"French Court Orders Picasso’s Electrician to Return Nearly 300 Artworks"

New York Times story here.  Background here.  The Daily Show dubs him the "Picasso of Electricians Who Steal Paintings from Picasso."

"Artist Sues NYPD for Falsely Arresting Him as Banksy"

Story here.

While I'm out here highly recommending things ...

... let me also direct your attention to the third volume in the Handbook for Academic Museums series, which includes a phenomenal essay by Peter Dean and Bradley Bateman on the Randolph College deaccessioning controversy.  I hope to say more about the essay at some point, but for now, this will give you the flavor:

"Sometimes the AAMD has justified its 'ethical' stance against the use of sale proceeds for purposes other than acquiring new items by claiming that such use of proceeds might make donors less willing to donate a work of art, or contribute toward the purchase of a specific work of art, on the grounds that such use would devalue their original philanthropy. This is also an inconsistent argument. The AAMD evidently has no problem with the sale of a work of art, whether donated or purchased with a donor’s funds (unless the work was accepted subject to an express condition prohibiting sale). It has no edict against the sale of any individual piece of art; its rules are restricted to the use of proceeds .... If a donor bequeaths a Picasso to a museum which later sells the painting in order to purchase a Damien Hirst sculpture, the AAMD assumes that the donor (or other future donors) will not be upset and that this will have no effect on future philanthropy. But if the museum sells the Picasso to help build a new wing to house a collection of contemporary art, then the AAMD believes that this creates a risk that the donor (or other future donors) will abandon their philanthropy to art museums. Where is the evidence for this distinction?"

"If you open this discussion with museum people, as I have done, you find out very quickly that you have walked into a hornet’s nest called the 'deaccessioning debate.'" (UPDATED)

I highly recommend this piece, by UC Berkeley's Michael O'Hare, in the new issue of the policy journal Democracy.

The thesis:

"Think about a world in which our great paintings and sculpture are mostly on view instead of where they actually are, which is mostly locked up in the basements and warehouses of a handful of our largest museums. In which you didn’t have to go to one of a half-dozen big cities to see them, and didn’t rush through an enormous museum for a whole day because you paid so much to get in. ... That world is actually within reach, and the main reason we don’t have it is that the people to whom we have entrusted our visual arts patrimony have nailed each other’s feet to the floor so they can’t move toward it, and done so with the tacit approval and even collaboration of government. Big museums have long refused to recognize their unexhibited collections of duplicates and minor works as a financial resource. As a consequence, they are wasting value by keeping these works hidden. If they were redistributed to smaller institutions, and even to private collectors and businesses, they would fund an explosion of the value for which we have museums in the first place: people looking at art and getting more out of it when they do."

But wouldn't that be a violation of the museum directors' code of ethics?  Sure, but:

"this code was not brought down a mountain by Moses; the directors themselves made it up. A code of ethics is a good thing, but it isn’t a law of God or nature. Once upon a time, the lawyers’ code of ethics forbade them to advertise. Now it doesn’t; the republic and the bar endure."

Read the whole, excellent thing.  And for more from O'Hare, see here, here, and here.

UPDATE:  UCLA's Mark Kleiman tweets:  "Curators and art critics have convinced the world that 'deaccessioning' is scandalous. That is the real scandal."

On that Haring Decision

I finally had a chance to read the decision I mentioned last week that dismissed authentication-related claims against the Haring Foundation.  You can read it here.  If you don't have time to wade through the whole thing, Rebecca Tushnet has a good summary here.  Nicholas O'Donnell has his usual valuable commentary here.  It's in some ways an odd decision, which I'll explain further below.  But the important point, I think, is that if you're an artist foundation looking for a signal that it's safe to get back into the authentication business, this case isn't it.  If anything, as O'Donnell points out at the end of his post, it might have the opposite effect.  Here's why that might be the case:

1.  First off, this was the third motion to dismiss the case.  The plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint in response to the first two.  So even here, where the outcome was as favorable to the foundation as can be imagined, it didn't come cheap.

2.  In dismissing the antitrust conspiracy claim, the court distinguishes Warhol/Simon-Whelan (where a similar claim survived a motion to dismiss) in part on the grounds that "the defendants here ceased their authentication activities in 2012 and [therefore] could not be plausibly alleged to control authentication of Haring's work."  That's obviously an argument for foundations not getting into the authentication business (or getting out of it if they're currently in it).

