• 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 law image/svg+xml 2021 Timothée Giet Property Law, Religious Ownership and International Heritage Obligations: the Legal State of the Saint Catherine’s Monastery at stake
Back

Property Law, Religious Ownership and International Heritage Obligations: the Legal State of the Saint Catherine’s Monastery at stake

September 18, 2025

Center for Art Law UNESCO St Catherines Monastery

© Aure-Anne de Coniac

By Vivika Gerogianni and Andrew Dearman

Saint Catherine’s Monastery has stood at the foot of Mount Sinai in Egypt since its construction in the late 6th Century A.D. Designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2002, it holds unique significance to the three major Abrahamic religions and remains a popular pilgrimage destination.[1] However, a recent court ruling[2] that transferred ownership to the Egyptian state, coupled with a major redevelopment project in Sinai, have threatened the integrity of the site, causing international concern. This ruling has been heavily condemned by the Greek Orthodox Church, yet the Egyptian media insist that the ruling will not affect the monastery’s operations or status.

The History of Saint Catherine’s Monastery

Monastic tradition first reached Sinai in the late 3rd Century A.D., although Saint Catherine’s Monastery was not built until three centuries later at the behest of Byzantine emperor Justinian I.[3] The new construction enclosed the Chapel of Saint Helen, erected on the site traditionally believed to be where Moses encountered the burning bush.[4] Following the Arab conquests, the monastery experienced a period of decline, and during this time a small mosque was constructed within its walls: a rare historical example of Christianity and Islam coexisting peacefully. In these years, the monks also recovered the relics of Saint Catherine, who became the monastery’s namesake.[5] In the Ottoman period, the site reaffirmed its Orthodox identity, and to this day it remains the oldest Christian monastery still in use.[6]

Saint Catherine’s Monastery is also notable for its extensive library, which holds some of the earliest surviving codices and manuscripts.[7] Historical records in the library show that the Prophet Muhammad visited the site and, in 623 A.D., granted the monastery a letter of protection.[8] Nearly a millennium later, Napoleon Bonaparte issued a similar charter during his Egyptian campaign, once again placing the monastery under official protection.[9] Today, the monastery remains a living piece of religious and cultural heritage, inhabited by monks who maintain the ancient monastery and uphold traditional monastic rituals. They cater for the site as an interfaith pilgrimage destination and emphasise their harmonious relations with the local Bedouin tribes, as well as with the Egyptian authorities and the Greek state.[10]

The Issues in Law

On May 28, 2025, the Ismailia Court of Appeal ruled that the ancient Saint Catherine’s Monastery is the property of the Egyptian state. The case challenged a judgment of a claim filed 11 years before, when the South Sinai Governorate had issued an ultimatum to the Archbishop of the Saint Catherine Monastery and then proceeded with a civil lawsuit. Other plaintiffs included Ahmed Ragaey, the founder of ‘South Sinai Defence Front’, who had actively protested against the Monastery’s existence on the grounds that they are controlling large areas of the region and restricting access to residents.[11] After a process of amendments made to their initial claims, the Governorate’s requests were the following;

  1. The in-person eviction of the Archbishop from 71 plots of land, which are considered religious sites.
  2. A ruling to retain the buildings built on the plots in return for their demolition value.
  3. A monetary compensation from the archbishop for encroachment on these lands, which had obstructed the claimants’ right to use them.[12]

It would be essential to note that claim (1) originally included a request for eviction from 29 plots of land. In correcting their claims, the plaintiffs added a request for an additional 42 plots of land. Also, they emphasised that the Archbishop is excluded from claiming the value of the facilities on the land or any compensation.[13] Moreover, the monetary compensation requested in claim (3) was also revised, and the demanded amount was doubled, from LE 5 million to LE 10 million.[14] According to the plaintiffs, the claims should be understood to be raised against the Archbishop in his capacity and role, and not against him as an individual person.[15]

On May 30 2020, the South Sinai Court in Case No 24/2015 rejected Ragaey’s claims and dismissed all requests made by the plaintiffs. The Court did, however, require the Archbishop to satisfy claim (1) in part, obliging him to hand over the originally-cited 29 plots of land which were characterised as state property.[16]

