Gordon's "Hand" stolen from Christie's

"The Left Hand and the Right Hand Have Abandoned One Another" (the Hand), a pure gold creation by the prize-winning artist Douglas Gordon, is worth about £250,000 ($400,900) as metal scrap. It is owned by the artist and it is insured at about £500,000.

The Hand was stolen in London, while in the care of Christie's, a renowned auction house. The artist has been reported as saying that he does not think it was an art theft and that the work was probably melted down.  The sculpture went missing from a secure warehouse in the heart of London on or before November 12 but the auction house only informed the artist personally of its disappearance on November 29, more than two weeks after the crime was reported to the police.  Scotland Yard confirmed it was investigating the "alleged theft."

Theft from storage facilities operated by auction houses are rare, or rarely reported. The volume of art in store at any given time is probably very great given the volume of transactions auctions houses engage in annually. It is possible that The Hand was simply misplaced, after all it is easy to miss less than 170 grams of gold.  However, this protracted search is a bad sign for Gordon and Christie's.

The Hand was created in 2007 and was shown in London this summer. Theft was discovered when the sculpture was due to be transported to Tel Aviv for another exhibition.

Source: The Guardian.

Ownership of Henry Moore's Sculpture Contested

 

Tower Hamlets is one of the less well-to-to London boroughs. Until recently, it was planning to auction off a Henry Moore sculpture of "Draped Seated Woman," with an estimated value of about $32 million to reduce its deficit over the next few years. The sculpture is on display at the Yorkshire Sculpture Park in northern England. Selling publicly owned art to compensate for insufficient budgets in the tough economic times is derided on both sides of the ocean. Here also, the proposed sale drew much criticism as short-term fix and a dangerous precedent. However, the plans to sell Moore through Christie's auction house were put on hold after the Art Fund charity challenged ownership of the sculpture. Apparently the piece was sold by Moore in the 1960s at little price with an understanding that it would remain on public display in London. At the time of sale, the painting was under ownership and control of Greater London Council, dissolved as of 1986. At the time, the sculpture was physically located in the Borough of Tower Hamlets but whether title passed to Tower Hamlets or not is uncertain. Art Fund has been quoted as saying that "Ownership must be established be established beyond reasonable doubt before a work of art can be sold."

Tower Hamlets must respond to the challenge by December 3, 2012.

Source: Reuters. 

Tower Hamlets' ownership of the bronze sculpture, Draped Seated Woman by Henry Moore, was called into question last night following new research into the details of the transfer of ownership of the work from the Greater London Council (GLC) in 1985. The sculpture was created by Henry Moore in 1957 and acquired in 1962 by the London County Council for the new Stifford housing estate at Stepney Green. When the GLC was abolished in 1985, ownership was thought to have passed to Tower Hamlets but lawyers acting for the Art Fund charity and others say new research may prove this to have been incorrect. The bronze sculpture, nicknamed "Old Flo" was installed on the Stifford council estate in 1962 but was removed when the estate was demolished in 1990. It was re-sited at Yorkshire Sculpture Park in 1997. In October this year, Tower Hamlets Mayor Lutfur Rahman announced his decision to sell the sculpture after "unprecedented" budget cuts. Moore, a well-known socialist, sold the sculpture at below market value on the understanding that it would be displayed in a public space and might enrich the lives of those living in a socially deprived area. It was bought by the LCC as part of a wider regeneration programme to improve the lives and living standards of Londoners after the devastation caused by WWII. Rushanara Ali, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, Jim Fitzpatrick, MP for Poplar and Limehouse, and Mary Creagh, MP for Wakefield, in whose constituency the sculpture is currently on loan, have opposed Tower Hamlets' proposed sale. Over 2,500 people have signed a petition to "Save Old Flo", and to keep the sculpture in Tower Hamlets. Leading figures from the art world, including celebrated film director Danny Boyle, Henry Moore's daughter Mary Moore, Director of The Tate, Nicholas Serota and Jeremy Deller have voiced their opposition to the sale. London Mayor Boris Johnson has also urged Tower Hamlets to reconsider the sale. Following public outcry at the proposed sale, Labour Councillors have tabled a motion at this evening's council meeting demanding the sale of the sculpture is put on hold whilst other options are investigated. 1. On Tuesday 6 November, Councillors met to discuss and review the Mayor's decision to put the sculpture up for auction at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting. The Council recommended that the Mayor of Tower Hamlets should notsell the sculpture. 2. On Wednesday 7 November, the Mayor and his Cabinet met to review the Councillors' decision and recommendations. The Mayor confirmed his decision to auction Old Flo and said he would not consider alternative options.