3.  Similarly, in dismissing the antitrust monopolization claim, the court emphasizes that the authentication committee "was dissolved in 2012 and no longer offers authentication services."

4.  The state law defamation claim was dismissed based on the quirky facts of this case, which were that the foundation directed its statements towards an exhibition which included the plaintiffs' works (rather than at the plaintiffs directly):  "the plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the [foundation-issued] Press Release concerns them."  That's not going to be the typical situation in which these cases arise.

5.   On the other hand, the court does say that the defamation claim would have failed anyway because you can't base a defamation claim on a statement that "only relates to [the plaintiff's] property," which -- if true -- would be a help to potential defendants in these cases.

6.   Another holding that, if it were right, would also be extremely helpful to authentication-minded foundations (and others) had to do with the trade libel (or "product disparagement") claim, which is really the heart of any authentication-related dispute.  The court says that, to prevail on such claim, you have to show "special damages" -- i.e., specific, named purchasers that you lost as a result of the defendant's statements.  One of the plaintiffs alleged that he lost a sale to a London museum -- but even that wasn't enough because he didn't "name the museum or the sale price."  That would, as I say, be a difference-maker ... but is it right?  I am minding my own business with what I think is a $50 million painting by Artist X hanging on my wall.  Out of nowhere, the Artist X Foundation (or some other well-respected authority on Artist X's work) announces to the world that my painting is not an authentic work by Artist X (and is therefore now worthless) ... and there's nothing I can do about it because I can't point to a specific sale that I lost?  I'm curious to see whether other courts will line up behind that reasoning.

"The Gardner Masterpieces, Still Missing, But Visible Again Online"

"To mark a somber date."

Unraveling the sexy secrets of the use tax

Tom Danziger and Patricia Pernes do the honors.

"Security identified the visitor ..."

". . . said Margaret Doyle, a spokeswoman for the museum, adding that the work 'was quickly returned without incident.'"

Haring Foundation Lawsuit Dismissed

Reuters story here.  More after I've had a chance to read the opinion.

"Baseless and ignorant speculation in the press about the imminent regulation in the art market is reaching a fever pitch."

Says The Art Market Monitor.

"The burglary took place after 6 a.m., according to the museum officials, and the thieves were in and out of the castle, southeast of Paris, in about seven minutes."

"15 Pieces of Art Snatched from Fontainebleau."

"Stolen Picasso Painting Discovered in Newark"

"The stolen picture was sent to New Jersey via FedEx."

"Arrest of Swiss Freeport Owner Yves Bouvier Over Art Fraud Ring Rocks Art World"

Says artnet news.  More details on the alleged scam in the Telegraph.  Kimberly Bradley asks:  "Is this surprising?"

Nouriel Roubini on why art is an asset class

Self-recommending, as they say.

Elizabeth Taylor Estate v. Christie's

Over the cancellation of a $9 million diamond sale.  Law360 story here.  Courthouse News Service here.   Complaint here.

"Cuba refuses to return seized art . . ."

". . . despite thaw in relations with US."

In related news, artist Tania Bruguera, "the first person to publicly test the tolerance level of the Cuban government following the announcement last December that Cuba and the United States were restoring diplomatic relations – remains detained on the island, accused by its regime of inciting public disorder."

"In front of something like this, we are speechless."

There were reports this week (complete with video) that ISIS fighters had "ransacked Mosul’s central museum, destroying priceless artefacts that are thousands of years old."  The Met (among others) issued a statement condemning the destruction as "a tragic assault not only on the Mosul Museum, but on our universal commitment to use art to unite people and promote human understanding."  But there were later reports that "according to archaeologists, most if not all the statues in the Mosul museum are replicas not originals. The reason they crumble so easily is that they're made of plaster."  Leading LA Times art critic Christopher Knight to wonder: "If smashed Mosul Museum sculptures were replicas, is ISIS' propaganda video (gross) performance art?"

25 Years of Theories

Also this week, a fascinating piece in the NYT on the Gardner heist, still the largest art theft in American history (and still unsolved).

