Catherine Hickley of Bloomberg reports today from Berlin about a court-ordered return of more than 4,000 once owned by Hans Sachs, a Jewish dentist chased out of Nazi Germany. The Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) is Germany’s highest civil court, and handed down the decision.

Donn Zaretsky at the Art Law Blog (whose prior commentary on the case gives excellent analysis of the Commerce Clause and other issues) reports that the U.S. District Court issued a tentative ruling at a hearing on Monday to dismiss the California Resale Royalty Act cases against Sotheby's, Christie's and eBay (Chuck Close is one of the plaintiffs). No written order has come down, but we will report and analyze when it does. This is big news; for the moment the case docket indicates only that the hearing took place and that the judge took the matter under advisement.

Montgomery County Orphan’s Court Judge Stanley R. Ott, the presiding judge in the unsuccessful challenge to the Barnes Foundation’s move to Center City in Philadelphia has upheld his award of sanctions against the plaintiffs challenging the move. After a recent hearing, the judge awarded the Barnes $25,000 in attorneys' fees from the Friends of the Barnes, and a separate $15,000 form a lawyer who had filed a challenge in his own right.

I’ll be at the ALI-ABA Legal Issues in Museum Administration next week in San Francisco March 19-21. I’ve been perusing the coursebooks this morning, and as usual they do not disappoint. It promises to be a fascinating three days as always, and any time in San Francisco is well worth it. If you’ve been reading the Art Law Report and enjoy it, hate it, or have anything else to say about it and you'll be attending the conference, please say hello during the day or at the networking events.

Not sure who I am? I’ll be the one dressed like a lawyer.

I am delighted to announce a joint presentation by Sullivan & Worcester LLP’s Art and Museum Law Group (home of your Art Law Report) and Citi Private Bank. On April 11, 2012 here in Boston we will host a discussion of Art Advisory and Estate Planning. Panelists will include Cornelius J. Murray, III, Trust & Estates Practice Chair, Sullivan & Worcester LLP; Suzanne Gyorgy, Head of Art Advisory & Finance, Citi Private Bank; and Brian Bandler, Director, Wealth Planner, Citi Private Bank. The panelists will address the complex art needs of private clients, including the rules that organizations and donors must understand in order to maximize tax benefits and avoid unintended pitfalls. I will be there to moderate what I expect will be a fascinating discussion.

The Art and Museum Law Group issued today a client advisory on the implications of Golan v. Holder.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Golan v. Holder the constitutionality of a U.S. statute (§ 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)) that “restored” U.S. copyright protection to millions of foreign-authored works that, for much of the twentieth century, had none at all. The Court found no constitutional bar to making foreign works that once were free of copyright protection now subject to the full regime of rights. The decision raises far-reaching implications for anyone who has copied, sold, or otherwise published foreign works of the 20th century that were assumed to be in the public domain, and raises anew the importance of considering the various layers of copyright protection that follow a single work.

Confessed forger Wolfgang Beltracchi is now telling German weekly Der Spiegel that the 14 works to which he confessed forging at his trial last fall are part of a group of “more than 50” artists whose paintings he faked.

After months of inactivity and intimations of a possible settlement, the Chabad plaintiffs seeking the return of the Schneerson library have had enough, and have renewed their request to the District Court to sanction the defendants who have not complied with prior orders to return the library.

Patrick Cariou has filed his much-anticipated responsive brief in the Richard Prince/Gagosian Gallery copyright infringement appeal. Cariou’s brief makes its stand on the question of transformative use. The degree to which a derivative work is transformative of a protected work is, of course, a central element of a fair use analysis about which Prince will have to persuade the Second Circuit to overturn the judgment below. In so doing, however, one starts to wonder if this case will be of less precedential value—less transformative, if you will—than it has seemed since the judgment last year.

The 8^th Circuit recently weighed in on the topic of public domain images and copyrighted characters. As my colleagues Kimberly Herman, Michael Matzka and Laura Stacey explore in greater detail in an advisory about the decision, a number of merchandisers were using images from public domain posters and lobby cards from movies like The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, and Tom & Jerry. Although the posters themselves were in the public domain (and complete reproductions of those posters were not infringing) the 8^th Circuit analyzed further the status of the characters, not merely the images of them. A balance is struck between the right to make derivative works from public-domain images (protected) versus uses that conflict with further development of the character by the copyright holder (infringing). Also discussed is the difference between a character from a public-domain book (e.g. The Tin Man) and an original creation in the film (Tom or Jerry). My colleagues’ treatment of the decision fleshes these points out in fuller depth.