More Information: http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=59222#.ULjZL4XNpbs[/url]
Copyright © artdaily.org

Theft of 3,000 Year Old Sacred Petroglyphs Along the California-Nevada Border Shock Paiute Tribe and Archaeologists Alike

A theft of unprecedented proportions has occurred in eastern California. Equipped with ladders, saws, and other heavy duty power tools, unknown thieves gouged out six ancient petroglyphs etched into the volcanic stone landscape and damaged dozens more. Petroglyphs as large as 20 x 40 x 6 inches were extracted and some slabs were sawed off at heights of 15 feet above the ground. The theft occurred in the Eastern Sierra mountain range, near the California-Nevada border. The area from which the carvings were taken is called the Volcanic Tablelands, which dates back to more than 3,000 years ago. The area contains tens of thousands of archaeological sites.

The petroglyphs are sacred to the Paiute tribe who live nearby. The carvings represent a wide range of images, from recognizable forms such as hunters, sheep, deer, and lizards, to geometric designs and symbols. The Paiute believe that the etchings connect them to their ancestors.
The area is open to tourists, but the area is periodically closed so that the Paiute people can conduct ceremonies and rituals.

Local tribal members and archaeologists alike have been left reeling in the wake of the theft. Greg Haverstock, an archaeologist for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in Bishop, California called the theft "the worst example of vandalism in my career in my field office." The Bureau oversees the 750,000 acres of public land on which the carvings rest.

Raymond Andres, a Paiute who serves as the tribal historical preservation officer for the Bishop area, explained that the tribe view the images as messages left by ancestors, and that people go to pray and seek guidance at the sacred stone sites. "We still use this sacred place as a kind of church to educate tribal members and children about our historical and spiritual connections... so our tribal elders are appalled by what happened here."

There is an active market for illicitly procured Native American art and artifacts. Although Congress has attempted to regulate theft of sacred art and artifacts through legislation such as NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act), which bans illegal traffic of human remains and artifacts obtained from grave sites and sacred areas, trade in these items still continues.

The value of the carvings are estimated to be within the $500-$1500 range per piece, but even if the drawings are recovered, there is no way to repair the damage to the site. The Bureau is offering a $1000 reward for information leading to arrest. A first-time felony conviction for damaging or removing petroglyphs can carry a one-year prison sentence and a $20,000 fine.

Sources: Daily Mail, NBC News

Call for Papers: Art, Culture and Heritage Stream

York University in England will hold an Art, Culture and Heritage stream in March 2012. Below please find details of a call for papers for the 'Art, Culture and Heritage stream' for the upcoming Socio-Legal Studies Association 2013 conference in York March 28-30. Details are available here:

The stream aims  to bring together discourse on the interface between, art, culture, heritage and the law. To this end papers will be welcomed concerning the legal and non-legal regulation of art, culture and heritage as well as the rights which exist in respect of these. Furthermore, participants may wish to engage in debates concerning the role played by ethics in the context of preservation of the past and the need to curb the illicit trade in cultural objects. Papers may include, but are not limited to:

• The de-accessioning or acquisition of objects from museums and other cultural institutions;
• Legal protection of artistic works, the built environment and objects of cultural importance;
• The illicit trade in cultural objects;
• The relationship between property and culture;
• Cultural rights and human rights;
• Cultural institutions and the law;
• Minority rights and interests relevant to culture and heritage;
• Art and aesthetics and their relationship to law;
• Cultural discourse on law; and
• Law and humanities.

Call for Papers: The Past for Sale?

The University of Massachusetts Amherst Center for Heritage and Society
is pleased to announce an

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

To be held May 15-17, 2013, at the UMass Amherst Campus

THE PAST FOR SALE?

New Perspectives on the Economic Entanglements of Cultural Heritage

The economic valuation of cultural heritage —whether protected and developed or illegally looted and exported—is among the most pressing practical research questions in the fields of both Cultural Heritage Studies and Community Development. What price in dollars or social value does heritage have in the 21st century?

On the one hand, nations, regions, cities, and even small towns are investing significant public funds in the development and public presentation of archaeological sites, historic monuments, and historic districts in the hope of economic revitalization through tourism or raised property values. On the other, unprecedented diplomatic and legal measures are being taken to repatriate looted cultural property and put an end to the enormously profitable antiquities trade. What are the REAL figures? How can we tease apart the commonly accepted narratives from the economic and social data?

The goal of this conference is to bring together a wide range of academics, economists, heritage professionals, development experts, government officials, and community leaders to examine the economic impact of cultural heritage. Yet rather than seeing tourism, urban redevelopment, and antiquities looting as distinct economic problems-as case-by-case profits and/or losses-we hope to encourage a multi-disciplinary discussion of the economic entanglements of cultural heritage.

Some of the themes to be explored include: tourism, urban revitalization, looting and its costs, and the business of ancient art. Selected papers will be published in Heritage & Society, a peer-reviewed journal, whose editorship has been assumed by the UMass Amherst Center for Heritage and Society.

