Nicholas O'Donnell
Nick’s practice focuses primarily on complex civil litigation. He represents manufacturers, individuals, investment advisers, banks, and others around the world in contract, securities, consumer protection, tort and domestic relations cases, with particular experience in the German-speaking world. He is also the editor of the Art Law Report, a blog that provides timely updates and commentary on legal issues in the museum and visual arts communities, one of his areas of expertise. Nick is a member of the Art Law Committee of the New York City Bar Association. Additionally, Nick has authored and contributed to several books on art law: — A Tragic Fate—Law and Ethics in the Battle Over Nazi-Looted Art, (Ankerwyke/ABA Publishing, 2017) — “Public Trust or Private Business? Deaccessioning Law and Ethics in the United States,” in Éthique et Patrimoine Culturel - Regard Croisés, G. Goffaux, ed., (L’Harmattan, 2016) — “Vergangenheit als Zukunft? Restitutionsstreitigkeiten in den Vereinigten Staaen,” in Ersessene Kunst—Der Fall Gurlitt, J. Heil and A. Weber, eds., (Metropol, 2015) — “Nazi-Looted Art—Risks and Best Practices for Museums,” in The Legal Guide for Museum Professionals, Julia Courtney, ed., (2015, Rowman & Littlefield)
Whether Austrian Trove is Included So Far Unmentioned In Reports of Agreement
On the heels of last night’s “60 Minutes” treatment of the Gurlitt saga (which featured Willi Korte and Ingeborg Berggreen-Merkel, two participants at January’s Ersessene Kunst-Der Fall Gurlitt at which I also spoke), news has come today that Cornelius Gurlitt has signed an agreement with the German federal government and the Bavarian Ministry of Justice with respect to the artworks taken from his apartment in 2012. Where recent statements that he intended to return what had been stolen left that outcome entirely to his discretion, he now seems to have committed expressly to some sort of return protocol. The precise details are still unknown.
Read More
Topics:
German Ministry of Culture,
Schwabinger Kunstfund,
Cornelius Gurlitt,
Bundesministerium für Kultur und Medien,
Willi Korte,
London,
Claude Monet,
Christoph Edel,
Gurlitt Collection,
Ingrid Begreen-Merkel,
Alt Ausee,
Hildebrandt Gurlitt,
stolen art,
Salzburg,
Restitution,
Müncher Kunstfund,
Task Force,
NS-beschlagnahmte Kunst,
www.lostart.de,
Monika Grütters,
Raubkunst,
Bayerisches Staatsministerium der Justiz,
Bavarian Ministry of Justice,
Henri Matisse,
Paul Rosenberg
Just a week after it was introduced by Steve Chabot (R-OH), the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act (HR 4292) was marked for hearing today. Three members spoke in favor, a voice vote was taken, and bill was referred favorably to the full House.
Read More
Topics:
Restitution,
World War II,
Foreign Sovereign Immunities,
Immunity from Seizure Act,
Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity
Steve Chabot (R-OH) has reintroduced the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act (H.R. 4292), after a previous attempt to amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act with regard to the loan of cultural objects failed to become law in 2012. The text of the March 25, 2014 bill is identical to the version that passed in the House in 2012. Its co-sponsors are John Conyers (D-MI) and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), and it has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
Read More
Topics:
Cornelius Gurlitt,
Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam,
Girolamo Romano,
Gurlitt Collection,
22 U.S.C. § 2459,
Christ Carrying the Cross Dragged by a Rogue,
517 F.Supp.2d 322,
FSIA,
Restitution,
David Toren,
19 U.S.C. § 1595a,
Steve Chabot,
Orrin Hatch,
House Judiciary Committee,
28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2),
28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3),
Senate Bill 2212,
World War II,
IFSA,
Foreign Sovereign Immunities,
Altmann v. Republic of Austria,
Portrait of Wally,
John Conyers,
Immunity from Seizure Act,
Dianne Feinstein Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,
Federal Republic of Germany,
28 U.S.C. § 1605,
H.R. 4292,
Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity
It was my great privilege last year to speak at the 5th Annual Art Crime Conference, hosted by the Association for Research into Crimes Against Art (ARCA). The conference, in Amelia, Italy, annually draws experts in varied fields of law, cultural property, archaeology, law enforcement, and more. It is also held in one of the most spectacular venues I have ever seen, a rocky outcropping , with a medieval Italian city on top of a Roman-era settlement (complete with a cistern at the top of the hill).
Read More
Topics:
Interdisciplnary Art Crime Conference,
Association for Research into Crimes Against Art,
Events,
Amelia,
ARCA,
Italy
Christoph Edel, lawyer and guardian for Cornelius Gurlitt, told the Süddeutsche Zeitung today that his client wants to return “all pictures stolen or looted from Jewish possession.” Although this has set Twitter and the Internet ablaze with the news, the statement deserves careful scrutiny in light of Gurlitt’s strategy over the last two months. The likeliest meaning is that Gurlitt intends to return those works that he believes were stolen from Jews—a total he himself put at less than three percent of the 1,280 works found in his apartment, over 900 of which the Scwabinger Task Force has declared to be suspect. Note too that a slight mistranslation has already gotten into circulation. Whereas Edel told the SZ that Gurlitt "wants" to return those paintings, the German conjugation of want (will) was cited as a statement that he will (in English) return them. Not so fast, as they say.
