• 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
      • 2025
    • Internship and Fellowship
    • Judith Bresler Fellowship
  • Case Law Database
  • 2025 Year-End Appeal
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
  • 2025 Year-End Appeal
  • 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
      • 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 The Legal, Ethical, and Practical Dimensions of Removing Confederate Monuments
Back

The Legal, Ethical, and Practical Dimensions of Removing Confederate Monuments

October 28, 2023

(Image Credit: The Confederate Memorial Carving, Stone Mountain, Georgia © VOA News)

By Stephanie Nicole Argueta

Introduction

Since the protests surrounding the death of George Floyd and Briana Taylor, many people within our nation have chosen to look inward to evaluate the historical mistreatment of people of color in this country. One such aspect of our country that many have chosen to reevaluate is the display of many Confederate statues across the country. Since 2020, the removal of Confederate monuments from public and private land has become a contentious and highly debated issue in the United States. These monuments, which commemorate figures from the Confederacy, have sparked a nationwide conversation about their historical significance, the discourse surrounding their removal, and the various solutions that can be pursued to address their historically oppressive past. But what does it truly take to remove one of these monuments? Can public backlash be enough to have these monuments removed or must something else be done? Do we lose anything from removing these monuments?

Legality of Removing Confederate Monuments

When looking at the legality surrounding the removal of Confederate monuments, it is a complex issue that is a case by case situation. When evaluating the possibilities one may have for requesting the removal of a Confederate monument, the issues relating to property law, first amendment law, and general personal protections come into play. This is due to the fact that many monuments are built on privately owned land or publicly owned land. This distinction is important to note because of the applicable laws that are relevant to the owner of the land in which the monument is located. This is then further complicated by the fact that some monuments were built not by public funding but rather private investors. This, coupled with each citizen’s first amendment right to free speech, creates the complicated nature of the removal of confederate monuments.

Monuments that are on publicly owned land and are publicly funded fall under the jurisdiction of local and state governments and are also governed by state property and cultural preservation laws. [1] In recent years, several states have enacted laws protecting Confederate monuments, making their removal more challenging. For example, in North Carolina, a 2015 law prohibits the removal or relocation of monuments on public property without the approval of the North Carolina Historical Commission.[2] Such laws have triggered legal battles over the authority of local governments to decide the fate of these monuments. One such legal battle was seen in the state of North Carolina, in Soc’y for the Hist. Pres. of the Twentysixth N.C. Troops, Inc. v. City of Asheville, the city government ordered the removal of the Zebulon Baird Vance Monument but was met by intense opposition by the plaintiff who filed a breach of contract claim, sought out a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction, and declaratory judgment.[3] The plaintiffs attempted to use the North Carolina Historical Commission as a form of relief for their case, however the Court of Appeals in North Carolina went in favor of the city because the plaintiff failed to show that they actually suffered some kind of injury since it was unknown who actually owned the monument. [4] As of right now, the plaintiffs have appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, and they are waiting to begin oral arguments.[5]

On private property, the legality of removal is generally less clear-cut because of the complexities that arise when discussing the transfer of ownership. Property owners have the right to decide what is displayed on their land, but they may face backlash from the community or preservationists. One such example of a complex relationship of private land and monuments was a sculpture built in Stone Mountain, Georgia on land owned by the U​​nited Daughters of the Confederacy.[6] The mountain on which the monument was carved into was owned by segregationist Marvin Griffin and depicted three confederate leaders, including Robert E. Lee.[7] However, after years of backlash, the state purchased the mountain.[8] However, since this purchase, the monument still remains due to the fact that in Georgia there have been various cultural preservation laws that have passed which allows monuments such as this one to remain intact.[9]

Another such example of the complexities surrounding ownership of land with regards to Confederate monuments is the one outside of Nashville, Tennessee that honors Nathan Bedford Forrest, a confederate soldier and the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.[10] It was a 25-foot statue with Confederate flags around it that was installed in the 1990s by an individual on their property and which could be easily seen from the local highway.[11] Around the 2010s, many politicians and citizens voiced their frustrations with the statue being so visible and thus resulted in a petition to the Department of Transportation to plant foliage to block the statue.[12] The petition was then denied, and not long after, many people took matters into their own hands and began to vandalize the statue.[13] The owner of the statue eventually passed away in 2020, and in 2021, the executor of the estate chose to remove the statue, giving a list of reasons for its removal, including that the statue itself was “ugly”.[14] One major reason as to why the monument had stayed for so long is because the statue is protected under the Visual Artist Rights Act (VARA). VARA, which was enacted in the 90s, protects the moral rights of visual artists by protecting the works of art of these artists from getting destroyed by different entities.[15] The use of VARA makes the situation here in Tennessee different than in Georgia, because VARA is only applicable for works made after 1991.[16] Since the carving in Georgia was finished in the 1970s it is less likely to apply. However, this statue was erected in the 1990s after the implementation of VARA and the original artist had more protections over his work being damaged than others would. It is essential to navigate the delicate balance between property rights and the broader societal impact of maintaining Confederate monuments, especially when they promote values associated with slavery, racism, and oppression.