We will be accepting abstracts until January 15th, 2013. Please click here to submit an abstract.

Source: http://www.umass.edu/chs/news/conference2013.html

The Met Admission Fee Under Attack

On November 14, 2012, Theodore Grunewald and Patricia Nicholson, two members of the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met), started legal action against the Museum for misleads the general public and deceiving visitors that the admission fees were mandatory and not suggested.  Full adult fee to enjoy the Met's riches is a whooping $25 and a vast majority of the museum visitors do not know that they are not required to pay so much to enjoy the collections. Plaintiffs apparently surveying more than 350 visitors about the museum's admission options learned that about 85% did not realize they did not have to pay a full fee to enter.  In light of these findings and other facts, Plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that would prevent the Met from charging fees.

Plaintiffs argue that the current practices are in violation of "the 1893 law that requires the taxpayer-funded museum to be open free to the public for five days and at least two nights per week. ... The Museum was designed to be open to everyone, without regard to their financial circumstances—a public library of art and culture to enrich the lives of the citizenry..." It seems that the Met's original lease required the museum to allow free access to visitors on certain days but in the 1970s, modified city policies allowed Met to institutes a voluntary admission fee instead. The righteous outrage that motivates Plaintiffs is understandably. However, the museum's price current sign does include the word 'recommended' in small type, even though there is a palpable expectation that visitors better pay the full recommended amount. 

Whether the suit is frivolous or not shall be revealed in due time. In the mean time, New York visitors and residents should carry on seeing current exhibitions and permanent collections and not feel obligated to pay $25.

---------The Press Relewas on the Suit Below ---------------
For Immediate Release
November 14, 2012

METROPOLITAN MUSEUM SUED FOR CONSUMER FRAUD, AND FOR CHARGING UNLAWFUL ADMISSION FEES IN VIOLATION OF ITS LEASE WITH THE CITY AND NEW YORK STATE LAW

The Metropolitan Museum of Art has been sued for charging unlawful admission fees and committing consumer fraud, according to a 44-page complaint filed with the New York State Supreme Court earlier today. An 1893 statute requires that the Museum, which receives millions of dollars in annual taxpayer-funded subsidies, remain open and free to the general public five days and two evenings per week. And the Museum’s lease requires that the free days include Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and legal and public holidays. But the Museum has been charging admission fees every day and evening. According to the Museum, the admission fee is merely “recommended,” but the complaint cites to a survey of more than 360 visitors to the Museum, and 85% believed that they were required to pay a fee to go inside.

The Museum charges $25 per adult for entry into the Museum. Consequently, a family of four is required to pay entry Fees up to $100. Although signs at the cashiers indicate in fine and tiny print that the Fee is “recommended,” few notice it, as the large bold-print references admission fees payable for adults, seniors and children. And, in any event, the Museum’s official policy is that, regardless of the signage referencing in small print that the fees are recommended, no one is permitted to enter without paying.

In addition, a half-dozen Museum-sponsored websites specify the admission fees and fail to mention the public’s entitlement to enter for free. As a result, people are defrauded into paying fees that, according to New York State law and the Museum’s lease, cannot be charged.
“It’s an absolute travesty,” commented Patricia Nicholson, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “The Museum was designed to be open to everyone, without regard to their financial circumstances — a public library of art and culture to enrich the lives of the citizenry. But instead, the Museum has been converted into an elite tourist attraction to be enjoyed only by those who can afford to pay expensive and illegal admission fees.”

Michael Hiller, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, commented that the evidence of the Museum’s violation of New York law is a absolutely clear “The statute and lease require that the Museum be free of charge to the general public five days a week, but it’s the Museum’s policy that no one can enter without paying a fee. The Museum’s violation of the law and breach of the lease could hardly be more blatant. But more than the violation of the lease and statute, the Museum’s illegal admission fee policy violates the public trust.”

As for consumer fraud, Arnold Weiss, who also represents the plaintiffs, commented that “the survey erases any doubt that the Museum’s deceptive signs and websites are intended to mislead people, and they do just that.” Mr. Weiss also emphasized that “this is not a situation in which just a few people didn’t understand; the overwhelming majority of visitors, with degrees ranging from high school to post-graduate, and tourists as well as native New Yorkers, all think that they are required to pay fees to enter the Museum.”

According to publicly-available documents, the Museum has collected more than $600 Million in admission fees over the years. And that figure doesn’t even include the monies collected by the Museum from people who purchased ‘memberships,’ the principal feature of which (according to the Museum) is to avoid paying the admission fees — which the Museum isn’t allowed to charge anyway. Meanwhile, the Museum receives taxpayer funding, plus the use of the city-owned Museum Building and the land in Central Park on which it is situated, all rent-free.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, an injunction preventing any further violations of the Museum’s lease and New York law, and the Museum’s efforts at deception, plus attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs have also asked for an order directing the Museum to reopen the Central Park entrance, which was closed in an effort by the Museum to avoid duplicating the cost of staffing those who collect the admission fees which the Museum is prohibited from charging in the first place.

