PROTECTING ARTISTS

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 133, 3 December 1930, Page 18

PROTECTING ARTISTS

EPSTEIN BJUNGS SUIT

HIS NAME MISUSED

Jacob Epstein, the noted sculptor, recently failed in an action which he brought before Mr. Justice Maugham j iv the Chancery Division for the purpose of protecting artists from misuse! of their names. He claimed an injunction restraining the International Depositories, Ltd., proprietors of King's Galleries, King's road, Chelsea, their servants -nd agents, from selling, offering for sale, or describing any piece of sculpture as his work, ■when in fact it was not liis work, says the "Daily Telegraph." The defendants denied ever having passed off, or attempted to pass off, any work of Mr. Epstein which was not his. Mr. E. J. Heekscher, counsel, stated that in July, 1929, Mr. Epstein, his client, was informed by Lady Jones, of Hyde Parkgate, wife of Sir Roderick Jones, that she had purchased at King's Gallci-ics^a bust, carved by him, of his j wife. At her invitation he went to i sec it, and declared it to be, not sculp- \ ture, but a cement cast, and not his work at all. j Subsequently two other ladies went \ to the galleries and saw four or iivej other pieces of sculpture or casts which i they were led to believe were the work | of Mr. Epstein, but actually were not. I Thereupon, in July, Mr. Epstein started! an action, and the defendants gave an undertaking in the terms of a, notice of motion not to sell any easts as his work which were'not.bis work. Since then further negotiations had led to nothing. Mr. Epstein did not ask for damages, but was anxious to stop what he regarded as a very improper use of his name.

ON A SHELF.

Giviug evidence, Lady Jones said that when she visited King's Gallery she noticed five pieces of sculpture on a shelf, and was told by Madame Fredericke, a director of the defendant company, that they were."Epsteins." On a second visit a week or fortnight later Madame Frederieke told her "she believed" they were Epsteins, and that she had bought them as such, but she could not warrant them as Epsteins. She stated her'belief that two of the Xjieces were entitled "Lust" and "Vice," and that because of their "extreme character" she had difficulty in selling them. The price of the lot was £30. Witness paid £7 los. for the piece now in dispute, believing it to bo the work of Epstein. Miss Ethel Kibblewhite, another witness, said that in June last she went to tho gallery at the request of Mr. Epstein, who was her friend, and on questiouing Madame Froderieko about a head or mask was told that it was "a portrait of Epstein, by himself." Mr. Cleveland Stevens, K.C. (for the defendants): "Madame Fredericks says she never saw you before in lier life. Did you sec anybody else there?"— "No." Another witness, Miss Jessie Briggs, also a friend of Mr. Epstein, said she saw a mask at the gallery labelled '' Epstein—himself.''

'' FAINT IMITATION. ''

Mr. Epstein gave evidence describing his inspection of the bust at Lady Jones's house and his denial on that occasion that it was his work. He had never seen it before. ' Mr. Heekscher: "Was it a copy or imitation of any work of yours?"—"l should say that it was a faint imitation of it certain work of mine." Did it bear any resemblance to your j wife?" —"None whatever." ! "Witness said his object in. bringing I the action was to guard himself and other artists against « very dangerous; form of trafficking iv names, reputa-! tions, and ..false works. Mr. Epstein stated that if the bust, purchased by Lady Jones had been genuine it might have fetched between £200 and £300. Mr. Stevens: "Do you say that youi-J reputation has suffered with Lady Jones?"—" Certainly. She would have ■ many persons of social distinction at her "house, and if they saw a work of this kind it would bo bound to damage my reputation." * . Madame Prcderieke, giving evidence, said that she had bought seven pieces of sculpture, picture frames, canvas, and pottery, from a Chelsea artist who was in financial difficulties,' paying £25 j or £30 for the lot. She thought the pieces of sculpture were interesting and odd shapes. ! "The, public," she added, "like these j things to-day. They make good garden | ornaments." When she asked the artist j from whom she purchased them where j they came from, he said they "might be .Epsteins." ' One was., called •' Grief "; another, called '' A Pugilist,'' looked like a boxer's fist, and a third was something like a snail. She gave two of the pieces-to her sister. When Lady Jones visited the gallery witness told her that she had never verified the authenticity of the pieces of work, and could not give a guarantee.

PROPER MOTIVE,

Giving judgment for the defendants, with costs,. Mr. Justice Maugham said! that Mr. Epstein's motive in bringing the action was reasonable and proper, but it was a great pity that he had not taken more seriously a letter of the defendants, from which it was plain that they had no desire tt) insist on nny such statement as that they believed this bust was his work. On- the evidence of Lady Jones alone he was unable to find that the bust was said to bo Epstein's. The true construction seemed to be that Lady Jones was left under the impression that it "might be" an Epstein, and that it was a speculative purchase without any positive guarantee. Ho did not think the words "Epstein —himself" would, standing alone, lead any person to believe the bust was a portrait of the sculptor executed by himself. His Lordship was not satisfied to leave the case without saying that Madame Fredericke'a observations with reference to the piece of sculpture in question were unwise and in some respects observations of which the Court could not approve.