Huffington Post reporter Daniel Grant wrote a piece about the risk of being sued for defamation by criticizing your art dealer, even if it's clear the dealer sold you a fake or otherwise ripped you off.
Granted, most people are not wealthy enough to regularly purchase fine works of art; but the same could probably be said about online criticism of businesses and professionals in general. Unless you have proof, posting potentially harmful criticism can lead to a costly lawsuit.
New York personal injury lawyer Donn Zaretsky had this to say:
"If one of my clients was upset with her dealer and was considering blogging or sending out an email blast, I would strongly advise against it. Too risky."
British actress Claire Forlani learned the hard way after emailing a 500-word condemnation of Malibu art dealer Paul Rusconi. She claims he sold her counterfeit Keith Haring and William Claxton paintings and that he overcharged her for an Andy Warhol work.
The dealer promptly replied with a defamation lawsuit, which was settled but the details remain confidential. Paul Rusconi explained why the art collector's email, and defamatory statements in general, should be taken seriously:
"Things spread like wildfire over the Internet. People take what they see as fact, rather than as speculation."
That doesn't mean anyone who has choice words to say about an allegedly crooked art dealer is barred from speaking his mind or warning others. The best defense against a defamation claim is the truth.
Calling an art dealer a "jerk" or a "moron" is indeed protected by the First Amendment, as the article points out, since that is something unable to be proven. Calling your dealer a "crook," however, signifies a more material accusation.
New York personal injury attorney Michael Salzman suggests either writing your angry screed on paper and then tearing it up, or "just sleep on it."
Related Resources:
-
Search New York Personal Injury Lawyers (FindLaw)
ShareThis
