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.  

At the very end of 2020, Congress enacted new legislation that will provide a streamlined process for adjudicating small-claim copyright infringement cases.  The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020 (the “CASE Act”), included as part of the COVID-19 Relief Bill, establishes a new Copyright Claims Board (“CCB”) to oversee claims of copyright infringement that do not exceed $30,000.  Some see this is an efficient solution for those seeking to adjudicate minor copyright disputes, while others view this legislation as a potential avenue for attacks on everyday internet users who may lack the resources to track and opt out of these proceedings.

As we leave 2020 behind, we’ve put together a brief update on some of the Supreme Court’s most significant 2020 decisions that have implications for the art world, as well as a couple of cases that have been argued but not yet decided.

At the beginning of the year, Grossman LLP achieved a summary-judgment victory on behalf of a Manhattan gallery in a title dispute concerning an Alexander Calder stabile. On December 15, 2020, Judd Grossman argued the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on December 23, the Court issued a decision affirming summary judgment in the gallery’s favor.

A painting by an American modernist artist that was stolen from a major corporate art collection over thirty-years ago and replaced with a skilled forgery will be returning home after more than two years of litigation.  

​At the conclusion of oral argument on December 2, 2020, Commercial Division Justice O. Peter Sherwood upheld Plaintiff Contrasto’s breach-of-contract claims by denying Defendant James Nachtwey’s motion to dismiss the complaint. 

This blog has written before about acclaimed conceptual artist Cady Noland, who has a reputation for being particular about how her works are installed, maintained, exhibited, and sold.  As our previous posts explain, she has even, on more than one occasion, disavowed an artwork she created, prompting litigation.  Now, a federal judge has issued a ruling in Noland’s most recent legal skirmish, dismissing her attempt to bring copyright infringement claims related to the restoration of one of her artworks.