"[B]y one measure — money — Mr. Lik may well be the most successful fine-art photographer who ever lived"

Was traveling this week and still playing catch-up, but lots of art law to mention.  First up is this really interesting NYT story on photographer Peter Lik, who operates completely outside the establishment art world ... and apparently has sold almost $440 million worth of work.  Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the story is how thin the secondary market for his work is -- the fact that, as the Times article puts it, "anyone buying his work assuming that it will appreciate is all but certainly in for an unhappy surprise."  Georgina Adam calls it "a cautionary tale."  The Art Market Monitor says "[w]hat’s going on here isn’t hard to figure out. Lik is the latest iteration in business that provides affluent buyers with a vacation experience they can boast about for years after at home. Park West Gallery ran 'auctions' on cruise ships for years where buyers were thrilled to play at bidding on prints that were available other places for cheaper prices. [Thomas] Kinkade had a chain of mall stores at the height of his popularity."  Sarah Cascone rounds up other reactions.

On the legal side, lawprof David Zaring wonders:  "Is this okay?  It's not like you should be able to sue any artist who sells you art that doesn't gain in value ....  And it's not like Lik's in house gallerists have a special duty of care towards potential purchasers.  And common law fraud is a last resort kind of claim, it seems to me.  But boy, the way the those photos are sold...the article is full of dodgy representations by seemingly well-coached, and honest sounding salespeople.  This might be the kind of profile that establishes that yes, there is such a thing as bad publicity."

"It seems a month doesn’t go by without another artist being accused of copyright infringement."

Boodle Hatfield on the latest complaint against Richard Prince:  "This is another important example of copyright law being tested by digital developments. Again, it will be up to the courts to decide whether digital images are just another material that artists should be able to use like paint, or whether making money from another person’s creativity should always be forbidden."

Tell me again about the public trust (employment opportunity edition) (UPDATED)

A great job listing at the Fuller Craft Museum in Brockton, Mass.

Thanks to a loyal reader for the pointer.

UPDATE:  Another loyal reader points out that the job qualifications do not include any knowledge of "ethics."  Strange.

"The Artist Who Cried Copycat"

From the Art Market Monitor.

Another Prince Claim (UPDATED 2X)

Hrag Vartanian has the details at Hyperallergic.  My friend Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento is representing the photographer this time.

UPDATE:  Interesting take from Shane Ferro.

UPDATE 2:  New York Times story here.

They may as well have said: try to make sure your fair uses are fair

The College Art Association has released a "Code of Best Practices in Fair Use" and it's been getting a lot of attention.  You can read it here.  We talked about this in class last week and the consensus was it's pretty useless.  It says things like "artists should avoid uses of existing copyrighted material that do not generate new artistic meaning."  And "the use of preexisting work ... should be justified by the artistic objective."

I don't see how that brings much clarity to the issue.

"Could the 21st-century contemporary art boom be a bubble that never really bursts?"

Scott Reyburn in the NYT.  Or maybe it's not a bubble at all.

"Police seize possible Leonardo da Vinci painting in Switzerland"

Part of an investigation into tax crime and insurance fraud.

Suggested Dismissal Affirmed

The First Department has affirmed the dismissal of (most of) the lawsuit challenging the Met's admission policies.  The decision is here.  Good summary from Nicholas O'Donnell here.  Brian Boucher tweets "thank goodness, this stupid suit against the [museum] is finally done with" ... but that's not quite right.  As I explained after the lower court decision, "the part of the lawsuit alleging that the museum misleads people into thinking the admission fee is mandatory ... survives."

Corcoran Update (UPDATED)

Thorough report from Randy Kennedy in the Times.

UPDATE:  More from Holland Cotter:  "[T]he [Corcoran] had limited exhibition space and could show only a fraction of its holdings of 17,000 works. Now nearly half of them are being absorbed into the National Gallery of Art. And maybe just as important, the remainder will be parceled out to other Washington-area museums, raising the chances that, with a little schlepping, we’ll eventually be able to see more of the Corcoran than we could when it was intact."

"We just can’t allow artists to be priced out of New York City." (UPDATED)

Mayor De Blasio announced a plan to build 1,500 affordable housing units for artists.

Whitney Kimball is not impressed.

UPDATE:  Michael Rushton asks:  "Are there studies that show, given opportunity costs, subsidized artists' housing is cost-effective arts policy?"

That not-so-secret secret sales tax investigation makes it to the New York Times

Graham Bowley and Robin Pogrebin reporting.  Earlier post here.

