• About
    • Mission
    • Team
    • Boards
    • Mentions & Testimonials
    • Institutional Recognition
    • Annual Reports
    • Current & Past Sponsors
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    • Article Collection
    • Podcast: Art in Brief
    • AML and the Art Market
    • AI and Art Authentication
    • Newsletter
      • Subscribe
      • Archives
      • In Brief
    • Art Law Library
    • Movies
    • Nazi-looted Art Restitution Database
    • Global Network
      • Courses and Programs
      • Artists’ Assistance
      • Bar Associations
      • Legal Sources
      • Law Firms
      • Student Societies
      • Research Institutions
    • Additional resources
      • The “Interview” Project
  • Events
    • Worldwide Calendar
    • Our Events
      • All Events
      • Annual Conferences
        • 2025 Art Law Conference
        • 2024 Art Law Conference
        • 2023 Art Law Conference
        • 2022 Art Law Conference
        • 2015 Art Law Conference
  • Programs
    • Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      • Art & Copyright Law Clinic
      • Artist-Dealer Relationships Clinic
      • Artist Legacy and Estate Planning Clinic
      • Visual Artists’ Immigration Clinic
    • Summer School
      • 2026
      • 2025
    • Internship and Fellowship
    • Judith Bresler Fellowship
  • Case Law Database
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
Center for Art Law
  • About
    About
    • Mission
    • Team
    • Boards
    • Mentions & Testimonials
    • Institutional Recognition
    • Annual Reports
    • Current & Past Sponsors
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    Resources
    • Article Collection
    • Podcast: Art in Brief
    • AML and the Art Market
    • AI and Art Authentication
    • Newsletter
      Newsletter
      • Subscribe
      • Archives
      • In Brief
    • Art Law Library
    • Movies
    • Nazi-looted Art Restitution Database
    • Global Network
      Global Network
      • Courses and Programs
      • Artists’ Assistance
      • Bar Associations
      • Legal Sources
      • Law Firms
      • Student Societies
      • Research Institutions
    • Additional resources
      Additional resources
      • The “Interview” Project
  • Events
    Events
    • Worldwide Calendar
    • Our Events
      Our Events
      • All Events
      • Annual Conferences
        Annual Conferences
        • 2025 Art Law Conference
        • 2024 Art Law Conference
        • 2023 Art Law Conference
        • 2022 Art Law Conference
        • 2015 Art Law Conference
  • Programs
    Programs
    • Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      • Art & Copyright Law Clinic
      • Artist-Dealer Relationships Clinic
      • Artist Legacy and Estate Planning Clinic
      • Visual Artists’ Immigration Clinic
    • Summer School
      Summer School
      • 2026
      • 2025
    • Internship and Fellowship
    • Judith Bresler Fellowship
  • Case Law Database
Home image/svg+xml 2021 Timothée Giet Art History image/svg+xml 2021 Timothée Giet Boston Raphael: Legal Art History
Back

Boston Raphael: Legal Art History

September 19, 2014

20140311143536713_0001

By Belinda Rathbone

In 1969, my father, Perry T. Rathbone, then Director of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (the “MFA” or the “Museum”), bought a previously unknown painting by Raphael from an elderly art dealer in Genoa. Attributed to one of the great artists of the Italian Renaissance, this portrait of a young girl was to be the crown jewel of the MFA’s centennial year: 1970. But questions about the legitimacy of its exportation from Italy, compounded by widespread doubts about its attribution to Raphael, almost immediately turned this celebratory event into a tragic fiasco. For my father, it spelled the unraveling of his distinguished thirty-two year career as a museum director. In the then emerging field of art law, the Boston Raphael became a landmark case.

At the time, Italian export laws established in 1939 stipulated that any work of art considered an important piece of the nation’s cultural heritage could be exported only after the state itself was given a two-month option to acquire it.  Furthermore, if the right was not exercised, a hefty 30% export tax was imposed on any potential buyer from outside of Italy.  This law effectively paralyzed the Italian art trade for important works, and the Art Dealers Association of Italy fought the export tax for years, without success. However, an unknown or unpublished work stood a reasonable chance of legal export. Though technically speaking an important work of art, whether known or not, should have been registered with the Italian government, it was unusual for private owners to volunteer such information. The result was that countless works of art in private hands remained unregistered, including the Boston Raphael. Dealers and foreign collectors alike took advantage of this gray area of the law; while they weighed the odds, the only certainty they could rely on was that once the object was safely outside Italy, Italian law did not apply. As explained by art law specialist John Merryman in Law, Ethics, and the Visual Arts, “although the offended nation could punish the smuggler, if it could catch him, and might have the power to confiscate the illegally exported article if it should be returned to the national territory, it could not expect the foreign nation to punish the smuggler or seize and return the object.” With the Museum Board’s approval, Rathbone agreed to pay art dealer Ildebrando Bossi $600,000 for the painting, drawing on the previously untapped Charles Bayley Fund, which was earmarked for the purchase of an important painting.

