Art Law Blog : New York Art Law Lawyer & Attorney : Fox Rothschild Law Firm : Theft, Intellectual Property, Institutional Negotiation : Manhattan, New York City

According to this article, the famous actor testified in a case against gallery director Leigh Morse, who is accused of involvement in swiping two of De Niro's father's paintings to pay off creditors.

De Niro said he'd wanted their financial dealings to be "kosher."

However, when De Niro tried to continue his testimony, he was cut off by a sustained objection.

According to the article, De Niro so reveres his father that he still keeps the Figurative Expressionist painter's SoHo studio intact, just as it was on the day he died in 1993: paintbrushes in jars, tubes of dried oil paint - even the last newspapers he read.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sometimes the distinctions and nuances omnipresent in conceptual art  simply don't pass judicial muster.

Judge Batts of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was recently on the bench in a lawsuit where the famous artist Richard Prince was alleged to have wrongfully misappropriated the work of another artist., Patrick Cariou, by drawing over the photographs taken by Mr. Cariou.  

As this article in the Wall Street Journal states:

"So, delightfully, Mr. Prince was put under oath and asked just what important idea he was expressing in doodling over Mr. Cariou's photographs. Even a little idea—something, anything—would have done, the judge suggests in her ruling.

And yet, asked what he had in mind when he superimposed sunglasses and a guitar on one of Mr. Cariou's Rastafarians, this was the best Mr. Prince could come up with: "[H]e's playing the guitar now, it looks like he's playing the guitar, it looks as if he's always played the guitar, that's what my message was."

The result? According to the article, Mr. Prince has been ordered to hand over to Mr. Cariou the paintings that remain, and to tell the owners of the works already sold that they cannot be legally displayed (which means those collectors are going to be demanding their money back).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the article referenced in the last post, Michael McGinnis listed “impeccable provenance” as one of the factors causing a work to be offered for $20m to $30m. As many in the art community are already aware, any serious purchaser of art must consider the importance of a work’s provenance. 

Given the strong correlation of inscrutable provenance to value, it is interesting to note that auction houses may not provide complete information when listing provenance. A quick search on ArtNet or a comparison with available catalogue raisonnes reveal seemingly convenient omissions of passed title in works previously sold. 

For example, if you were to cross-reference Fernand Leger’s Nature Morte Sur Fond Gris (1950), you will find that while a Sotheby’s catalog from 2002 lists three previous owners, the catalogue raisonne shows an additional previous owner and a previous sale at Sotheby’s.

Auction houses have become more careful with provenance involving restitution issues.  However, auction house should be required to investigate provenance completely in all areas of sales and consignments and ask all relevant questions about provenance, particularly when dealing with important collectors and dealers, who sometimes, regrettably, submit incomplete or fabricated provenance. 

One is well-advised to contact an attorney for assistance with due diligence before purchasing a piece or to find out about available remedies if you discover that your work of art has been sold to you with an improper provenance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link