TheArtLawReviewEdition1-1

United States

owners and collectors accounted for between 90 per cent and 92 per cent of the overall lending market.68 On average, high-net-worth individuals have 6 per cent of their wealth in art. Since the covid-19 outbreak, wealthy clients and private business owners with existing credit lines against their art collections drew them down.69

An art fund, which is generally a privately offered investment fund that is managed by a professional investment manager, may be organised either in the United States or as an offshore vehicle, depending on where the fund’s prospective investors reside. In the United States, art funds are typically structured as ‘closed-end funds’, more commonly known as private equity funds. In turn, private equity funds are usually organised as a limited partnership. The defining characteristics of a private equity fund are: (1) a fixed life, usually five to 10 years, with the option of a limited number of one-year extensions to permit the orderly liquidation of assets; (2) investments by limited partners of a fixed amount, called a ‘capital commitment’, that the investment manager ‘draws down’ from time to time over the fund’s life to pay for the fund’s investments, fees and expenses; and (3) limitations on investor withdrawals, except in extraordinary circumstances, prior to the end of a fund’s life. What makes a private equity fund an ‘art fund’ is its strategy. Some art funds pursue a focused investment strategy (e.g., Old Masters or Chinese Imperial porcelain), while others seek a more diversified portfolio of artworks. While the individual strategies of art funds differ widely, at a basic level all art funds seek to generate financial gains through the acquisition and disposition of artworks.

An art fund seeks to wield its size to acquire a diversified portfolio of artworks at prices generally unattainable by individual investors. But, unlike other tangible assets held by many other types of private investment funds, art has no inherent value and, indeed, its valuation is highly subjective. Further, the art market can be extremely volatile with no certainty of liquidity. Thus, art funds rely on professional investment managers and art advisers to implement their strategies and realise investment returns. In light of the risks involved, it is important that investors consult with a professional adviser before investing in an art fund.

The US art market is not required by law to maintain anti-money laundering (AML) policies. While the large auction houses (Christie’s, Sotheby’s, Philips and Bonhams) do have written AML policies in place, on average, private art dealers do not.70

68Deloitte Art and Finance Report 2019, 6th edition, available at www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ lu/Documents/financial-services/artandfinance/lu-art-and-finance-report-2019.pdf.

69Carol Ryan, ‘A Bad Year for Art Is Looking Like a Good Year for Art-Backed Loans’ (17 July 2020), available at www.wsj.com/articles/a-bad-year-for-art-is-looking-like-a-good-year-for-art-backed- loans-11594978201.

70United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Staff Report, ‘The Art Industry and U.S. Policies That Undermine Sanctions’,

www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/majority-and-minority-staff-report_-the-art-industry-and-us-policies-that- undermine-sanctions.

337

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

United States

VI ARTIST RIGHTS

i Moral rights

Moral rights, which are rights applying to authors irrespective of their economic rights, receive limited recognition in the United States. The United States acceded to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, an international treaty that governs and protects these rights (among others), in 1988.71 In 1990, Congress enacted the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA).72

VARA offers an artist of a work of visual art73 the right of attribution, specifically the right (1) to claim authorship of that work, (2) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art that he or she did not create, and (3) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work that would be prejudicial to his or her honour or reputation.74

VARA also provides the right of integrity, specifically the right (1) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work that would be prejudicial to his or her honour or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and (2) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognised stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.75

VARA rights extend for the life of the author for works created on or after its effective date, 1 June 1991, and for works created before 1 June 1991 to which the author still holds title on the same date, the life of the author plus 70 years.76 For joint works (two or more authors), VARA rights endure for the life of the last surviving author.77

71Berne Notification No. 121: Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works: Accession by the United States of America, World Intellectual Property Organization (17 November 1988), available at www.wipo.int/treaties/en/notifications/berne/treaty_berne_121.html. In particular, the Berne Convention’s Article 6 bis provides: ‘Independently of the author’s economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object

to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.’ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Paris Act of 24 July 1971, as amended on 28 September 1979, available at www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/treaties/en/berne/trt_berne_001en.pdf.

