<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:podcast="https://podcastindex.org/namespace/1.0" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" version="2.0"><channel><title>Art Law Case Briefs Podcast</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/art-law-case-briefs-podcast--5497569</link><description><![CDATA[Tune in to hear art law case briefs in an audio format! Law student case briefs are typically intended as a study tool, and this intended to let you learn while listening.]]></description><atom:link href="https://www.spreaker.com/show/5497569/episodes/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><language>en</language><category>Visual Arts</category><copyright>Copyright Kimberly Babin</copyright><lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2024 12:25:02 +0000</lastBuildDate><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:owner><itunes:name>Kimberly Babin</itunes:name><itunes:email>kimberbabin@gmail.com</itunes:email></itunes:owner><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/25e67b8ce5f198641c1a3fcd0b902020.jpg"/><itunes:subtitle>Tune in to hear art law case briefs in an audio format! Law student case briefs are typically intended as a study tool, and this intended to let you learn while listening.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tune in to hear art law case briefs in an audio format! Law student case briefs are typically intended as a study tool, and this intended to let you learn while listening.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:category text="Arts"><itunes:category text="Visual Arts"/></itunes:category><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type><item><title>United States v. McClain, (1977)</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/united-states-v-mcclain-1977--49462104</link><description><![CDATA[The defendants in this case had covertly aided in locating buyers for the cultural property, knowing they were likely violating Mexico’s patrimony laws.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49462104</guid><pubDate>Sun, 17 Apr 2022 23:42:04 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49462104/united_states_v_mcclain_1977.mp3" length="2349103" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The defendants in this case had covertly aided in locating buyers for the cultural property, knowing they were likely violating Mexico’s patrimony laws.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The defendants in this case had covertly aided in locating buyers for the cultural property, knowing they were likely violating Mexico’s patrimony laws.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>147</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>artlaw,mcclain,patrimony</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Georgia O’Keeffe Foundation (Museum) v. Fisk University (2009)</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/georgia-o-keeffe-foundation-museum-v-fisk-university-2009--49462023</link><description><![CDATA[Alfred Stieglitz, a innovative photographer, collector of modern art, and husband of Georgia O'Keeffe, perished leaving behind an estate included approximately 900 works of art and a will and testament that stated Georgia O'Keeffe, and this appeal examined respective rights of three parties concerning charitable gifts of 101 pieces of art given, subject to conditions, to Fisk University in the late 1940s and early 1950s]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49462023</guid><pubDate>Sun, 17 Apr 2022 23:23:49 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49462023/okeefe.mp3" length="4935412" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Alfred Stieglitz, a innovative photographer, collector of modern art, and husband of Georgia O'Keeffe, perished leaving behind an estate included approximately 900 works of art and a will and testament that stated Georgia O'Keeffe, and this appeal...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Alfred Stieglitz, a innovative photographer, collector of modern art, and husband of Georgia O'Keeffe, perished leaving behind an estate included approximately 900 works of art and a will and testament that stated Georgia O'Keeffe, and this appeal examined respective rights of three parties concerning charitable gifts of 101 pieces of art given, subject to conditions, to Fisk University in the late 1940s and early 1950s]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>309</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley (1998)</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/national-endowment-for-the-arts-v-finley-1998--49419465</link><description><![CDATA[1990’s funding decisions of the NEA were under fire when the art viewing public found the funding and works scandalous, and congress responded with amendment section 954 of the National Foundation on Arts and Humanities Act]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49419465</guid><pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2022 04:05:56 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49419465/national_endowment_for_the_arts_v_finley.mp3" length="2468233" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>1990’s funding decisions of the NEA were under fire when the art viewing public found the funding and works scandalous, and congress responded with amendment section 954 of the National Foundation on Arts and Humanities Act</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[1990’s funding decisions of the NEA were under fire when the art viewing public found the funding and works scandalous, and congress responded with amendment section 954 of the National Foundation on Arts and Humanities Act]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>155</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>artlaw</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Cincinnati v. Contemporary Arts Center (1990)</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/cincinnati-v-contemporary-arts-center-1990--49419183</link><description><![CDATA[Robert Mapplethorpe Exhibition “Perfect Moment” featured 5 graphic photos amongst 169 non-obscene works in Cincinnati v. Contemporary Arts Center, addressing the "as a whole" phrase in the Miller Test.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49419183</guid><pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2022 03:17:58 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49419183/cincinnati_v_contemporary_arts_center.mp3" length="3723779" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Robert Mapplethorpe Exhibition “Perfect Moment” featured 5 graphic photos amongst 169 non-obscene works in Cincinnati v. Contemporary Arts Center, addressing the "as a whole" phrase in the Miller Test.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Robert Mapplethorpe Exhibition “Perfect Moment” featured 5 graphic photos amongst 169 non-obscene works in Cincinnati v. Contemporary Arts Center, addressing the "as a whole" phrase in the Miller Test.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>233</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>artlaw,millertest,photography</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Miller v. California (1973)</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/miller-v-california-1973--49418365</link><description><![CDATA[Here the 3-pronged Miller Test is established in response to an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court involving Marvin Miller's unsolicited, sexually explicit, obscene, mailing advertisements for sexy books.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49418365</guid><pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2022 00:41:33 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49418365/miller_v_california.mp3" length="3403611" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Here the 3-pronged Miller Test is established in response to an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court involving Marvin Miller's unsolicited, sexually explicit, obscene, mailing advertisements for sexy books.