Both the plaintiffs and the defendants appealed the 2020 verdict, with cases No 226 of 32 and No 228 of 32, respectively. The Court of Appeal then classified the claimed 71 plots of land in four different categories based on their legality and relation to the archbishop’s possession of them. Section I included land not proven to be in possession by the archbishop, Section II included land which is of religious nature to be owned by the state and possessed by the Archbsihop, Section III referred to land who’s legal nature had been previously acknowledged by preliminary sale contracts between the archbishop and the South Sinai Governate and lastly Section IV included lands from which the archbishop was to be expelled – a category which would include both religious and non-religious sites.[17]

The Position in Egyptian Law

The Church Construction Law no 80/2016 regulated the process of building Christian Churches, creating a system of formal requests to the Governorate, which can accept or reject the application for the creation of a Christian Church.[18] In its Article 7, the statute limits Church spaces to only religious use and worship, rendering any other use as “legally void.”[19] Provided this existent legal framework, the Court in its 2025 ruling established that the Archbishop’s use of the property was religious, since he was entrusted, due to his role, with the observance of the religious rites within the said land. The Court characterised the Archbishop’s use of the property as a “religious possession.”[20] Possession has to be differentiated from ownership and legal title; possession in the Egyptian legal context means the mere physical control of a property, but does not include full ownership rights such as the right to exploit and dispose of the land.

The Archbishop’s request for Section II lands was dismissed by the Court, despite the appellant’s claim that the monks had been in peaceful possession of them for 15 centuries. The Court discerned that the Archbishop did not satisfactorily prove the conditions for acquisitive ownership in their possession. Following the Court judgment, possession has to be clear and unambiguous, complete, and with the intention of ownership since the very beginning –characteristics which the Archbishop’s possession of the monastery did not adhere to.[21] The court, however, acknowledged that the Archbishop’s activity could be categorised as “religious possession,” instead of the original form of possession. In its ruling, the Court argued that reverting property ownership to the state does not override the religious use of the land, which will continue to be exercised by the monks.[22]

Following the Egyptian legal framework on real estate legislation No 114/1946, in 1980 Egyptian authorities invited all entities with undocumented landholdings to submit declarations for full ownership title and property rights.[23] Proprietary rights, as the relevant provisions outline, will be legally recognised solely when registered with the state. The Saint Catherine Monastery had then submitted 71 applications, including claims for all its land, the same 71 plots which were disputed in the 2015 case. The applications however do not amount to a registration in the state cadastre, and the Court in its recent ruling settled that land lacking a valid registered title belongs to the state (nulla titulus principle).[24] Reference to the Egyptian Civil Code, more specifically Articles 87 to 90, strengthened the Court’s decision to confer the plot to the public domain. According to the Articles, property with a historical, cultural or environmental value – all of which can be claimed to be satisfied in this case of UNESCO-protected land, can be public property.[25] Simply, since the disputed land had not been formally registered, the Egyptian Civil Code instills that property lacking an evidenced title will be property of the state and can be used as part of the public domain due to its historical and cultural importance. The Articles were interpreted broadly by the Court, eventually including chapels and the monastery under the definition of “cultural and historical” value.

As the Archbishop’s representatives presented to the Court, the Saint Catherine monastery has been consistently and continuously inhabited by the Greek Orthodox Church since the 6th century, despite its lack of registration under the current Egyptian administration. Even in times of Byzantine periods, to Ottoman Oppression, monks in the Monastery had been custodians and possessors of the space in Mount Sinai. The Court refused to recognise the argument of historical possession and continuity as a legal standing. The religious elements of the defendants’ claims were disregarded, and the Court highlighted that the case revolved around question of property law and land tenure, it was not a matter of religious liberty. Despite arguments that the religious liberty elements should be separated from the technicalities of property law, the ruling did eventually strip the Greek Orthodox Monks in Sinai from even the right of possession of certain lands. The Court’s position was furthered by the Egyptian Foreign Minister a month after the ruling, where he established that the decision does not affect in any capacity the exercise of religious freedom and does not alter the sanctity of the monastery.