"Tuymans, confident that he will win the appeal, seemed to enjoy the ironies of the actual trial."

"Unable to show the judge the original painting, which is in the United States, he explained: ‘We made a copy, one on one – a print – and we took it to court to show the physical difference, but of course that’s not really the painting. Whereas the lawyers said, “Ah, another copy.”'"

"Artist Tania Bruguera will have to remain in Cuba for at least 60 more days as prosecutors weigh charges against her"

"She was detained by Cuban authorities multiple times around New Year's Day for attempting to stage a performance about free speech in Havana's iconic Revolution Square."

Does the Art Market Need Regulation?

And what would it look like?

"Judge Cedarbaum, interestingly, made no reference to the UCC, engaged in no specific discussion of the sale of art works, and did not rely on anything other than the most general descriptions of fraud and mutual mistake."

Steve Schindler and Katie Wilson-Milne were not impressed with the decision in ACA Galleries v. Kinney.

"It's important to realize that all visual culture is fair game for artistic content ..."

". . . ‘appropriation' isn't a ‘kind' of work, it's almost all art. When making a painting or a print or a sculpture, it's nearly impossible to make something without thinking of something else. A good reminder that when dealing with images 1) once an image is used, it isn't dead. it can be recontextualized, redistributed, reimagined. 2) It should have several lives and exist in different scenarios."

A quote from one of the artists involved in this story by Brian Boucher at artnet:  When Is Artist-on-Artist Theft Okay?

"Prosecutors asked the judge to toss Morse back in jail Monday for defaulting on her restitution agreement." (UPDATED 2X)

The latest on former Salander director Leigh Morse.

UPDATE:  More coverage from Philip Boroff here.

UPDATE 2:  More from Fox Rothschild:  "It is not clear why Morse has not done more to make the restitution payments.  However, Morse owns a number of properties with her husband some of which are located in Pennsylvania, a tenancy by the entireties (TBE) state.  Owning property as TBE can be used to shield assets from creditors of just one spouse."

Remember: it's icky for museums to lend works for a fee ...

... but it's fine to do so as part of a Super Bowl bet.  Ethics, people.

So grand

The New York Times reports that Detroit is seizing tens of thousands of homes, from residents who failed to pay property taxes.  I haven't gotten to the portion of the Grand Bargain that deals with this, though I'm sure it must be in there somewhere.

"This is the second major forgery ring broken up in Spain in recent weeks."

Alexander Forbes has the story at artnet news.  The first one is here.

"There has been enormous support worldwide, even the Queen of Holland is on my side, so it's ridiculous."

Luc Tuymans on the copyright infringement case against him:  "We shall never surrender."

30 Part Bjorktet

Jason Farago hopes Janet Cardiff has a good lawyer.  (He's referring to this.)

This may fall more on the idea side of the idea/expression divide.

"Legal Implications of Accessing Cuban Art"

From the Center for Art Law.

"Will the Sotheby’s Caravaggio Decision Impact the Practice of Authentication?"

I'm quoted in this artinfo article, the main (and correct) takeaway of which is:  "The legal realities of authentication remain convoluted, with the evidence continuing to demonstrate that authentication carries substantial legal risk."

"The winning bids will fall with an increase in the buyers premium, and that cost is borne by sellers."

Sotheby's is raising its buyer's premiums, and Michael Rushton reminds us who bears the burden.

Attention please: Replicas of 16th-century sculptures are not off limits

Via Slate.

"In Cuba, Artistic Freedom Remains an Open Question"

From the New York Times.

I guess it's not so secret any more

Thomas Danziger and George Lederman at artnet:  New York DA Launches Secret Art Sales Tax Investigation.  With helpful advice on what to do if you get a call.

"The numbers don’t lie."

"At New York’s Museum of Modern Art, 24 of 1,221 works by Pablo Picasso in the institution’s permanent collection can currently be seen by visitors. Just one of California conceptual artist Ed Ruscha’s 145 pieces is on view. Surrealist Joan Miró? Nine out of 156 works."

That's from this BBC story -- "Why museums hide masterpieces away."

Michael Rushton tweets:  "Stories like this provide something of a challenge to the anti-deaccessionists, no?"

But all they ever said is that they're holding them in the public trust.  Who said anything about access?