The Discourse Surrounding Monument Removal

The discourse surrounding the removal of Confederate monuments is multifaceted, reflecting a wide range of perspectives. Proponents of removal argue that these monuments symbolize a dark period in American history and glorify individuals who fought to preserve slavery and white supremacy. They contend that these monuments serve as painful reminders of oppression for African Americans and other marginalized communities. After 2020, the Black Lives Matter movement and heightened awareness of systemic racism have amplified these voices and led to renewed calls for removal. Conversely, opponents of removal often argue that these monuments represent an important part of American history and should be preserved for educational purposes. They contend that removing these monuments erases history and amounts to “canceling culture.” Some argue that it is better to contextualize the monuments with plaques or educational programs to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the Civil War and its implications. Additionally, the discourse includes discussions about the role of symbolism in society. Some argue that symbols like Confederate monuments can perpetuate racist attitudes and behaviors, while others maintain that they are harmless relics of a bygone era. The debate over the interpretation of these symbols further complicates the discourse.

Solutions Surrounding Confederate Monuments

To address the historically oppressive past associated with Confederate monuments, several solutions can be considered:

**Removal and Relocation**

In cases where it is legally possible, the removal and relocation of Confederate monuments to museums, cemeteries, or other appropriate settings can be an effective solution. This approach preserves historical artifacts while removing them from public spaces that may perpetuate hurtful ideologies. One ongoing example of confederate monument removal and relocation is going on in Arlington, Virginia. In this situation the Arlington National Cemetery has a large confederate statue that Congress has required to be removed and relocated to another space that the public has been asked to vote on. [17]

(Image Credit: The Confederate Memorial, Arlington, Virginia © Arlington National Cemetery)
Image Credit: The Confederate Memorial, Arlington, Virginia © Arlington National Cemetery

**Contextualization**

For monuments that remain in place, contextualization is crucial. This involves adding plaques or educational materials that provide a balanced historical perspective, acknowledging the monument’s origins and the context in which it was erected. This is particularly relevant for monuments located in states that have prohibited their removal. Once such state in which this occurred was in Georgia. In 2019, an Atlanta committee began the process of putting up placards on many confederate monuments across the city to contend with the “Lost Cause” narrative that has been prevalent in the south for years with regards to the Civil War.[18]

**Community Dialogue and Education**

Engaging in open and inclusive community dialogues about Confederate monuments can help build consensus on their fate. Educating the public about the historical context of these monuments and their impact on marginalized communities can lead to informed decision-making. The residents of Fairfax, Virginia engaged in this complex conversation during the pandemic in which the City Counsel led a conversation about the issues surrounding the confederacy’s long and hurtful relationship to the Black community.[19]Further the City Counsel has created a virtual space in which residents can engage more with the deeper questions of inequality and racism so that they can understand the reasons why the confederate south was so bad.[20]

**Legal Reform**

Advocates for removal can work to repeal or amend laws that protect Confederate monuments and vice versa. This approach requires political mobilization and legal efforts to change the legal landscape. This has taken on many forms but the most successful example of legal reform took place during the pandemic. In July of 2020, the House of Representatives were presented with the possibility of removing a bust of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney from the Old Supreme Court Chamber in the Capitol Building.[21] The original proposal was to replace not only the bust the bust with one of Justice Thurgood Marshal, but as well any statues or busts of figures who supported the confederacy.[22] It passed in the House and was pending in the Senate for a little bit, but in 2022, President Biden signed the bill to remove the bust.[23] However, through all this, there was still much opposition towards the removal with a total of 113 Republicans voting Nay to the removal of the bust.[24] One member of congress who has voiced his disagreement with the bill was Rep. David McKinley, who took issue with the fact that confederate statues and busts that were sent from individual states, including West Virginia, would be removed.[25] In his eyes this bill was infringing on states rights and thus influenced him to vote against the bill.[26]

Conclusion

The removal of Confederate monuments from both public and private land presents complex legal, ethical, and practical challenges. The discourse surrounding these monuments is emblematic of larger conversations about history, symbolism, and racial injustice in the United States. While there is no one-size-fits-all solution, it is crucial to address the historically oppressive past associated with these monuments in a way that respects the rights and sensitivities of all citizens. Whether through removal, contextualization, public art, community dialogue, or legal reform, the ultimate goal should be to promote a more inclusive and just society.

