The recent announcement of the launch of the Court of Arbitration for Art (CAA) is exciting and intriguing news. There is nothing peculiar to the art market or the art world about the existence of disputes—any businessperson in a wide variety of industries can testify to that. But what is promising about this initiative is the opportunity it presents to streamline an important segment of art world disputes, and in so doing to create a larger body of legal guidance that will in itself be useful in and outside of formal controversies. It does not supplant civil litigation in courts, nor does it make any pretense of doing so. It could, however, become an important complement. Critical will be enough buy-in from lawyers in particular to become willing to recommend its inclusion in contracts, for example. I would certainly include myself in that group, depending on the specific circumstances.
Topics: Court of Arbitration for Art, CAA, New York, London, Geneva, Authentication in Art, Arbitration, AAA, JAMS, Tom Brady, The Hague, Netherlands Arbitration Institute, NAI, Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016, HEAR Act, William Charron, Pryor Cashman LLP, Megan Noh, Cahill Cossu & Robinson LLP, Judith Prowda, Sotheby’s Institute of Art, Stropheus, Luke Nikas, Quinn Emanuel Urquart & Sullivan LLP
McDonald’s recently prevailed on personal jurisdiction grounds in a closely-watched case in California about the use of street art as décor for restaurants in the United Kingdom, but the issue has quickly arisen again. As part of what the fast-food giant has clearly decided is a winning branding strategy, the chain’s use of graffiti from New York has now brought the threat of litigation from the so-called Bushwick Collective. Where any such lawsuit gets filed will have a great deal to do with what happens next.
Topics: Graffiti, Street Art, Dashiell Snow, Moschino, Rime, Joseph Tierney, McDonald's, personal jurisdiction, Daimler AG v. Bauman, Virus, NDA, Atomik, Don Rimx, Beau Stanton, Himbad, Bushwick Collective, 17 U.S.C. § 1202, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Netherlands, United Kingdom, California, New York, specific jurisdiction, general jurisdiction
Word came this week of two resolutions of claims to Nazi-looted art in museums in New York and Cologne, and a new Nazi-looted claim against Germany filed in Washington. Barely a month after the Neue Galerie (of Austrian and German art) in New York announced that it had discovered a “major work” in its collection had a clouded history, the museum announced an agreement concerning the Karl Schmitt-Rotloff painting Nude (1914). It is not known if the Schmitt-Rotloff is the same work to which the museum referred last month. Around the same time, the Wallraff-Richartz-Museum in Cologne, Germany, announced that it had agreed to return a drawing by Adolf Menzel that had been sold to Hildebrand Gurlitt as its owners fled Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Blick über die Dächer von Schandau (View over the rooves of Schandau) (1886) will be retuned to the heirs of Hamburg attorney Albert Martin Wolffson and his daughter Elsa Helene Cohen. These settlements are examples of constructive dialogue and enlightened treatment of the historical fact. The new litigation likely means the opposite approach from the German defendants.
Topics: Gurlitt, Nazi-looted art, Schwabinger Kunstfund, Gurlitt Task Force, 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(3), Germany, David Toren, Breslau, Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Cologne, Neue Galerie, New York, Alfred and Tekla Hess, Karl Schmitt-Rotloff, Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, Streen Scene in Berlin, Strassenzene, Adolf Menzel
Der Standard in Austria reported this week that a recommendation is expected on Friday in the claim by the heirs of Erich Lederer to the famous Klimt Beethoven Frieze in the Secession Museum in Vienna. The issue in this case is not a Nazi-era theft per se, but the effect of Austria’s post-war restitution law, which returned ownership to the Lederer family (it was looted from Erich Lederer under the Nazi) but forbade export, leading to a sale. The Lederer family has argued that that amounts to a second taking. As I made no secret last week with regard to Germany’s intended National Cultural Property Designation for the Welfenschatz that my clients have sued to recover, this kind of export prohibition is now recognized for what it is: an effort to hinder restitution. The same kind of claim was made against the Leopold Museum in Vienna for Portrait of Wally, namely, the allegation that the post-war sale was not valid under the circumstances because of the export prohibition. That case settled in 2010, the painting remains in Vienna.