Denial of Cert in Norton Simon Case

The Art Newspaper's Laura Gilbert has the story here.  The usual excellent analysis from Nicholas O'Donnell here.  Previous coverage here.

Luc Tuymans Loses Copyright Infringement Suit in Belgium (UPDATED 2X)

Hyperallergic has the story.

Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento says:  "If this was in a New York court, and under the current Second Circuit ruling of Cariou v. Prince, we highly doubt that Tuymans’ appropriation would constitute fair use."

I would rephrase that slightly as:  "If this was in a New York court, and under the current Second Circuit ruling of Cariou v. Prince, we would have no idea whatsoever whether Tuymans’ appropriation would constitute fair use."

UPDATE:  Adrian Searle makes the case for Tuymans.

UPDATE 2:  More reactions trickling in.  LA Times art critic Christopher Knight says:  "Is making a painting of someone else's photograph plagiarism? Uh, no."  Richard Prince (yes, that Richard Prince) says instead of claiming "parody," "Tuymans just should of said, 'it's what I wanted to do.'"  And Lewis Bush at Hyperallergic:  "Luc Tuymans Case Illustrates the Failure of Europe’s Copyright Laws."

"Miller’s suit marks the latest in a string of cases involving the commercial use of street art"

New York Post:  Graffiti artist sues developer over use of images in advertising.

"While art looks as if it is all about beauty, as a business it is full of shady stuff ..."

"We should correct it or it will be undermined over time."

So says economist Nouriel Roubini.

More on the private museums story

An Artelligence podcast with Patricia Cohen about her recent NYT story.

"New Barnes documentary tells Foundation's side of the story"

Answering propaganda with propaganda.

Chris Marinello's new ArtClaim is here

The website is here.  Eileen Kinsella has a report here.

"Spain Arrests Three Alleged Art Forgers"

Hyperallergic has the details.

How uncertainty about fair use hurts (Selma edition)

Vox's Timothy B. Lee on why the movie Selma doesn't use the actual words from MLK's speeches:  "Most likely, the problem is that studios are extremely conservative about exercising fair use rights. And they have good reason to be wary.  If Paramount had distributed a version of Selma that relied on fair use to justify using some King clips, and a court later ruled these uses were not actually fair, it would have been a financial disaster. Paramount could have been on the hook for big damages and could even have been forced to cancel showings of the movie and destroy its inventory of Selma DVDs. ... So rather than take that kind of gamble, studios almost always insist that works be licensed, even if a plausible fair use argument exists."

Avoiding the Hobby-loss Trap

Daniel Grant at the International Sculpture Center blog on the aftermath of the Susan Crile decision.

Likely Confused

I was quoted in this report by Corinna Kirsch on a trademark claim against artist Anthony Antonellis, who's selling Poland Spring water bottles filled with Chinese knockoff wristbands at the URL www.polandspringbornbetter.com.  Antonellis is looking for a pro bono lawyer if anyone's interested.

London court victory for Sotheby's

Via the Art Market Monitor, who's not surprised.

"MoMA has decided to auction off to the highest bidder a work in the museum's collection for over a half-century, a painting by an artist who may have produced more 'masterpieces' than any artist in Western art history"

Jerry Saltz is not happy with MoMA's imminent sale of a Monet that, until a minute ago, was held in the public trust.  Then, MoMA sprinkled the magic fairy dust on it and ... tada!  No longer held in the public trust.  So long public, hello billionaire's living room.  It's so easy!

He points out that the painting "was donated to MoMA in 1951 by New York collectors William and Evelyn Jaffe" -- but don't worry, no one will ask, "Why should I give this to you?  What guarantee do I have that you're not going to sell tomorrow?"

He expects MoMA's reaction to any criticism to be "blithe, platitudinous, one-size-fits-all dismissal" -- and now I have a great new way to describe the AAMD/Deaccession Police approach to the issue:

Because the proceeds from this sale will go into bank account A ("acquisitions fund"), earning interest, it's totally fine, nothing to be concerned about at all.  But if they went into bank account B ("operating expenses"), earning interest ... hoo boy, now we've got a massive problem on our hands, a BREACH OF THE PUBLIC TRUST, get the New York Times on the phone, call out the sanctions, THIS CANNOT STAND.

That's called "ethical reasoning," if you weren't aware.

