlap.
Hi everyone, it's Stephanie,and that was Leila Aminadouli,
an art and cultural heritage lawattorney and pianist.
What follows is a recording ofa recent Second Saturday
(00:35):
conversation, during which Leilashares about her work in the
legal and musical fields and howher perspective as a musician
influences her work as anattorney.
Leila Aminadelay welcome toWarfare of Art and Law and
Second Saturday.
Thank you so much for beinghere.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Oh, thank you for inviting me.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
You are an attorney and an artist.
Would you kind of walk usthrough how you came to both of
those fields?
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Well, I started playing the piano when I was
very young I was around fouryears old.
So music's always been a partof my life and it's been an
important part of my life, andmy first job was actually as a
musician.
When I was in high school Itaught the piano to kids in my
town and then eventually, when Iwent to college, I worked in a
(01:29):
restaurant where I played weeklyat a restaurant in downtown New
York.
I had gone to NYU and thenduring that time I also worked
playing some weddings and eventsand parties, and that continued
while I went to law school.
So I always knew music wasgoing to be part of my life, but
I didn't necessarily want tomake music my career.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
What made you gravitate towards the law and
how did that progress for youinto the career you have now?
Speaker 1 (02:01):
So when I was an undergrad I found so many
different areas very interestingand one of the areas that I
studied I had a minor inphilosophy and so I knew that I
was always interested in thistype of philosophy logic
discourse, and while I was inundergrad I was exploring
(02:23):
different areas.
And another area that reallyinterested me was in publishing.
So I ended up interning atScholastic and I love books and
I love the book industry.
So I initially thought that Iwould go to law school to work
in the publishing industry andperhaps work with copyright, and
that kind of evolved eventuallyinto working with artists in
(02:45):
general, so working withmusicians, book publishers, any
type of creative individualprotecting them with, you know,
through their intellectualproperty rights.
And ultimately my first job asa lawyer was as an IP lawyer.
But during those years in lawschool I was also introduced to
(03:05):
the area of art law and it wasthis very striking moment, I
would say, or the striking hourin my life, where I realized I
really wanted to work as an artlawyer Because I had read I
should have been studying.
Actually I remember it was likea Saturday or Sunday and I was
in front of my computer and Ishould have been studying for
(03:27):
one of my law school classes andI happened to be reading the
news instead and I was readingabout the looting at the
National Museum in Iraq thatoccurred in April of 2003.
And that museum was extensivelylooted during the US invasion
of Iraq and kind of went downthis rabbit hole, reading about
(03:50):
the looting, about other typesof looting and about measures
that were being done to protectthese works and recover works
and I realized that day.
I really want to do this and Ihad read the work of Patty
Gersenblith, who's a reallywell-known scholar in art law
(04:14):
and cultural heritage lawscholar, and I had read her work
.
I found it so inspiring and Ithought to myself, wow, I really
want to do this one day.
And I have to say that I'mincredibly fortunate because
I've gotten to know Patti GersonBlitz so well and I work in
this area now.
But my work really is a mix ofthose two things Intellectual
property, because I still dowork with many artists and
writers and I also.
(04:37):
The other part of my work isworking with either fine art or
cultural heritage, and I've beenvery, very honored to work on
some major cultural heritagematters.
So I feel very fulfilled andvery lucky in my career.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
The progression from that moment, that hour, as you
say, into this firm of yoursthat has blossomed.
How did you build it Like?
Could you just kind of of likefor those who are looking at you
and wondering how would theypossibly come into this field
one day, could you kind of breakdown like the big moments where
(05:14):
you saw the transitions happenin your practice?
Speaker 1 (05:18):
So I'd say there were two components that were very
important.
One was luck.
I think there's always a littlebit of luck in being in the
right place at the right time,and I think being in New York
was really, really helpful.
So kind of strategic luck andbeing in New York that allowed
me to meet some very importantpeople that helped me and
(05:40):
mentored me during my career.
And the other part, obviouslythe other part of the recipe is
a lot of work and dedication,not giving up, because it's
really difficult to make yourway into the field of art law.
So I started my career at anintellectual property law firm,
the law firm of FitzpatrickCella.
It's a wonderful firm,wonderful people.
(06:02):
It's now part of Venable and Iwas there for three years.
But I realized during my timethere that I wasn't getting the
type of work that I reallywanted, because a lot of my work
was focused on patent law,because I do have a bit of a
background in science as well.
So I was working in patentpharmaceutical work, trying to
(06:22):
get more of the trademark andcopyright work at the firm,
realizing that wasn't comingthrough, and so after three
years at the firm, I joined asmaller law firm that was
interested in developing an artlaw group.
It was one of the founders ofthe firm was one of my
colleagues at FitzpatrickCellist, so we had known each
other, we had worked togetherwell and he thought I had a
(06:44):
really great idea.
He said you know, I see thatthis is a growing area.
We're reading a lot about artlaw in the news, so I think we
should try it.
We'll keep on with our IP workbecause we know there's a lot of
work in this area and we bothhave expertise in this area.
But if you'd like to start anart law group and bring in
clients, that would be wonderful.
So that's what we did, where Ijust really hit the ground,
(07:09):
where I went to every kind ofart event events through the New
York State Bar Association, theNew York County Lawyers
Association and the ABAVolunteer Lawyers for the Arts,
different copyright lectures andtry to meet people, try to meet
potential clients as well.
As I mentioned, as you know, I'ma musician, so I know a lot of
(07:31):
musician clients, so I actuallystarted working representing
musicians and fashion designersand writers and people I'd met
during my time at NYU, during mytime living in New York,
through my social circles.
So really a lot of emergingartists, more like kind of
smaller matters, helping withtrademark applications and sales
(07:56):
agreements for my clients thatwere being hired and that
eventually kind of grew.
I started developing more andmore business that way until
eventually collectors startedcalling me as well and I guess,
going forward, I just developedclients through referrals and I
think part of it is, I think I'mjust very passionate about this
(08:21):
area and I think that a lot ofpeople get that kind of vibe
from me, get that energy from me.
So some of the things that Idid was even I traveled to get
clients.
So at one point my mother and Isaid you know, you're in
discussions with some people inGreece.
You have written, I've writtensome op-eds on sorry, some
(08:43):
editorial pieces on the returnof the Parthenon marbles.
So I had met some individualsin Greece that were also
passionate about this cause.
