Thanks in advance
Stephen
I read an interesting article in the current issue of the S.F. Weekly;
about the famous, prestigious Harcourt's gallery, formerly a major player in
the local art scene, going out of business recently. Apparently the gallery
had been selling consigned art right up to the end, but had for months
neglected to inform the artists or other owners of the sales, or (needless
to say) to send any checks. Such local luminaries as John Battenberg, Bruce
Beasly, and Nancy Genn were stuck for amounts ranging into the thousands of
dollars. Their prospects of recovering more than a token amount from the
bankruptcy proceedings look dim. Unusually for a case of this type, the
District Attorney's office is mulling criminal charges against the owner,
for fraudulently "selling out of trust". While generally cases like this are
considered civil matters, apparently it can, under certain circumstances, be
a criminal offense to misappropriate art entrusted to one as a consignee.
The conditions that must be met to prove criminal intent in a matter like
this seem vague and hard to prove, and the article did not go into detail on
this point. Are there any legal types out there who can explain the
difference between civil misappropriation and criminal theft in a case like
this? California law applies, which I understand is more protective of
artist's rights than that of most states.
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com