Saltz ends up endorsing a kind of Ellis Rule -- "I believe that once a work of art enters a museum collection, it should be out of play for private collections. A work in a museum collection should only be sold or go to another museum collection, where it can remain in public view and circulation" -- though he doesn't say whether he believes that, if that condition is satisfied, the proceeds must also be used only to buy more art.

One quibble in connection with this last point:  Saltz thinks "it's doubtful that this little painting will ever be seen again in public."  But as he himself notes earlier in the piece, it was once owned by the Art Institute of Chicago ... then it was owned by the Jaffes ... and then it went to MoMA.  The tax laws in this country (as well as a host of social and psychological facts) have a way of bringing these works back into the public sphere.  It's possible, of course, that we've seen the last of it, but by no means guaranteed.

Back to square one

For the artist resale royalty.

On that big story on the tax benefits of private museums

Patricia Cohen had a long and interesting story on the front page of the Business section of Sunday’s New York Times on the increasing number of private museums – where, as she puts it, the "founders can deduct the full market value of any art, cash and stocks they donate, even when the museums are just a quick stroll from their living rooms."

My general take on this is that, while there are certainly valid concerns here, one way to look at these arrangements is as part of the deal we make in order to get broader access to these (amazing) collections eventually.  As the article notes, in the past personal collections like these have “germinated into cherished institutions like the Barnes Foundation, now in downtown Philadelphia; the Frick Collection in New York; and the Phillips Collection in Washington, all of which started in private residences that showcased the masterpieces acquired by wealthy art aficionados.”  (Like some of the places mentioned in the article, the Barnes originally had limited admission by appointment only; it took a lawsuit by the Attorney General to get them to open things up.)  So think of Glenstone as a future Barnes.  Some day we will cherish the collection the way people cherish the Barnes.  If part of the price we have to pay to get there is to allow the founders to keep the collection close to their hearts (and living rooms) in the early years, that doesn’t seem like too bad a deal.  Life is short, art is long.

Tell me again about the public trust (ravishing Monet edition)

MoMA is selling a Monet at Sotheby's in February.  Held in the public trust ... until they're not.

Guaranteed

The New York Times reported this week that Christie's and Sotheby's are "back in the business of guaranteeing prices on works that they sell."  The Art Market Monitor says its a "thoroughly self-evident story."  I agree; I'm not sure why the press is so obsessed with this issue.  Carol Vogel had a similar story in the Times less than a year ago, focusing that time on the increase in third party guarantees (as opposed to in-house guarantees). Guarantees reduce the risk to the seller, and therefore attract more business to the auction houses.  What's the big deal?  For an interesting recent paper on the economics of auction house guarantees, see here.

"The year after opening its new building, annual attendance at the Barnes grew from 60,000 per year to more than 300,000."

"Last year, 285,000 people visited."

Mentioned in Randy Kennedy's NYT story on Thomas Collins becoming the new director of the Barnes.  (Collins says "To me [the Barnes's move to Philadelphis] seems like an unqualified success. I have no reservations now about it at all,  and I wouldn’t be going there if I did.")

Is it time to bring back the Projansky contract?

A terrific piece by Kibum Kim at Hyperallergic.

So Grand

Detroit Free Press:  Detroit faces the same challenges after bankruptcy.  I thought the Grand Bargain grandly took care of all of that?

In a series of tweets, Kristi Culpepper explains the problem:

"Simple explanation of why Detroit will be back in bankruptcy in the short-term:  Their bankruptcy plan assumes that the city will pick up $841 million from new revenue and cost savings. City's revenues now are at $972 million.  And somehow they actually had experts testify that those assumptions were reasonable."

(To which Matt Fabian adds:  "[Freep] article fails to mention how there is less room for error now,  Detroit having sold the art.")

For West Coast Readers

An interesting-sounding panel, organized by Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento, on the role of the artist in the art market.

"This is not what I expected and it's certainly not satisfactory."

More trouble for former Salander director Leigh Morse.

"For six years, the mystery surrounding one of the largest art heists in Los Angeles history baffled police."

"Then, a shadowy figure by the name of 'Darko' surfaced in Europe."

Nine stolen paintings recovered by the FBI.

"We're now in the thank-you business." (UPDATED)

Mark Stryker reports that the DIA has reached its grand bargain fundraising commitment of $100 million -- of the $816-million (and 39 cents) total.

