This blog, along with the rest of the art world, has followed the twists and turns in the strange story of the Gurlitt Collection, a staggering trove of well over 1,000 artworks amassed by German art dealer Hildebrand Gurlitt during the Nazi era.  Our earlier posts review the matter in more detail, but in short, Gurlitt was one of only a few dealers authorized by Nazi leaders to trade in what the Nazis called “degenerate” works of art confiscated or looted by the Nazis; he likely handled works that were looted from persecuted individuals or purchased via duress sales, as well as “degenerate” works removed from German museums to be sold abroad. 

This blog has covered several stories about authentication disputes, including a post about the case of Bilinski v. Keith Haring Foundation, Inc., a federal lawsuit filed last year.  The plaintiffs there, collectors of works they believe to be by famed artist Keith Haring, sued the artist’s foundation for improperly denying authentication.  A federal judge last week dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, in a decision that explores some aspects of the complex role played by artist foundations and authentication boards.

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A recent unpublished opinion from a Michigan state appellate court touches on recurring and important themes in recent art-law cases:  the degree to which buyers may rely on a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).

A recent proposal by President Obama regarding a section of the tax code may have important consequences for art investors.

This blog has previously examined some of the complex legal issues surrounding graffiti art.  From the public fascination with street artist Banksy to the recent litigation over the destruction of a graffiti art repository at the 5Pointz site in Queens, this genre of art poses unique questions and problems for those who create it, those who own the property where it was created, and those who wish to use images of such works.

Federal courts continue to grapple with claims involving a diptych—two painted panels titled Adam and Eve, painted by the famed German Renaissance painter Lucas Cranach the Elder.  The works are currently in the collection of the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, California, but plaintiff Marei Von Saher claims she is their rightful owner.  The case’s history is nearly as convoluted as the history of the artworks—the matter has already made two trips to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, plus two unsuccessful appeals to the Supreme Court—and the courts must grapple with complex threshold considerations before they can even reach the merits of Von Saher’s claims.

Last week, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a case examining the constitutionality of California Civil Code § 986, known as the California Resale Royalties Act.  The case has potentially important implications for those collecting or dealing in fine art.

In the fall of 2012, the MacAndrews & Forbes Group, LLC and MAFG Art Fund, LLC, two holding companies controlled by business mogul Ronald Perelman sued legendary art dealer Larry Gagosian and his Gagosian Gallery over a complex series of transactions involving works by, among others, Cy Twombly and Jeff Koons.  Last week, the case ended with a defeat for Perelman—and a reminder to art buyers that courts are increasingly scrutinizing their pre-sale diligence almost as closely at times as the dealer’s alleged wrongdoing.

This blog has previously covered the strange ongoing saga of the “Gurlitt Collection”—a spectacular trove of well over 1,000 artworks amassed by German art dealer, Hildebrand Gurlitt, during the Nazi era.  Gurlitt was one of only a few dealers authorized by Nazi leaders to trade in “degenerate” works of art that had been confiscated or looted by the Nazis.  After World War II, the Gurlitt family claimed that their artworks had been destroyed during the bombing of the German city of Dresden.

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.

In mid-September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision with important tax and estate-planning ramifications for art collectors.  This case is being hailed as a “victory” for collectors in that it supports the general availability of fractional-ownership discounts as a viable tool in the arsenal when it comes to tax and estate planning regarding art assets.

Earlier this week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed the scope of the “fair use doctrine” as a defense to copyright-infringement claims.  In doing so, the court had some harsh words for the Second Circuit’s much-anticipated decision last year in Cariou v. Prince.  The court’s ruling is the latest to analyze the significance of “transformative use” in determining the fair-use defense, and it sets up an interesting divergence among the Circuits on this important topic.

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.

The Visual Artists Rights Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106A (commonly known as VARA) aims to protect artists’ “moral rights” related to the proper attribution of their works, as well as the physical “integrity” of the works themselves.  A survey in 2003 concluded that the law was still little-used, although awareness of VARA was increasing.  As the Wall Street Journal observed in 2010, the contours of VARA are continually evolving.  Over the past year, two lawsuits have highlighted some of the ongoing questions about how VARA protects the rights of artists, particularly when the art at issue has been created on property owned by someone else.

In the last few months, three different lawsuits have been filed that highlight some of the legal complications involved in seeking, offering, or relying upon authentication of works of art.  We intend to follow closely each of these cases, and other important legal developments concerning art authentication.

Italy is threatening legal action after the British government refused to return 700 ancient artifacts that were seized from disgraced London art dealer Robin Symes. Maurizio Fiorilli, the Italian state legal counsel overseeing the case, claims that the disputed objects, largely Etruscan sculptures, jewelry, and vases, were excavated illegally and then sold illicitly.

Last year, this blog covered a federal court’s decision involving New York-based ACA Galleries, Inc.’s purchase of a painting purportedly created by artist Milton Avery.  In a recent decision affirming that opinion, the Second Circuit reiterated the warning to galleries and collectors about the importance of completing comprehensive due diligence before purchasing any work of art.

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.