So when my mom and I weretraveling we said let's go to
Greece, we're already in Italy,let's fly over to Greece and
meet some of these people andmaybe something will come of it.
And ultimately it was a greatdecision.
I met some people that workedfor the government in Greece and
(09:06):
a few years after that trip,when Greece was facing a lawsuit
in the United States, I was theperson that Greece called, so I
took some chances, I put myselfout there and it took a very
long time for it to all cometogether, but it was something I
enjoyed doing and I think maybethat's what made a difference,
because even going to thoselectures, meeting artists,
(09:28):
meeting creative people eventhough it was part of like
developing a potential business,I think I also just really
enjoyed it.
I never, I never bore, I nevertire of going to art lectures
and being in the art world.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
I've heard you say, or you've written about the
influence that your perspectiveas a pianist has had on your
legal practice.
Would you also speak to that?
Speaker 1 (10:02):
I think my background as a musician helps me relate
to some of my clients and Iunderstand it's through that
that I understand the importanceof protecting artists rights
and understanding that manyartists struggle.
Many artists don't have thesame type of bargaining power
(10:23):
when they're negotiating witheither collectors or companies,
public institutions or museums.
So I think my background as amusician really helps inform a
lot of my work and,interestingly you know, besides
my role as a musician, I alsoauthor a lot of publications.
(10:43):
I really enjoy writing.
It's something I really enjoy.
It's one of the aspects of beinga lawyer that I really love and
I've actually been plagiarizeda couple of times and that also
has informed my work and I'vehad to represent myself in
taking down works that wereplagiarized.
So a lot of my personalexperiences as a writer and also
as a musician, I think, helpedme relate to some of my clients
and being plagiarized.
So a lot of my personalexperiences as a writer and also
(11:04):
as a musician then helped merelate to some of my clients and
being plagiarized is a terribleexperience.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Yeah, I was going to ask did you want to share a
little more about that?
How did you stumble across thisand what were your steps.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
So it was really funny.
So I've been plagiarized twice,once by a lawyer who took
credit for some of my work,which is really just hurtful.
And I ended up just contactingthe law firm and saying please
take down that information fromyour website because it's not
true.
And they were very cooperative.
I sent them the informationabout what I wrote and it was
fine.
It was over within like 24hours.
(11:40):
The other instance was reallyinteresting.
A friend of mine had posted apaper on Facebook Like this is a
really wonderful paper, give ita read.
So I clicked on it Like wow,the title is very intriguing.
It's actually about artforgeries and I've written a lot
about art forgeries and I'veworked in the area of
(12:03):
authentication.
So I said this is right up myalley.
I have to read this paper.
So I clicked on it, I read thefirst paragraph and I thought
instantly I realized I wrotethis paper, these are my words,
I know how I write and these aremy words.
And so I ended up downloadingthe entire paper and doing a
side-by-side analysis and a fewsentences were moved around and
(12:27):
it was by a lawyer actuallyanother lawyer, a lawyer, a very
junior lawyer in India, and sothey used British English.
So some of the only changeswere changing some of the
American English words to theBritish English spelling, which
for me, I thought was reallyfunny that she went through that
effort.
I ended up reaching out to herand she made some excuses that
(12:50):
she ran out of time and she hada deadline and she's very sorry.
She'd be happy to add my nameto the paper and I said that's
absolutely unacceptable.
You need to actually removeyour name.
And there was some back andforth and in the meantime I
thought it was so funny so I putit on my law firm's blog and
(13:10):
the ABA the American BarAssociation ended up picking up
the story and they ran their ownstory about a lawyer being
plagiarized on a paper aboutforgeries.
So I had this really funnyoutcome where the story is still
up online on a few differentlegal websites, like the ABA's
(13:31):
website.
I think there's a blog calledthe IP Watchdog, so it was on
their website as well.
So it ended up being a funnystory.
In the end her name was removedfrom the article I think my
name's on the article where itwas taken down I don't remember
which and then she ended upinviting me to speak at a
(13:53):
conference on plagiarism out inIndia and I ended up turning
down the opportunity because Ihad other things scheduled and I
just thought that the wholething would be very awkward.
Anyway, it was resolved, sothere was really no need to
speak about it at a conference.
Thank you for sharing both ofthose.
Yeah, I don't think there's anyuse to really copy anyone.
(14:13):
When there's a deadline, youjust ask for a deadline
extension.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
With that, I wonder too if there are any examples
from your practice.
I know there must be many ofsome of the highlights from the
work you do Sure.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
So one of the things that I'm very grateful for in my
career is that I have such avariety of issues that I get to
work on.
So I represent artists,collectors, dealers, museums,
foreign governments, and eachone of those stakeholders has
different interests.
So I've worked on somehigh-profile matters, probably
(14:52):
my favorite one being for thegovernment of Greece because it
was such an interesting case.
We made new law but the caseinvolved an ancient bronze horse
that was being sold at auctionat Sotheby's and the Greek
government ultimately reachedout to Sotheby's, told the
(15:16):
auction house to remove theobject because of its
problematic provenance.
And you know there were somefacts going back and forth and
you know there were some factsgoing back and forth and
(15:37):
ultimately Sotheby's and itsconsigner sued the Greek
government in the US in a NewYork court to have the Greek
government the case under theForeign Sovereign Immunities Act
.
It was a really notable casebecause it was actually the
first time that an art seller.
So it was a very high profilecase for this because we were
making a new law where it wasreally surprising to the art
(15:58):
market that an art seller sued aforeign government through its
ministry of culture for anantiquities case.
Usually it's the other wayaround.
Usually it's a foreigngovernment coming in and suing
to stop the sale and in thiscase it was actually the seller
suing Greece, requesting thegovernment through a declaratory
action to prove title.
(16:20):
So it's a case of firstimpression and we ended up
having the case dismissed underthe Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act, which was reallysurprising for me that I'd
become an expert in the ForeignSovereign Immunities Act
something I never anticipated inmy career, although it's a
really interesting area of thelaw and I've enjoyed my work in
(16:41):
this area.
But it was really excitingbecause we made new law.
It was the first case of itstype and the court clarified one
of the exceptions of theForeign Sovereign Unities Act
stating that if a foreigngovernment is involved in the
art market through this type ofpolicing activity by regulating
(17:03):
the market for antiquities, thatforeign government can't be
hauled into court in the US.
So it was an exciting case andit was really gratifying,
obviously, that we won on behalfof Greece.
But that case led to two othercases where there were kind of
these copycat cases.