Topics: BGBl. I Nr. 181/1998 i.d.F. BGBl. I Nr. 117/2009, Erich Lederer, London, sales under duress, Nazi-looted art, Beethoven Frieze, Jugendstil, Restitution, Austrian Cultural Ministry, World War II, Leopold Collection, Switzerland, Secession Building, Der Beirat gemäß § 3 des Bundesgesetzes über die R, Portrait of Wally, Austria, 14th Secession Exhibition, Wiener Secessionsgebäude, Zürich, Gustav Klimt, (Kunstrückgabegesetz), Vienna, Anschluss, Dr. Rudolf Leopold, Leopold Museum, Limbach Commission, New York, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony
The Art, Cultural Institutions and Heritage Committee of the International Bar Association (of which I am a member) will be sponsoring an event March 26-27, 2015 at Sotheby’s in London. The IBA Individual Tax and Private Client Committee is also a co-sponsor, in connection with the IBA European Regional Forum. Sotheby’s is located at 34-35 New Bond Street in London.
Topics: Raul-Angelo Papotti, Farrer & Co, Karen Sanig, Daniel Simon Collyer Bristow, Helly Nahmed Gallery, The Princely Collections, Lucian Simmons Steven Thomas, Art Finance, Mary Romano, Rina Pantalony, Philip Hoffman, International Julius Baer, Luke Dugdale, Helly Nahmad, UGGC Avocats, Studio Legale Jacobacci & Associati, Mark Cornell, UK Government Art Collection, ICOM, Daniel Tunkel Howard Kennedy, Peter Polak, David Arendt, Adrian Parkhouse, Diana Wierbicki, Paris, Guy Simonius, Bloomberg, Johann Kräftner, Art Cultural Institutions and Heritage Committee o, Columbia University, Geneva; Wendy Philips, Herrick, ARIS Title, Melanie Gerlis The Art Newspaper, Jasper Sharp, Sandrine Giroud, Cadell & Co, Scotland Yard, Lalive, Jean-Francois Canat, Houston Francesca von Habsburg, 1858 Ltd Art Advisory, Viola Reikhel-Bolot, UCLA School of Law, Thyssen-Bornemisza Art Contemporary, Stephen D Brodie, Fine Art Wealth Management, The Fine Art Fund Group, Marlborough Contemporary, Los Angeles, Randall Willette, Events, Massimo Sterpi, Luxembourg, Sherri North Cohen, Dreweatts & Bloomsbury Auctions, Le Freeport, Kunsthistorisches Museum, LIECHTENSTEIN, Adrian George, Fabrizio Moretti, Alfredo Perez, Mishcon de Reya¸ George Bailey, TEFAF Maastricht, Mark Stephens, Dick Ellis, IBA Individual Tax and Private Client Committee, Goldsmiths London University, Andrew Renton, Withers, Sotheby's, Legal Issues in Museum Administration, Vaduz, Zürich, IBA, Vienna, Pure Love of Art versus Mere Investment, New York
The British Museum has announced that it has loaned to Russia one of the sculptures from the Parthenon that widely known as the “Elgin Marbles” after Thomas Bruce, the 7th Earl of Elgin who oversaw their removal from then-Ottoman occupied Greece in 1811-12. The State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg is the recipient of the loan, specifically, the sculpture of the river god Ilissos from the west pediment of the Parthenon.
