This blog has previously covered the ongoing litigation concerning California’s Resale Royalties Act (CRRA).  A federal district court recently struck down the state statute on the grounds that it is preempted by federal copyright law, dealing a heavy blow to artists seeking royalties in connection with the resales of their artworks.

Famed “appropriation artist” Jeff Koons was sued in federal court last month over his alleged copyright infringement of a photograph used in a 1986 liquor advertisement. Koons is no stranger to litigation, having been sued on several different occasions for his appropriation art.  The results of those suits have been mixed.  For example, one of his works, “String of Puppies,” in which he created a sculpture based on a photograph without permission from the photographer, became the subject of an important court decision when the Second Circuit rejected Koons’s argument that his copying of the photograph was protected by the fair-use doctrine.

This blog has previously covered the twisting tale of the Gurlitt Collection, a cache of hundreds of artworks discovered in Germany and Austria a few years ago in the possession of Cornelius Gurlitt, the son of an art dealer authorized by the Nazis to deal in art confiscated, looted, or deemed “degenerate art” by Hitler’s regime. The art world has fiercely debated the best way to handle the collection, a daunting task that was further complicated when Gurlitt himself died last May and bequeathed his entire estate to the Kunstmuseum Bern in Switzerland.

Earlier this year, this blog covered a case examining the constitutionality of California Civil Code § 986, known as the California Resale Royalties Act (CRRA).  This week, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down part of the CRRA as unconstitutional but severed the objectionable portions from the rest of the statutory regime.  The ruling has potentially complex legal and economic implications for those who buy, sell, and trade in high-end art—and places the spotlight on current efforts in Congress to enact a nationwide resale royalty law.

Last week, the Trustees of the Sothern Trust, an entity tasked with administering the estate of Hollywood legend Elizabeth Taylor, sued auction giant Christie’s, Inc., bringing a series of claims that delve into the important, complex—and sometimes even conflicting—duties owed by an auction house to its consignors and customers.

A recent unpublished opinion from a Michigan state appellate court touches on recurring and important themes in recent art-law cases:  the degree to which buyers may rely on a dealer’s representations about a work of art, and the degree of pre-sale diligence required by buyers. See King v. Park West Galleries, Inc., No. 314188 (Mich. Ct. of App., Dec. 2, 2014).

During the first week of November, two works by Egon Schiele sold at auction—one at Christie’s and one at Sotheby’s. This blog post examines the troubled stories behind these works, the way the two sales unfolded, and what they can teach us about the current state of art restitution efforts.

When it comes to claims involving allegedly looted or stolen art and cultural property, high-profile (and high-stakes) litigation often takes center stage.  But the art world is paying increased attention to the rise of voluntary, negotiated repatriation and restitution of works to claimants.  This option can lead to productive and mutually beneficial dialogues, partnerships, and outcomes; it also requires careful planning and legal advice.

Earlier this week, the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) issued a much-anticipated decision upholding the auction industry’s longstanding practice of allowing sellers to remain anonymous. Given the importance of auction houses to the art market, and the importance of consignor anonymity to that market, this decision will likely be greeted with relief by many in the art world.

After a long court battle, an ancient Cambodian statue, consigned to Sotheby’s for sale in 2011, will be returned to that country under an agreement signed last week.  The Khmer statue, valued at over $2 million, was pulled from auction because of assertions it had been looted from the Prasat Chen temple site at Koh Ker.

Last month, the Hopi tribe took Eve auction house to court in an effort to block the sale of 25 sacred artifacts, which the tribe believes are imbued with divine spirits. In spite of this legal—not to mention, moral—challenge, a French court allowed the Paris auction house to proceed with the December 9th sale. The Native American tribe maintains that the objects were stolen and that selling them amounts to sacrilege.

Since 1974, the Dia Art Foundation has worked to support innovative contemporary artists.  Over the years, the Foundation has commissioned groundbreaking works and mounted and maintained installations and exhibitions from New York to New Mexico to Germany. But a rift between some of its original founders and the Dia’s current leadership has led to litigation over the fate of some iconic works in the Foundation’s collection, and debate over the mission and future of the organization itself.

On July 18, the city of Detroit, Michigan filed for bankruptcy.  Since the mid-1950s, only about 60 municipalities have filed under Chapter 9, the bankruptcy proceeding used by municipalities—and of those, Detroit’s is by far the largest municipal bankruptcy filing (in terms of debt) in American history.  The exact amount the city owes is unclear, but estimates range from $18 billion to $20 billion.  The bankruptcy process will be rife with complex issues, including whether the city is truly eligible for bankruptcy, whether public employees and retirees will need to accept a reduction in their expected employment and retirement benefits, and how best to move Detroit forward in a way that will stimulate growth and long-term stability.

A recent appellate decision upheld Sotheby’s right to withdraw a work from auction based on contemporary artist Cady Noland’s disclaimer of authorship of a work under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (17 U.S.C. § 106A) (“VARA”). While the court resolved questions of Sotheby’s rights to withdraw the work under its standard-form consignment agreement, the court did not have the occasion to examine the contours of the artist’s disclaimer rights under VARA. In the meantime, though, VARA continues to be an effective weapon to be used by artists to protect their moral rights.

In mid-March, the Mexican government demanded that Sotheby’s withdraw fifty-one Pre-Columbian Mexican artifacts from an upcoming sale, stating that they are protected historical pieces that constitute Mexican national property.  Peru, Guatemala, and Costa Rica also voiced their objections to the sale, bringing the total number of contested lots to roughly one third of the total 313 lots.