The one in which these dealerssued the Swiss government in
(17:26):
Switzerland was also dismissed,and then a third case against
the government of Italy and Iended up representing Italy in
that case, where a dealer suedItaly for Italy's involvement in
contacting law enforcement inthe United States because an
(17:47):
object that was stolen from orwent missing I shouldn't say
stolen, an object that wentmissing from an Italian museum
ended up for sale in the US.
So we represented Italy andobviously Italy was also
dismissed from this case in theUS.
I thought it was a little bitof an absurd case that the
country was being sued forcalling the police essentially.
(18:09):
So those were reallyhigh-profile cases that were
really gratifying.
But on a daily basis, I workwith, you know, all types of
stakeholders, including emergingartists, and that's really also
very gratifying.
These artists that perhapsaren't well known yet or having
(18:32):
these artists might be havingtheir first exhibition or their
first show or making their firstsale, and that's extremely
gratifying to help these artistsnavigate the art market,
because it really is acomplicated area and there's so
many things to think aboutbesides just the law, but also
long-term goals, reputationalinterests, relationships and
(18:57):
developing relationships withdealers, collectors, patrons.
So that's also another reallygratifying area of my work
working with people new to thefield and having an opportunity
to educate them and also protectthem legally.
But I love working with all mydifferent types of clients and
each one has something reallyinteresting that they offer.
(19:21):
Like working with museums.
Museums is incredible andhaving access to some of these
collections and getting to knowcurators and the people
responsible for eitherorganizing exhibitions or
acquiring objects.
So every day is kind ofdifferent, which is really nice.
It's never boring.
The job of an art lawyer is notboring.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
For the emerging artists that you work with?
Do you notice reticence to dealwith the law or have an
attorney?
Is there a bridge that has tobe crossed to get over that?
Speaker 1 (19:58):
Sometimes there is, I think a lot of people are
scared or intimidated by workingwith lawyers, for, you know, a
lot of reasons, so many of thethings that we see in popular
culture about lawyers beingscary or intimidating or too
costly.
I think it helps that I have abackground in music and, as you
(20:20):
know, as a performer, so I thinkit makes some artists feel more
comfortable that I can relateto them in that way.
So I think that's reallyhelpful in bridging that gap.
But I always try with clients,especially new clients and
emerging artists I try to makethe process very, very
(20:42):
approachable and easy tounderstand.
Explaining the benefits ofusing the law and the advantages
because often these artists arenegotiating against people with
lawyers, and so artists don'twant to be at a disadvantage.
They need to understand thelanguage being used in these
agreements, their long-termgoals.
(21:05):
Some of these artists are justso eager to have the support of
a gallery or a patron thatthey'll just jump on board and
not really critically examinethe terms that they're asked to
sign.
And being able to explain that,I think, is really helpful.
Also explaining to the artistand this is what I explain
(21:27):
actually to most of my clientsthat legal decisions are also
very closely related to businessdecisions.
So if there's a matter wherethere's not much value, you
might not want to invest a lotof legal costs.
On the other hand, if it'sreally important to you and you
(21:48):
see a really wonderfulopportunity, then the legal
costs are just part of theinvestment.
But there's also a way to besmart about those investments.
So I will sometimes tellartists it might make sense for
you to ask for the first draftof an agreement from the other
side.
Let the other party do thedraft of the initial agreement
(22:09):
and then my time will probablybe reduced significantly because
all I'll have to do is gothrough the editing.
I'm not dealing with puttingtogether more of the standard
clauses, but rather justnegotiating on your behalf.
So instead of spending four orfive hours on an agreement, I'll
just need one or two hours tonegotiate and edit.
So I think that a lot ofclients are really appreciative
(22:30):
of that and it makes the processa little easier and it helps to
develop trust with clients aswell, knowing that lawyers
aren't always trying to maximizetheir bill and maximize their
hours, but rather happy to workin a really collaborative way
that makes sense for everyone.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
Ray, can I got a little problem.
Let me talk to somebody and afriend mentioned your name.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
So here I am.
So what problem caused them tocome to me usually, or how did
they find me?
Speaker 3 (23:24):
What is the most common area that the let's say,
the emerging artist would beseeking assistance?
Speaker 1 (23:34):
So I see two areas.
One is and it's a very positivereason, a really great reason
to come to me is that an artisthas an opportunity.
There's a gallery that wouldlike to have a relationship with
the artist, so perhaps thegallery is looking for an
(23:54):
exclusivity agreement, so, orthere could be a commission.
So it's either for relationshipor a commission of art, and
that's always a really greatopportunity.
And I think it's really wisewhen an artist comes to a lawyer
before just jumping on boardand I'm always happy to be part
of that process because it'salways really positive and part
(24:15):
of my job then is to warnagainst certain things.
So I might tell an artist thisis a really great opportunity,
but you don't necessarily wantto be locked in for five years.
Maybe you could try an initialone-year term with a renewal for
initial year.
Or another thing to consider isaccounting.
You want to ensure that youknow what the gallery is selling
(24:37):
your art for.
You want to have a say.
If the gallery wants to lowerthe price, perhaps the gallery
should be allowed, permitted, tolower the price by 10%, but not
any more.
And if the gallery lowers the10%, that comes from the
gallery's commission, not fromyou, um, or the gallery's
portion, not yours.
So there, that's one reason thatartists will come to me to help
(25:00):
with those agreements.
The other reason is theunfortunate reason that an
artist is not being paid by agallery, and that, I think, is
happens, it's very common, sothey'll have.
So the problem is with some ofthese issues is if the value of
the art is low and let's say andthis is all relative, but let's
(25:23):
say a gallery owes an artist$20,000, a gallery is probably
very much, very cognizant of thefact that someone won't sue for
$20,000 because litigating isvery costly.
So that's often a problem withthese artists that after
something goes wrong and they'renot paid, they'll come to a
(25:44):
lawyer, and I always think it'smore cost effective to actually
use a lawyer when you enter intothese agreements rather than
after a problem arises.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Touching on some of your work that you do with the
Manhattan DA's office.
The cover image this episode isa representative of a
repatriation ceremony of thecoffin of Nedjemunk, and I
wonder if you might want tospeak to that case.
Speaker 1 (26:14):
Sure, so I have never been employed by the district
attorney's office, so I justwant to make that clear.
But I served as an independentcultural heritage law expert for
the district attorney's officefrom about 2015 till about 2020
or 2016,.