Topics: cultural property, Pandora’s box, the 7th Earl of Elgin, Temple of Zeus at Olympia, George Clooney, Russia, Thomas Bruce, Amal Alamuddin-Clooney, Elgin Marbles, river god Ilissos, Museum of Modern Art, Greece, The British Museum, Restitution, Pausanias, Parthenon Sculpture, Portrait of Wally, Austria, The State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, Ottoman Empire, Museums, Attica, New York
There was a curious non-development today in Austria concerning the dispute over Gustav Klimt’s famed “Beethoven Frieze” located in the Secession Building in Vienna. At issue is whether a post-war sale by Jewish survivors to Austria of a famous painting that the law of the time did not allow to be exported can be considered a sale under duress and justify restitution.
Topics: Erich Lederer, London, sales under duress, Nazi-looted art, Beethoven Frieze, Germany’s Limbach Commission, Jugendstil, Restitution, Austrian Cultural Ministry, World War II, Leopold Collection, Switzerland, Gesamtkunstwerk, Secession Building, Der Beirat gemäß § 3 des Bundesgesetzes über die R, Portrait of Wally, Austria, 14th Secession Exhibition, Museums, Wiener Secessionsgebäude, Zürich, Gustav Klimt, (Kunstrückgabegesetz), Vienna, Anschluss, Dr. Rudolf Leopold, New York, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony
I enjoyed a terrific panel discussion organized by Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts in New York Tuesday evening at Herrick, Feinstein LLP. Entitled "Saving Africa’s Elephants Changing the Art Scene," the panel addressed the ramifications of this year’s Director’s Order that banned the import of African Elephant ivory for any commercial use, and restricted even further non-commercial use.
Topics: David Freudenthal, Pearlstein and McCullough, Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, iGavel, Michael McCullough, Saving Africa’s Elephants Changing the Art Scene, Frank Lord, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Christie's, Hartley Waltman, Carnegie Hall, Events, ivory ban, Herrick Feinstein LLP, Craig Hoover, Lark Mason, Customs, New York
Recurring events involving public art have underscored the tension between that expression and the law. Banksy’s “residence” in New York last fall broached this subject, but this summer’s Brooklyn Bridge flag incident, and several new lawsuits asserting copyright in graffiti will test the bounds of what the law protects and what it permits. As Banksy says in one of his murals, "graffiti is a crime."
Topics: Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, Ahol Sniffs Glue, David Anasagasti, Steel, City as Canvas, Moral Rights, Argentina, Public Art, Graffiti Art, Philippa Loengard, Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, Leonardo’s Last Supper, Columbia Law School’s Kernochan Center for Law Med, Chicago, Museum of the City of New York, VARA, Public Expression, Michael Bloomberg, American Eagle, Terry Gilliam, Banksy, 17 U.S.C. § 106A, Copyright, Buenos Aires, 5Pointz, Revok, Roberto Cavalli, vandalism, Reyes, Graffiti, The Atlantic, New York
In the course of our work here, I like to call out books and articles that I feel are worthy of praise, usually the in the course of a particular post or issue. After a too-long stay on the corner of my desk awaiting time to read it, I finally finished a book published last year that should be an essential for any collector, or lawyer dealing with clients across borders. Entitled The Art Collecting Legal Handbook (Thomson Reuters), the book is edited by Bruno Boesch and Massimo Sterpi, both notable European practitioners in art and cultural affairs law, at Froriep in London and Studio Legale Jacobacci & Associati in Rome, respectively.
Topics: Legislation, The Art Collecting Legal Handbook, the Middle East, looted property, Forgery, Auctions, VAT, Studio Legale Jacobacci & Associati, authenticity, London, Sam Keller, Julien Anfruns, droite de suite, Froriep, Moral Rights, Europe, North America, Holocaust claims, California, Fondation Beyeler, Howard Kennedy FSI, Thomson Reuters, Asia, Rome, Restitution, International Council of Museums, Massimo Sterpi, United States, World War II, Sabina von Arx, 1970 UNESCO Convention, Morgan Stanley, Art Fairs, Publications, Litigation, due diligence, Immunity from Seizure Act, Museums, Bruno Boesch, 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Ex, Daniel McClean, New York