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Here the 3-pronged Miller Test is established in response to an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court involving Marvin Miller's unsolicited, sexually explicit, obscene, mailing advertisements for sexy books.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>213</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>artlaw,millertest,obscenity</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Roth v. United States(1957)</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/roth-v-united-states-1957--49418007</link><description><![CDATA[Both a California and a New York bookseller had been charged with Obscenity for distributing books and magazines featuring nude photos and erotic stories, with their appeals heard before the United States Supreme Court.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49418007</guid><pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2022 23:37:43 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49418007/roth_v_united_states_1957.mp3" length="3615518" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Both a California and a New York bookseller had been charged with Obscenity for distributing books and magazines featuring nude photos and erotic stories, with their appeals heard before the United States Supreme Court.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Both a California and a New York bookseller had been charged with Obscenity for distributing books and magazines featuring nude photos and erotic stories, with their appeals heard before the United States Supreme Court.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>226</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>artlaw,freedomofexpression,obscenity</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/carter-v-helmsley-spear-inc--49393104</link><description><![CDATA[Three sculptures were found to be employees creating a work for hire resulting in the loss of their work and VARA rights.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49393104</guid><pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2022 01:28:15 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49393104/carter_v_helmsley_spear_inc.mp3" length="4935434" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Three sculptures were found to be employees creating a work for hire resulting in the loss of their work and VARA rights.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Three sculptures were found to be employees creating a work for hire resulting in the loss of their work and VARA rights.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>309</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>artlaw,vara</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Gilliam v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc ( 1976)</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/gilliam-v-am-broad-companies-inc-1976--49392243</link><description><![CDATA[How Monty Python helped pave the way for some recognition of moral rights in the U.S. courts.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49392243</guid><pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2022 00:36:21 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49392243/gilliam_v_am_broad_companies_inc_538_f_2d_14_2d_cir_1976.mp3" length="3918158" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>How Monty Python helped pave the way for some recognition of moral rights in the U.S. courts.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[How Monty Python helped pave the way for some recognition of moral rights in the U.S. courts.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>245</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>art,artlaw,copyright,moralrights</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Vargas v. Esquire, Inc., 164 F.2d 522 (7th Cir. 1947)</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/vargas-v-esquire-inc-164-f-2d-522-7th-cir-1947--49387810</link><description><![CDATA[This case looks at an artist's renderings for Esquire Magazine and how the U.S. differs from France in recognizing attribution and paternity.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49387810</guid><pubDate>Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:14:30 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49387810/vargas_v_esquire.mp3" length="1729712" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>This case looks at an artist's renderings for Esquire Magazine and how the U.S. differs from France in recognizing attribution and paternity.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[This case looks at an artist's renderings for Esquire Magazine and how the U.S. differs from France in recognizing attribution and paternity.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>109</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>art,artistrights,artlaw,attribution,paternity,pinups</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>National Historic Shrines Foundation, Inc. v. Dali (1967)</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/national-historic-shrines-foundation-inc-v-dali-1967--49387508</link><description><![CDATA[This 1967 case looks at the validity of an oral contract made with Dali to complete a publicity stunt by painting a picture live on television and addresses how the United States approaches artists obligations.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49387508</guid><pubDate>Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:25:24 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49387508/dali.mp3" length="2349129" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>This 1967 case looks at the validity of an oral contract made with Dali to complete a publicity stunt by painting a picture live on television and addresses how the United States approaches artists obligations.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[This 1967 case looks at the validity of an oral contract made with Dali to complete a publicity stunt by painting a picture live on television and addresses how the United States approaches artists obligations.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>147</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>art,artlaw,dali,law</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc (1994).</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/campbell-v-acuff-rose-music-inc-1994--49305864</link><description><![CDATA[2 Live Crew's parody of Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" reaches the Supreme Court in a debate over copyright and fair use.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49305864</guid><pubDate>Sun, 03 Apr 2022 21:44:14 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49305864/campbell_v_acuff_rose_music_inc_1994.mp3" length="5311600" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>2 Live Crew's parody of Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" reaches the Supreme Court in a debate over copyright and fair use.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[2 Live Crew's parody of Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" reaches the Supreme Court in a debate over copyright and fair use.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>332</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>artlaw,copyright,fairuse</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV) v. Reid Art Law Case Brief (1989)</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/community-for-creative-non-violence-ccnv-v-reid-art-law-case-brief-1989--49303038</link><description><![CDATA[Debate over copyright to James Earl Reid's powerful sculpture and its journey to the Supreme Court, which ruled in Reid’s favor, setting an important precedent in favor of the rights of freelance artists to retain their creative and intellectual property.