As far as the Greek domestic position is concerned, in late July 2025, the Greek Parliament passed a bill which grants legal status to the Mount Sinai Monastery. The Bill intended to regulate the Monastery’s status and “to protect the historic continuity of a unique cultural centre which functions as the nucleus of peace”.[26] The Minister of Education characterises the Bill as a measure of “shielding and safeguarding the Monastery’s legal character for the first time after 15 centuries.”[27]

Protection under International law and the role of UNESCO

Egypt was amongst the first 20 countries to ratify UNESCO’s formation in 1946 and also implemented the World Heritage Convention created by the Organisation in 1972. The 1972 Convention binds all its members, including thus Egypt, and is hierarchically positioned above any domestic law, due to its higher formal force as an international law instrument. In 2002 Egypt requested the inclusion of the Saint Catherine monastery in the World Heritage list, offering it a veil of protection for its religious, spiritual and functional identity. In a contradictory manner to the current status quo, the 2002 registration of the Monastery in the World Heritage List acknowledged the Greek Orthodox Church’s ownership and its antiquities were protected by a comprehensive legal framework (such as the Protection of Antiquities Law No. 117 of 1983, the Law of Environment No. 4 of 1994, Urban harmony Law No. 114 of 2006 and Building Law No. 119 of 2008).[28] On guiding World Heritage Site Managers, the UNESCO 1972 Provisions Overview highlights that member countries shall recognise that it is “their own responsibility to safeguard the World Heritage properties in their countries … with their own resources”.[29] The Former Greek President of the Republic, in a recent statement underlined that protecting the spiritual element and the religious freedom of the Monastery is part of Egypt’s international obligation as a World Heritage Manager.[30]

The World Heritage Watch (WHW) has been continuously raising awareness about the ongoing breaches of international law vested in this Great Transifugration Project of the Saint Catherine Monastery. The World Heritage List has defined the area as one of “serenity, solitude and spirituality”; all of which elements are undeniably affected by the new developments of the Egyptian state.[31] At the 45th Session of the World Heritage Committee in 2023, UNESCO published a notice to the Egyptian state urging the halting of further action until a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was firmly researched, and the UN’s constant recommendations on environmental law violations have been ignored.[32]

The Egyptian activity has also overridden more international law tools. For example, the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, as well as the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, are statutory pieces that have been explicitly ratified by Egypt yet the state’s activity has been conflicting with them.

In interpreting the recent Court ruling and in navigating action moving forward, it is essential to emphasise the distinction between the Greek Orthodox monks’ ability to exercise religious freedom, which as the Egyptian state claims, is not a right which has been affected, and the right to property and ownership over those ancient sites. Even though the Egyptian official position has been absolute in settling that religious plurality remains protected despite changes in ownership, this does not defeat the argument that Egypt has been neglecting its obligations under international law, and UNESCO principles specifically.

It is not only the Greek government but also the WHW advocates themselves who are striving to raise action against the current situation and are accusing UNESCO of being overly ‘lenient’ with such a historically significant matter.[33] Early July, WHW sent UNESCO an Open Letter demanding that the site be recategorised in the list of the World Heritage Sites In Danger and is condemning Egypt’s official position, which is understood as ‘misleading and inconsistent.’[34]

Conclusion

The dispute over the Saint Catherine Monastery highlights the current tension between Egypt’s domestic property legal framework and its binding obligations under international law. Egyptian courts relied on the Civil Code and national statutory provisions in order to classify monastic occupation as simply a ‘religious possession’ different from ownership, and in doing so the legal system oversaw the century-long custodianship of the area. This approach conflicts with Egypt’s duties under the 1972 World Heritage UNESCO Convention which requires both the material and spiritual protection of the site. While the government maintains that religious freedom remains unaffected, the ruling initiated criticism both from the Greek government but also UNESCO itself. Saint Catherine Monastery’s fate will not only determine Egypt’s adherence to international law but will also test the current UNESCO framework which is designed to preserve cultural heritage.

About the Authors

Vivika Gerogianni is an LLB Law and Social Anthropology student at the University of Edinburgh and Sciences Po Paris. She has a strong passion for legal research and interdisciplinary analysis, with a particular interest in the ethical issues arising in art law. She is particularly drawn to questions of cultural heritage, the impact of emerging technologies on the arts, and the protection of artists’ intellectual property in the digital age.

Andrew Dearman is an undergraduate History of Art student at the Courtauld Institute in London. He previously worked in the antiquities department at Christie’s, and is currently a Summer 2025 Intern at the Center for Art Law. He is interested in cultural heritage policy, specifically the legal and ethical concerns surrounding the trade and restitution of antiquities.

