Richard Prince has had a busy year on the litigation front. We’ve previously written about the copyright claims photographer Donald Graham filed last winter against Prince and the Gagosian Gallery over Prince’s use of Instagram images in his 2014-15 “New Portraits” exhibition. A motion to dismiss that case on fair use grounds is currently pending.

Over the summer, we reported on a lawsuit against the David Zwirner Gallery filed by a disgruntled collector who had paid $2 million for a Jeff Koons sculpture that the gallery never delivered.  This week, a New York state court rejected Zwirner’s attempt to dismiss the suit; allowing several of the claims against Zwirner to proceed.

A federal court has thrown out a significant portion of Carol Highsmith’s lawsuit against Getty Images.  Highsmith’s complaint alleged that Getty had improperly demanded license fees for images that it did not own, of which Highsmith was the author and copyright holder.

The art world is watching with concern the unfolding story of a fake Frans Hals painting; facts are still developing as of this writing, but it’s possible that the work may not be an isolated forgery but rather the harbinger of a larger group of well-executed fakes that could shake up the Old Master market.

The South Korean Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism has passed new legislation imposing strict regulations on art transactions.  The law is intended to increase transparency in the art market by requiring more documentation, and establishing regulatory bodies to oversee the authentication of artworks and investigation of forgeries.  The law may be implemented as early as August 2017.

This blog—like the rest of the art world—has closely followed the legal developments that continue to unfold in the wake of the Knoedler scandal, which exploded in 2011 when one of New York’s oldest art galleries closed following revelations that it had sold dozens of artworks (over the course more than a decade, in deals totaling about $60 million)—purported to be by Rothko, Pollock, Motherwell, and other famed Abstract Expressionists—that later turned out to be forgeries.

Over the summer, we wrote about a group of independent artists mounting a publicity campaign—and threatening legal action—against fast-fashion retailer Zara over the alleged unauthorized incorporation of the artists’ designs into some of Zara’s wares.  This autumn, a new federal lawsuit by artist Lili Chin levies similar accusations against a major department-store chain, Kohl’s, regarding its sale of garments adorned with drawings nearly identical to a series of copyrighted illustrations by Chin.

We have previously covered the litigation arising out of the 2007 sale of a Rothko masterpiece; the work’s seller sued the buyer and an intermediary dealer over alleged violations of a confidentiality provision in the sale contract, after the buyer and dealer resold the piece in a highly publicized 2009 auction.  In late September, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in favor of the defendants, in an opinion that serves as a reminder about the importance of clear contracting in art transactions.

When international fast-food chain McDonald’s launched a campaign featuring images of graffiti art decorating some of its restaurants, the restaurant opened itself up to litigation asserting, among other things, copyright and trademark claims by artists who say their work has been copied without permission.  As graffiti art has become increasingly artistically and commercially valuable in recent years, courts and litigants have had to examine how copyright law applies to this unique art form.

Litigation involving art displaced during World War II—and with it the continued focus on the need for adequate pre-acquisition due diligence—is in the news again with the recent filing of complaint against the Metropolitan Museum of Art regarding Pablo Picasso’s The Actor.  See Estate of Leffman v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 16-cv-7665 (S.D.N.Y.)

An art investor has initiated legal proceedings in New York state court against a Manhattan gallery she says she “trusted and relied upon” to select artworks as investments, claiming that she now has reason to question key details (like authenticity and purchase price) of several transactions with the gallery.  As is all too common, the parties apparently engaged in multiple art deals—here, involving over a hundred works, over the course of several years—with minimal documentation.  And now that their relationship has deteriorated, a court may have the difficult task of adjudicating the dispute without a written contract in place to guide its analysis.

Spanish pop artist Antonio De Felipe, sometimes referred to as the “Spanish Andy Warhol,” is under fire due to accusations by his former studio assistant that he is selling her works as his own.  Fumiko Negishi, an artist who worked as De Felipe’s studio assistant from 2006 to February of this year, has brought a lawsuit against him claiming that she painted 221 canvases signed by De Felipe.

A disgruntled client’s claims against the Elliot Stevens Gallery and its executive are headed to trial this fall in a dispute involving the client’s purchase of a group of sculptures.

Earlier this summer, a heated dispute erupted between a Manhattan gallerist and a private art advisory business, in a case that raises issues regarding the roles of galleries and advisors at the high end of the art market.

Back in August, the New York Times ran a story about a heated dispute between actor Alec Baldwin and gallerist Mary Boone over a painting by Ross Bleckner.  Baldwin has now commenced a lawsuit in New York state court against Boone and her eponymous gallery, claiming that she defrauded him into buying a different version of the painting he wanted.  See Docket No. 654807/2016 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.).

The spotlight once again is focused on questions concerning the appropriate level of pre-sale diligence in art transactions, this time with allegations against the National Gallery in London.  On Tuesday, the heirs of Margarete “Greta” Moll brought suit against The National Gallery of Art seeking to recover a painting by Henri Matisse, Portrait of Greta Moll, allegedly lost in the aftermath of World War II.  Williams v. The National Gallery of Art, London, et al., Case No. 16-cv-06978.

Real-estate developer and art collector Michael Shvo has been indicted in an alleged tax-evasion scheme relating to fine-art purchases. Shvo allegedly participated in a scheme to evade over $1 million in state and local sales tax associated with the purchase of fine art and other luxury items, according to a press release from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, by falsely representing to art galleries and auction houses that his purchases would be shipped out of state, when they were actually shipped to his New York addresses.

We have written before about a long-running legal battle between the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, California, and the heir to a Jewish Dutch art dealer who fled the Netherlands in 1940.  The focus of the dispute is a diptych (two painted panels) titled Adam and Eve, painted around 1530 by German Renaissance artist Lucas Cranach the Elder.  A recent district court decision dealt a possibly fatal blow to the claims by plaintiff Marei Von Saher, although she plans to appeal.

An amended complaint has been filed in a case against art dealer David Zwirner, adding claims for violation of New York’s Arts and Cultural Affairs Law.  As we recently discussed, Zwirner has been sued by UK entity Blue Art Limited over a $2 million deal gone bad.   The initial complaint concealed the description of the artwork to avoid “possible further damage to the Work’s value,” but the amended complaint clarifies that the sculpture at the center of the dispute is Gazing Ball (Centaur and Lapith Maiden), by Jeff Koons.

Prominent art dealer David Zwirner and his eponymous gallery have been sued by a buyer over a $ 2million deal gone bad, in a case that should serve as a reminder about the importance of clear contracting regarding the timing of art transactions.