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49303038</guid><pubDate>Sun, 03 Apr 2022 17:02:30 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49303038/community_for_creative_non_violence_ccnv_v_reid_art_law_case_brief.mp3" length="8578804" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Debate over copyright to James Earl Reid's powerful sculpture and its journey to the Supreme Court, which ruled in Reid’s favor, setting an important precedent in favor of the rights of freelance artists to retain their creative and intellectual property.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Debate over copyright to James Earl Reid's powerful sculpture and its journey to the Supreme Court, which ruled in Reid’s favor, setting an important precedent in favor of the rights of freelance artists to retain their creative and intellectual property.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>537</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>art,artlaw,copyright,iplaw,sculpture</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Satava v. Lowry (2003) Art Law Case Brief</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/satava-v-lowry-2003-art-law-case-brief--49276991</link><description><![CDATA[This case looks at the works of two glass artists, one from California, and one from Hawaii, both who created jelly fish in a glass-in-glass medium and if the elements of the work were protected under copyright and if so, if they were infringed upon.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49276991</guid><pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2022 03:34:34 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49276991/satava_v_lowry_art_law_case_brief.mp3" length="5766758" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>This case looks at the works of two glass artists, one from California, and one from Hawaii, both who created jelly fish in a glass-in-glass medium and if the elements of the work were protected under copyright and if so, if they were infringed upon.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[This case looks at the works of two glass artists, one from California, and one from Hawaii, both who created jelly fish in a glass-in-glass medium and if the elements of the work were protected under copyright and if so, if they were infringed upon.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>361</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>art,artlaw,glass,law</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Burrow-Giles Lithograpgh Co. v. Sarony (1884) Art Law Case Brief</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/burrow-giles-lithograpgh-co-v-sarony-1884-art-law-case-brief--49260514</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49260514</guid><pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2022 01:27:57 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49260514/burrow_giles_lithograpg_co_v_sarony.mp3" length="6174693" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:duration>386</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>art,artlaw,casebrief,photography</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>United States v. Perry Art Law Case Brief (1892)</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/united-states-v-perry-art-law-case-brief-1892--49211944</link><description><![CDATA[This 1892 case involves the importation of stained-glass windows and the legal question on if the classify as art and taxed in accordance.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49211944</guid><pubDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2022 22:46:25 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49211944/united_states_v_perry_art_law_case_brief_1892.mp3" length="4127511" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>This 1892 case involves the importation of stained-glass windows and the legal question on if the classify as art and taxed in accordance.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[This 1892 case involves the importation of stained-glass windows and the legal question on if the classify as art and taxed in accordance.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>258</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>art,artlaw,law</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Mayers, Osterwald &amp; Muhlfeld, Inc. v. Bendler</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/mayers-osterwald-muhlfeld-inc-v-bendler--49211818</link><description><![CDATA[This 1931 Art Law Case asks if the import of the Nassak diamond was correctly classified as an artistic antiquity or if it was simply a diamond with a romantic history.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49211818</guid><pubDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2022 22:22:50 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49211818/mayers_osterwald_muhlfeld_inc_v_bendler.mp3" length="4935448" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>This 1931 Art Law Case asks if the import of the Nassak diamond was correctly classified as an artistic antiquity or if it was simply a diamond with a romantic history.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[This 1931 Art Law Case asks if the import of the Nassak diamond was correctly classified as an artistic antiquity or if it was simply a diamond with a romantic history.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>309</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>antiquity,art,artlaw,diamond,law</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Consmiller v. United States Case Brief 1912</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/consmiller-v-united-states-case-brief-1912--49211330</link><description><![CDATA[This 1912 case involves tariffs on imported marble to the United States and if the marble mantles could be considered art or sculpture resulting in a lower tariff under the Tariff Act of 1909.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49211330</guid><pubDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2022 20:49:05 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49211330/consmiller_v_united_states_case_brief_1912.mp3" length="4196490" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>This 1912 case involves tariffs on imported marble to the United States and if the marble mantles could be considered art or sculpture resulting in a lower tariff under the Tariff Act of 1909.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[This 1912 case involves tariffs on imported marble to the United States and if the marble mantles could be considered art or sculpture resulting in a lower tariff under the Tariff Act of 1909.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>263</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>art,artlaw,casebriefs,fineart,law,legalstudies</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>United States v. Olivotti &amp; Co Case Brief</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/united-states-v-olivotti-co-case-brief--49206570</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/49206570</guid><pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2022 04:49:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/49206570/united_states_v_olivotti_co_mp3.mp3" length="9392980" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Kimberly Babin</itunes:author><itunes:duration>588</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>art,artlaw,casebrief,law,legal,study</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/c27482b44a4caf3035b8c29c50ea5dc1.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item></channel></rss>