Select Sources:

  1. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Saint Catherine Area, WORLD HERITAGE LIST (2002), https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/954. ↑
  2. Cases Nos. 226 & 228 of 32, Ismailia Court of Appeal, Verdict of May 28, 2025, on appeal from Judgment No. 24 of 2015 (Civil Full Court, Sharm El-Sheikh), Egypt. ↑
  3. St. Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai Monasticism (History), https://www.sinaimonastery.com/index.php/en/history/sinai-monasticism. ↑
  4. Friends of Mount Sinai Monastery, Monastery – Pilgrimage, FRIENDS OF MOUNT SINAI MONASTERY, https://www.mountsinaimonastery.org/monastery#pilgrimage. ↑
  5. St. Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai Monasticism (History), https://www.sinaimonastery.com/index.php/en/history/sinai-monasticism. ↑
  6. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Saint Catherine Area, WORLD HERITAGE LIST (2002), https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/954. ↑
  7. Mark Schrope, In the Sinai, a Global Team Is Revolutionizing the Preservation of Ancient Manuscripts, Wash. Post Mag. (Aug. 30, 2012), https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/in-the-sinai-a-global-team-is-revolutionizing-the-preservation-of-ancient-manuscripts/2012/08/30/1c203ef4-ca1f-11e1-aea8-34e2e47d1571_story.html. ↑
  8. Mohammed, Saint Catherine’s Monastery (History), https://www.sinaimonastery.com/index.php/en/history/mohammed ↑
  9. Napoleon Bonaparte, Saint Catherine’s Monastery (History), https://www.sinaimonastery.com/index.php/en/history/napoleon-bonaparte ↑
  10. The Sinai Monastery Today, Saint Catherine’s Monastery (History), https://www.sinaimonastery.com/index.php/en/history/the-sinai-monastery-today ↑
  11. Q&A on the Judicial Dispute over the Ownership of St. Catherine’s Monastery and Its Surrounding Area, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (June 23, 2025), https://eipr.org/en/press/2025/06/qa-judicial-dispute-over-ownership-st-catherines-monastery-and-its-surrounding-area ↑
  12. Ibid. ↑
  13. Ibid. ↑
  14. Ibid. ↑
  15. Ibid. ↑
  16. Ibid. ↑
  17. Ibid. ↑
  18. Egypt’s Church Construction Law (Law No. 80 of 2016) (translation, unofficial), Law 80 of 2016, Translation: Egypt’s Church Construction Law (Mar. 2017) (unofficial), https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5947e4266a49635915ac0a31/t/5bf47b38758d46657aeffeab/1542748985497/March+2017+-+Church+Construction+Law+Translation.pdf ↑
  19. Ibid. ↑
  20. Egypt’s Government Must Take Specific Measures to Guarantee the Historical Rights of Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Coptic Solidarity (June 24, 2025), https://www.copticsolidarity.org/2025/06/24/egypts-government-must-take-specific-measures-to-guarantee-the-historical-rights-of-saint-catherines-monastery/ ↑
  21. Q&A on the Judicial Dispute over the Ownership of St. Catherine’s Monastery and Its Surrounding Area, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (June 23, 2025), https://eipr.org/en/press/2025/06/qa-judicial-dispute-over-ownership-st-catherines-monastery-and-its-surrounding-area ↑
  22. Kate Fitz Gibbon, Egypt’s Great Transfiguration Project Threatens Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Cultural Property News (June 6, 2025), https://culturalpropertynews.org/egypts-great-transfiguration-project-threatens-saint-catherines-monastery/ ↑
  23. Ibid. ↑
  24. Ibid. ↑
  25. Dean Kalimniou, Explained: The Legal Battle Over Saint Catherine’s Monastery Property in Egypt, The Greek Herald (June 6, 2025), https://greekherald.com.au/community/church/explained-the-legal-battle-over-saint-catherines-monastery-property-in-egypt/. ↑
  26. Υπερψήφιση του νομοσχεδίου για τη Μονή Σινά: Ζαχαράκη — Ιστορική δικαίωση οι αναφορές, Insider.gr (date unknown), https://www.insider.gr/politiki/374536/yperpsifisi-toy-nomoshedioy-gia-ti-moni-sina-zaharaki-istoriki-dikaiosi-oi-anafores ↑
  27. Ibid. ↑
  28. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Saint Catherine Area, WORLD HERITAGE LIST (2002), https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/954. ↑
  29. ICOMOS Tourism Handbook for World Heritage Site Managers, ICOMOS, International Cultural Tourism Charter (1993), https://www.icomos.org/public/publications/93touris1.pdf ↑
  30. The International Law Legal Status of the Holy Monastery of Saint Catherine of Sinai, Hellenic Institute for Strategic Studies (June 1, 2025), https://elisme.gr/en/to-diethnous-dikaiou-nomiko-kathestos-tis-ieras-monis-agias-aikaterinis-tou-sina/ ↑
  31. Mount Sinai: A Sacred Landscape Disfigured by a Megatourism Project, World Heritage Watch (Press Release, Dec. 18, 2024), https://world-heritage-watch.org/content/mount-sinai-a-sacred-landscape-disfigured-by-a-megatourism-project/ ↑
  32. World Heritage Watch Report 2025, World Heritage Watch (e.V.) (June 24, 2025), https://savetibet.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/WHW_Report_2025_web.pdf ↑
  33. UNESCO Urged to List Saint Catherine Monastery as World Heritage Site in Danger, The Greek Herald (July 8, 2025), https://greekherald.com.au/news/unesco-urged-to-list-saint-catherine-monastery-as-world-heritage-site-in-danger/ ↑
  34. World Heritage Watch Demands St Catherine Monastery Be Designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in Danger, VEMA (July 9, 2025), https://vema.com.au/world-heritage-watch-demands-st-catherine-monastery-be-designated-a-unesco-world-heritage-site-in-danger/ ↑

