In recent weeks, the families of two different victims of Nazi persecution have filed suit in federal court, each suing a major museum over artwork taken from their ancestors during the Nazi era.  These cases continue to raise complex legal questions about the painful legacy of a brutal regime and its massive displacement of art throughout Europe during the years before, during, and after World War II.

In late 2020, after two-plus years of litigation in multiple jurisdictions and a three-day bench trial in the Southern District of New York, Grossman LLP obtained a win in a title dispute over a painting that was stolen from a major corporate art collection decades ago and replaced with a skilled forgery.  Today, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that victory. 

In the last few years, aided by the rise of non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”), digital art has become an increasingly important part of the art market.  Now a new frontier seems to be opening up: art that is created at least in part using artificial intelligence (“AI”) technology.  Indeed, just as NFTs have crossed into the traditional art market, artists who are creating using AI are likewise being welcomed onto the art scene (for example, by gaining gallery representation).  As this trend unfolds, we art lawyers find ourselves wondering how AI art will interact with our current copyright system. 

Art is increasingly viewed as an investment asset, and in some ways, it behaves like one.  But any investment in art also has to take into account the real risk of physical damage and the legal headaches that can arise out of such damage—as one recent lawsuit reminds us.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the major copyright case of Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, which could provide a significant opinion about the "fair use" defense to copyright infringement, with wide-ranging potential implications for the art world—especially appropriation art, photography, and copyright licensing and management.  The oral arguments, however, underscore both the magnitude of the questions posed, and the odd aspects of the case’s path to the Supreme Court, which arguably complicate the Court’s ability to grapple with the already-complex issues it presents. 

A recent trial has highlighted some of the unique legal issues posed by cases that seek to apply copyright law to tattoo art.  At the center of the case is a group of tattoos on the back and arms of pro wrestler Randy Orton—tattoos which were then incorporated, without the artist’s permission, into a series of World Wrestling Entertainment video games as part of Orton’s appearance in the game.

Last month, the Grossman team prevailed in defending a prominent art dealer’s complaint against a gallery’s motion to dismiss.

A copyright infringement dispute now pending in a California federal court is raising interesting questions about how copyright applies to tattoo art—as well as some familiar questions about transformative use of photographs. 

In a major win for investors with losses totaling over $5.5 million, Grossman LLP has defeated summary judgment in a securities fraud case arising from “a Ponzi scheme built on a false promise to buy and resell tickets to high-profile events like the Broadway musical ‘Hamilton.’”

An infringement case pending in a California federal court raises some interesting questions about how copyright law applies in the context of interactive art installations—an important topic in an art market that is increasingly exploring these innovative forms and mediums.

In a major win, Grossman LLP has obtained summary judgment for our client in a long-running title dispute involving a Marc Chagall painting that was part of the fraudulent schemes of disgraced art dealer Ezra Chowaiki.

The criminal case involving disgraced art dealer Inigo Philbrick has now progressed to the sentencing phase, where a judge will decide what punishment is appropriate for Philbrick.  In the process, the court will likely consider larger questions about how the justice system should approach sentencing for art crimes, particularly in light of a string of high-profile art fraud prosecutions in recent years.

Since 2017, we’ve been following the federal lawsuit between the Andy Warhol Foundation and photographer Lynn Goldsmith; you can read our previous posts about it here, here, and here.  A few months ago, a revised opinion from the Second Circuit added further complexity to the story.  And now, the Warhol Foundation has asked the Supreme Court to give its opinion on whether the fair use defense protects the Foundation from Goldsmith’s copyright infringement claims. 

This week, the Grossman LLP team obtained a complete dismissal of a lawsuit filed by NBCUniversal executive Ron Meyer against art dealer Susan Seidel.  Meyer’s claims focused on a 2001 art deal involving a painting, purportedly by famed abstract expressionist Mark Rothko, which turned out to be a forgery.

This week, the litigation team at Grossman LLP achieved a win for the Hirschl & Adler Galleries and its director in a suit arising out of the sale of a Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington. 

​In early 2021, the street artist known as Futura filed a lawsuit against the North Face Apparel Corp. (“NFA”) for unfair competition, alleging that NFA illegally adopted Futura’s iconic circular atom for its outerwear line called “FUTURELIGHT.”   Recently, NFA issued a public statement regarding the lawsuit, and NFA has committed to discontinuingthe use of their FUTURELIGHT logo out of deference to Futura.  However, the lawsuit remains unresolved and involves novel legal issues that could affect the landscape of trademark law. 

The long-running dispute over a Pissarro painting has come to a close—yet again—after years of legal wrangling in multiple forums, and after a complex settlement arrangement collapsed in spectacular fashion.  As is sadly the case in many stories involving Nazi-era art litigation, there is no dispute that the artwork at issue here was outright looted by Nazi forces in Nazi-occupied France, yet the artwork will not return to the family from whom it was wrested.

Since 2017, we’ve been following the federal lawsuit between the Andy Warhol Foundation and photographer Lynn Goldsmith.  In mid-2019, a federal judge in New York dismissed Goldsmith’s copyright infringement claims against the Foundation, ruling that a series of Warhol artworks based on an image taken by the photographer were protected as fair use.  But now, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed that decision, in an opinion that has potentially wide-reaching impacts for the Foundation, for appropriation art generally, and for anyone in the art world who is interested in the ongoing question of how courts handle the difficult concept of fair use.  

Just a few weeks ago, we wrote about some of the Supreme Court’s most significant art-related cases from 2020, and noted that we were awaiting the Court’s decision in a long-running dispute over the so-called Guelph Treasure.  In early February, the Court issued its ruling, dealing the plaintiffs, who are the heirs of a consortium of Jewish art dealers, a major blow in their attempt to seek redress for their ancestors’ loss.