The French government enacted a law in October 2009 that will effectively cut off internet access to the households of repeat copyright infringers. The legislation established a government agency to oversee the enforcement of the laws called “HADOPI.” The agency chose this as their logo:
Soon after HADOPI released this logo, a font designer named Jean-François Porchez claimed that the logo infringed on his font, which he had created for France Telecom. France Telecom does not plan to pursue the matter, but Porchez may bring a court action against HADOPI.
The implications of HADOPI’s mistake seem obvious: if the state of intellectual property law is such that a government agency whose sole task is to enforce intellectual property rights cannot keep itself from infringing on the works of others, then something is fundamentally wrong with IP law. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that this is not the first time the French government, which is known for its strict intellectual property laws, has been accused of infringement.
But HADOPI’s mistake may not mean that much. It’s certainly an amusing (and bloggable) anecdote, but it’s relevance to the debate over intellectual property laws is nominal. If a police officer were to illegally assault someone, we wouldn’t call for the legalization of assault.
The intellectual property debates will be resolved by paying close attention to the purposes of our laws and their philosophical foundations; not through recourse to memorable anecdotes or appeals ad hominem.
via Boing Boing
Recovering Artwork Stolen by Nazis: Two Recent Cases
Two cases decided recently highlight the difficulty descendants of holocaust victims experience when trying to recover artwork the Nazis stole from their ancestors.
In the first case, a German appeals court decided that the heir to a six million dollar collection of vintage posters may not be entitled to the return of the posters from the German Historical Museum.
The posters were collected by Hans Sachs, a prominent dentist in Weimar Germany who had Albert Einstein as a client. Hans Sachs began collecting the posters when he was sixteen and eventually amassed the largest collection of posters in the world. As the Nazis gained power he continued to stay in Germany, even after the Nazi government revoked his dental license. On Kristallnacht, the Nazis took the poster collection from Hans Sachs at gunpoint. He was sent to a concentration camp but he was later able to escape to the United States.
After the war, the East German government told Sachs that the posters had been destroyed, but in 1970 a curator at what is how the German Historical Museum discovered the posters. Sachs attempted to have the posters returned but the East German government refused to cooperate. Sachs never told his family that the posters had survived. In 2005, Peter Sachs, Hans Sachs’s son, found out about the existence of the posters and demanded their return. The German Historical Museum refused, relying on a letter Hans had written the museum which it claimed transferred ownership to the museum. Peter Sachs sued in court and won but the museum appealed.
On January 31, that appeal was decided in favor of the museum. While the court has not issued a final decision, a judge at the hearing remarked a compensation payment from the German government to Hans Sachs may allow the German Museum to keep the posters. Peter Sachs argues that the payment from the German government was accepted by his father when he thought the collection had been destroyed. In all likelihood, an appeal will follow.
The second case, decided in New York last April, also held that the descendant of a holocaust victim was not entitled to the return of a piece of stolen artwork. Julius Schoeps argues that his great uncle, Paul von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, a prominent German-Jewish banker, sold a Picasso painting entitled “The Absinthe Drinker” to a German dealer under duress. Schoeps claimed the painting, which the Andrew Lloyd Weber foundation has owned since 1995, should be returned to its rightful heirs. The New York Court found against Schoeps because he failed to have himself appointed the personal representative of Mendelssohn Bartholdy, and thus the case could not go forward. The case is Schoeps v. Andrew Lloyd Weber Art Foundation, 2009 WL 2431943, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 06155 (1st Dept. 2009).
In early January 2010, Julius Schoeps and the Andrew Lloyd Weber Foundation settled the case. The terms of the settlement are not known.
Both cases highlight the difficulties faced by courts when dealing with litigation over property stolen by the Nazis. The cases span the time-frame of at least a half century. The original owners are often no longer living so in addition to determining whether the property should be returned, the court must figure out who the property should be returned to. The cases also involve the laws of several countries at once, some of which do not exist anymore (i.e., East Germany). With at least 20,000 art works still unaccounted for, these cases will continue to be brought and won’t become any simpler as time passes.