UPDATE:  More from Randy Kennedy in the Times:  "The plan to save the collection from sale was put together after foundations, private donors and the State of Michigan raised $800 million last year, essentially to ransom the museum from city ownership."

"The fall of SOG presents, in microcosm, almost every possible way in which a secured transaction, consignment or entrustment of art or cultural property can go awry."

Good piece in the National Law Review:  The Risks of Art Consignment.

Related post here.

Court victory for Christo's Arkansas River project

Denver Post story here.  As Kriston Capps has said, Christo's medium "isn't fabric and nature, it's community hearings and Environmental Impact Statements" ... and lawsuits.

Lawsuit Over Fake Rockwell (UPDATED)

Courthouse News Service has the details.  The sale took place in 1994.

UPDATE:  Nicholas O'Donnell comments:  "The most obvious challenge to this case is the passage of time.  ...  If the painting is not a Rockwell, then a threshold question will be when the plaintiffs could have determined that, and whether it was within the statute of limitations.  The 2013 appraisal quoted by the Complaint could cut both ways; if the Rockwell signature was as obviously a forgery as that appraisal believes, then the question will be why the plaintiff did not discover it sooner."

"Bruguera's detention sparked outrage in the international art community."

artnet news:  "The three successive arrests of Cuban performance artist Tania Bruguera, who was most recently released on Friday, have marred efforts by US President Obama and Cuban President Castro to normalize US–Cuba diplomatic relations."

"As a professor specializing in art crime, I’ve studied the cases of dozens of forgers whose careers span thousands of years, and I can conclude that Re is the first to have used his ill-gotten gains to buy a submarine."

Noah Charney in The Atlantic:  Why So Many Art Forgers Want to Get Caught.  Re Re (the submarine buyer), see here.

"It marks the second time in two weeks that the American artist has been called out for copyright infringement for a work related to the Pompidou exhibition."

Koons again.  Mike Madison wondered if Koons is "using the copyright system itself as a canvas," though it's worth noting that the works at issue in these latest cases are nearly 30 years old.

"What the AAMD did, it does affect our students. ... Why they want to hurt our students is unclear to me."

The Lynchburg News & Advance:  Ten months after 'Men of the Docks' sale, Randolph College says benefits outweigh costs.

The AAMD's answer to the question why they had to hurt Randolph's students is that the sale "erode[d]" the "trust" the public puts in museums.

Why this sale eroded that trust when (to pick one of dozens of examples I've cited here at the blog over the last few years) a sale by the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum of a classic O'Keeffe flower painting for $44 million does not, is one of life's great mysteries.

"Cuba’s Art Scene Awaits a Travel Boom"

From today's New York Times.

This can't be serious

National Post:  Art historian questions whether artist Tracey Emin actually slept in her $5-million piece, "My Bed."

"Bums had been sleeping inside the sculpture, and it reeked of feces. Tempest had been transformed into a shit storm."

More on the disgraceful treatment of Brian Tolle's public artwork in Miami Beach.  Background here.

Another Koons copyright dispute

New York Times story here.  Hyperallergic here.

How will the policy shift on Cuba affect the arts? (UPDATED)

Nicholas O'Donnell takes a look.

UPDATE:  Much more on this subject.  Kelly Crow in the WSJ:  Art Collectors Predict "Stampede" to Cuba.  David Ebony:  Is Cuba the Next Art-World Hot Spot?  New York Times:  For Cuban Artists, Bigger World Awaits After Restoration of Ties.

Because they said so?

My friend Peter Dean emails:

“I am sure you have seen this story by Mark Stryker on the $100M sale of a Cezanne by the Edsel and Eleanor Ford House by now.

“I await someone’s lucid explanation of why this is OK, but Randolph College’s sale of Men of the Docks in order to raise funds for the college’s endowment puts us in Dante’s Ninth Circle of Hell.  Could we have a full explanation of the hierarchy of permissible and impermissible deaccessions?  I think we should be told.”

Update on the California Resale Royalty Lawsuit

The en banc hearing in the California resale royalty case took place yesterday.  Story here.  You can watch the argument here.  With the usual caveat that it's dangerous to read too much into these things, I came away with the strong impression that the commerce clause aspect of the decision (i.e., that California can't regulate sales that take place in New York) would be affirmed, but the severability aspect would not (i.e., that, unlike the lower court, the Court would leave the statute in place as it pertains to sales within California).  That would remain a big win for the auction houses.  (I'm not even sure why they're bothering to fight so hard on severability.)