So about four or five years,and it truly was an honor.
(26:38):
So I'll say one thing, goingback to one of our earlier
discussion points about thelooting of the museum in Iraq
how that was so inspiring for meto move into this area of the
law or to pursue this area ofthe law.
So the head of the AntiquitiesTrafficking Unit at the
Manhattan District Attorney'sOffice is Matthew Bogdanos, who
(27:01):
was responsible for recovering alot of those works that were
removed from the Iraqi Museum.
So it was really it's been anhonor working with him.
It was really it's been anhonor working with him, and he
has been.
He and his unit have beenresponsible for recovering many
of the looted objects that havebeen in New York or have gone
through New York, and the goldencoffin of Nedremonk is one
(27:24):
example, and that was such aninteresting case where the
outcome was just reallyunfortunate for the Metropolitan
Museum of Art because the Metended up buying this gorgeous
golden piece, for I think it wasabout $3.9 million and when
they purchased the coffin, ithad a provenance with it had a
provenance that included acertificate from the Egyptian
(27:48):
government.
However, that provenance wasforged and it turned out that
that coffin was looted aftercivil unrest in 2011, during a
period of really heavy lootingin Egypt, and it went through
the smuggling network and itended up being sold by a dealer
(28:10):
in France, and that dealer nowis under investigation and it's
multinational investigation intohis sales, into his looting
ring, but at the time it wasn'tknown that he was involved At
the time that the Met hadacquired the coffin.
The Met didn't know, and thepublic the collecting public
didn't know this either, and thepublic the collecting public
(28:33):
didn't know this either.
So what was really unfortunateis that this golden coffin was
actually the centerpiece of adisplay at the Metropolitan
Museum of Art and the DA endedup seizing the coffin and the
exhibition shut down, and it wasvery public.
It appeared in the New YorkTimes with a really kind of like
sensational headline likeexhibition closed, looted object
(28:55):
at the Met.
So it was just really bad pressfor the Met.
The Met obviously lost money onthat, which again is bad press,
really bad for donors, reallybad for the museum's reputation,
although I do have sympathy forthe museum because they
actually did have the rightpaperwork.
It's just that the paperwork isforged.
But it did bring up a lot ofthese questions as to how much
(29:17):
due diligence is needed,especially by an institution
like the Metropolitan Museum ofArt, one of the leading museums
in the world with leadingexperts.
So there were a lot ofquestions about whether or not
the Met could have, or shouldhave done more than rely on
documents from the dealer.
(29:38):
But the object the Golden Coffinended up being returned to
Egypt in a really wonderfuldisplay of cooperation and it
was really used in a very publicway to draw attention to
looting networks.
And it happened with a littlebit like a tone of diplomacy
(30:00):
involved, because it wasreturned during the big week at
the UN, where diplomats fromaround the world like the
meeting like the high levelmeetings at the UN in September
of 2019.
The meeting like the high-levelmeetings at the UN in September
of 2019.
So there was this kind ofdiplomatic air about the return
and it was a very public returnwith, say, at least 100 people
(30:22):
in the room, with many reporters.
The DA had a number ofrepresentatives there.
Representatives from theMetropolitan Museum were invited
and they had attended, and Iwas lucky enough to be there
because I served as a culturalheritage law expert for Egypt.
So looking at Egypt's laws andhow they enforce their cultural
heritage laws, it was really funand actually I know it's a
(30:47):
little off topic so we won't getinto it.
But Egypt and so many countrieshave these fascinating cultural
heritage laws that reallyharken back to a time when
European collectors weretraveling through countries like
Italy and Greece and Egypt andjust kind of gobbling up these
(31:07):
antiquities to bring home andform these beautiful collections
, but really involved in lootingand the destruction of sites.
So in looking at these laws forthe DA and through my work, I
get a chance to look into thehistory of art collecting, which
is another wonderful part of myjob the more like academic part
(31:29):
of my job, but really fun andfascinating.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
Emerging tech has been around for a while.
How have you seen it increaseduring your practice with the
different areas that you work in?
Speaker 1 (31:45):
I think it's so wonderful to have emerging
technology that could reallyhelp with a number of things,
including archiving artwork,which could be used for scholars
, for artists, foundations, forcollectors to, because it's so
(32:06):
important.
It's something that I hadwritten about maybe over a
decade ago, as people werelooking at repatriations and
tracking art and identifyingstolen art.
It's really important that wehave these inventories and
archives so that if there everis a problem, like if a museum
(32:28):
experiences a theft that's justone example.
Museum experiences at that.
That's just one example thatthey have an archive.
That's clear, that there areimages that are useful in
recovering works and the casethat I mentioned earlier, where
(32:48):
I had represented the governmentof Italy, the Italian
authorities were able to contactUS law enforcement because that
museum in Italy had an archivewith images of the artwork that
was stolen.
So it's really wonderful thatwe have these archives that can
be digitized and actuallysecured, either using blockchain
technology or in a way tocreate records that people
(33:12):
cannot alter, that they can'tchange.
So I think that's one way thatit's really helpful.
So it would help withrestitutions, repatriations and
really just more closelymonitoring artwork, and one
example that kind of just sticksout in my mind, are kind of
like the archives themselveslibraries, libraries that have
(33:35):
experienced looting and thefts,and the fact that some of those
libraries are really easytargets, because these books,
these editions, these rareprints, they are not archived
and tracked, perhaps as well asmuseum collections.
So this technology for trackingart should be used across the
(33:57):
board.
I also do think it can bereally helpful with
authentication, and I've readabout and seen some really
interesting ways that computerscan, and this technology can
kind of track or calculatefeatures of art that may not be
(34:18):
visible to the human eye.
That being said, though, Ithink there still is a really,
really important place in theart world for connoisseurs,
because there is something to besaid about that sixth sense,
and those connoisseurs thatrecognize something in a hand of
an artist that even computertechnology hasn't picked up on
(34:40):
yet, because we're the onesprogramming computers, and so
there's going to be thatlimitation, but I do think it's
a really helpful tool to be usedin concert with the human eye
tool to be used in concert withthe human eye?
Speaker 2 (34:57):
And for the artists that you work with, have you had
experience where they have beenusing AI, for example, and
blending it in their practice orfound that their work was
included in training data?
I was just curious yourexperience with that and your
opinion about where things standwith that in the US.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
So I haven't had any of my clients come to me telling
me that their art had beenmined or had been used in
training data.
