Litigation

Subscribe to Litigation

By Christine Steiner

In the same era Gerald Ford advised his fellow Americans that “our long national nightmare is over,” as he succeeded Richard Nixon as president, the California Legislation enacted the sloppily-drafted California Resale Royalty Act, Civil Code Section 986. The act was not exactly a nightmare, in truth it slumbered for most of its thirty-plus lifetime. It seemed more honored in the breach than the observance. Recent awareness of the resale royalty obligation, though, has caused confusion and consternation for California sellers, for California artists and for the art trade nationwide. Some have, in fact, described it as a nightmare. As of late last week, the nightmare may be over.Continue Reading My Fellow Californians – Our Long National Nightmare is Over

By Sarah Pavlock and Christine Steiner

The appeal in the case of Cariou v. Prince is shaping up to be the biggest visual arts copyright case in many years. It will likely result in guidance on what qualifies as a transformative use for appropriation art under the doctrine of fair use. Appropriation art "borrows" pre-existing works or images of the creative work of another artist in order to create something new and original. While this alone may seemed packed with copyright issues, it is generally not an appropriation artist’s intent to "rip off" another artist’s work. Usually, the success of the new work depends on the viewer’s recognition of the underlying work; the "aha" moment is the connection between the old and the new as the viewer recognizes the original work or that another work has been taken, and differentiates the creative changes that have been made in the new work.Continue Reading Rastaman Vibration

By Lano Williams and Christine Steiner

The past year was packed with litigation that ranged from broad constitutional questions to the ever present scourge of forgeries. Art Law Gallery presents highlights of some of the most important cases:
 Continue Reading The Year In Review

By Tyler Baker and Christine Steiner

The success of the art market depends largely on confidence in the authenticity of artists’ works. Traditionally, a work in an artist’s “catalogue raisonné” has been key to confirming the authenticity, and thus value. To that point, a recent lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (“S.D.N.Y.”) regarding a purported Jackson Pollock work underscores the importance of the catalogue raisonné in pre-purchase due diligence, and shows that omission from the catalogue could be potentially disastrous to the value of a work. See Lagrange v. Knoedler Gallery, LLC, 11-cv-8757 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed Dec. 1, 2011). Continue Reading Cherchez les Catalogues Raisonnés

By Lano Williams and Christine Steiner

The recent news that the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board, Inc. will dissolve in early 2012 brings the role of authentication boards in the art world to the fore once again. The Board, which has been charged with authenticating the works of Andy Warhol since 1996, has been the subject of controversy, probably owing more to the nature of Andy Warhol’s art-making process and his fame rather than anything the Board may have done. Warhol was famous for industrializing the art-making process, frequently directing others to execute works on his behalf. The question of what makes a Warhol is subjective and is open to changing interpretation as scholarship develops, as it involves current thinking on what steps of the art-making process the artist must control in order for a piece to be considered attributable to that artist. The Warhol market is also gargantuan. ArtTactic reports that his art accounted for 17% of contemporary art sales at auction in 2010 and 12% of the total contemporary art sold in the first decade of this century.Continue Reading Authentication Board to Death by Lawsuits

By Tyler Baker and Christine Steiner

On October 17, a proposed class of artists filed three federal lawsuits against auction houses Christie’s, Inc., and Sotheby’s, Inc., and internet auctioneer eBay, Inc., alleging that the defendants sold their artwork at California auctions and on behalf of California sellers, but failed to withhold royalties due. The complaints seek class-action status to represent many other artists and allege that the auctioneers engaged in a ongoing pattern of concealing the identities and residencies of sellers who live in California, thereby avoiding the five percent royalty due as agents for the sellers. All three complaints, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, allege violations of California’s Resale Royalties Act as well as California’s Unfair Competition Law.Continue Reading Artist Resale Royalties–New Cases under California Law

In March 2007, the exhibition "Forbidden Art-2006" opened at the Sakharov Museum in Moscow, featuring twenty-three provocative works previously banned throughout Russia. Andrei Erofeev, known as Russia’s most provocative curator, organized the exhibition and Yuri Samodurov, former director of the Sakharov Museum, provided the exhibit’s venue. Both have been found guilty under Russia’s Criminal Code for using the exhibit to incite religious and ethnic hatred.
 Continue Reading Forbidden Art Nyet! Russian Curator and Exhibitor Convicted for Controversial Art Exhibit

In July, sculptor David Ascalon filed suit with the U.S. district court in Pennsylvania, against the Jewish Federation of Greater Harrisburg ("Federation") for violation of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 ("VARA"). With true artistic flair, Ascalon alleges the Federation turned his Holocaust memorial sculpture into a "mutilation and bastardization of the artwork and its purpose."
 Continue Reading Destruction or Restoration? Sculptor Claims a Violation of Moral Right

In August, 2009, the Ninth Circuit decided en banc by 9-2 that a California resident Claude Cassirer can sue Spain to recover his grandmother’s oil painting "Rue Saint-Honore, apres-midi, effet de pluie," painted by the French impressionist Camille Pissarro and taken by the Nazi government. (Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain, 2010 U.S. App. 2010 WL 3169570 (9th Cir. 2010).)  The court rejected Spain’s defense, holding that the defendants cannot claim a sovereign immunity from suit in the U.S. under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA").
 Continue Reading Grandma Robbed by Nazis – Grandson Sues Spain to Recover Stolen Paintings

Beware of "fortune cookies" for advice, even when it’s not the kind you crack, read, and eat. Just ask Najung Seung, who claims that Mary Dinaburg, a partner at gallery Fortune Cookie Projects, duped her into buying a Julian Schnabel painting entitled Chinkzee for a price three times its market value.  Initially, Seung paid Dinaburg $118,000 for a John Wesley painting entitled Bulls and Bed, only to discover that Dinaburg had sold the painting to someone else.  Rather than returning the payment, Dinaburg offered Seung a $200,000 credit towards the purchase of Chinkzee at the "gallery" price of $380,000, and further represented the painting was worth at least $500,000.  But Seung soon learned that Chinkzee had been sold months earlier at an auction for $156,000 based on an estimate price range of only $60,000 to $80,000, and that the market value was no more than $110,000.  As a result, Seung filed suit against Fortune Cookie Projects, seeking the return of her money based on fraud, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.
 Continue Reading Court Says Don’t Rely on Fortune Cookie for Art Valuation