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.

This spring, the Getty Villa in Malibu, California introduced an exhibition of remarkable ancient works from Sicily.  The exhibit, titled “Sicily: Art and Invention between Greece and Rome,” features works ranging from rare coins to engraved battle gear; together, the works speak to Sicily’s unique role as a crossroads and center of artistic innovation in the classical world.  The Getty exhibition closes in August, after which the works were scheduled to be displayed at the Cleveland Museum of Art this fall.  The Getty spent nearly $1 million to mount the show, which the New York Times has called “the first major survey of ancient Sicilian art in the United States.”

In 1941, Max Liebermann’s landscape masterpiece, Garden in Wansee (1923) was seized by the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg, a Nazi art-confiscation agency, from the collection of Jewish businessman, Max Cassirer.  Recently, the Israel Museum in Jerusalem announced that it had restituted the painting  to Cassirer’s heir.  As per the settlement, the Museum returned the painting to the heir and then re-acquired it, allowing it to remain in the Museum’s collection, accessible to the public.

As discussed in a recent New York Times article, museums around the world are reevaluating their approach to distributing images of their collections in an increasingly digital world.

In 1933, Jewish industrialist Richard Semmel sold four paintings at auction under duress as a result of Nazi persecution.  Now, the Dutch Restitutions Committee, which can give binding opinions in matters of disputed art, has rejected claims by Semmel’s heirs for three of the four paintings.

After months of negotiations between the Metropolitan Museum of Art and Cambodian officials, the Met has decided to return to Cambodia two 10th-century Khmer statues that had been improperly removed from the Koh Ker temple complex and then smuggled out of the country during the 1970s. The two sandstone statues, known as the Kneeling Attendants, had stood prominently at the entrance to the museum’s Southeast Asian galleries since 1994.

On April 25, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision about the “fair use” defense in copyright infringement cases.  The court’s ruling will have implications for artists and galleries, especially those who create or deal in artwork that incorporates or builds off the work of others.

The D.C. Circuit ruled recently that the heirs of a legendary Hungarian art collector could proceed with their claims against Hungary to recover eleven works seized by the Nazis notwithstanding a Hungarian court ruling to the contrary.  See De Csepel v. Republic of Hung., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7837 (D.C. Cir. April 19, 2013).  This decision highlights the many legal issues—and obstacles—involved in cases seeking the return of art stolen during World War II.

The Southern District of New York recently dismissed a lawsuit by plaintiff Jonathan Sobel concerning his collection of eight photographs by William Eggleston.  Sobel v. Eggleston et al., 12-CV-02551 (S.D.N.Y.).  The case raises a cautionary flag for art collectors who are interested in purchasing photographs and other works that can be produced in “multiples.”

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.

Charleston-born, New York-based artist Merton D. Simpson passed away recently at the age of 84.  As a recent New York Times article reports, he left behind a formidable collection of art, a legacy of mastery as a painter—and a tangle of legal issues.

As announced last fall, in a shift to become almost exclusively a grant-making organization, the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts is dispersing its entire collection of Warhols, donating some and selling others through Christie’s auction house.

Knoedler, founded by Michael Knoedler in 1846, was for many years one of the oldest and most prominent American art galleries.  But earlier this year, amid reports of a federal forgery investigation focusing on Knoedler’s sales of artworks that—despite attribution to Modernist masters—have no documented provenance, Knoedler’s reputation has gone the way of its business (Knoedler shuttered its doors unexpectedly in December 2011).  The lawsuits followed.

A recent New York Times article shines a spotlight on the subject of whether and how to seek more transparency in the art market. The article explores the sometimes-competing interests of auction houses, galleries, museums, and collectors when it comes to ensuring that art transactions are governed by clear and fair disclosures and rules. It also provides an overview of some of the possible reforms that have been proposed in recent years.

For years, Chabad-Lubavitch, a Hasidic Jewish organization based in New York, has sought the return of two sets of religious books and manuscripts related to the group’s heritage, collectively known as known as the Schneerson Collection.  One group of records, comprising about 12,000 religious texts, was seized around the time of the Russian Revolution.  The other set, made up of about 25,000 pages of handwritten manuscripts by the group’s past religious leaders, was stolen by Nazi German forces during World War II, and then seized by the Red Army and transported to the Soviet Union, where they currently are housed primarily in the Russian State Military Archive and the Russian State Library.

As Nazi forces bombed and invaded Europe during World War II, they also stole an estimated five million works of art and cultural objects from museums, universities, and private collectors alike.  As a recent New York Times article points out, great efforts have been made—and continue to be made—to recover those stolen works, some of which have popped up where some would least expect to find them.

Multi-million-dollar transactions involving real estate, loans, or investments are virtually always governed by thorough and comprehensive contracts negotiated and drafted by lawyers.  Why, then, are such agreements rarely used in connection with the purchase and sale of high-end art?  A recent decision in a federal lawsuit arising from the $17 million sale of a Mark Rothko painting highlights that the art market’s seemingly ubiquitous practice of using one-page invoices, rather than adequate written contracts, invites burdensome—and potentially avoidable—litigation.

Earlier this year, the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts disbanded its authentication committee in part to reflect its intent to shift focus toward maximizing “grant making and other charitable activities.”  Earlier this week, the Portland Institute of Contemporary Art announced that with the support of the Warhol Foundation, it will launch the Precipice Fund, a new grant-giving initiative for Portland-based unincorporated visual art collectives, alternative spaces, and collaborative projects.  The fund aims to provide fifteen to twenty small grants, ranging from five hundred to five thousand dollars, for a total of seventy-five thousand dollars annually.

A recent decision by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York stands as a stark warning to galleries and collectors about the importance of completing comprehensive due diligence before purchasing any work of art.

In a recent decision in Harney v. Sony Pictures Television, Inc., No. 11-1760, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit analyzed the complex question of whether two photographs are “substantially similar” for purposes of a copyright-infringement claim. The court’s discussion will be of interest to photographers, filmmakers, and artists who incorporate photographs into their works, as it sheds light on what originality a photo display needs in order to be protected by copyright laws.