72Pub L. No. 101-650, Title VI, 104 Stat. 5128 (1990).

73A ‘work of visual art’ is: ‘(1) a painting, drawing, print, or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or (2) a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author. A work of visual art does not include: (A)(i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication; (ii) any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container; (iii) any portion or part of any item described in clause (i) or (ii); (B) any work made for hire; or (C) any work not subject to copyright protection under this title.’ 17 U.S.C. § 101.

7417 U.S.C. §§ 106A(a)(1)–(2).

7517 U.S.C. § 106A(a)(3).

7617 U.S.C. §§ 106A(d)(1)–(2).

7717 U.S.C. § 106A(d)(3).

338

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

United States

Available remedies under VARA include injunctive relief, monetary damages, defendants’ profits, statutory damages and, at the court’s discretion, legal fees.

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a decision to grant VARA rights to artists who created aerosol art on warehouse buildings at a site, well-known as 5Pointz. While some of the art at the site was more permanent, some of the works were painted over to make room for new work. Later, however, plans ensued to demolish the property to make way for luxury residential apartments, and after failing to secure cultural significance landmark status to prevent its destruction, the 5Pointz artists sued under VARA to prevent destruction of the site. Shortly after the District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, the defendant building owner, in contravention of VARA’s notice requirements that provided the artists an opportunity to salvage their work, destroyed almost all of the paintings by whitewashing them. Additional artists sued the defendant building owners and the lawsuits were consolidated for trial. Following the trial and verdict by an advisory jury, the District Court awarded the artists the maximum amount of statutory damages, totalling US$6.75 million (US$150,000 for each of the 45 works).78

The case was appealed and affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit held in its decision as amended on 21 February 2020 that:

aa work is of ‘recognized stature’ within the meaning of VARA when it is one of high quality, status or calibre that has been acknowledged as such by a relevant community;

bthe District Court correctly determined that temporary artwork, including ‘street art’, may achieve recognised stature so as to be protected from destruction by VARA, and considered the well-known 5Pointz site itself as some evidence of recognised stature;

cthe District Court correctly determined that the artists’ works had achieved recognised stature;

dthe District Court did not clearly err in finding owners’ violations of VARA to be wilful where the defendant owner admitted he knew of VARA’s notice provisions but decided not to wait before destroying the works; and

ethe District Court’s award of statutory damages was not an abuse of discretion where the Court carefully considered the six factors79 relevant to such a determination, and found that the defendant owner acted in revenge when it whitewashed the artwork.80

The defendants’ petition for certiorari filed in the United States Supreme Court was denied.81 17 USC Section 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) protects artists from the illegal use of their images on the internet. Specifically, the DMCA, in part, imposes criminal and civil penalties on anyone who (1) prohibits the knowing provision

78Castillo v. G&M Realty L.P., 950 F.3d 155, 162–165 (2d Cir. 2020).

79The six factors are: (1) the infringer’s state of mind; (2) the expenses saved, and profits earned, by the infringer; (3) the revenue lost by the copyright holder; (4) the deterrent effect on the infringer and third parties; (5) the infringer’s cooperation in providing evidence concerning the value of the infringing material; and (6) the conduct and attitude of the parties. Castillo v. G&M Realty L.P., 950 F.3d 155, 171–72 (2d Cir. 2020).

80Castillo v. G&M Realty L.P., 950 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2020).

81G&M Realty L.P., et al., Petitioners v. Maria Castillo, et al., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 20-66, available at www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-66.html&mc_ cid=276c203025&mc_eid=0b402b442a.

