May 3, 2026 – Say what you will about his Blue Period – the austere use of color and sometimes doleful subject matter was a sharp contrast to the harlequins of his Rose Period or the Cubist movement he co-founded and for which we arguably remember him most – but we have always been fans of Pablo Picasso.
Pablo Ruiz Picasso (1881-1973), the prolific Spanish painter, sculptor, printmaker, ceramicist, theatre designer, and poet, was one of the most influential artists of the 20th century. His work includes the 50-foot-high sculpture on the west side of Daley Plaza, described by Picasso as the head of an Afghan hound named Kabul. Though offered $100,000 for the sculpture in 1967 (the equivalent of $988,900 today), Picasso refused to be paid and donated the work to the people of Chicago.
Imagine our delight to read in a press release from Bank of America that Picasso’s revered work was going to undergo conservation, thanks to a grant from BOA’s Art Conservation Project.
“Due to the complicated nature of the painting, the piece has undergone only limited conservation over nearly a century, with its last major treatment more than 60 years ago,” read the press release. “This project will allow the Art Institute to gain a deeper understanding of this iconic work and ensure visitors will enjoy The Old Guitarist for generations to come.”
It is what we in the news business call “a story!” There was just one tiny part of the press release that made me pause.
The press release included a link to a high-resolution image of “The Old Guitarist” but contained these warnings:
- Please note that copyright permissions must be secured directly from the Artists Right Society (ARS) prior to publication. That information is included.
- The images listed below are protected by copyright. In order to reproduce/use any of these images, you MUST contact the copyright holder for their permission in advance.
Artists Rights Society is the U.S. copyright representative for the Picasso Administration, formed in 2012 by four surviving Picasso heirs to authenticate work by the artist and manage the Picasso estate.
I’ll pause here to allow fans of the Fair Use exemption to the Copyright Act time to roll their eyes. For those who may not navigate intellectual property day in and day out, Fair Use isn’t a “gift” granted to the media for use of an image to illustrate commentary; it is a legal right that ensures the public can have an independent, unvetted conversation about culture.
“Oh, Pooky,” you’re saying to me right now, “not everyone is up to speed on copyright law. Cut them some slack and publish this terrific story. This is probably from a young person at a small, boutique public relations firm.”
Yes, well, you may want to sit down for this.
The warning comes from Burson Global, one of the world’s largest full-service communications and public relations agencies. It was formed in 2024 through the merger of two industry giants, BCW (Burson Cohn & Wolfe) and Hill & Knowlton. They operate in 43 markets worldwide and have more than 6,000 employees.
It is a shame to see the Art Institute – a non-profit institution defined by the soul of the city – wrapped in the sterile plastic of a global PR strategy.
According to Julie Thorson of Burson Global, the copyright directive sent to all news outlets that received the announcement came from the Art Institute.
“Best practice,” she said, “is for anyone who wants to use the image to reach out to ARS directly for permissions.”
Permission to use a provided artwork image that we already have a right to use.
I contacted The Art Institute of Chicago to find out who was really behind the directive. Why Fair Use was being bypassed or challenged in this specific context. And what fee, if any, was being requested from news organizations for the “privilege” of covering this announcement with the provided visuals.
The response gave us a better understanding of the media strategy behind this.
“Thanks for your outreach to confirm this. We appreciate your interest in the story. If your story is about the conservation project specifically, you’re correct that fair use should cover your use of the image. But we tend to always flag for news organizations that ARS can be very strict with Picasso copyright in particular so it is best practice to be aware of that. If you’re ever in doubt if your story is covered by fair use, it’s always worth reaching out to ARS.”
To clarify, news organizations do not consult third-party rights holders to determine compliance with the Copyright Act. By the Art Institute’s own admission, our right to use the image is clear – making the “warning” from their PR representatives a choice of optics over law. Determining Fair Use is an internal editorial and legal process. Suggesting that a news outlet should “reach out to ARS” if in doubt is fundamentally at odds with how independent journalism operates.
Unfortunately, the exchange only illustrated the disconnect.
The high cost of corporate caution
Understandably, the Picasso estate is notoriously litigious, and corporate communications people do like to CYA. But when a request – some might call it a directive – comes from such an otherwise well-respected organization and a large, multi-national corporation, it is something about which we need to sound an alarm.
The best way to honor a masterpiece is to allow it to be discussed freely, without a legal script. While the world-class Art Institute is a Chicago treasure, the modern landscape of “mega-donors” like Bank of America – and the Picasso estate – has added a layer of corporate sanitization to our cultural heritage.
And it is a shame to see the Art Institute – a non-profit, tax-exempt institution defined by the soul of the city – wrapped in the sterile plastic of a global PR strategy. Caught between their mission of public openness and what could be rigid demands of the Picasso estate and corporate partners. We should all be rooting for the museum to break free of that red tape.
There is a specific irony in a PR firm sending a “press kit” while simultaneously restricting the press’s ability to use it. If they sent the image with the press release, they effectively distributed it for the purpose of publicity. Arguing that you then need to pay a fee or seek permission to use the very thing they gave you to promote them is a legal paradox that judges (and readers) usually find absurd.
More importantly, if a journalist can’t use a photo of an artwork for critical commentary, then criticism is dead. The public loses the right to an independent second opinion on their own cultural icons.
We wanted you to know about this. And we wanted you to know that we will not be jumping through any hoops.
Because every time we, as independent journalists, must decide between your interests and those of a global communications firm – or even the notoriously litigious estate of a revered genius – we will always side with you.
Every time.