I'm not sure if any of themhave had their art taken in that
(35:35):
way.
I had a number of artistsreally active in the NFT space,
which I feel like was the hotart tech issue a couple years
ago, and that was a reallyinteresting space.
But I do find the AI space tobe even more intriguing,
especially with its relationshipwith copyright.
I haven't had artist-basedproblems with AI yet, but I
(36:10):
think there's going to beapplications of how it's being
used, not just with fine art butalso with music.
It's so interesting that therewas this AI creation of a new
quote, unquote new Beatles song,which wasn't very good actually
.
So I think it's a testament toAI's weakness, in contrast to
(36:31):
these actual creative peoplemaking new things and not just
basing everything off of oldrecreations and trying to mix up
new things to create somethingnew.
But I think we're going to beseeing more and more of it.
But what I think is moreinteresting, right now at least,
(36:51):
are the discussions with thecopyright office and AI and
everyone kind of scrambling tofigure out what can be
copyrighted with made throughthe use of AI.
So it's just so manyinteresting questions
practically, but alsointellectually, academically,
(37:15):
looking at the history of thedevelopment of intellectual
property law and what it meansfor the future of intellectual
property, and how difficult someof these questions are
interesting diverging pointsthat I've seen people go into
different camps on.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
Talking about that is can you compare photography to
AI outputs?
Do you have a place yet whereyou firmly settled, or are you
still debating?
Speaker 1 (37:45):
So I think there's so many gray areas.
I think it's a really, reallygood analogy, because decades
ago, the court was strugglingwith this Well, can you
copyright a photograph?
And there was that struggle of,well, someone's not painting
the image, they're just using amachine to click a button.
(38:06):
And ultimately, it's so muchmore than that.
And I have to say I have thehonor of working working with, I
think, one of the world's bestknown photographers, the artist
Hiroshi Sugimoto.
He's a long-term client of mineand I see photography.
I mean, I've always likedphotography, but I see
photography in such a differentway now, working with someone
like him and being exposed tohis not exposed is not exposed
(38:37):
be exposed to his long exposureprints, and I see photography as
such an incredible art form andI think most of the art world
does now, today, and I wouldliken it to our discussions
today about AI, it's not justputting something into a
computer, and I think there arereally creative ways to use AI.
And then there are probablyjust those more mundane ways,
like anyone could click aphotograph, and it's not a work
(39:00):
of art.
Anyone could put something intoAI.
It's not necessarily a work ofart.
I think there's, I think AIcould raise to a level where it
is a work of art and where youcan actually consider there
being a human component, wherethe human component is just
using AI as a resource, as atool, just the way a
(39:20):
photographer uses a camera as atool.
And one of the cases I talkedabout in my law school class
because I teach art law atFordham Law School and I have so
many wonderful discussions withmy students and we've really
dug into this area by looking atsome comparisons with AI and
(39:42):
photography there was thatwonderful case with an animal
taking a photo.
Someone set up a camera in likea jungle or a forest and a
monkey came along and took aphoto.
Someone set up a camera in likea jungle or a forest and a
monkey came along and took aselfie.
And there was that questionabout whether or not someone
could get a copyright and PETAcame in and tried to say the
(40:03):
monkey had a right and the courtsaid no, no, no, it has to be a
human component.
But it left that question openand there were the arguments
about the human component.
Well, a photographer or a human, whether or not it was a
photographer, let's just say ahuman a human went into the
jungle and set it up set upwhere the camera would be, gave
that animal an access, had thisconcept, and for me that does
(40:27):
seem like there's a strong humancomponent and that he's created
this environment for the monkeyto just do that final tap on
the camera and it was held thatthat there was no copyright,
that that wasn't the humancomponent.
So I think there's still thatreally interesting debate with
even photography and the, thenecessity to have a human
(40:54):
component into getting acopyright, and it'll be really
interesting to see how thatdebate extends into AI and how
much do we have to put into AIto give it that human component.
But I think we're all waitingfor clarification on this and
the copyright office has alsokind of been scrambling with
(41:14):
this a bit, and I think it wasin early 2023 that the Copyright
Office released a bulletin onits guidelines on copyright and
the necessity for a humancomponent.
But since then there have been anumber of cases that have been
filed, a number of applicationsthat have been rejected by the
(41:35):
Copyright Office and litigationsin court with the one that's
the most, to me, the mostinteresting in terms of, or the
most clear in terms of the humanrequirement is Thaler versus
Perlmutter.
(41:55):
Requirement is Thaler versusPerlmutter, and I'm not sure if
you're familiar with that caseand if you kind of followed it
and read the court's opinion,but it's so interesting that it
was this artist that had createdthis machine.
He created this computer systemthat he gave a really cute name,
the Creativity Machine, andthat machine created a work of
art that Thaler then tried tocopyright and he registered for
(42:18):
the copyright and it wasrejected.
And then he had asked forreconsideration twice, and both
times the copyright officerejected it twice, and both
times the copyright officerejected it.
And so Thaler ended up suing inDC and at the end of the day
(42:43):
the DC circuit had affirmed thecopyright office's decision,
saying that human creativity isthis bedrock principle for
copyright law and it always hasbeen, and that even as copyright
stretches and its applicationsget broader, as art and
creativity changes over time,that there needs to be this
guiding human hand.
(43:04):
And I think that's just sointeresting to decide what you
know for us to see as the lawevolves and it just keeps
developing.
What is a guiding human hand?
Hey, rupali, how are you doing?
Speaker 4 (43:18):
hello, I'm good.
How about you long time?
Speaker 2 (43:22):
good, it's good.
Yes, long time no see.
Good.
Good that you could join ustoday.
Speaker 1 (43:26):
It's wonderful to see you sorry, rupali, I didn't
meet you.
Speaker 4 (43:30):
I saw you on the screen hi hi, how are you?
I've been reading your linkedinpost for a long time and it's
been very effective.
Yeah, so I've been wanting totalk to both of you.
It's been amazing to connectagain.
Oh, thank you so much for thisopportunity oh well, you know
what why I'm so.
Speaker 1 (43:48):
One of the reasons it's like so fresh in my mind
the thaler case is I'm going topost that on linkedin where I'm
writing a blog post now aboutthat case and it's just so
interesting and I reallystruggle with it myself so um
Rupali, uh, just before we moveon, did you have any questions?
Speaker 4 (44:06):
yeah, I do have one question, considering I'm very
new to the field of art law andI'm also trying to discover how
it works.
