Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
We met a well renowned artist. He wants me to be his "personal photographer" to photograph and document his paintings over the past 50 years. All good, until I reseached him a little further and found out there was a lawsuit against him (among others) and a lien on all his paintings from Jan 2006 forward. Here are my questions:
1. How do I find out if the the lien been satisfied or still in place?
2. should we only photograph paintings prior to 2006
3. if we photographed paintings that were part of a lien, what is our liability?
4. if we reproduced any of those painting as giclees, what is our liability?
2 Answers from Attorneys
The way to ascertain if the lien has been satisfied in full is to pull the court file from where the lien originates to see if there is a satisfaction of judgment recorded or a lien release.
I see no reason why you are limited to paintings prior to 2006.
you have no liability re photographing paintings subject to the lien.
There is no liability for reproducing those paintings so long as the artist has them in hos or her possession.
1. You would have to find a "acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment in the court file. If a lien has been with the court. You should also check to see of a "UCC" lien has been filed with the California Secretary of State. If it has, you will want to make sure something has been filed to clear or release the lien.
2. That depends on what the actual lawsuit was for. If it is over ownership of the paintings, you may have a copyright issue, and may get into trouble photographing someone else's paintings. If, however, it was over nonpayment for some other contract, then I see no problem if the artist gives you permission.
3. and 4. depend on what you find the lawsuit is about under number 2.
Related Questions & Answers
-
Can I sue HUD for selling a house with a damaged/dry well? Asked 2/25/13, 7:44 pm in United States California Real Estate and Real Property