🖼️ Make Art Litigious Again

Rethinking Rights in the Art World — Plus, the Fate of Google's Online Search Monopoly Hangs in the Balance

Author

Katie Perry
June 03, 2025

Welcome to Tuesday Thursday Saturday! I share a snapshot of trending stories across business, tech, and culture three times a week. Subscribe and tell me what you want to hear about next! - KP

The Big Story: The Radical Rights of Art

“Artists die, but art can live forever.”

Maybe this is why artists are so dramatic. They know what they’re creating might outlive them. You’d be a little intense, too, if your work had a shot at immortality.

The idea that art has a life of its own is at the heart of a bold new legal framework proposed by my friend Sergio Gramitto Ricci, a law professor and generally smart human who just released an academic paper that asks: what if a painting or sculpture had rights?

Not metaphorically. Literally. What if we gave works of art legal personhood â€” the same legal standing we give corporations, rivers, and in some countries, religious idols?

Sergio’s argument centers on protecting the spirit of a work of art, its “coherent purpose,” as he puts it. His perspective is interesting because, before reading his piece, I had never considered the rights of the artwork as separate from those of the artist. It’s a bit of a heady topic, but it’s extremely pertinent in the age of AI.

Let’s start with a foundational tenet to Sergio’s entire argument: Art isn’t passive. Art has a persona.

We already treat art like it’s alive. As Sergio puts it, “A work of art often embodies a character, a persona… A work of art can embody a spirit.” From Plato’s “mimesis” to Hegel’s theory of art’s soul, this isn’t a new idea. What’s new is codifying it.

In law, personhood comes with a bundle of traits: the capacity to own assets, bear liabilities, to sue and be sued. Right now, art doesn’t have that because it’s treated like property. Which means it can be altered, reframed, or destroyed at the whim of whoever holds the deed.

Legal personhood would change the game. It would recognize that some works of art carry meaning independent of the artist or owner, and that meaning deserves protection. And it all boils down to legacy.

Legal personhood wouldn’t be for every doodle. What Sergio is advocating for is work that has a discernible spirit and purpose. Some examples include: public sculptures, sacred tribal art, iconic collections, and other culturally significant pieces that speak to people across time.

Historic Iroquois beadwork

His paper spells out three core benefits of legal personhood for artwork:

  1. It prioritizes the work itself over the whims of artists or stakeholders. Right now, a collector can distort a piece. An heir can sell it off. A city can move it out of context. Legal personhood would shift focus to what the art is trying to say, and ensure it keeps saying it.

  2. It gives the art a legal life beyond its creators. Unlike current frameworks, which fade with copyright expiration or an artist’s death, personhood is infinite. As Sergio writes, “A critical argument for recognizing legal personhood for artwork is that a piece of art carries a spirit that makes it irreplaceable.”

  3. It expands protection to traditions that current law leaves behind. Our IP system is built on Western notions of ownership and economic value. As Sergio writes, “While the Western paradigm of protection is focused on the economic benefit of inventors, the tribal focus is largely on maintaining the cultural integrity of the group.” Legal personhood could finally offer proper protection to Indigenous and tribal artwork that wasn’t created for the sole purpose of commerce.

Case Study: The Bull and the Girl

In the paper, Sergio points to a powerful example that we’re all familiar with: New York’s “Charging Bull” and “Fearless Girl” statues. Originally, the bull stood alone. Its intention was to be strong and symbolic. But once the girl was added, the meaning shifted. As Sergio notes, “Regardless of the essence of the new message, it is beyond dispute that ‘Charging Bull’ symbolizes something different when standing in front of ‘Fearless Girl.’” The bull once stood for strength, relative to nothing in particular, but placed in front of a small girl it became aggressive and intimidating, which was not the intent of the original piece.

The message of “Fearless Girl” resonates with many of us, but positioned opposite the bull, you start to have a bit of empathy for the original meaning of the statue.

Without consent or legal protection, the bull’s purpose was rewritten. And the artist had no recourse. With legal personhood, the bull could have had a fiduciary — someone obligated to protect its original meaning.

The case for legal personhood is about moving from “rights on art” (something stakeholders hold) to “rights of art.”

Sergio acknowledges that legal personhood is complex. It’s “essentially invisible,” given that it’s an abstract concept with real legal, economic, and cultural ramifications. But that’s true of many legal innovations. Corporations are also invisible. So are trusts. And they shape our world every day.

What Sergio is proposing isn’t just legal theory; it’s cultural preservation. “It values that art can live forever and its coherent purpose should be protected throughout the ages.” That’s a powerful frame, especially in a time when meaning is increasingly disposable.

And all this got me thinking about AI. While Sergio’s paper doesn’t meander into this territory — it likely would have been a 300-page paper vs. a 30-page one — his points bear consideration in the context of AI.

Generative AI is rapidly reshaping what creation even means. It can mimic style, replicate form, even generate new works based on old ones. In a world where human authorship becomes blurred, protecting the meaning of original works becomes even more important.

My headshot rendered as a Roy Lichtenstein painting. (Not what the artist had in mind.)

As Sergio writes, “Legal personhood for artwork has consequential benefits for humankind: It protects a work of art, its coherent purpose, and the artist’s legacy.” That matters now more than ever. Just because AI can replicate a painting doesn’t mean it can replicate its soul.

Legal personhood gives us a way to anchor meaning in a time of accelerating imitation. At the end of the day, it’s about defending legacy and cultural integrity in the age of the algorithm.

I highly recommend reading the full paper, which includes tons of historical examples and other frames of reference that make these points even clearer.

Daily Rip Live: Little X is a UFC Fighter or Someone’s Lying, and What’s in Store for Crowdstrike Earnings Later Today

Every weekday, my co-host Shay Boloor and I cover the biggest market news and events LIVE on Stocktwits’ morning show, The Daily Rip Live.

Here’s what we covered on Monday’s show:

Now Here’s a Chart

Are everyday objects becoming less colorful over time?

There’s been a noticeable shift toward grays and cuboid shapes, particularly since the mid-20th century. This trend reflects changes in materials, like the move from wood to plastic, and the standardization of product design, especially in technology. While the analysis is based on a limited museum sample, it raises questions about how modern manufacturing may be making our physical environment visually duller.

Via “Colour & Shape: Using Computer Vision to Explore the Science Museum Group Collection,” and a post on X by @aphysicist.

Reading List

Tuesday Thursday Saturday is written by Katie Perry, owner of Ursa Major Media, which provides fractional marketing services and strategy in software, tech, consumer products, professional services, and other industries. She is also the co-host of Stocktwits’ Daily Rip Live show.

Disclaimer: The contents here reflect recaps and summaries of pre-reported or published data, news, and trends. I have cited sources and context for the information provided to the best of my ability. The purpose of the newsletter is to inform and educate on larger trends shaping business and culture — this is NOT investment advice. As an investor, you should always do your own research before making any decisions about your money or your portfolio.