339

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

United States

or distribution of false ‘copyright management information’ (CMI)82 or (2) intentionally removes or alters CMI without authority, or disseminates CMI, knowing that the CMI has been removed or altered without authority.83

ii Resale rights

Resale royalty rights (or droit de suite, as they are known in Europe) grant artists a percentage of the proceeds from the resale of the original works of art. Although efforts have been made over several years to enact legislation, the United States does not recognise resale royalty rights. Under US copyright law’s first sale doctrine, as codified in Section 109 of the Copyright Act, once an original copyright-protected work of authorship is sold, the buyer and all subsequent purchasers are free to resell that work (but not any underlying copyright rights in the work) without having to provide any compensation to the original artist or author.84 Artists may contract for resale royalty rights, which has recently become a more popular practice.

iii Economic rights

Artists in the United States have economic rights provided by copyright law, which allow them to derive certain financial benefits from the use of their works by others. The United States Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 is the origin for copyright law in the United States:

The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Enacted by Congress on 19 October 1976, the Copyright Act of 1976 provides the basic framework for the current copyright law and provides copyright protection for works created on or after 1 January 1978.85 The Copyright Act and all subsequent amendments to copyright law are contained in Title 17 of the United States Code.

Copyright, a form of intellectual property, protects original works of an author fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including ‘pictorial, graphic and sculptural works’.86 Published and unpublished works are both protected (with only some differences). Copyright

82Such information includes ‘[t]he title and other information identifying the work’, ‘[t]he name of, and other identifying information about, the author of a work’, ‘[t]he name of, and other identifying information about, the copyright owner of the work’, ‘the name of, and other identifying information

about, a performer whose performance is fixed in a work other than an audiovisual work’, ‘the name of, and other identifying information about, a writer, performer, or director who is credited in the audiovisual work’, ‘[t]erms and conditions for use of the work’, ‘[i]dentifying numbers or symbols referring to such information or links to such information’ and ‘[s]uch other information as the Register of Copyrights may prescribe by regulation’. 17 U.S.C. § 1202(c).

8317 U.S.C. §§ 1202–1204.

8417 U.S.C. § 109.

85The earlier Copyright Act of 1909 applies to works created before 1 January 1978.

8617 U.S.C. § 102(a). ‘“Pictorial, graphic and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and threedimensional works of fine, graphic and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic,

340

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

United States

protection, however, does not extend to ‘any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery’.87 The requirement for originality is minimal. To be original, artwork must be created independently and must have at least a ‘modicum of creativity’.88

Copyright in a work generally extends from creation of the work and endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death.89 Copyright of artwork does not automatically transfer with transfer of ownership of the artwork itself and vice versa. Transfers of copyright require an instrument in writing signed by the owner of the rights conveyed (or the owner’s authorised agent).90 A copyright holder may assign one or more of the exclusive rights or license its copyright interest.

Copyright protection is not international but protection outside of the United States can be extended depending on international conventions, treaties (e.g., the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works), other bilateral instruments of the United States with other countries, and the laws of that country.91

An owner of copyrighted artwork (with some limitations) has the exclusive rights to: (1) reproduce the copyrighted work in copies; (2) prepare works derived from the copyrighted work; (3) distribute copies of the copyrighted work; and (4) display the copyrighted work publicly.92 While the copyright owner has the exclusive right to display a work publicly and the right of reproduction, copyright law carves out a special limited exception (tied to the first sale doctrine) for the display of a copy of a work rightfully owned without the authority of the copyright owner, to display that copy publicly, either directly or by the projection of no more than one image at a time, to viewers present at the place where the copy is located.93 This exception permits all displays of copyright-protected art by auction houses, galleries and museums.

If one or more of the artist’s exclusive rights are violated, an artist may bring a lawsuit in a federal court, which has exclusive jurisdiction.94 Criminal proceedings have a five-year statute of limitations and civil actions have a three-year statute of limitations. To establish copyright infringement, an artist must prove: (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) copying by the defendant of constituent elements of the work that are original.95 A copyright registration certificate is presumptive evidence in favour of the plaintiff.96 The second element can be demonstrated by direct evidence or indirect evidence. Direct evidence

or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.’ 17 U.S.C. § 101. ‘Architectural works’ are also protected by copyright law (see 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)) but are outside the scope of this chapter.