 
Source: The New York Times; The New York Post.

Et tu Vietnam?! Musicians imprisoned

"First critics, then bloggers, then poets, and now musicians. The international community can no longer stand by quietly as these free speech activists are picked off one by one by Vietnam's security apparatus."

Phil Robertson, Division Deputy Director, Human Rights Watch's Asia* 

On October 30, 2012, a court in Vietnam sentenced two musicians, Vo Minh Tri, 34, and Tran Vu Anh Binh, 37, for writing and distributing protest songs. Apparently, under Vietnamese law, "musicians have to seek permission from censors before they broadcast their work to a public audience." Vo Minh Tri, performing under the name of Viet Khang, criticized the government for lax treatment of China in territorial disputes in a song "Where is My Vietnam?" Tran Vu Anh Binh recorded a song "Courage in the Dark Prison" in support of an imprisoned dissident blogger urging nonviolent protests.

Tri was sentenced to four years, Binh was sentenced to six years. This decisions follows a crackdown by the Vietnamese government against political dissent. Musicians were in detention for ten month before the trial that lasted less than one day. Their plight attracted far less interest from the western news sources than the story of the detained and imprisoned Russian performers from the feminist group Pussy Riot.


Source: *International Business Times; The Global Dispatch.
Image above, a plea from Amnesty International to acquit the songwriters, issued before the trial.

Regarding Flower in Murakami v. Boesky

On November 7, 2012, attorneys with Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP representing Japanese artist Takashi Murakimi filed a Complaint alleging that "...Takashi Murakami seeks to obtain a declaration that his former gallery [Marianne Boesky Gallery] may not reproduce certain original artwork of his and to recover control of his artwork from his former gallery, which has refused to return the digital media containing Murakami’s design." Plaintiff claims that the art dealer was planning to lend a wallpaper design he created in 2003, entitled Cosmos to the Metropolitan Museum of Art for the exhibition entitled Regarding Warhol: Sixty Artists, Fifty Years (on display now).  However flattering to see one's work at the Met, Boesky apparently planned to reproduce the wallpaper design without artist's permission.

From the Complaint: "Boesky considered herself authorized to create new rolls of [Murakami's] wallpaper—apparently forever and without limitation—using a digital file she retained after she ceased to represent Murakami as his gallery. Specifically, Boesky told counsel for Murakami that, at the time her representation ceased, Murakami authorized her to create new rolls of Cosmos wallpaper upon the request of any collector who purchased an edition of the work—including herself."
 
Apparently, Murakami created these wallpaper works in a limited edition of 15, meaning each work was to be sold to 15 collectors. ...   Each collector who purchased an edition of the Cosmos work received 20 sheets of wallpaper bearing the Cosmos design and a “Certificate of Authenticity," ... [which] provided: “If the purchaser has a project or room that requires more than 20 sheets of wallpaper to complete the installation, additional rolls can be purchased.”

Murakami terminated his relationship with Boesky in 2006 and is now represented by... you guessed it, Gagosian Gallery.
 
Source: Summons and Complaint, Murakami v. Boesky; New York Post.

How do you solve the problem like Orphan Works?

On December 3, 2012, the ABA Committee on Copyright Policy will host a webinar on the topic of orphan works, entitled “The Orphan Works Problem: Recent Developments, Proposed Legislation, and Alternative Solutions.” The program will examine the history of the problem surrounding works whose copyright owners are unknown, including various attempts at enacting legislative solutions in the United States in the past and the current efforts by the United States Copyright Office and the European Commission to draft legislation and directives allowing for limited use of orphan works.

From the program description: "The orphan works problem is generally defined as the situation where the owner of a copyrighted work cannot be located by someone who wishes to make use of the work in a manner that requires permission. Given recent and contentious efforts to enable mass digitization and large-scale digital access and reuse of these works, this session will explore the renewed interest and recent work in both the United States and abroad that is aimed toward developing legislative and other solutions to the orphan works problem."

Speakers to include Karyn Temple Clagget from the U.S. Copyright Office, Marco Giorello from the European Commission, and Kevin Smith from Duke University Libraries.