Read More
Topics:
Hildebrand Gurlitt,
Cornelius Gurlitt,
NDR,
www.Gurlitt.Info,
Christoph Edel,
Gurlitt Collection,
WDR,
Sitting Woman,
Henie-Onstad Museum,
Salzburg,
Restitution,
Süddeutsche Zeitung,
Henri Matisse,
Paul Rosenberg
One of the issues exposed and exacerbated by the ongoing Gurlitt collection stalemate is the question of Germany’s restitution procedures with respect to art. As the Bavarian legislative proposal to abolish the statute of limitations for claims against bad-faith acquirers is considered by the Bundestag, the “German Advisory Commission for the Return of Cultural Property Seized as a Result of Nazi Persecution, Especially Jewish Property” has issued a decision over what has become known as the “Guelph Treasure” (Welfenschatz) in the collection of the Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz (SPK), the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation. The March 20, 2014 opinion (available, so far as I know, only in German at this point at www.lostart.de) underscores the issues around claims of sales under duress, and the appropriate present-day procedural remedy. Readers should also brush up on their medieval German history to keep up.
Read More
Topics:
Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV,
German Supreme Commercial Court,
Holy Roman Empire,
Bundeshandelsgericht,
German Supreme Constitutional Court,
Z.M. Hackenbroch,
Karl Blechen,
Duchy of Brunswick and Lüneburg,
Niedersachsen,
Karl Ernst Baumann,
Act of State,
Kingdom of Hanover. Königreich Hannover,
Dr Alexander Lewin,
Prussia,
Lower Saxony,
Anselm Feuerbach,
Gurlitt Collection,
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,
Preussen,
Hans Sachs,
German Advisory Commission for the Return of Cultu,
Hessen,
Fogg Art Museum,
Congress of Vienna,
Julius and Clara Freund,
Kurhannover,
Dresdner Bank,
Hermann Goring,
Austrian Supreme Court,
Johann J. August von der Embde,
House of Welf,
Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz,
Wilhelm Leibl,
Portrait of Amalie Zuckerkandl,
Braunschweig-Lüneburg,
Harvard,
Portrait der Familie von Dithfurth,
Gurlitt,
Restitution,
George I,
J.S. Goldschmidt,
World War II,
Peasant Girl without a Hat and with a White Headcl,
Queen Victoria,
Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation,
Art Institute of Chicago,
Kurfürsten,
Jutta Limbach,
www.lostart.de,
Soviet Union,
Gustav Klimt,
Bundesverfassungsgericht,
Welfenschatz,
Limbach Commission,
I. Rosenbaum,
Electors
Although there are no definitive signs yet of likely change, the question of secondary royalties for visual artists remains far from resolved. The most comprehensive effort to date, the California Resale Royalties Act was declared unconstitutional in 2012 by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in lawsuit brought by Chuck Close and others against Christie’s, eBay, and Sotheby’s. That decision is on appeal in the Ninth Circuit.
Read More
Topics:
Equity for Visual Artists Act of 2011,
Resale Royalties,
American Royalties Too Act,
Chuck Close,
Resale Royalty,
Jerrold Nadler,
Christie's,
Tammy Baldwin,
California Resale Royalties Act,
Copyright,
United States Copyright Office,
Sotheby's,
eBay
Just two days after the parties submitted briefing (including the revelation that Cindy Lee Garcia's registration request had been rejected by the U.S. Copyright Office) on a Ninth Circuit judge's sua sponte request for a vote on whether to rehear the denial of a stay of the Court's February 26, 2014 decision finding a likelihood that Garcia had a copyrightable performance in "Innocence of Muslims," the Court has voted not to reconsider that denial, and the ruling stands in force for now. This decision only affects Google's request not to be required to take down all copies of the video from YouTube while the appeal is pending, a take down that it will now have to continue or be completed. The decision offers no rationale, other than that a majority of the court voted not to stay the matter.
Read More
Topics:
sua sponte,
U.S. Copyright Office,
Innocence of Muslims,
Copyright,
Cindy Lee Garcia,
Google
Following up on my recent coverage of Garcia v. Google, I had the opportunity to discuss the suit with Colin O'Keefe of LXBN. In the brief video interview, I explain the Ninth Circuit's initial ruling and why it could prove quite impactful.
Read More
Topics:
Innocence of Muslims,
Garcia v. Google,
Copyright,
Colin O'Keefe,
Ninth Circuit
After Judge Sydney Thomas advised the parties in Garcia v. Google that a judge of the Ninth Circuit has requested a vote of the full court on Google’s request to stay the recent panel decision finding a likelihood that Cindy Garcia had a separately copyrightable performance in “Innocence of Muslims,” the parties briefed the stay issue this week. Google’s merits brief on the petition for rehearing of the substantive decision is due by April 3, 2014, and any interested amicus curiae may file a brief within ten days thereafter.
Read More
Topics:
Copyright
