Sherlock Holmes and the Evil Heir

Stephen R. Alton, Texas Wesleyan University School of Law, has published The Game is Afoot!: The Significance of Gratuitous Transfers in the Sherlock Holmes Canon. Here is the abstract.

This article presents a recently discovered and previously unpublished manuscript written by John H. Watson, M.D., and annotated by Professor Stephen Alton. Dr. Watson’s manuscript records an extended conversation that took place between the good doctor and his great friend, the renowned consulting detective Mr. Sherlock Holmes, regarding issues of gratuitous transfers of property – issues involving inheritances, wills, and trusts – that have arisen in some of the great cases solved by Mr. Holmes. This felicitous discovery confirms something that Professor Alton has long known: these gratuitous transfer issues permeate many of these adventures. Often, the action in the case occurs because of the desire of the wrong-doer to come into an inheritance, a bequest, or the present possession of an estate in land more quickly – perhaps by dispatching the intervening heir, beneficiary, or life tenant. Professor Alton has annotated this manuscript, providing extensive analysis of these issues and citations to relevant, contemporary authority in his footnotes.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

The Rhetoric of Property Law

Johanna Gibson, Queen Mary University of London School of Law, has published "The Lay of the Land: The Geography of Traditional Cultural Expression," in Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions in a Digital Environment 182-201 (C. B. Graber & M. Murr-Nenova eds.; Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2008). Here is the abstract.

This paper examines the nature of land or territory as a linking concern in the discussion of intellectual property, traditional knowledge and the digital environment. Fundamentally, intellectual property models are circumscribed by the legal, economic and philosophical western traditions of land and land ownership and the translation of traditional knowledge within intellectual property frameworks imposes a similarly competitive, rivalrous and crowdable imperative upon that subject matter. In mapping traditional knowledge through intellectual property, traditional relationships to land (through the rendering of the knowledge embedded in that land) are similarly translated into competitive western systems, and indeed traditional and indigenous communities have been subjected to the same rationalisation, whereby authenticity is realised and "proven" externally through attachment to the land in what often derives from a colonial construction of Indigenous and traditional interests. This construction is vested in the continuity of connection to place and geographic community which ultimately betrays a self-conscious western construction of cultural resources and knowledge. That is, such knowledge and the relationship to that knowledge is understood only within the context of the institution of western legal paradigms and the legitimated justice of individual property interests. Notably, when it comes to the digital environment, industries based upon intellectual property struggle to chart and define territory by transforming knowledge into “land” as it were. Much has been said about the relationship between intellectual property and personal property, but what is of particular interest to this paper is the way in which an idea is reterritorialised by intellectual property models so that land ownership (at least in a conceptual sense) becomes intriguingly relevant. In examining the role or interference of intellectual property in traditional knowledge protection and indeed interpretation, this paper examines the former not through the expression of ideas as chattels but rather through the way in which ideas and information relate to territories; that is, the relationship between intellectual property frameworks and, not goods (as personal property), but land (as real property).

Download the essay from SSRN here.

Enabling "Tagging" and Other Art Forms

Randall P. Bezanson, University of Iowa College of Law, and Andrew Finkelman have published "Trespassory Art," in volume 43 of the University of Michigan Journal of Reform (2010). Here is the abstract.

The history of art is replete with examples of artists who have broken from existing conventions and genres, redefining the meaning of art and its function in society. Our interest is in emerging forms of art that trespass - occupy space, place, and time as part of their aesthetic identity. These new forms of art, which we call trespassory art, are creatures of a movement that seeks to appropriate cultural norms and cultural signals, reinterpreting them to create new meaning. Marcel DuChamp produced such a result when, in the early twentieth century, he took a urinal, signed his name to it, titled it Fountain, and called it art.

Whether they employ 21st century technologies, such as lasers, or painting, sculpture and mosaic, music, theatre, or merely the human body, these new artists share one thing in common. Integral to their art is the physical invasion of space, the trespass, often challenging our conventional ideas of location, time, ownership, and artistic expression. Their art requires not only borrowing the intellectual assets of others, but their physical assets. This is trespassory art - art that redefines and reinterprets space - art that gives new meaning to a park bench, to a billboard, to a wall, to space itself.

Our purpose is to propose a modified regime in the law of trespass to make room for the many new forms of art with which we are concerned - art that is locationally dependent or site specific. We begin by briefly describing and characterizing these often-new artistic forms. This provides a jumping off point for addressing the basic question this article seeks to address - should the law accommodate these new types of art, and if so, to what degree? We first turn to the law of trespass, with particular focus on real property, both public and private, but also with an eye to personal and intellectual property. We conclude that adjusting trespass remedies for artistic trespass through a set of common law privileges would better balance the competing interests of owners and artists than do current trespass rules. We then turn to a set of constitutional issues and conclude that our common law proposal is consistent with, and in some ways perhaps required by, the First Amendment. Finally, we summarize our proposal and then revisit the value of trespassory art as art in our creative culture.

Download the article from SSRN here.

Law and Art

Alfred L. Brophy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, School of Law, has published "Property and Progress: Antebellum Landscape Art and Property Law." Here is the abstract.

Landscape art in the antebellum era (the period before the American Civil War, 1861-1865), often depicts the role of humans on the landscape. Humans appear as hunters, settlers, and travelers and human structures appear as well, from rude paths, cabins, mills, bridges, and canals to railroads and telegraph wires. Those images parallel cases, treatises, orations, essays, and fictional literature that discuss property's role in fostering economic and moral development. The images also parallel developments in property doctrine, particularly related to adverse possession, mistaken improvers, nuisance, and eminent domain.

Some of the conflicts in property rights that gripped antebellum thought also appear in paintings, including ambivalence about progress, concern over development of land, and fear of the excesses of commerce. The concerns about wealth, as well as the concerns about the lack of control through law, appear at various points. Other paintings celebrate intellectual, moral, technological, and economic progress. The paintings thus remind us of how antebellum Americans understood property, as they struggled with the changes in the role of property from protection of individual autonomy of the eighteenth century to the promotion of economic growth in the nineteenth century.

Download the paper from SSRN here.
Here's a related post by Professor Brophy.

Tontines, Not Tocsins

Remember the inheritance device behind the death in Agatha Christie's mystery 4:50 From Paddington? (That novel is also known as What Mrs. McGillicuddy Saw). Or Thomas Costain's novel The Tontine? Kent McKeever of Columbia Law School investigates tontines further.

Kent McKeever, Columbia Law School, A Short History of Tontines.

The tontine, with its underlying premise that the living participants benefit from the death of their fellows, does not deserve its shadowy reputation. It had some success in its original purpose, as a means of government fund raising. It was most successful as a means of private development and investment from around 1780 through the 1850's. However, it was used as a gimmick in the selling of life insurance and as a cover for outright fraud in the latter part of the 19th Century. It was also subject to attack from writers who found the notion of gambling on other people's deaths unseemly. The tontine developed an aura of shadiness, and was eventually abandoned. If re-developed as a form of insurance for the long-lived, it may be worth rehabilitation as an investment tool.

Download the abstract from SSRN here.