Source: ABA

UPDATE: NYTimes Covers Recent Developments in Ongoing Federal Case Against Sotheby's for Return of Cambodian Statue

Federal prosecutors, endeavoring to secure the return of an ancient three-million dollar statue of a Hindu warrior to Cambodia, have accused Sotheby's of conspiring with the artwork's owner to cover up information relating to its illicit removal from a temple in 1972 during the bloody regime of the Khmer Rouge. As proof, prosecutors claim that in 2010, Sotheby's requested that the statue's owner submit an affidavit to American customs officials, stating that the statue was "not cultural property" belonging to the religious site. The government contended that both parties knew that the statue, a mythic Hindu warrior known as Duryodhanna, was stolen when they agreed to ship it from Belgium to New York. In turn, Sotheby's denied the allegations on Tuesday, stating that the government is "straining to bolster a thin case by picking selectively through the evidence provided by the auctioneers."

Read Tom Mashberg and Ralph Blumenthal's full article describing the recent development at: Sotheby's Accused of Deceit in Sale of Khmer Statue.

Check out previous posts in this blog about this developing story: Federal Prosecutors File Court Papers in Case for Repatriation of Cambodian Statue, Global Art Conflict in New York, and Sotheby's Takes Action Against Cambodian Property Claim.

Cave Consignor! NY Art Consignment Law Muscles Up

How is it in Latin: "Consignors be happy!" Years of efforts to revise the New York Consignment Law have paid off. Starting November 6, 2012, failure to pay specific art consignors, a category that includes artists, heirs to artists’ estates, and collectors, can be considered a misdemeanor in the state of New York.

On September 7, 2012 the act to amend the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law, in relation to consignments of works of art to art merchants by artists and their successors became new law, which reads in parts:

(a) Whenever a [particular type of consignor], delivers or causes to be delivered a work of fine art, craft or a print of such artist's or craftsperson's own creation to an art merchant for the purpose of exhibition and/or sale on a commission, fee or other basis of compensation, the delivery to and acceptance thereof by the art merchant establishes a consignor/consignee relationship as between such artist or craftsperson, or the successor in interest of such artist or craftsperson, and such art merchant with respect to the said work, and:
      (i) ...
      (ii) such work is trust property in the hands of the consignee for the benefit of the consignor;
      (iii) any proceeds from the sale of such work are trust funds in the hands of the consignee for the benefit of the consignor;
      (iv) such work shall remain trust property notwithstanding its purchase by the consignee for his own account until the price is paid in full to the consignor; provided that, if such work is resold to a bona fide third party before the consignor has been paid in full, the resale proceeds are trust funds in the hands of the consignee for the benefit of the consignor to the extent necessary to pay any balance still due to the consignor and such trusteeship shall continue until the fiduciary obligation of the consignee with respect to such transaction is discharged in full; and
      (v) such trust property and trust funds shall be considered property held in statutory trust, and no such trust property or trust funds shall become the property of the consignee or be subject or subordinate to any claims, liens or security interest of any kind or nature whatsoever of the consignee's creditors.

Consignor may waive provisions of this law only if the waiver is "clear, conspicuous, in writing, in words which clearly and specifically apprise the consignor that the consignor is waiving rights under this section with respect to proceeds from the sale of the consignor's work" ... provided:
      (i) no such waiver shall be valid with respect to the first two thousand five hundred dollars of gross proceeds of sales received in any twelve-month period commencing with the date of the execution of such waiver;
      (ii) no such waiver shall be valid with respect to the proceeds of a work initially received on consignment but subsequently purchased by the consignee directly or indirectly for his own account; and
      (iii) no such waiver shall inure to the benefit of the consignee's creditors in any manner which might be inconsistent with the consignor's rights under this subdivision.

From now on, dealers owe fiduciary duty to artists-consignor, and if, as consignees, they do not separate proceeds for consignors from their own operating accounts, they can be convicted of a criminal misdemeanor as well as face fines and imprisonment. Any consignor injured under the revised law may bring an action to enjoin commingling of funds and recover his or her actual damages. In addition, the court may award reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to a prevailing plaintiff in any such action.

One of the attorneys instrumental in drafting the amendment is Dean Nicyper, partner at Flemming, Zulack, Williamson, Zauderer, LLP. He has been quoted as saying "What we found in New York was that the galleries were not respecting [the law]... Galleries sold paintings they didn’t separate as trust, and the legislation had no penalty. It said, ‘you can’t do that,’ but it didn’t say what would happen if you did.” Following the Salander O'Reilly case, involving an Upper East Side gallery selling consigned works without paying consignors and declaring bankruptcy, New York had to make changes to protect artist-sellers. In re Salander O'Reilly Galleries, 453 B.R. 106 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).  In Salander, many consigned objects that were not adequately separated from the gallery's property were seized as security against Salander's debt.


Source: NY CLS Art & Cult Affr § 12.01; ArtInfo.

Weekly Art Law Blasts!

Advertisement

Subscribe to Art Law Blasts TODAY! We have thousands of readers around the world. Don't YOU want to know about exclusive art law events and new art and cultural heritage publications.

