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.
Nicholas O'Donnell
Recent Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Topics: Copyright
Looking forward to two great art and law events this week at the New York City Bar, both at 42 West 44th Street. Hope to see many of you there!
Topics: consignment, Cariou v. Prince, Judith A. Bresler, The Importance of Being Transformative, Copyright Fair Use, P.C., Judith Prowda, authentication, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Dean R. Nicyper, Howard N. Spiegler, Authenticity Issues and Recent Developments, Stacy Lefkowitz, Has Transformative Use Gone Too Far?, Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, Google Books, The Law Applicable to Art Consignments, Garcia v. Google, Restitution, Dale Cendali, Pamela Samuelson, Copyright, Cowan Liebowitz & Latman, Visual Arts and the Law, Berkeley Law School, Judge Denny Chin, Sotheby’s Institute, Fair Use, Richard Dannay, Art Repatriation and Restitution
After last week’s ruling (wrongly decided, in our view) that an actress in "Innocence of Muslims" is likely to prevail on her claim that she had an independently copyrightable performance distinct from the movie itself, anticipation has been high about what might happen next. Google (seeking not to take the video off YouTube) petititoned the original panel unsuccessfully for an emergency stay of the ruling pending petiton for rehearing or to the full panel of Ninth Circuit judges. That stay request was swiftly denied, except that Google was permitted to leave up clips that did not include Cindy Garcia’s performance.
Topics: General Order 5.4(c)(3), YouTube, Innocence of Muslims, Cindy Garcia, Copyright, Ninth Circuit, Sydney Thomas, Google
Last year, the Ninth Circuit stood out amongst fair use decisions in its opinion in Seltzter v. Green Day, particularly in contrast to what has persuasively been dubbed the Second Circuit’s "know it when we see it" approach to transformativeness as annunciated in the Cariou v. Prince decision. By contrast, the potentially destabilizing effect of the Ninth Circuit’s highest profile copyright case in 2014 can scarcely be overstated. Unless and until the full court reverses a three-judge panel in Garcia v. Google, Inc., nearly every motion picture will be in peril of "infringement." The consequences for the First Amendment and for free expression would be devastating. Although it was not raised, expect fair use to come into play if the decision stands and the case heads back to the trial court. The film is clearly transformative precisely because the plaintiff argues that her performance was unknowingly changed in service of a message she found offensive.
Topics: Walter Sobchak, Copyright Act, Feist, Prince v. Cariou, Libya, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA, Youssef, YouTube, Innocence of Muslims, Green Day, Seltzter v. Green Day, Nothing Compares 2 U, prior restraint, 17 U.S.C. § 106, Cindy Garcia, Copyright, Prince, First Amendment, Google, Sinead O’Connor, Benghazi, work for hire
In response to the recent request by the Agudas Chasidei Chabad plaintiffs for an interim judgment on the compounding sanctions judgment for the Russian Federation’s refusal to comply with a 2010 judgment to return the ancestral library of the movement’s leader (Rebbe), the United States has filed a statement of position and asked the U.S. District Court to ignore Russia’s willful defiance of that judgment. The statement of position cites some credible post-judgment remedy law, but it is mostly a re-hashing of the previously statement filed by the U.S. which the court declined to adopt when it sanctioned the Russian defendants last year. The U.S. position also continues to argue that letting diplomatic avenues run their course is the prudent move, even though there is not the slightest indication that Russia is paying U.S. diplomats any mind whatsoever. More worriedly, the U.S. asks that the plaintiffs be required to advise the government before taking any further action. It is hard to avoid the irony that the United States is asking for an order that its citizens be required to advise the government of their intent to vindicate their rights against Russia.
Topics: Yossarian, Immanuel Kant, Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Rebbe, Agudas Chasidei Chabad, Catch 22, Categorical Imperative, Russian Federation, FSIA, Restitution, IFSA, Foreign Sovereign Immunities, Joseph Heller, Immunity from Seizure Act
