Julia Halperin has the story here. Background here. Apparently one issue in the case is whether the sculpture -- Log Cabin (1990) -- can be copyrighted at all: "The defendants say that the artistry of the work lies in the idea behind it, not the physical expression .... In fact, they contend, the actual construction of the work is so generic that Log Cabin is impossible to copyright."
Flavin Judd tweets: "Cady Noland is right, the art dealers are wrong. They are just arguing their 'philosophical' position for profit, not out of any kind of actual conviction."
Postmasters' Magda Sawon agrees: "This is a no brainer. Team Cady Noland."
UPDATE: Brian Frye "respectfully disagree[s] in part. The dealers may be 'wrong' in some 'ethical' sense, but their legal argument is pretty solid. The Copyright Office doesn't see any 'original' elements protectable by copyright & neither do I. No VARA rights without copyrightable subject matter."