What to expect when you subscribe? See below!

Art Law Blast

Calendar of Events
This section provides highlights from our Calendar. For more listings, please visit Art Law Calendar.

**Nov. 9, 2012 -- Art Law Day at NYU (Appraisers Association of America, New York) 8:30 A.M. - 6 P.M.
Program and Speakers include:

♦ Moral Rights Keynote: Judith Bresler 
♦ Moral Rights and the Law: John Cahill, Moderator; Gloria Velandia, Magdalena Dabrowski, and Christiane Fischer. Intro by Yuri Yanchyshyn.
♦ Authenticity Issues and the Law:  Michael Stout, moderator; Peter Stern, Sharon Flescher, and Jack Flam. Intro by Judy Pearson.
♦ Art Financing and the Law: Chris Marinello, moderator; Amy Goldrich, Elizabeth von Habsburg, and Nicola Walter. Intro by Dorit Straus.
♦ Philanthropy and the Law: Ralph Lerner, moderator; Holland Dunn, Donn Zaretzky, and Karin Gross. Intro by Ella Newman.

For Art Law Day, you must register directly with NYU/SCPS. To do so, click HERE. If you have any trouble registering, please call 212.992.3258.

**Nov. 16, 2012 -- 5th Annual Art Litigation and Dispute Resolution Practice Institute (NY, NY) 8:45 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.

• Panel 1:   The Law and Business of Sculpture and Fine Art Multiples
• Panel 2:    Stewardship of Art Collections: What Lawyers Need to Know
• Panel 3:    The Law of Antiquities
• Keynote Address: An Ethical GPS for an International Art Practice
• Panel 4:    The Arts on Capitol Hill
• Panel 5:    Trusts, Estates and Art: What Lawyers Need to Know
• Panel 6:     Legal Issues Surrounding Art Galleries and Art Dealing

For Details and Registration visit NYCLA.

**Nov, 27, 2012 -- Fair and Just Solutions? Alternatives to litigation in Nazi looted art disputes: status quo and new developments (Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ in The Hague, The Netherlands)
For full details, click here.

**Nov. 29, 2012 -- Art, Law & the Lessons of the Holocaust (Herrick Feinstein, New York, NY) 7:00 P.M. - 8:30 P.M.
To register for this event, hosted by Herrick Feinstein and the Anti-Defamation League, visit EventBrite.

**Dec. 3, 2012 -- Beyond Frida: Major Issues Facing the International Art Market in Latin America and Beyond (Mexico City, Mexico)
Presented by the Union Internationale des Avocats and sponsored by Herrick together with Christie’s and ARIS, the seminar will provide a background on the Latin American Art Market and feature such topics as fakes and forgeries and challenges of dealng in antiquities.

Guest Speakers include:

• Howard N. Spiegler, Esq., Herrick, Feinstein, LLP
• Mari-Claudia Jiménez, Esq., Herrick, Feinstein LLP
• Monica Dugot, Esq., Christie’s
• Gabriela Lobo, Director, Christie’s Mexico
• Andrés Blaisten, Colección Blaisten
• Virgilo Garza, Head of Christie’s Latin American Art Department, New York
• Peter Stern, Esq., McLaughlin & Stern, New York
• Jean-Jacques Neuer, Esq, Cabinet Neuer, Paris, France
• Dr. Jorge Antonio Sánchez Cordero Dávila, Director, Mexican Center for Uniform Law
• Lawrence M. Kaye, Esq., Herrick, Feinstein LLP
• Ron Soffer, Esq., Cabinet Soffer, Paris
• Enrique Norten, Principal,Ten Arquitectos
• Judith Pearson, President, Aris Title Insurance Corporation
• Javier Lumbreras, Chief Executive Officer, Artemundi Global Fund
• Stephen C. Brodie, Esq., Herrick, Feinstein LLP

Announcements/Publications

• Pro Bono Opportunity for Attorneys: In light of the damage sustained by art galleries from the Hurricane Sandy last week, Art Dealers Association of America is calling on attorneys to provide pro bono legal services to the affected galleries. Patterson Belknap Webb & Taylor (PBWT) is one of the firms that has agreed to provide pro bono services to these smaller and most needy galleries in their applications for relief -- insurance and FEMA claims, emergency government loans, etc. If you would like to assist, please contact for details. For details visit ADAA or contact Jo Backer Laird at PBWT.

