Special Counsel Kate Lucas and Associate Jacqueline Jakimowicz recently shared legal insights on catalogues raisonnés at the Center for Art Law.

This week, the Grossman team obtained an important victory in yet another case arising out of the fraudulent schemes of disgraced art dealer Inigo Philbrick.  Our clients in this litigation were part of a group who, at Philbrick’s behest, co-invested in a Christopher Wool artwork.

This past fall, we proudly announced a major victory for our client in a complex dispute over an important Basquiat painting at the center of the fraudulent schemes of disgraced art dealer Inigo Philbrick.  Now, after nearly six years of litigation, we are pleased to report that yesterday, a federal judge upheld the earlier ruling in its entirety.

President Trump’s recent trade tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China have led to major disruptions in the global art market, increasing costs and uncertainty in international art transactions. 

A report from the U.S. Copyright Office and a recent federal court decision are adding to the already complex legal landscape in which artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly evolving.  These new developments are relevant to anyone interested in how AI is changing the creative arts and copyright law.

A recent dispute over a one-of-a-kind Wu-Tang Clan album highlights some of the potential challenges inherent in ownership of digital art.  The suit was initiated by PleasrDAO, an international entity that collects important works of digital media, against disgraced former American pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli.

A recent federal court decision illustrates some of the challenges inherent in commissioning outdoor environmental artwork; the difficulties parties face in making sure that both the art and their contracts will withstand the test of time; and the limitations of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA).

In a move that may cause ripples in the competitive art world, the Federal Trade Commission recently issued a final rule that, if it goes into effect as planned later this year, will ban most forms of non-compete agreements between employers and employees. 

A years-long dispute over an alleged “Rothko” forgery has culminated in a total victory for our client, a distinguished New York art dealer.

We have written before about the many legal questions raised by new and rapidly-proliferating artificial intelligence technology.  In recent weeks, there have been significant developments in AI-related litigation across the country.  As the new year began, the New York Times instituted a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement of its news content by ChatGPT.  In February, a federal judge trimmed the scope of a group of lawsuits challenging the use of books to “train” AI.  And multiple competing class actions are jostling to determine which one will proceed first.  These lawsuits promise to raise difficult questions about how our existing copyright regime should apply to the brave new world of content generated by AI. 

Grossman LLP associate Maria Angela Brusco recently spoke on a panel at the Art Law Institute of the New York County Lawyers’ Association (NYCLA), focusing on the legal implications of collectors’ promises to make gifts of artworks in the future.  Below, she summarizes some key insights from the event.

In June of 2022, on the shore of Lake Michigan, a fire destroyed the lake house of hedge fund founder Matthew Halbower and his wife Julie.  Now, in a lawsuit pending in federal court, the family’s trust seeks an insurance payout for several valuable artworks destroyed in the fire, including four Monet paintings.  The case highlights the complexity of insurance disputes involving fine art.

The Grossman team has won a total victory dismissing all counterclaims in our suit on behalf of a prominent art collector against an art gallery for refusing to rescind a sale of paintings that turned out to be forgeries.

The evolution and rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (“AI”) is transforming many industries, but courts are just starting to examine how AI interacts with existing copyright law governing artistic works.  In a groundbreaking new case handed down this summer, a federal court has now ruled that an artwork wholly generated by AI is ineligible for copyright protection.

Artist Maurizio Cattelan arguably created the most talked-about work at Art Basel Miami in 2019.  But in 2020, fellow visual and conceptual artist Joe Morford sued Cattelan for copyright infringement, alleging that Cattelan’s work, Comedian—which consisted of a banana duct-taped to a wall—unfairly copies one of Morford’s creations, a piece titled Banana and Orange.  This summer, a Florida federal court rejected Morford’s claims, holding on summary judgment that the two works are not “substantially similar” enough to support an infringement claim. 

Three visual artists have sued the ultra-fast-fashion behemoth Shein for copyright infringement, alleging that Shein operates a wide-ranging scheme that relies on artificial intelligence, deliberate copyright infringement, and a hope that none of the artists will notice.

In late May, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the case of Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith.  The case sought to provide clarity on the thorny concept of “fair use” in copyright law.  In particular, it focused on how courts should evaluate the “purpose and character” of an artist’s use of someone else’s creations, and the role of “transformativity” in that evaluation.  The resulting decision is, in some ways, limited in scope, but in other respects, it raises new questions for artists who borrow from the work of others. 

Earlier this year, we wrote about some of the NFT-related litigation working its way through courts around the country.  Recently, one of those cases culminated in a substantial win for Yuga Labs, creator of the famous “Bored Ape Yacht Club” NFT collection. 

The Second Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a fraud claim by a buyer who bought an artwork in 1985 and had it appraised on several occasions beginning in 2007, but did not sue until after the work was deemed inauthentic in 2018.  The case focused on the work’s exclusion from the artist’s catalogue raisonné; the appraisals all expressly noted that the work’s authenticity was only “assumed” because the painting was not in the artist’s catalogue.  The court reasoned that in light of such a disclaimer, a reasonable person should have further investigated its authenticity, and therefore the fraud claim’s two-year statute of limitations began to run at that time. 

For years now, we’ve been following the legal fallout resulting from a rancorous dispute between Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev and his onetime art dealer, Swiss businessman Yves Bouvier.  The feud has resulted in legal proceedings in multiple countries, and other art world players have become entangled in the fray as well.  In one of those spinoff disputes, Rybolovlev has sued auction house Sotheby’s, alleging that it aided Bouvier’s machinations.  Earlier this month, a federal court rejected a number of those claims, but other claims will proceed to trial unless the parties can reach a settlement in an upcoming mediation.