8717 U.S.C. § 102(b).

88Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 346, 111 S. Ct. 1282, 1288 (1991).

8917 U.S.C. § 302.

9017 U.S.C. § 204(a).

91www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf.

9217 U.S.C. § 106.

9317 U.S.C. § 109(c).

9428 U.S.C. § 1338.

95Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S. Ct. 1282, 1296 (1991).

96Nimmer on Copyright § 13.01[A], 13-8.

341

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

United States

can be through a witness of the act of copying or an admission of actual copying.97 While the former is rarer, copying is more frequently proven by proof that the defendant had access and substantial similarity between the copyrighted work and the claimed infringing work.98 Remedies for copyright infringement generally consist of injunction, impoundment of infringing articles, actual damages, profits or statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.99 The fair use doctrine, which may provide a defence to copyright infringement, and is codified in the Copyright Act, seeks to strike a balance between a copyright owner’s property rights in his or her creative works, and the ability of authors, artists and others to reference those copyrighted works as a means of expression.100 Under the Act, a court must consider

the following four non-exclusive factors in assessing fair use:

athe purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;

bthe nature of the copyrighted work;

cthe amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

dthe effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.101

Particularly, the issue of fair use is most prevalent in cases concerning ‘appropriation art’ or art in which an artist uses another artist’s work to create something new. In a July 2019 decision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts was entitled to a declaration that Warhol’s use of Lynn Goldsmith’s photograph of the late musician Prince to create a series of silkscreen paintings, screen prints on paper and drawings (the Prince Series) was a non-infringing fair use. In 1984, Lynn Goldsmith licensed her black-and-white photograph of Prince to Vanity Fair for the limited use as an artist’s reference in connection with an article to be published in the magazine. She later learned the artist to be Andy Warhol, who created his series of works based on the Goldsmith photograph. In 2016, after Prince’s death, Condé Nast issued a magazine commemorating Prince and used one of Warhol’s silkscreens for its cover.102

The Court determined that the first fair use factor weighed in the Foundation’s favour − that although the Prince Series was commercial in nature, they were ‘transformative’ of Goldsmith’s photograph because, while Goldsmith’s photo illustrated that Prince was ‘not a comfortable person’ and that he was a ‘vulnerable human being’, the loud, unnatural colours or rough sketching of Warhol’s work transformed Prince into an ‘iconic, larger-than- life figure’. The Court found that the Prince Series was immediately recognisable as a ‘Warhol’ and not a photograph of Prince.103

97Nimmer on Copyright § 13.01[A], 13-12.

98Nimmer on Copyright § 13.01[A], 13-13.

9917 U.S.C. §§ 502–505.

10017 U.S.C. § 107.

101id.

102Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 382 F. Supp. 3d 312, 317–22, 331 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

103id., at 325–26.

342

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

United States

In weighing the second factor, the Court found that although the photograph was a creative work and unpublished, which usually would weigh in Goldsmith’s favour, the Court limited the importance of this factor because Goldsmith’s photograph was licensed for an artist’s reference and because the Prince Series was transformative.104

The third factor weighed in favour of the Foundation because the Court found that Warhol removed nearly all of the photograph’s protectable elements; for example, the lighting, selection of film and camera, and evoking the desired expression, when creating the Prince Series.105

The Court held with respect to the fourth factor that the licensing market for Warhol prints is for ‘Warhols’, which is a market distinct from the licensing market for photographs like Goldsmith’s, and thus this factor favoured the Foundation.106

The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and, after briefing was complete, argument was heard on 15 September 2020. The case has yet to be decided by the Court.