Unfortunately for the MFA, contemporaneously with the acquisition, Italy’s top art sleuth, Rodolfo Siviero [1911-1983], was looking for a high profile export case to burnish his diminishing reputation before he retired. Almost as soon as the picture was unveiled in Boston, Siviero began his investigation into its source, working through a network of art historians in Italy. Before long he had traced the picture to Bossi in Genoa, who already had a reputation for illicit art smuggling. Siviero also began to question the U.S. Customs agents to track the painting’s recent arrival in Boston. At the same time, as if there was not enough for the Museum’s administration to worry about, experts on both sides of the Atlantic began questioning the painting’s attribution to Raphael.

With scandal looming, Rathbone and the trustees of the MFA were now faced with a dilemma: how to quell both Siviero’s accusations of smuggling, as well as questions from U.S. Customs agents who had been consequently alerted. Seeking legal counsel, they hired the Washington D.C. law firm of Covington & Burling (Covington), whose lawyers at first reassured them that they had operated within the law. What they did not know at that time was that MFA curator Hanns Swarzenski, who had hand carried the picture to Boston from Genoa, had neglected to declare it when he came through customs in September 1969. While there was and still is no import duty to pay on an object over 100 years old, the painting should have been declared. This technicality, which under regular circumstances would have been considered a minor omission, would end up costing MFA its first and only Raphael.

On the morning of 7 January 1971, U.S. Customs agents, armed with a search warrant, entered the Museum without warning and seized the painting. Because of its fragile nature and the below freezing temperatures outside, the MFA’s head conservator was able to persuade them to leave it in the Museum in a vault under the customs seal. One week later a registered letter arrived from U.S. Customs informing the Museum that it was liable for a penalty of $1,200,000 (the estimated domestic value of the painting, even though the penalty twice exceeded what MFA paid in the end) for Swarzenski’s  failure to declare the painting at Customs in violation of the provisions of section 1497, Title 19, United States Code. Soon afterward Rathbone and Swarzenski appeared before a grand jury in Boston to determine if they had conspired to defraud the U.S. government.

Meanwhile lawyers from Covington in collaboration with Ropes & Gray in Boston hammered out a nine-page petition for the mitigation of fines and release of the painting from Customs, arguing that “The penalty proposed is extremely severe, particularly when the government has no revenue at stake… such disastrous consequences should not be visited upon the museum because of the failure of one employee to declare a non-dutiable painting.”

The fine was reduced from $1.2 million to $5000, and no indictment was returned from the grand jury. No treaty existed requiring the U.S. to return the painting, an action that could only be considered as an act of generosity. The UNESCO convention of 1970, which the U.S. had joined other signatories in adopting, had broken ground on new agreements between nations on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export, and transfer of ownership of cultural property, but these were far from codified when the picture left Italy in 1969. However, in a meeting called on short notice when Rathbone was traveling abroad in the summer of 1971, the MFA trustees voted to voluntarily return the painting to Italy.

Soon after a formal agreement between the MFA trustees and assistant U.S. Treasury secretary Eugene Rossides, the painting was escorted on a flight to Rome in September 1971, and received by the triumphant Siviero. The MFA was never reimbursed for the money they had already spent on the painting, about $350,000 USD, for another unfortunate piece of timing was that the elderly Genoese art dealer, Ildebrando Bossi, died in prison awaiting trial for illegally exporting the Raphael. The Italian government had seized his assets and apparently felt no obligation to refund the MFA.

Many questions remain about this curious case. Most importantly: was the painting an authentic Raphael, and therefore an important piece of Italy’s cultural heritage? Based on its consignment to storage in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence since the early 1980s, it would not seem so. Were the MFA Trustees meeting their fiduciary responsibility in returning the disputed painting with no promise of a return on their investment, and its attribution in question?

The case of the Boston Raphael served to heighten awareness of the need for more consistent policies between nations on the export of works of art. The UNESCO convention of 1970 sought to reconcile values of cultural property and the promotion of free trade, breaking ground for bilateral or multilateral agreements on the export laws pertaining to works of art and antiquity. In recent years high profile cases involving illegally excavated antiquities bought by American art museums have brought these issues to the foreground and led to a more vigilant regulatory environment. The Boston MFA is one of the few museums to employ a full time provenance researcher and earlier this year the Museum announced that it would be returning eight antique sculptures to Nigeria after confirming that they had been stolen before making their way onto the United States art market and acquired by the Museum.

About the Author: Belinda Rathbone is a biographer and fine arts journalist. She is the author of Walker Evans: A Biography, and The Guynd: A Scottish Journal.