Maybe they were just implementing the Kinsley Plan

The Guardian:  Uzbek museum sold off artworks over 15 years and replaced them with copies.

(On Kinsley's modest proposal for Detroit, see here.)

"Interestingly, a significantly more expensive Picasso ceramic valued at $365,000 was hung below the stolen Picasso silver plate and was not touched."

A theft at Art Miami.

More Monkey Business

Interesting exchange of emails regarding the famous "monkey selfie."

If this is a viable claim, a lot of contemporary artists are in big trouble

The New York Post has a report on a lawsuit filed against artist Peter Max that includes the following:

"[The plaintiffs] also helped sell Max's famous 'Statue of Liberty' painting to a collector for $500,000 -- but when she learned the artist had not 'painted in year's she was infuriated . . . . [One of the plaintiffs] learn[ed] from [Max's representative] that Max has a team of 'ghost-painters' who work near his W. 65th Street studio, the suit says.  Max merely signs 'his name on the artwork when it's completed,' the court papers allege."

It's a scandal!

“Why the City would allow this to happen to a work of art is beyond comprehension …”

The Art Newspaper had a story last week on the mistreatment of my client Brian Tolle (best known in New York for his Irish Hunger Memorial downtown) by the Miami Beach public art authorities.  Long story short, first they were unable to maintain the work, letting it be used as an outdoor toilet (see photo here), and then they decided the best way to deal with the problem was to just remove the work and stick it in storage, where it remains today.

The Art Market Monitor sums it up:  Miami Removes $400k Work Without Consulting Artist.

And Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento has lots more here, including the following excellent series of questions:

“Did the City not seek out recommendations for the care and maintenance of Tolle’s art work? Did City officials really think that removing (and possibly damaging or destroying) Tolle’s art work without Tolle’s consent would be cheaper than cleaning and maintaining the art work? In essence what we’re asking is, did the City just think that it could do as it pleased with a legally protected work of art, and with complete disregard to the artist’s wishes?”

And, in the comments to his post:  “Hopefully the City of Miami will find a … way to not only respect Brian Tolle’s work, but to reinstall it the way that the taxpayers have paid for it.”

Let’s hope.

A Couple of Takes on Perelman-Gagosian

Shane Ferro:  Don't Sue Your Art Dealer, Because You Won't Win.

Nicholas O'Donnell:  "Buyer beware remains good advice."

"Obviously, creative ownership of art works is not a concept we have clearly defined ..."

"... We thought we had, but our old definitions are disintegrating with every cellphone photo and every screen grab."

Six years for damaging a Monet

Happened at the National Gallery of Ireland.

"The appeals court, however, agreed with King’s argument that ... because of the gallery’s expertise, she wasn’t negligent in relying on their assurances about authenticity."

A Park West lawsuit is reinstated.  These have been going on for a long time.

Perelman’s Lawsuit Against Gagosian Dismissed

New York Times story here.  First Department decision here.  The case had been on life support for some time (although not everyone noticed):  everything but the fraud claim had been thrown out earlier this year, and this decision got rid of that claim too, on the grounds that (a) Perelman, a "sophisticated" plaintiff, could not demonstrate reasonable reliance on the alleged fraud, because he "conducted no due diligence" of his own, and (b) statements about the value of art (which is what the fraud claim was about in this case) "constitute non-actionable opinion."  Felix Salmon nailed this one from the start.

Some Graffiti Litigation Updates

From Nicholas O'Donnell.

"Seller of Art Fakes Pleads Guilty to Wire Fraud" (UPDATED)

"Prosecutors said the man, John Re, 54, claimed the pieces were by Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning, and caused about $2.5 million in losses to victims."  He faces up to 20 years in prison.

UPDATE:  Press release from the U.S. Attorney's office here.

"For better or worse, fine art is now firmly planted alongside equities, bonds, commodities and real estate as an asset class."

James Stewart in the NYT on the state of the art market.

Felix Salmon can't even.

Related:  Is anyone really creating art loan CDOs?

There ought to be a law

Michael Rushton notices something missing in Lee Rosenbaum's latest call for "legislation or government regulations" to enforce the AAMD position on deaccessioning.