VII TRUSTS, FOUNDATIONS AND ESTATES

The importance of valuing artwork for US federal tax purposes and estate planning is apparent in three common scenarios: (1) when an owner donates artwork to a charitable organisation and wishes to claim a charitable contribution deduction; (2) when a donor’s gift of artwork is subject to the gift tax; and (3) when a decedent’s gross estate, which includes art, is valued for the purpose of calculating the estate tax. In each instance, the determination of ‘fair market value’ is critical. ‘Fair market value’ is the ‘price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts’.107 In determining the fair market value of art, an appraisal is typically sought; but, even with an appraisal, challenges to valuation may arise.

The issue of fair market value was at the forefront of a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In Estate of Eva Franzen Kollsman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Court affirmed a tax court’s rejection of an appraisal for estate tax purposes, resulting in a tax deficiency for the estate in the amount of US$585,836.108 Central to the tax court’s opinion in Kollsman was the importance of selecting an appraiser without conflicts of interests, such as ‘financial incentive[s]’ in providing ‘fair market value estimates’ that may benefit the interests of the estate or its beneficiaries.109 In addition, the appraiser’s failure to provide any ‘comparables’ to support his valuation meant it lacked ‘any objective support’.110

In an effort to, inter alia, provide assistance to taxpayers in valuing artworks – and avoid the type of deficiency affirmed in Kollsman – the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) established

104id., at 326–27.

105id., at 327–30.

106id., at 330–31.

107See 26 CFR § 1.170A-1(c)(2) (for charitable contributions); 26 CFR § 20.2031-1(b) (for estate tax purposes); and 26 CFR § 25.2512-1 (for gift tax purposes).

108Estate of Kollsman v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 777 F. App’x 870 (9th Cir. 2019).

109The court noted that the appraisal had been presented to the estate’s residual beneficiary simultaneously with a pitch for exclusive rights to auction the artworks at issue.

110Estate of Kollsman v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo. 2017-40 (2017).

343

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

United States

what is known as Art Appraisal Services (AAS). Prior to submitting an income, gift or estate tax return, a taxpayer may request a Statement of Value from AAS to review an appraisal of an object, which the taxpayer may then use to substantiate the value of an artwork included in the return.111

Under certain circumstances, a tax return must be referred to AAS. This occurs when a return selected for audit includes an art appraisal of a single artwork with a claimed value of US$50,000 or more; the local IRS office will then refer the case to AAS, which may submit the matter to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s Art Advisory Panel (the Panel) for additional review. The Panel, which is made up of art dealers, scholars and museum curators, assists AAS in appraising works of art valued at US$50,000 or more. The Panel’s recommendations are advisory and become the position of the IRS only with AAS’s concurrence. In fiscal year 2019, AAS adopted 62 per cent of the Panel’s recommendations.112

VIII OUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONS

Covid-19 has rapidly transitioned the art world to a mostly digital marketplace. Digital sales rooms, online auctions and digital art fairs have become commonplace. With this rapid online growth, the art world faces unknown territory and a changing legal landscape. Perhaps, even after the covid-19 crisis subsides or ends, the art market may be disposed to maintain its current digital presence or at least a stronger one than pre-covid-19, but only time will tell the legal implications of the shift.

111Rev. Proc. 96-15. The reviewed appraisals most generally exceed US$50,000 in value.

112www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5392.pdf.

344

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

Appendix 1

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

KEREN ABELOW

E Landau Law Offices

Keren Abelow is a senior associate in the litigation department of E Landau Law Offices and serves as a member of the firm’s cultural assets, art and restitution practice.

Prior to joining the firm as an associate in 2013, Keren worked as an attorney at Frimer Gellman & Co after joining the bar in 2006. After completing her legal studies with honours, she interned for Judge Menachem Hacohen at the Jerusalem Family Court.

Keren’s practice includes representation of the firm’s clients in commercial and civil litigation in all judicial instances as well as in arbitration and mediation proceedings. Keren is experienced in inheritance and probate proceedings and has represented clients in complex international estate administrations. In addition, Keren specialises in tenders, contract litigation, and the restitution of lost and looted art.