For the full story of the Boston Raphael read her forthcoming book, The Boston Raphael, Boston: David R. Godine, which reviews the circumstances behind the acquisition and return of the painting, the various conflicting motivations behind the key players in the episode, and the questionable inevitability of its outcome.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not meant to provide legal advice. Readers should not construe or rely on any comment or statement in this article as legal advice. For legal advice, readers should seek a consultation with an attorney.

Post navigation

Previous Case Review: Karlsson v. Mangan
Next Case Review: United States v. Twenty-Nine Pre-Columbian and Colonial Artifacts, From Peru

Related Posts

cold hard cash cool ideas smooth navigating copy

Getting over Cash: A Guide to Noncash Charitable Donations

December 15, 2025
New York Cityscape

Litigation v. Artful Resolution: Using ADR Methods to Resolve Art-Related Disputes

December 12, 2023

The Art World: Business as Usual?

February 21, 2011
Center for Art Law
Center for Art Law

Follow us on Instagram for the latest in Art Law!

The expansion of the use of collaborations between The expansion of the use of collaborations between artists and major consumer corporations brings along a myriad of IP legal considerations. What was once seen in advertisement initiatives  has developed into the creation of "art objects," something that lives within a consumer object while retaining some portion of an artists work. 

🔗 Read more about this interesting interplay in Natalie Kawam Yang's published article, including a discussion on how the LOEWE x Ghibli Museum fits into this context, using the link in our bio.
We can't wait for you to join us on February 4th! We can't wait for you to join us on February 4th!  Check out the full event description below:

Join the Center for Art Law for an in-person, full-day training aimed at preparing lawyers for working with art market participants and understanding their unique copyright law needs. The bootcamp will be led by veteran art law attorneys, Louise Carron, Barry Werbin, Carol J. Steinberg, Esq., Scott Sholder, Marc Misthal, specialists in copyright law. 

This Bootcamp provides participants -- attorneys, law students, law graduates and legal professionals -- with foundational legal knowledge related to copyright law for art market clients. Through a combination of instructional presentations and mock consultations, participants will gain a solid foundation in copyright law and its specificities as applied to works of visual arts, such as the fair use doctrine and the use of generative artificial intelligence tools.

🎟️ Grab tickets using the link in our bio!
Don't forget to grab tickets to our upcoming Collo Don't forget to grab tickets to our upcoming Colloquium, discussing the effectiveness of no strike designations in Syria, on February 2nd. Check out the full event description below:

No strike designations for cultural heritage are one mechanism by which countries seek to uphold the requirements of the 1954 Hague Convention. As such, they are designed to be key instruments in protecting the listed sites from war crimes. Yet not all countries maintain such inventories of their own whether due to a lack of resources, political views about what should be represented, or the risk of misuse and abuse. This often places the onus on other governments to create lists about cultures other than their own during conflicts. Thus, there may be different lists compiled by different governments in a conflict, creating an unclear legal landscape for determining potential war crimes and raising significant questions about the effectiveness of no strikes as a protection mechanism. 

Michelle Fabiani will discuss current research seeking to empirically evaluate the effectiveness of no strike designations as a protection mechanism against war crimes in Syria. Using data on cultural heritage attacks from the height of the Syrian Conflict (2014-2017) compiled from open sources, a no strike list completed in approximately 2012, and measures of underlying risk, this research asks whether the designations served as a protective factor or a risk factor for a given site and the surrounding area. Results and implications for holding countries accountable for war crimes against cultural heritage are discussed. 

🎟️ Grab tickets using the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #culturalheritage #lawyer #legalreserach #artlawyer
Don't miss our up coming in-person, full-day train Don't miss our up coming in-person, full-day training aimed at preparing lawyers for working with art market participants and understanding their unique copyright law needs. The bootcamp will be led by veteran art law attorneys, Louise Carron, Barry Werbin, Carol J. Steinberg, Esq., Scott Sholder, Marc Misthal, specialists in copyright law. 

This Bootcamp provides participants -- attorneys, law students, law graduates and legal professionals -- with foundational legal knowledge related to copyright law for art market clients. Through a combination of instructional presentations and mock consultations, participants will gain a solid foundation in copyright law and its specificities as applied to works of visual arts, such as the fair use doctrine and the use of generative artificial intelligence tools.

🎟️ Grab tickets using the link in our bio! 

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legal #research #lawyer #artlawyer #bootcamp #copyright #CLE #trainingprogram
In order to fund acquisitions of contemporary art, In order to fund acquisitions of contemporary art, The Phillips Collection sold seven works of art from their collection at auction in November. The decision to deaccession three works in particular have led to turmoil within the museum's governing body. The works at the center of the controversy include Georgia O'Keefe's "Large Dark Red Leaves on White" (1972) which sold for $8 million, Arthur Dove's "Rose and Locust Stump" (1943), and "Clowns et pony" an 1883 drawing by Georges Seurat. Together, the three works raised $13 million. Three board members have resigned, while members of the Phillips family have publicly expressed concerns over the auctions. 