• New Edition of Art Law: Have you been eying and coveting the 3rd edition of the renowned treatise on art law by Judith Bresler and Ralph E. Lerner?  Now, there is something even better to crave and write to Santa about... The new Fourth Edition is out! Two volumes of the revised treatise are available online, through Practicing Law Institute. The ISBN Number is 978140241888. From the publisher: "Widely acknowledged as the cornerstone reference for visual art professionals and their attorneys since it was first published in 1989, ART LAW provides unsurpassed legal, business, financial, tax, and estate planning information and guidance for this major sector of the creative arts. Written by two of America’s foremost art law authorities and stocked with more timesaving forms, checklists, charts, and procedural guides than ever before, the new Fourth Edition of ART LAW enables you to:

1. Draft effective agreements clearly defining the rights and obligations of the parties involved, whether they’re artists, dealers, collectors, investors, appraisers, museums, or auction houses.
2. Create tax-advantaged strategies for collectors and artists — with the help of detailed coverage of complete and partial inter vivos charitable transfers, noncharitable transfers, deductions of expenses when selling collections, outright bequests of artwork, and income tax deductions for expenses when creating art.
3. Minimize the legal exposure of clients — by helping collectors avoid valuation errors, dealers avoid conflicts of interest, artists avoid copyright infringement, and art experts avoid liabilities when rendering opinions about art.

• Registration for the 4th Annual National Cultural Heritage Law Moot Court Competition is OPEN. The Oral Arguments for the 2013 Competition will be held on February 22-23 at the U.S Courthouse in Chicago. To register, visit DePaul University College of Law website.  The National Cultural Heritage Law Moot Court Competition is open to 20 two- and three-member student teams from ABA-accredited or provisionally accredited law schools. Each school may register up to two teams with a registration fee of $400 per team. A school may register for the 2013 Competition starting on August 27, 2012. Payment deadline and problem release date is November 15, 2012.

• Call for Papers "Art and Heritage Disputes" This Special Issue aims to identify, map and critically assess the number of art and heritage disputes which have arisen in the past decades. The return of cultural artifacts to their legitimate owners, the recovery of underwater cultural heritage, the governance of sites of outstanding and universal value, the protection and promotion of artistic expressions, and the protection of cultural sites in time of war are just some of the issues which have given rise to art and heritage related disputes. Such disputes have involved a number of different actors arising among states, states and private individuals and individuals. As the regulation of cultural goods constitutes a good example of multilevel governance and legal pluralism, art and heritage related disputes have been brought before national fora, human rights courts and tribunals, international economic law fora and even before the International Court of Justice. Such disputes have certainly made headlines and attracted the varied interests of academics and policy-makers, museum curators and collectors, human rights activists and investment lawyers, thieves and guards, and artists and economists to mention a few. Details here.

Headlines

(Reprinted in full at http://itsartlaw.com/)

Lagrange v. Knoedler -- SETTLED

Nov 02, 2012 11:59 am | Irina Tarsis

The venerable art gallery that was Knoedler & Co. will continue appearing in court filings and academic publications for a long time. There are a number of cases pending against by art collectors who claim that Knoedler sold fakes. On a brighter note, Getty Research Institute just acquired the Knoedler archive (1850-1971), recognizing the historical importance of this long prosperous and once

read more

    

DC Comics Retains Superman Rights

Nov 02, 2012 11:38 am | Irina Tarsis

Who needs an octogenarian superhero, Superman (born ca. 1938) when you have a strong infrastructure and volunteers to help get a metropolis back up running after a hurricane?! In 2010, DC Comics sued siblings of artist Joe Shuster seeking a judgment that they, as his heirs, lost their rights to reclaim copyright in the famous superhero. Shuster's are represented by Marc Toberoff, founding

read more

    

The NYC Art World Surveys Damage And Makes Predictions Following the Devastation Caused By Hurricane Sandy

Nov 01, 2012 11:55 am | Ariel Greenberg

In the wake of the unprecedented destruction caused by Hurricane Sandy earlier this week, the art dealers, gallerists, and museum professionals of New York City survey the damage done. From Chelsea to Greenpoint, and DUMBO to the Lower East Side, the art world is grappling with destroyed artworks and wrecked office and exhibition spaces. Art Info reported that many spaces, including R 20th

read more

    

Lagrange v. Knoedler -- SETTLED

The venerable art gallery that was Knoedler & Co. will continue appearing in court filings and academic publications for a long time. There are a number of cases pending against it brought by disgruntled art collectors who claim that Knoedler sold fakes in the 2000s. On a brighter note, Getty Research Institute just acquired the Knoedler archive (1850-1971), recognizing the historical importance of this long prosperous and once respectable institution central to the history of art collecting and the art market in the US and Europe.

In the clean up efforts to unwind Knoedler's business and clean up its good name, one of the suits against Knoedler is now settled. On October 4, 2012 Knoedler agreed to settle the 2011 lawsuit over an allegedly fake 1980 Jackson Pollock painting, acquired by a hedge fund manager Pierre Lagrange for $17 million. The work was purchased four years ago, and when Lagrange tried to sell it at auction, it was rejected because it was never included in the Pollock catalogue raisonne.