Keren has served as a board member of The Art Cube Artists’ Studios, a centre for contemporary culture that offers work environment for visual artists and supports local talents.

During her law and criminology studies at Bar-Ilan University, Keren served as a teaching assistant and was actively involved in a legal clinic providing pro bono legal aid to those in need.

TATYANA ALIMOVA

Levant & Partners Law Firm

Tatyana Alimova is an attorney at Levant & Partners Law Firm. In 2012, she graduated from Ulyanovsk State University with a law degree. After university, Tatyana worked as a litigation lawyer, specialising in providing legal assistance to citizens and legal entities.

In 2016, Tatyana passed the bar exam. She specialises in business law, tax planning and arbitration disputes. In 2020, Tatyana furthered her studies at Russian New University and was certified as a tax consultant. Tatyana is also a member of the Chamber of Tax Advisers.

345

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd

About the Authors

LEILA A AMINEDDOLEH

Amineddoleh & Associates LLC

Leila A Amineddoleh is the founder of Amineddoleh & Associates LLC, an art and cultural heritage law firm based in Manhattan, New York. With nearly a decade and a half of experience in both litigation and transactional law, Leila A Amineddoleh is an expert in the field of art and cultural heritage law. She represents major art collectors, museums, galleries, dealers, non-profits, artists, estates, foundations and foreign governments in a variety of legal disputes. She has been involved in matters related to multimillion-dollar contractual disputes, international cultural heritage law violations, the recovery of stolen art and antiquities, complex fraud schemes, authentication disputes, art-backed loans and the purchase and sale of hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of art and collectibles.

As a leading specialist in art authentication, Leila collaborates with the world’s foremost forensic scientists and art historians to assist collectors and arts institutions through the complex authentication process. She also advises clients on the acquisition and sale of arts and cultural heritage works, and has been involved in the return of valuable stolen art and looted antiquities. Leila also works with artists and entrepreneurs to protect their works and artistic rights and to develop intellectual property portfolios.

An internationally recognised expert on art and cultural heritage crime and law, Leila has lectured at esteemed institutions, including the Frick Collection, Victoria and Albert Museum, the Neue Galerie, Christie’s Education and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. She also frequently presents for legal and academic audiences, both domestically and internationally. Leila has appeared in major news outlets, including the New York Times, ABC News, Los Angeles Times, Forbes magazine, The Guardian, Time magazine and the Wall Street Journal. She has been published in legal journals and arts publications and she has had scholarly contributions published in books, including Nazi Law: From Nuremberg to Nuremberg and The Provenance Research Handbook.

As an advocate for the protection of cultural heritage, Leila has proudly served as a cultural heritage law expert for the New York District Attorney’s Office. She served as an expert on a number of high-profile cultural heritage matters, including the repatriation of human mummy remains to Egypt; the return of a rare fourth-century BC marble bull’s head looted from Libya during the nation’s civil war; the seizure and return of an Achaemenid limestone bas-relief looted from Persepolis and returned to Iran; the seizure of a Hellenistic statue stolen from Libya by a terrorist organisation; and the repatriation of a number of Etruscan and Roman objects to Italy, including amphorae, other pottery pieces and a marble mosaic belonging to Emperor Caligula.

Leila teaches international art and cultural heritage law at Fordham University School of Law, in addition to art crime and the law at New York University. She served as the executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation from 2013 to 2015.

LAURE ASSUMPÇAO

UGGC Avocats

Laure Assumpçao is a senior associate in the litigation department at UGGC, with a specialisation in art law. She is a registered attorney in Paris and New York. Laure regularly represents and advises a wide range of domestic and international clients within the art sector. She frequently handles actions to void sales of inauthentic artworks, restitution cases and criminal cases dealing with the illicit traffic in cultural goods. Laure is also involved in complex cross-border litigation and commercial arbitration cases.

346

© 2021 Law Business Research Ltd