So, when it comes tocontractual side of things, how
does the negotiation happen?
Like, is it all?
Like, do you use othertechniques, like arbitration and
mediation as well when it comesto negotiation, or do you add
(44:26):
such clauses to your contractswith artists and galleries?
Speaker 1 (44:31):
So each one of these negotiations is very different.
So arbitration and mediationwould only arise if there was a
dispute, and usually our goal isto resolve the dispute through
negotiating between the partieswithout having to rely on a
third party, because arbitrationcan be costly and also
(44:54):
mediation it's time consuming,it involves another party.
My goal is usually just toresolve it without the
involvement of a third party, tofind the best solution for
everyone and, obviously, to havemy client get the best solution
possible.
Have my client get the bestsolution possible.
So when we do come up withthese contracts, the
(45:22):
negotiation's different inalmost every case.
Sometimes I negotiate againstlawyers, sometimes my client
wants to speak directly with thegallery.
So it really depends on therelationship.
Sometimes my clients have areally good relationship with a
gallery already and they don'twant to damage that relationship
by kind of raising everyone'stemperature by bringing in a
lawyer.
People get scared when lawyerscome in and so sometimes a
(45:44):
client will say I really likethis gallery, I have a good
relationship, I trust them, butI know I need an agreement.
What should I do?
And I'll say well, have thegallery send you the terms or I
can draft something and you canactually just present it to the
gallery yourself and I'll bewriting the information, I'll be
drafting things, but I don'teven really need to talk to the
(46:04):
gallery.
I don't need to get in themiddle of your relationship.
If you think it's going todamage your relationship in some
way or make things awkward, youcan have the discussions
yourself.
Here's the document, but don'tsign anything until I like sign
off on it.
If the gallery changes thingson you, don't just sign it,
please.
You know, confer with me first.
(46:24):
So the negotiations happen indifferent ways.
Other times it is just betweenme and the other lawyer.
I just finalized a really,really big agreement that has
been in the works since 2018.
It's a really large public artproject that's funded by the
(46:46):
government and the budget isvery large, obviously, and we
began negotiations in 2018.
Everything was set and thenthere were some delays due to
COVID and the work hasprogressed.
The designs have progressed,but it's a very, very large work
and we just this week, justyesterday signed the agreement
(47:08):
for the final fabrication,transportation and installation,
for the final fabrication,transportation and installation,
and that obviously is verydifferent than negotiating a two
or three page contract for anartist in a smaller gallery.
This was obviously for a very,very large institution funded by
the government, so the contractis massive.
So definitely a differentprocess.
(47:29):
And it can be a little morecontentious when it's just two
lawyers, because there are nopersonal feelings involved, it's
just two lawyers advocating fortheir clients.
So you can push a little harderand the vibe is definitely a
little different that makescomplete sense.
Speaker 4 (47:44):
I don't really get what you're saying.
So, yeah, I understand that forthe dispute resolution, that
the first step is negotiation,that you might be going for, but
like considering these hugeinstitutions in, place then
definitely you would be.
You know, putting uparbitration clauses and
mediation clauses just to be ona safer side in case of a
dispute.
Speaker 1 (48:01):
Resolution in case of a dispute, sorry of course,
yeah, we prefer to go througheither arbitration or mediation
before going to litigation.
Just to avoid all the kind ofthe nastiness, the contention,
all the money spent onprocedural issues that you can
avoid going through alternativedispute resolution.
Speaker 4 (48:22):
Right, perfect.
Thank you so much.
That absolutely answers myquestion.
Speaker 2 (48:26):
And we also have a question from Stefania.
Speaker 5 (48:31):
Yeah, thanks.
I actually have two questions.
One is you mentioned it brieflyand I don't know if you could
delve a bit further into it whenyou mentioned the academic side
of the history of collectorsand collections.
I would love to just hear moreabout that.
And second, just if you'd liketo share more on a personal note
(48:52):
, how you balance your legalpractice and keeping up with
your piano skills.
I'd love to hear about that too.
Speaker 1 (49:00):
Okay, so the first question I think the history of
art collecting is fascinating.
So I teach two courses.
I teach art law at Fordham inthe fall and then I teach art
crime and the law toundergraduates at New York
University and in that class wedo spend a lot of time looking
at the history of collecting,because most of the students in
(49:23):
my course will not go to lawschool.
Most of them will, I guess.
Maybe, I guess most of themprobably end up working in the
art world and many of them haveended up working at auction
houses, galleries, museums,different art institutions,
advising collectors.
So we spend time talking aboutcollecting and collecting
practices and the law to avoidproblems, because I think it's
(49:45):
important for people in the artworld to have some information,
some knowledge about the law sothat they can avoid problems
like acquiring stolen art, andit's important to know how to
look into provenance and to dothis research and understand how
to better collect and moreresponsibly collect.
So the history of collecting, Ithink, is just fascinating and
(50:08):
one of the things that I talkabout in my class is the rise of
collectors during the GrandTour in Europe and it was during
this time that some reallyunfortunate things happened in
collecting, and one example thatI'll give is collectors who
went to Egypt.
So after the Napoleonic Wars,when countries were going into
(50:32):
Egypt and developing theseincredible collections,
collectors also wanted to buyitems and there was this
fascination with ancient Egyptand with mummies, and collectors
would actually buy mummies andmummy parts on the market in
Egypt, in bazaars and in thestreets, and they would take
these human remains and unwrapthe mummies and then have
(50:58):
parties where they would unwrapthe mummies.
Sometimes they would ingest thedust from human remains, which
is just absolutely disgusting,totally unhygienic.
They would do that and thenthey would throw away body parts
and it's something so unethicaland so troubling.
And that's why Egypt's law notonly protects these antiquities
(51:22):
and these objects, but alsoprotect human remains.
And it's interesting to see howcountries around the world
protect different things.
So in Mongolia, dinosaur bones,fossils are protected because
so many of these bones have beenfound there and there's a
market, a really big market, forfossils.
So in Mongolia, one of thethings that's in their law is
(51:44):
sorry, it addresses fossils.
So it's interesting to see howthese laws have developed with
collecting practices over thecenturies, and I think it's
fascinating because it's notjust looking at the law, but
it's looking at the history ofcollecting and the history of
what we value and ultimatelythat's what the history of
collecting is the history ofwhat we find valuable, what we
(52:08):
find interesting, the importanceof provenance and where you get
objects and the history of thecollecting and who owned them
before you.