Suggested Readings

Deborah R. Gerhardt, Law in the Shadows of Confederate Monuments,27 Mich. J. Race & L. 1 (2021)

Jessica Owley,Jess Phelps & Sean W. Hughes, Private Confedrate Monuments, 25 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 253 (2021)

Timmerman, Travis (2020). A Case for Removing Confederate Monuments. In Bob Fischer (ed.), Ethics, Left and Right: The Moral Issues that Divide Us. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 513-522.

Jessica Owley & Jess Phelps, The Life and Death of Confederate Monuments,68 Buffalo L. Rev. 1393 (2020)

About the Author:

Stephanie Nicole Argueta is a second year law student at Brooklyn Law School. She received her B.A. in Political Science from CUNY Brooklyn Law School. Growing up as a first generation Latina in New York City she grew a deep passion for issues like cultural preservation in immigrant communities and artistic expression for many minority communities, thus influencing her decision to attend law school.

Sources and Citations:

  1. Understanding the Complicated Landscape of Civil War Monuments, 93 Ind. L.J. Supp. 15, 18 ↑
  2. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-62 ↑
  3. Soc’y for the Hist. Pres. of the Twenty Sixth N.C. Troops, Inc. v. City of Asheville, 282 N.C. App. 701, 701 (2022) ↑
  4. Id. at 706-07, ↑
  5. Sarah Honosky, NC Supreme Court will take up lawsuit over removal of downtown Asheville’s Vance Monument, Dec.29, 2022, https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2022/12/29/nc-supreme-court-takes-up-suit-on-asheville-removal-of-vance-monument/69761539007/ ↑
  6. Legal experts say removal of Confederate monuments a complex, lengthy undertaking, Nov. 2019, https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2019/november-2019/legal-experts-say-removal-of-confederate-monuments-a-complex–le/ ↑
  7. Claire Haley, Stone Mountain: Carving Fact from Fiction, Nov. 18, 2022, https://www.atlantahistorycenter.com/blog/stone-mountain-a-brief-history/#:~:text=The%20original%20idea%20for%20a,side%20of%20the%20 granite%20 mountain. ↑
  8. Legal experts say removal of Confederate monuments a complex, lengthy undertaking, Nov. 2019, https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2019/november-2019/legal-experts-say-removal-of-confederate-monuments-a-complex–le/ ↑
  9. Claire Haley, Stone Mountain: Carving Fact from Fiction, Nov. 18, 2022, https://www.atlantahistorycenter.com/blog/stone-mountain-a-brief-history/#:~:text=The%20original%20idea%20for%20a,side%20of%20the%20granite%20mountain. ↑
  10. ARTICLE: Understanding the Complicated Landscape of Civil War Monuments, 93 Ind. L.J. Supp. 15, 22 ↑
  11. Id. ↑
  12. Id. ↑
  13. Id. ↑
  14. Nick Beres, Nathan Bedford Forrest statue along I-65 removed after more than 2 decades, Dec. 7, 2021, https://www.newschannel5.com/news/nathan-bedford-forrest-statue-along-i-65-being-removed-after-more-than-2-decades ↑
  15. 17 U.S.C. § 106A(a)(3)(b) ↑
  16. 17 U.S.C. § 106A(d) ↑
  17. Removal of the confederate memorial, Arlington National Cemetery. https://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/About/Confederate-Memorial-Removal ↑
  18. https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/us/atlanta-confederate-monuments-context/index.html ↑
  19. https://patch.com/virginia/fairfaxcity/city-engaged-community-dialogue-over-its-confederate-legacy ↑
  20. id. ↑
  21. Ashley Ahn, Congress votes to remove a bust of the Dred Scott decision’s author from the Capitol, Dec. 15, 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/12/15/1143113389/capitol-remove-roger-taney-dred-scott-statue#:~:text=Hourly%20News-,Congress%20votes%20to%20remove%20bust%20of%20former%20Justice%20Roger%20Taney,serve%20on%20the%20high%20court. ↑
  22. H. R. 3005, 117th Cong. (2021) ↑
  23. Amy B Wang and Marianna Sotomayor, Biden signs bill to remove bust of Dred Scott decision author from Capitol, Dec. 27, 2022 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/14/dred-scott-taney-bust-slavery/ ↑
  24. Bryan Metzger, Congress passed a bill removing a bust from the Capitol of the Supreme Court justice who authored an infamous decision denying citizenship to Black Americans, Dec 14, 2022, https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-passes-bill-removing-bust-dred-scott-roger-taney-slavery-2022-12 ↑
  25. WEST VIRGINIA’S THREE U.S. HOUSE REPS VOTE AGAINST REMOVING CONFEDERATE STATUES FROM CAPITOL, Jun. 30, 2021, https://mooney.house.gov/west-virginias-three-u-s-house-reps-vote-against-removing-confederate-statues-from-capitol/#:~:text=3005%2C%20Kenna’s%20statue%20would%20be,decided%20to%20vote%20against%20H.R. ↑
  26. Id. ↑

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 The Krater in Her Cupboard: Shelby White and the Grey Side of Private Antiquities Collections
Next 25 Years of the Washington Principles: The Strides and Stumbles in Reclaiming Nazi-Confiscated Art

Related Posts

Artist Vending Rules in NYC

February 12, 2011
logo

Koons’ Balloons

January 7, 2011

WYWH: Federal Bar Association’s Art Law & Litigation Conference

February 26, 2019
Center for Art Law
Sofia Tomilenko Let there be light!

