Last week the Art Law Committee of the New York City Bar Association hosted a terrific two-hour event. Entitled “Rethinking Art Authentication,” the discussion aimed to address a way forward from the problems of fakes, forgeries, and authentication lawsuits that have plagued the art market in recent years. It was a lively and fascinating evening.
Topics: Karl Waldmann, Ceroni, Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute, Leonardo da Vinci, Cady Noland, Knoedler, New York Assembly, Catalogue raisonée, authentication, Dean R. Nicyper, New York University, Colette Loll, Blue Room, Dan Flavin, Dada, Visual Artists Rights Act, Rick Johnson, Rethinking Art Authentication, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduct, Jennifer L. Mass, Art Law Committee, Trial Lawyers Association, Beltracchi, Events, La Bella Principessa, Hyperspectral imaging, Gerhard Richter, New York City Bar Association, Cornell Tech, Rijksmuseum, Cowboys Milking, Andy Warhol, Picasso, New York Senate, Walter Benjamin, Elmyr de Hory, Withers Bergman LLP, Amadeo Modigliani, Amy M. Adler
Restitution policy at the federal and state level in Germany in recent months seems to have taken a certain direction that has been cause for criticism. Whether it is the recent decisions by the Limbach Commission that ignore longstanding law about sales under duress, the odd decision by the Federal Republic of Germany to resist a lawsuit over the Max Liebermann painting found in Cornelius Gurlitt’s apartment that the Gurlitt Task Force has already recommended be restituted, or the resistance to the claims by the Mendelssohn-Bartholdy heirs to Picasso’s Madame Soler, the trend has been towards obstruction and resistance rather than transparency and reconciliation. Notwithstanding the recent announcement of the Center for Cultural Property losses (the Deutsches Zentrum für Kulturgutverluste about which the jury is still out), this is cause for concern.
Topics: Katharina Siefert, Schwabinger Kunstfund, Cornelius Gurlitt, Karlsruhe Kunsthalle, Freien Kunst- und Ritterschießen, Badische Landesmuseum, Max Liebermann, Bamberg, Gurlitt Collection, Woman in a Theatre Balcony, Lothar Franz von Schönborn, Madame Soler, Schönborn’sche Löwenpokal, Heinrich and Emma Budge, Reich Ministry for Art- and Museum Objects, Schönborn Lion Cup, Restitution, Upper Franconia, Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Mannheim, Karlsruhe, Free and Knightly Art of Shooting, World War II, Elector-Bishop, Kurfürst, Reichserziehungsministerium für Kunst- und Museums, Kurt Martin, www.lostart.de, Center for Cultural Property, Museums, Fürst-Bischof, Picasso, Federal Republic of Germany, Deutsches Zentrum für Kulturgutverluste, Limbach Commission, Oberfranken, Prince-Elector of Mainz
When I spoke in Heidelberg in January at the Institute for Jewish Studies conference “Appropriated Art—the Gurlitt Case,” one of the points I stressed in discussing U.S. restitution litigation was that the longer the Gurlitt case went unresolved (and do not be distracted by the “Voice of Russia” article that is being circulated as “Holocaust victims’ heirs to reclaim Nazi-looted artwork if Gurlitt bill passsed”—it is not remotely a simple or likely as that), the more certain it would be that litigation would follow in the U.S. Gurlitt himself and his legal team have done their part recently to make any meaningful agreement impossible, and in the absence of unilateral action by Germany (which would probably be illegal), it has now come to pass. The first civil claim related to paintings seized from Cornelius Gurlitt’s apartment has now been filed by David Toren in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Free State of Bavaria and the Federal Republic of Germany.
Topics: Focus, Schwabinger Kunstfund, Voice of Russia, Hildebrand Gurlitt, Cornelius Gurlitt, Breslau, Hungary, de Csepel, Max Liebermann, Germany, Silesia, Gurlitt Collection, Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Appropriated Art the Gurlitt Case, Hans Sachs, Baron Herzog, bailment, Madame Soler, Entartete Kunst, FSIA, Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, conversion, Bavaria, David Toren, Zwei Ritter am Meer, Free State of Bavaria, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), Looted Art, Foreign Sovereign Immunities, Pinakothek der Moderne, Hochschule für Jüdische Studien, Altmann v. Republic of Austria, Freistaat Bayern, Ersessene Kunst¬—der Fall Gurlitt, Picasso, Riders on the Beach, Federal Republic of Germany, Raubkunst, David Friedmann, Institute for Jewish Studies, Münchner Kunstfund, Heidelberg
Two years after a U.S. District Court decision that sent shock waves through the contemporary art world, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed that earlier finding that Richard Prince infringed the copyright of Patrick Cariou. Instead, the appeals court ruled that all but five Prince works at issue were fair use under the Copyright Act, remanding the case to re-analyze those five works. It is as dramatic a win for appropriation art as the lower court decision was a chill on that art.
Topics: Andy Warhol Foundation, Richard Prince, Copyright Act, Graduation, Second Circuit, Canal Zone, Patrick Cariou, Charlie Company, appropriation art, Meditation, Yes Rasta, Clifford Wallace, Warhol, Cézanne, Copyright, Canal Zone (2008), de Kooning, Picasso, Fair Use, Google, Canal Zone (2007)