So that fascinates me.
Art collecting, I think, isjust such an interesting area to
be in and if I was not a lawyerI think I'd be a provenance
investigator and writer becauseI love books.
(52:29):
In terms of how I balance musicand my work, it's really hard
and sometimes I'm really ashamedof myself because I'll go a
while without practicing.
But I'm reminded to practicebecause I have a seven-year-old
and I'm teaching her to play thepiano and I force her to
practice.
So then it forces me topractice.
(52:50):
But the way I stay on top ofpracticing is I perform at least
once a year.
I commit to doing that early inthe year and I don't want to be
humiliated by being unprepared.
And when I perform I reallywant my music.
I want to be really proud ofwhat I perform.
I really treat it asprofessionally as possible.
(53:13):
When I was younger I would domusic competitions and I would
perform, say, at least everyother month I would do a
performance.
So I really try to hold myselfto that standard, not just for
myself and like my ego, but alsofor the music.
I love music and I feel likeit's a really wonderful
opportunity to give life tomusic.
(53:34):
And one of my favoritemusicians composers to play is
Chopin.
I'm a pianist.
I feel like most pianists loveplaying Chopin.
It's just so beautiful For thepiano.
He just wrote such beautifulthings and so many styles of
works and it's just fun enough,like the waltzes.
I can just pick one up any dayand just kind of play one for
fun.
But I think it's such an honor,it's such an opportunity to
(53:59):
bring him alive again somethingso beautiful he created, and to
share that.
And I really don't say that ina hokey way, I really, really
mean that.
When I was in high school I hada teacher who told me that she
said stop thinking about makinga mistake when you're on stage.
Stop thinking about this, justthink about the fact that it's a
(54:21):
gift and you're sharing it.
If you make a mistake, so youmake a mistake, but it's your
chance to give life to the music, to express yourself and to
share it and to listen toyourself and as a musician, I
think most musicians would saythat's the most important thing
to listen to yourself, toactually like feel the music
when you're performing.
So I always like to be at thatpoint when I can actually feel
(54:43):
the music, rather than thinkabout the notes and the
techniques, but actually feel it.
And that just means I have topractice, even when I'm tired
and I get home from work and I'mjust exhausted because in the
end it totally pays off.
And that's what I keep in mindthat, oh my gosh, five months
from now I need to play this andI want it to be amazing and I
want to share it and I love it.
(55:04):
So if you love something,you're going to work hard for it
.
Thank you, you're welcome, andI have to practice today.
Today I'm practicing.
I built in my practice time.
I know exactly what I'm goingto practice Poor birthday cake.
Speaker 2 (55:22):
What's the piece and the performance that you will do
this year?
Speaker 1 (55:26):
So last year I was.
It was really fun.
I'll tell you last year's,because this year I'm still on
the fence and I really need todecide, like I really need to.
Last year I performed the threeGershwin piano preludes.
They're so fun and they'rereally different Each one.
It's so different from oneanother.
And it was really fun because Iperformed them at the New York
(55:47):
City Bar Association, which istwo blocks from where Gershwin
premiered them about a centuryearlier, like 97 years earlier.
So that was so much fun.
I played that.
And then I also played Clairede Lune, because, even though I
learned that in high school, Ihad never performed it and I
thought I'm like, wow, everyoneloves this piece.
I never performed it, I justhad to play it in front of
(56:10):
people.
I'm probably going to do aBeethoven sonata.
I think it's the fifth, Iforget if it's the fifth or the
seventh, I can't remember thenumber.
So I think that Beethovensonata I'm going to do.
And then there's a piece I'vealways, always wanted to play,
but I really need time.
I've always wanted to playLiszt's second Hungarian
(56:34):
Rhapsody, which is so grosslydifficult to play it well, I
mean, it's grossly difficulteven to play it poorly, I guess,
but there are so many peoplewho play it don't play it well
and I really want to play itlike Bugs Bunny.
I mean he played it reallyreally well, so I want to play
(56:54):
it like Bugs Bunny.
I'm not sure the person whoplayed it, the actual pianist,
was on that recording for thecartoon, but I would really like
to play that and it's somethingI've always wanted to play.
So within the next couple ofyears I think next year, because
this year has just been anincredibly busy year for work
thinking next year that might bethe piece I choose.
Speaker 2 (57:16):
I had the opportunity to hear two pieces online that
you have, that you performed aChopin and a Liszt, both so
beautiful, so thank you forsharing it and hopefully you'll
post more in the future.
Speaker 1 (57:29):
Ah, thank you.
Thanks so much.
The Liszt was really nice.
I don't so, and that's why I'venever done a second Hungarian
Rhapsody.
There are certain composers thatsuit certain pianists better,
and Liszt is also just sodifficult.
He was known as being one ofthe best technical pianists.
He had these long fingers.
He was a prodigy I mean, he wasa rock star musician.
(57:52):
Like his female audiencemembers would go crazy, but he
was just so incredible.
So I guess he's difficult formost people.
But certain composers suitcertain hands and Liszt was so
difficult for me.
But playing Lieberstern, numberthree, that was a challenge for
me and I was really proud atthe end that I think I performed
(58:14):
it well.
I think I played it well and itwas really a challenge for me.
I'm really suited for like Ilove Rachmaninoff, and you need
big hands for Rachmaninoff, andsome, some pianists really don't
like playing him.
I love him, my hands are suitedfor Rachmaninoff, and some
pianists really don't likeplaying him.
I love him, my hands are suitedfor Rachmaninoff, but Liszt is
difficult.
So I am going to take up thatchallenge in the near future
(58:36):
because I really, really want todo it, but right now I think
I'm sticking with Beethoven,which is, just you know,
standard repertoire.
When you study classical musicgrowing up, you have to learn
some Beethoven sonatas, so insome ways it's familiar,
although Beethoven is difficultas well.
Speaker 2 (58:50):
And just, I mean such a genius, maybe the greatest
genius I'm not sure if it'sMozart or Beethoven, but it's
always amazing working onBeethoven.
Is there a composer that you'vecome?
Speaker 1 (59:11):
across that you think maybe is underappreciated and
that you have really been movedby.
So I do love Brahms, where Ifeel like not enough people love
Brahms.
I love Brahms.
I feel like not enough peoplelove Brahms.
I love Brahms and actually Ireally like playing his piano
(59:32):
music.