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 Art Basel to launch in Qatar – the imminent rise of the art fair?
Next Room 18 should be Empty: Is a permanent loan enough to resolve the Parthenon Marbles dispute?

Related Posts

Nahmad Sentenced to One Year in Prison After Folding His Cards

May 4, 2014
logo

UN-FAIR USE

April 26, 2010

Goldin Hour: The Opioid Crisis and The Arts

October 12, 2022
Center for Art Law
Center for Art Law

Follow us on Instagram for the latest in Art Law!

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
Paul Cassier (1871-1926 was an influential Jewish Paul Cassier (1871-1926 was an influential Jewish art dealer. He owned and ran an art gallery called Kunstsalon Paul Cassirer along with his cousin. He is known for his role in promoting the work of impressionists and modernists like van Gogh and Cézanne. 

Cassier was seen as a visionary and risk-tasker. He gave many now famous artists their first showings in Germany including van Gogh, Manet, and Gaugin. Cassier was specifically influential to van Gogh's work as this first showing launched van Gogh's European career.

🔗 Learn more about the impact of his career by checking out the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalresearch #law #lawyer #artlawyer #artgallery #vangogh
No strike designations for cultural heritage are o 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. 

This presentation discusses 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 your tickets using the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #artlawyer #legalresearch #lawyer #culturalheritage #art #protection
What happens when culture becomes collateral damag What happens when culture becomes collateral damage in war?
In this episode of Art in Brief, we speak with Patty Gerstenblith, a leading expert on cultural heritage law, about the destruction of cultural sites in recent armed conflicts.

We examine the role of international courts, the limits of accountability, and whether the law can truly protect history in times of war.

We would like to also thank Rebecca Bennett for all of her help on this episode. 

 🎙️ Click the link in our bio to listen anywhere you get your podcasts.

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalresearch #artlawyer #lawyer #podcast #artpodcast #culturalheritage #armedconflict #internationallaw
Where did you go to recharge your batteries? Where did you go to recharge your batteries?
Let there be light! Center for Art Law is pleased Let there be light! Center for Art Law is pleased to share with you a work of art by Sofia Tomilenko, an illustration artist from Kyiv, Ukraine. This is Sofia's second creation for us and as her Lady Liberty plays tourist in NYC, we wish all of you peace and joy in 2026! 

Light will overcome the darkness. Світло переможе темряву. Das Licht wird die Dunkelheit überwinden. La luz vencerá la oscuridad. 

#artlaw #peace #artpiece #12to12
  • 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