In a unanimous decision earlier this month, the Supreme Court resolved a debate that impacts would-be copyright infringement litigants. 

We here at Grossman LLP, along with many other legal commentators, have been following with interest the lawsuits against appropriation artist Richard Prince arising out of his controversial New Portraits works, first shown at the Gagosian Gallery in 2014, which Prince created from screen shots of photos taken by other Instagram users.  The court is now considering the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the issue of fair use, which have been fully briefed.  But along with the main event—the summary judgment motion—the court is also considering additional motions filed by both parties with regard to each other’s expert witnesses.  These motions are worth examining because they will presumably be resolved along with the summary judgment decision, and they raise some interesting questions that may have implications in the larger arena of fair use case law.

A lawsuit pending in the United Kingdom continues the ongoing debate about how much due diligence buyers must perform when purchasing artwork, including whether such buyers must investigate price histories.   

​A contentious lawsuit is underway between a Manhattan art gallery and its former director over her handling of purportedly-confidential information when she quit her job to accept a position at another gallery.  The case raises potentially important questions about one of the key assets of any art business—information about its customers and contacts. 

Last year, we wrote about the federal lawsuit filed by visual artist Lina Iris Viktor, which alleged that her copyrights in three original artworks were infringed in the music video of a song, “All the Stars,” from the soundtrack of last year’s blockbuster movie Black Panther.   She sued the song’s recording artists—Kendrick Lamar and SZA—as well as the record label and the video’s director and production company, among others.

​One artist’s crusade against what he perceives to be anticompetitive behavior in the New York art world has come to an end—at least for now—as a federal judge dismissed his antitrust claims against five museums.

Ever since Richard Prince’s “New Portraits” project first made headlines, we’ve been following the story—and the copyright implications.  Now, two lawsuits that arose out of that controversial exhibition are headed for a summary judgment ruling. 

This fall, the firm’s attorneys have been featured speakers at multiple events exploring cutting-edge issues in art law. 

Last December, France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, gave a speech lamenting the fact that French museums hold a vast array of African art and artifacts, and pledged that, “In the next five years, I want the conditions to be created for the temporary or permanent restitution of African patrimony to Africa.”  At the time, there was little in the way of specific detail about how that might happen, but this past spring, Macron commissioned a study to examine how that objective could be accomplished.  Now, the experts tasked with that study have released a key report that makes a variety of recommendations that, if implemented, would represent a massive repatriation project for France. 

Last week, as reported in Artnet, a court in France issued an order requiring Koons, his business entity, and the Centre Pompidou (a prominent French museum which had displayed the Koons work in question) to pay damages of over $150,000 to Franck Davidovici, the creator of a 1985 clothing ad called Fait d’Hiver.

​On the heels of last week’s post (see here) about Russian art collector Dmitry Rybolovlev’s lawsuit against Sotheby’s, we write now with a brief update.  This week, authorities in Monaco formally named Rybolovlev a suspect in an investigation into allegations of corruption and influence-peddling.
 

The long-running, globe-spanning dispute between two powerful figures in the international art world has taken a new turn, as one of the parties levels formal claims against auction giant Sotheby’s for its role in multiple purportedly fraudulent art deals.  The case continues to shine a spotlight on the often-convoluted and opaque nature of high-end art transactions.

This week, a family dispute over a Max Ferguson painting ripened into litigation, providing a cautionary tale for art collectors who loan their works to institutions and family members.

Back in August, we wrote about a new lawsuit against automotive giant General Motors, and its potential implications for graffiti art.  Now, the artist plaintiff in that case has at least partially prevailed in GM’s motion for summary judgment, clearing the way for a trial.

The future of the late pop artist Robert Indiana’s legacy hinges on the outcome of a pair of lawsuits that have been underway since his death in May.

Over the years we’ve covered many stories about how the American copyright regime applies to graffiti art.  Now, a lawsuit against car manufacturer General Motors may test a new legal angle in this area of case law.

A recently-filed lawsuit provides insight into some of the risks involved in art transactions given the increased use of creative purchase structures and financing arrangements in the art market.

​In an important ruling issued last week, a federal judge allowed fraud claims asserted by art collector Andrew Hall to proceed against a former art-history professor and her son, Lorettan and Nicholas Gascard, alleging that they sold him a number of forged Leon Golub works.  The court’s decision is instructive for collectors who may have been duped into purchasing forged artworks, only to discover many years later that they were fakes.

Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the latest—and likely final—ruling in Marei von Saher’s decades-long attempt to recover artwork looted by the Nazis from her late father-in-law.  In ruling against von Saher, the Ninth Circuit has ensured that the Cranachs will remain in the museum, and accessible to the public, for the foreseeable future.  This ruling will have significant implications for heirs of those who originally owned Nazi-looted artworks, especially where such heirs have already tried and failed to recover artwork through the official restitution channels instituted by European governments in the post-war years.  

Yesterday afternoon, a lawsuit was filed in the New York State Supreme Court for the seizure and return of four artworks with an aggregate value of $1.66 million.  In addition to bringing a civil replevin claim seeking recovery of the Works, the plaintiff has requested a Court order authorizing a sheriff to seize the Works from the defendant.  As this lawsuit progresses further, it may present a useful opportunity to observe the application in the art-law context of a New York statute governing such seizure orders.