There are so many interestinglike so many levels to Brahms.
He does such amazing things withvoicing and I feel like he's
often overshadowed by the otherGerman Bs, bach and Beethoven,
and Brahms is just so amazingwhere you can get really lost in
(59:52):
his music, like sometimes Ifeel like the music is like a
flood that comes over you andit's just very sweeping and big
with lots of voices, and so Ireally love Brahms and I think
as a player of piano I likeBrahms, but also as a listener,
I love being in a Brahmsperformance, not just listening
(01:00:12):
to a recording, but if you havea chance to actually listen to
Brahms being performed by aquartet or by an orchestra,
you're just surrounded by voicesand I feel like it's easy to
get lost in.
Whenever I listen to Brahms, Iget lost in finding the voices,
which is so enjoyable.
So I love Brahms.
(01:00:33):
He's not my favorite, but I dothink he's underappreciated,
with, kind of, the generalpublic Like, everyone talks
about Beethoven and Mozart andBach, but I think Brahms is
absolutely wonderful, and thenthere's so many other, like more
obscure musicians, who arewonderful too.
But we can go on.
We can go on forever about that.
Speaker 2 (01:00:52):
Well, as we close out the interview, I was curious.
I often ask guests how theyhave viewed and if their
definition of justice hasevolved over the course of their
careers, and I'm curious whatyou think, and also if there are
any certain injusticescurrently percolating.
(01:01:12):
I think we might have alreadytouched on some, but if you have
any closing thoughts on that,so there is injustice even in
the law.
Speaker 1 (01:01:21):
Because there's injustice to, there's not equity
.
It's not equitable how somepeople have access to the law in
different ways than others.
So I've been honored to workwith artists and emerging
artists, but there's someartists who never really have
access to a lawyer, don't have,they might not have a network to
(01:01:41):
support them.
So within the art world there'sinjustice in that area.
There's also injustice inrepatriations and how art is
returned.
Not all institutions, not allcountries have the same
bargaining power in terms ofhaving art returned.
(01:02:05):
So Italy, historically, hasbeen very successful in
demanding the restitution ofworks.
Italy has been involved inmajor restitution and has had
thousands of works returned frommuseums, from private
collectors, and that in part isdue to the really strong
bargaining power that Italy hasin terms of art its ability to
(01:02:29):
withhold loans from museums, notcooperate with archaeologists,
with countries who are involvedin art tourism, Whereas there
are countries in South Americathat don't have that same
ability to recover looted art,that don't have those same
resources.
So even in the field ofcultural heritage, with
(01:02:52):
repatriations and restitutions,there's inequity.
I like to think that it'simproving and I think there is a
major role for the public toplay in demanding that justice.
And I think we really saw thatin the past few years with the
Black Lives Matter movement andhow that has affected
(01:03:15):
restitutions and the debateabout works that were taken
under very violent circumstancesin Africa, the fact that
institutions are now returningworks.
The Smithsonian Institution, Ibelieve, has returned I think it
was 23 objects to Africa andthese were objects that were
taken during the partition ofAfrica when colonial countries
(01:03:42):
went in and stole art from thekingdom of Benin.
So these Benin bronzes that arevery valuable, very coveted,
some of them have been returnedby the Smithsonian.
There have been a couple thathave been returned by the Met
and institutions around theworld, including university
collections.
So I think the public played areally big role in drawing
(01:04:03):
attention to those issues anddemanding the rightful and the
just handling of those objects.
So my hope is that with morewith public awareness and the
voices of the public, that wetreat some of these works more
equitably.
Speaker 2 (01:04:23):
And is there a personal definition of justice
that you have come to?
Speaker 1 (01:04:30):
I think that's a very , very difficult question, but
perhaps it's that everyone hasequitable, everyone has access
to justice.
I think part of justice is thateveryone has access to it and
that everyone's rights areprotected, whether you're an
(01:04:54):
emerging artist or a verywealthy collector or a
well-known institution or a newinstitution, a newly founded
artist collective, that youstill have rights, that they're
protected by the law and thatyou have access to that law in a
(01:05:18):
fair way.
Speaker 2 (01:05:20):
Leila, is there anything else that I have not
asked you that you would like toshare?
Speaker 1 (01:05:24):
No, you asked some really good questions because I
loved what we spoke about.
I love is it Stefania?
I love a question about, likeart collecting, because I
collecting history is sointeresting.
I love talking about music.
I can talk about music forever.
Speaker 5 (01:05:37):
Yeah, I have many more questions, so if you'd like
to join us in other sessions, Iwould love to pick your brain
on a few other.
Speaker 1 (01:05:45):
Oh, I'd be happy to.
It was really fun actually,stephanie, I asked you.
I'm like, oh, I saw that youdid something on like art,
lawyers and musicians.
I'd love to talk to you.
So this was like really fun.
Um, it was and this is totallyoff topic, but it's about music.
The other day a friend called meand we're talking about music.
He mentioned something aboutyou know, he's going through
(01:06:06):
some troubles in his life andand he's like I was listening to
some really good music to help.
And he's like get, get Cassie,my daughter, to listen to.
He said his daughter wanted himto listen to something.
I forget the name of it.
Is it 43-3?
Like John Cage piece?
And I couldn't remember thename of it and I don't know if
(01:06:26):
you're really into John Cage,but one of his famous pieces.
It's basically everyone justsitting there, the orchestra
just sits on stage and it'ssilence.
And so my friend sent me.
He's like, oh, you got to getCassie to listen to it.
I'm like this sounds familiar,what is it again?
And I clicked on it and I hadthe opportunity to talk to my
daughter about this.
I was like, well, it's music,but it's performance, it's like
(01:06:46):
an artwork and people use musicand art in different ways to
express things and to draw, andI get to, and that was just like
one example of thinking of likemusic as a type of artwork, not
musical art, but kind of likealso visual art.
You see these people justsitting on stage, all the
(01:07:07):
musicians are just sitting there, and my daughter was so
confused about it.
It was really fun to talk toher about it.
Speaker 2 (01:07:17):
There will be links in the show notes to learn more
about Layla's work.
If you were intrigued by thispodcast, it would be much
appreciated if you could leave arating or review and tag
Warfare of Art and Law podcast.
Until next time, this isStephanie Drotty bringing you
Warfare of Art and Law.
Thank you so much for listeningand remember injustice anywhere
(01:07:39):
is a threat to justiceeverywhere you.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!