Those opposing the sales point out that the works in question were collected by the museum's founders, Duncan and Marjorie Phillips. While museums often deaccession works that are considered reiterative or lesser in comparison to others by the same artist, the works by O'Keefe, Dove, and Seurat are considered highly valuable, original works among the artist's respective oeuvres. 

The museum's director, Jonathan P. Binstock, has defended the sales, arguing that the process was thorough and reflects the majority interests of the collection's stewards. He believes that acquiring contemporary works will help the museum to evolve. Ultimately, the controversy highlights the difficulties of maintaining institutional collections amid conflicting perspectives.

🔗 Click the link in our bio to read more.
Make sure to check out our newest episode if you h Make sure to check out our newest episode if you haven’t yet!

Paris and Andrea get the change to speak with Patty Gerstenblith about how the role international courts, limits of accountability, and if law play to protect history in times of war.

🎙️ Click the link in our bio to listen anywhere you get your podcasts!
Alexander Butyagin, a Russian archaeologist, was a Alexander Butyagin, a Russian archaeologist, was arrested by Polish authorities in Warsaw. on December 4th. Butyagin is wanted by Ukraine for allegedly conducting illegal excavations of Myrmekion, an ancient city in Crimea. Located in present-day Crimea, Myrmekion was an Ancient Greek colony dating to the sixth century, BCE. 

According to Ukrainian officials, between 2014 and 2019 Butyagin destroyed parts of the Myrmekion archaeological site while serving as head of Ancient Archaeology of the Northern Black Sea region at St. Petersburg's Hermitage Museum. The resulting damages are estimated at $4.7 million. Notably, Russia's foreign ministry has denounced the arrest, describing Poland's cooperation with Ukraine's extradition order as "legal tyranny." Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014.

🔗 Read more by clicking the link in our bio

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #artcrime #artlooting #ukraine #crimea
Join us on February 18th to learn about the proven Join us on February 18th to learn about the provenance and restitution of the Cranach painting at the North Carolina Museum of Art.

A beloved Cranach painting at the North Carolina Museum of Art was accused of being looted by the Nazis. Professor Deborah Gerhardt will describe the issues at stake and the evidentiary trail that led to an unusual model for resolving the dispute.

Grab your tickets today using the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legal #legalresearch #museumissues #artwork
“In the depth of winter, I finally learned that wi “In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."
~ Albert Camus, "Return to Tipasa" (1952) 

Camus is on our reading list but for now, stay close to the ground to avoid the deorbit burn from the 2026 news and know that we all contain invincible summer. 

The Center for Art Law's January 2026 Newsletter is here—catch up on the latest in art law and start the year informed.
https://itsartlaw.org/newsletters/january-newsletter-which-way-is-up/ 

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #lawyer #artlawyer #legalresearch #legal #art #law #newsletter #january
Major corporations increasingly rely on original c Major corporations increasingly rely on original creative work to train AI models, often claiming a fair use defense. However, many have flagged this interpretation of copyright law as illegitimate and exploitative of artists. In July, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Crime and Counterterrorism addressed these issues in a hearing on copyright law and AI training. 

Read our recent article by Katelyn Wang to learn more about the connection between AI training, copyright protections, and national security. 

🔗 Click the link in our bio to read more!
Join the Center for Art Law for an in-person, all- Join the Center for Art Law for an in-person, all-day  CLE program to train lawyers to work with visual artists and their unique copyright needs. The bootcamp will be led by veteran art law attorneys specializing in copyright law.

This Bootcamp provides participants -- attorneys, law students, law graduates and legal professionals -- with foundational legal knowledge related to copyright law for art market clients. Through a combination of instructional presentations and mock consultations, participants will gain a solid foundation in copyright law and its specificities as applied to works of visual arts, such as the fair use doctrine and the use of generative artificial intelligence tools. 

🎟️ Grab tickets using the link in our bio!
Our interns do the most. Check out a day in the li Our interns do the most. Check out a day in the life of Lauren Stein, a 2L at Wake Forest, as she crushes everything in her path. 

Want to help us foster more great minds? Donate to Center for Art Law.

🔗 Click the link below to donate today!

https://itsartlaw.org/donations/new-years-giving-tree/ 

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legal #legalresearch #caselaw #lawyer #art #lawstudent #internships #artlawinternship
  • About the Center
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Upcoming Events
  • Internship
  • Case Law Database
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
DISCLAIMER

Center for Art Law is a New York State non-profit fully qualified under provision 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code.

The Center does not provide legal representation. Information available on this website is
purely for educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.

TERMS OF USE AND PRIVACY POLICY

Your use of the Site (as defined below) constitutes your consent to this Agreement. Please
read our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy carefully.

© 2026 Center for Art Law
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.