The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument last week in two high-profile World War II art restitution claims, Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art, and Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain. The Supreme Court’s previous decision not to hear earlier appeals of those cases with regard to statutes of limitations has had a broad effect for years now, and last year's dismissal was widely observed. At its core, the Von Saher case poses a direct question: is a claim that alleges procedural unfairness with the restitution claims process in another country after World War II (i.e., the Netherlands) so wrapped up in the State Department’s foreign policy apparatus that courts cannot intervene (requiring dismissal at the outset of the case), or is that fairness a question of fact that entitles the plaintiff to survive the threshold analysis and proceed to discovery or a trial? Although comments from the bench are never a predictor of the results, the spirited argument underscored the importance of the two cases to the future of restitution claims in federal courts, and whether the restitution question is incompatible with the separation of powers in the U.S. government.
Nicholas O'Donnell
Recent Posts
Topics: Dutch Secretary for Education Culture and Science, Norton Simon Museum, Alois Miedl, Lilly Cassirer, Norton Simon Art Foundation, Rue Saint-Honoré après-midi effet de pluie, Jacques Goudstikker, Howard N. Spiegler, Fred Anthony Rowley, George Stroganoff-Scherbatoff, Hermann Goring, Harry Pregerson, Marei Von Saher, Jr., Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain, Lucas Cranach the Elder, Camille Pissarro, Dorothy Wright Nelson, Kim McLane Wardlaw, Soviet Union, California Section 354.3 of Code of Civil Procedur, Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art
The blog of ARCA, the Association for Research into Crimes Against Art, has been running a series of recaps of the June conference in Amelia, Italy at which I was a presenter this past year. The summary of my panel is here (which also included Jerker Rydén and Joris Kila), moderated by Judge Arthur Tompkins, a District Court Judge in New Zealand), and the site contains similar recaps of the other panels. They are worth a detailed read, recalling a fascinating weekend in a stunning locale. Anyone interested in the topics should review the posts and consider the conference and ARCA's summer program.
Topics: cultural property, Joris Kila, Association for Research into Crimes Against Art, Fifth Annual Art Crime Conference, Judge Arthur Tompkins, Events, Jerker Rydén, ARCA
Professor Adam J. Levitin of Georgetown has an excellent piece in Salon this week that adds to what I like to call the sober group of discussions about the Detroit Institute of Art collection in the context of the City of Detroit Bankruptcy. From a learned perspective, Professor Levitin echoes some of the themes we’ve addressed here so far, namely:
Topics: Adam J. Levitin, Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts, Bankruptcy, Collections, Detroit Bankruptcy
The Ninth Circuit has ruled in favor of the band Green Day in a copyright case that gives much better guidance on fair use and transformativeness than this year’s earlier Prince v. Cariou Second Circuit case. Despite copying an entire image, in the backdrop of a video that showed onstage at a multi-million dollar concert tour, the appeals court upheld judgment in Green Day’s favor because the use added new meaning and purpose, and thus was transformative. It is a victory for expressiveness, but more importantly, a useful set of instructions that Prince failed to give.
Topics: Cariou v. Prince, Derek Seltzer, Roger Staub, Graffiti Art, Green Day, 21st Century Breakdown, East Jesus Nowhere, Copyright, Ninth Circuit, Jesus Christ, Performance Environmental Design, Scream Icon, Fair Use
Several overlapping issues in recent months have turned what was an awkward elephant in the room into a major issue facing the art world today. Namely: the increasing role that Russia is playing in restitution, loans and exhibition controversies has aggregated to Vladimir Putin an extraordinary amount of influence over these major international legal issues. Combined with the Edward Snowden controversy (and the bizarre story of Putin’s theft of Robert Kraft’s New England Patriots Super Bowl ring), it seems quite clear that Putin enjoys that spotlight. That has not proven to be good news for the art world.
Topics: Nazi Germany, Russia, Germany, WWII, Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Red Army, Edward Snowden, FSIA, Restitution, New England Patriots, Super Bowl, Vladimir Putin, Robert Kraft, Soviet Union
In connection with the Detroit bankruptcy, auction house Christie's announced on Monday that it has been hired to "assist and advise on how to realize value for the city while leaving the art in the city's ownership." According to the Christie's press release, the auction house was hired by the City of Detroit itself, which has floated the idea before (and which the museum itself has opposed publicly).
Topics: Christie's, Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts, Collections, Museums, Detroit Bankruptcy
An important qualifier to the discussion about deaccessioning and the Detroit Institute of Arts is that although DIA is a subdivision of the bankruptcy debtor (Detroit), that debtor is not any old commercial entity. Rather, Detroit is a municipality, and municipal and state debtors are governed by slightly different rules than private parties.
Topics: Legislation, Donn Zaretsky, Deaccession, Chapter 9, 11 U.S.C. § 904, Public Trust, Attorney General of Michigan, Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts, Bankruptcy, Collections, Bankruptcy Code, Association of Art Museum Directors, Bill Schuette, Detroit Emergency City Manager, Kevyn Orr, Museums, Detroit Bankruptcy, AAMD
The recent filing by the City of Detroit for bankruptcy—the largest such municipal filing in history—has brought with it an unexpected art law twist. Namely: to what extent can, or should the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts be used to satisfy the city’s creditors. As one might expect, the differences between what the city can do, what it should do, and what others can do to influence that decision have become hard to distinguish as the volume is raised. A review of some of the issues involved and the governing principles is in order. As rumors of the city’s bankruptcy circulated, speculation began about what would happen to the collection of DIA. And thus the dreaded “deaccession” debate began. This debate is essentially as follows: is art a fungible commodity that can and/or should be used in whatever way advances the mission of the institution (including selling it and using the proceeds to finance the museum’s operations), or do museums hold art in a public trust that must prioritize the collection and display of art? The latter view certainly holds sway among many in the museum community as an aspirational mattter, but its enforceability is often far less than they think.
Topics: National Academy Museum, Brandeis, Deaccession, American Alliance of Museums, Rose Art Museum, AAM, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Detroit Institute of Arts, Collections, Association of Art Museum Directors, Motor City, and the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, Cleveland Museum of Art, Detroit Bankruptcy, AAMD, Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts
The ABA Journal is conducting its annual poll of the best 100 blogs. For arts and the law, the blogs I read the most are below. If you are a blog reader, consider casting a vote. We are all engaged in a great conversation, and your voice matters to what we write. If nothing else, read these blogs!
Topics: Donn Zaretsky, Blogs, MItchell Stein, Kim Herman, Peter Bert, Association for Research into Crimes Against Art, Lee Rosenbaum, Commission for Looted Art in Europe, Plundered Art, CultureGrrl, ARIS, Harry Ekblom, Holocaust Art Research Project, Dispute Resolution in Germany, Looted Art, Marc Masurovsky, The Art Law Blog, ARCA, Trending Trademarks, Business Aviation Law Blog, Center for Art Law
The New York Court of Appeals has set a hearing date on the appeal of the William J. Jenack action house of the Appellate Division’s ruling last year that an auctioneer must disclose the name of any owner who has consigned the work for sale, or a sale against a successful bidder cannot be enforced consistent with New York General Obligations law § 5-701 (the New York Statute of Frauds). The oral argument will be on November 13, 2013. The high court of New York elected to accept the appeal earlier this year, following coverage in the New York Times and elsewhere (in which the Art Law Report is quoted).
Topics: Legislation, consignment, New York General Obligations Law § 5-701, Auctions, New York Court of Appeals, Ivan Petrovich Khlebnikov, Statute of Frauds, auction house, William J. Jenack, Hicks v. Wigmore