A Gift for Us

this Holiday Season

Thank you to Sofia Tomilenko (the artist from Kyiv, Ukraine who made this Lady Liberty for us) and ALL the artists who make our life more meaningful and vibrant this year! Let there be light in 2026!

 

Last Gift of 2025
Guidelines AI and Art Authentication

AI and Art Authentication

Explore the new Guidelines for AI and Art Authentication for the responsible, ethical, and transparent use of artificial intelligence.

Download here
Center for Art Law

Follow us on Instagram for the latest in Art Law!

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
Writing during the last days and hours of the year Writing during the last days and hours of the year is de rigueur for nonprofits and what do we get?

Subject: Automatic reply: Thanks to Art Law! 

"I am now on leave until January 5th. 
. . .
I will respond as soon as I can upon on my return. For anything urgent you may contact ..."

Well, dear Readers, Students, Artists and Attorneys, we see you when you're working, we know when you're away, and we promise that in 2026 Art Law is coming to Town (again)!

Best wishes for 2026, from your Friends at the Center for Art Law!

#fairenough #snowdays #2026ahead #puttingfunback #fundraising #EYO2025
Less than a week left in December and together we Less than a week left in December and together we have raised nearly $32,000 towards our EOY fundraising $35,000 goal. If we are ever camera shy to speak about our accomplishments or our goals, our work and our annual report speak for themselves. 

Don’t let the humor and the glossy pictures fool you, to reach our full potential and new heights in 2026, we need your vote of confidence. No contribution is too small. What matters most is knowing you are thinking of the Center this holiday season. Thank you, as always, for your support and for being part of this community! 

#artlaw #EOYfundraiser #growingin2026 #AML #restitution #research #artistsright #contracts #copyright #bringfriends
This summer, art dealer James White and appraiser This summer, art dealer James White and appraiser Paul Bremner pleaded guilty for their participation in the third forgery ring of Norval Morisseau works uncovered by Canadian authorities. Their convictions are a key juncture in Canda's largest art fraud scheme, a scandal that has spanned decades and illuminated deep systemic failures within the art market to protect against fraud. 

Both White and Bremner were part of what is referred to as the 'Cowan Group,' spearheaded by art dealer Jeffrey Cowan. Their enterprise relied on Cowan fabricating provenance for the forged works, which he claimed were difficult to authenticate. 

In June, White, 87, pleaded guilty to to creating forged documents and possessing property obtained by crime for the purpose of trafficking. Later, in July, Paul Bremner pleaded guilty to producing and using forged documents and possessing property obtained through crime with the intent of trafficking. While Bremner, White, and Cowan were all supposed to face trial in the Fall, Cowan was the only one to do so and was ultimately found guilty on four counts of fraud. 

🔗 Click the link in our bio to read more.

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalresearch #artfraud #artforgery #canada #artcrime #internationallaw
It's the season! It's the season!
In 2022, former art dealer Inigo Philbrick was sen In 2022, former art dealer Inigo Philbrick was sentenced to seven years in prison for committing what is considered one of the United States' most significant cases of art fraud. With access to Philbrick's personal correspondence, Orlando Whitfield chronicled his friendship with the disgraced dealer in a 2024 memoir, All that Glitters: A Story of Friendship, Fraud, and Fine Art. 

For more insights into the fascinating story of Inigo Philbrick, and those he defrauded, read our recent book review. 

🔗 Click the link in our bio to read more!

#centerforartlaw #legalresearch #artlaw #artlawyer #lawer #inigophilbrick #bookreview #artfraud
The highly publicized Louvre heist has shocked the The highly publicized Louvre heist has shocked the globe due to its brazen nature. However, beyond its sheer audacity, the heist has exposed systemic security weaknesses throughout the international art world. Since the theft took place on October 19th, the French police have identified the perpetrators, describing them as local Paris residents with records of petty theft. 

In our new article, Sarah Boxer explores parallels between the techniques used by the Louvre heists’ perpetrators and past major art heists, identifying how the theft reveals widespread institutional vulnerability to art crime. 

🔗 Click the link in our bio to read more!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legalresearch #artcrime #theft #louvre #france #arttheft #stolenart
  • 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.