Having reached an amicable agreement, attorneys for Lagrange, the gallery and the former directory of the gallery filed a stipulation to dismiss the case; terms of the settlement are confidential, of course. While all parties ought to be satisfied to some degree with the settlement, Lagrange will go down in history as the person who pulled the peg that held the 165 years old gallery intact. Reportedly, "Knoedler closed its doors a day after Lagrange provided the gallery with an expert report that the painting was a fake."

Ann Freedman, the former gallery directory, is represented by Nicholas Gravante, Jr.  Matthew S. Dontzin represents Lagrange. Knoedler is represented by Charles D. Schmerler.

Case: Lagrange v. Knoedler, 11-8757, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Source: Bloomberg Business Week; New York Times.

DC Comics Retains Superman Rights

Who needs an octogenarian superhero, Superman (born ca. 1938) when you have a strong infrastructure and volunteers to help get a metropolis back up running after a hurricane?!

In 2010, DC Comics sued siblings of artist Joe Shuster seeking a judgment that they, as his heirs, lost their rights to reclaim copyright in the famous superhero. Shuster's are represented by Marc Toberoff, founding partner of Toberoff & Associates. Plaintiffs are represented by Daniel Petrocelli, partner with O'Melveny & Myers.

Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Otis Wright II ruled that the heirs signed away their rights to reclaim copyright about two decades ago. Shuster's sister and brother have been receiving annual pension payments from DC Comics since they relinquished their copyright in 1992. They had hoped to reclaim their rights arguing that the copyright agreement with DC Comics could be terminated pursuant to the 1978 mechanism that permits creators of works reclaim their rights. However, the judge ruled that by accepting a "higher annual payments" Shuster's heirs created a new agreement and the pre-1978 right was no longer applicable to this case.

The recent ruling means that DC comics will retain all rights to the use of the character in books, movies, and other products. DC Comics acquired Superman and other works created by Shuster and Jerry Siegel for $412 in 1938.

Source: Boston.com; The American Lawyer; Associated Press.

The NYC Art World Surveys Damage And Makes Predictions Following the Devastation Caused By Hurricane Sandy

In the wake of the unprecedented destruction caused by Hurricane Sandy earlier this week, the art dealers, gallerists, and museum professionals of New York City survey the damage done. From Chelsea to Greenpoint, and DUMBO to the Lower East Side, the art world is grappling with destroyed artworks and wrecked office and exhibition spaces.

Art Info reported that many spaces, including R 20th Century in SoHo, Rachel Uffner Gallery on the LES, the New Museum on the Bowery, Postmasters Gallery in Chelsea, and Storm King Art Center in Mountainville are without power. Others, including art spaces in Chelsea and Bushwick, were hit especially hard. Among the most affected was gallerist Zach Feuer, whose gallery is on West 22nd Street between 10th and 11th Avenues. At the peak of the storm, waters reached five feet inside his gallery and almost all of the work in his current exhibition, "Kate Levant: Closure of the Jaw," has been destroyed. As of yesterday, Feuer and his staff were planning to return to the gallery to break open the warped-shut door to the back room where much of his inventory is kept. Some of the storage racks are built higher than five feet, so he's hoping they provided minimal protection. Although he had not been able to fully assess the damage, he estimated that 2 percent of the artworks "escaped damage." Additionally, the wall between his gallery and its neighbor, CRG Gallery, was torn apart during the storm. Meanwhile, in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, 99 Commercial Street, an old factory that was converted into studios for dozens of artists for many years, was flooded by the waters from the Newtown Creek, destroying years of work.

Besides the damage done to the artworks themselves, the exhibit spaces, offices, and storage spaces were affected. Tony Coll, who manages the building that includes Feuer's gallery, as well as the Franklin Parrasch Gallery and the CRG Gallery, said that the storm caused damage to the building that would have to be dealt with before many of the galleries could open for business. Coll stated that in addition to still being without power, there may be damage to the electrical systems. Repairs will also have to be done to the interior walls and doors. Coll estimated that the costs for his building would be around $200,000.

Once the immediate devastation of the hurricane has been dealt with, a major question to be tackled is how artists, dealers, and institutions will sort out the cost of damage done to art works and how insurance will be affected. Art dealer Lisa Schroeder noted over Twitter that her gallery has insurance for $500,000, but many galleries do not insure art, though most have liability and short-term travel insurance. She predicts that "premiums are going to go through the roof."

The unprecedented damage done to one of the world's centers of art creation and business will undoubtedly force insurance companies, business owners, and artists alike to reassess how legal and insurance risks will be managed in the art world.

To read up on coverage of how the art world has been affected around the city:

New York Times

Huffington Post

NY Gallerist

Art Info