• 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 The New York Publicity Bill, Oh Boy: A Balanced Scale for the Entertainment Industry?
Back

The New York Publicity Bill, Oh Boy: A Balanced Scale for the Entertainment Industry?

December 13, 2022

Hologram Buddy Holly performs with live musicians (thumbnail via BASE Hologram on YouTube.)

Hologram Buddy Holly performs with live musicians (thumbnail via BASE Hologram on YouTube.)

by Soleil Hawley

Have you ever wondered about the legality of performances by hologram Elvis and hologram Michael Jackson? Or that AI-generated Anthony Bourdain voice-over? How about this 2015 Audrey Hepburn commercial?

A host of legal and ethical questions are raised by cases like that of Whitney Houston, whose estate began looking for legal opinion in 2020 after a livestream hosted by record producer Scott Storch used her hologram likeness without permission. Developed in 2016 by Hologram USA, her hologram was initially intended to debut on The Voice in a duet with Christina Aguilera before going on a worldwide tour. The endeavor was shut down after Houston’s estate said “it didn’t look like Whitney.”[1] What determines fair usage and control of dead celebrities’ voices, images, and creations?

Legal Backdrop

Before December 2020, twenty-three states recognized a post-mortem right of publicity, including California, Florida, Nevada, and Texas, meaning that nearly half the country has common law or statutes that recognize the commercial property value of an individual’s image and likeness during their life and after their death. No right of publicity exists at the federal level, so this is wholly a state issue, and this balkanization leads to an extreme variance in right of publicity laws across the country. For example, the duration of the right to publicity after an artist’s death varies dramatically: 100 years in Indiana, 50 years in Texas, and 10 years in Tennessee.

Despite being the first state to enact a publicity law with the New York Civil Rights Law in 1903, New York was the 24th to implement a post-mortem component, a protection that many states have been working to include since the 1980s.[2] Former Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law amendments to the New York Publicity Bill on November 30th, 2020, ensuring that performers who are New York residents at the time of their death can be protected from nonconsensual commercial post-mortem dissemination of their image.

This development comes after years of negotiations between the Motion Picture Association (MPA), SAG-AFTRA, and other interested entities. The MPA has served as an advocate for First Amendment rights, and SAG-AFTRA has argued for the rights of performers, celebrities, their families, and their estates in this matter. Because of this compromise, updates to the New York Publicity Bill are significantly narrower than other states’ statutes when it comes to protecting artists.

Amendments to the New York Publicity Bill were introduced by its sponsors, politicians Diane Savino, Brian A. Benjamin, David Carlucci, Pete Harckham, and Robert Jackson, on May 16, 2019. After a year and a half of negotiations, the bill was passed unanimously in the New York State Senate, and won with only one dissenting vote in the New York State Assembly.[3]

This bill adds to the existing Right of Publicity statute (§ 50-f) in Chapter 6, Article 5 of the New York State Civil Rights Code (CVR) “Right of Privacy.” It “establishes the right of publicity and provides for a private right of action for unlawful dissemination or publication of a sexually explicit depiction of an individual.”[4]. Contrary to California’s right of publicity, which is supported by statutes (Cal. Civ. Code § 3344) and common law (White v. Samsung, 971 F.2d 1395, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992)) New York only has one system of Right of Publicity law.[5][6] The NY statutory regime supports a right of publicity, yet the New York Court of Appeals has held that there is no common law right of publicity in Stephano v. News Group Publications, 474 N.E.2d 580 (N.Y. 1984).[7]

In addition to the New York right of publicity only being supported by statute, the bill specifies that it won’t operate retroactively. Unlike states with retroactive right of publicity laws, the post-mortem right of publicity for those domiciled in New York at the time of their death only applies after May 29, 2021. Furthermore, recent updates to the Right of Publicity in New York only apply to commercially valuable deceased personalities, or digital replicas of the state’s legislative definition of a performer: a person for whom “gain or livelihood was regularly engaged in acting, singing, dancing, or playing a musical instrument.”[8] For claims unrelated to sexually explicit deep fakes, the commercial value of an individual’s personality at the time of their death is of key importance.

Protecting Artists and Artists’ Estates

This bill protects artists, performers, and their estates by prohibiting unauthorized uses of performers’ images, such as commercialization after death, creation of digital replicas in movies and other content, and the dissemination of deepfakes throughout the internet. It operates in two ways:

  1. Establishes a post mortem right of publicity. The commercial property value of an artist or performer’s personality and likeness is recognized and protected. For nearly two decades, SAG-AFTRA has been arguing for legislation that protects entertainers living in one of the biggest entertainment cities in the world.[9] Performers residing in New York at the time of their death are now able to have their estate manage the commercial aspects of their likeness for forty years following their death. According to Tarter Kinsky & Drogin, “monetary remedies include the greater of $2000 or compensatory damages suffered by the injured party and profits from the unauthorized use that are not included in the compensatory damages.”[10] The usual first amendment protections apply for works that are literary, musical, parody, satire, commentary, or criticism, but in New York, the legality of creating the hologram of a deceased performer and selling tickets to its concert will depend on contracts signed by the performer during their life or their estates’ decision in cases where 40 years haven’t yet passed since the performer’s death.
  2. Provides for a private right of action for unlawful dissemination or publication of a sexually explicit depiction of an individual. Deep fakes can be understood as the video form of photoshop, and this technology was initially used in movie studios to better align actors’ lip motions with dubbed audio.[11] Since the development of deep fake technology, which often uses a hyper-realistic construction of an individual’s face or body to spread misinformation, many female celebrities have been victimized by malevolent pornographic material that maps their likeness onto sex workers.[12] According to Giorgio Patrini, CEO and co-founder of Sensity, a company that detects AI-manipulated content, “Reputation attacks by defamatory, derogatory, and pornographic fake videos still constitute the majority [of deepfake videos] by 93%.”[13] The increased accessibility of deepfake technology raises questions about the spread of misinformation and the way in which facts can be verified. With this technology, anyone who has shared photos of themselves online could be victimized by AI-generated revenge porn, so the New York Publicity Bill provides a private right of action to all individuals and not just performers. A less disputed issue than the post-mortem right of publicity, this new private right of action amendment speaks to the shared concerns of first amendment advocates and those invested in the civil rights of entertainers.

Protecting First Amendment Interests

While recent changes to the New York Publicity Bill make important strides in protecting the rights of performers, these amendments also have carveout protections for the first amendment. SAG-AFTRA’s website states: “It is important to note that content creators have critical First Amendment rights to use your likeness without permission, such as for the purpose of satire, parody, commentary, criticism, biographical films and documentaries or other newsworthy or educational purposes.”[14] The statutory language of the legislation makes it clear that there are exceptions for expressive works. This bill also creates a Right of Publicity Claim Registration where “any person claiming to be a successor in interest or a licensee thereof to the rights of a deceased personality may file a claim registration.”[15] This creates a barrier (with fees and other legal requirements) to filing a claim against someone who creates audiovisual works of a deceased person, and gives notice to those who intend to use another individual’s likeness for advertising. Another way this bill balances the interests of different parties is its lack of retroactive applicability. Marilyn Monroe’s estate, for example, doesn’t have a right of action for the use of her image in advertising campaigns and the like, and her image is considered public domain despite being domiciled in New York at the time of her death. Additionally, unlike the components of this legislation that address deep-fakes, this right of publicity for deceased individuals will only apply to individuals whose likeness, image, or voice has commercial value at the time of their death or because of their death.

Implications

There are a variety of questions raised by updates to this law. For instance: what are the parameters around “commercial value?” In § 50-f (2)(a), a right of action is created for “deceased personalities” for forty years after their death. According to the bill, a “deceased personality” is a person “whose name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness has commercial value at the time of his or her death or because of his or her death,” yet commercial value itself isn’t defined within the bill.

Another question might be: who is a “deceased performer?” The statutory language makes a distinction between those whose likenesses have commercial value at the time of their death and those who have commercialized themselves during their lives as performing artists. “Deceased personalities” receive a more traditional right of publicity protection that exists in many states. “Deceased performers,” on the other hand, are uniquely protected from having their “digital replicas” commercially exploited. Unlike “deceased personalities,” “deceased performers” are defined as a person who “for gain or livelihood was regularly engaged in acting, singing, dancing, or playing a musical instrument.” Legal experts are unsure where this definition leaves retired and amateur performers, and athletes are not considered “deceased performers.”[16]

Only time will reveal all the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of these updates to the New York Publicity law. Even so, this bill strikes an important balance between the creative interests of different categories of artists. After years of negotiations, legislators have created a bill that simultaneously aims to prevent the unauthorized, exploitative use of artists’ name, image, voice, and likeness without infringing on the First Amendment rights of others, a hard balancing act indeed.

About the Author:

Soleil Hawley (Center for Art Law Graduate Intern, Fall 2022) is an early graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, where she earned her BFA as an oil painter with a minor in Art History in 2019. Since her graduation, she has worked as a research assistant at the Penn Cultural Heritage Center and runs Mixbie, a marketing company she created with friends in 2020.

Sources/Suggested Readings:

  1. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s5959
  2. Judith B. Bass, New York’s New Right of Publicity Law: Protecting Performers and Producers, New York State Bar Association, (Mar. 17, 2021), available at https://nysba.org/new-yorks-new-right-of-publicity-law-protecting-performers-and-producers/
  3. Jennifer E. Rothman, Right of Publicity State by State: New York, Rothman’s Roadmap to the Right of Publicity, available at https://rightofpublicityroadmap.com/state_page/new-york/, (last visited Dec. 11, 2022).
  4. Jonathan Faber, New York, Right of Publicity.com, available at https://rightofpublicity.com/statutes/new-york, (last visited Dec. 11, 2022).
  5. Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP, New York Enacts a Post-Mortem Right of Publicity Law and Addresses Deep Fakes, (Dec. 7, 2020), available at https://cdas.com/new-york-enacts-a-post-mortem-right-of-publicity-law-and-addresses-deep-fakes/
  6. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, New York Post-Mortem Statutory Right of Publicity Set to Take Effect, JD Supra, (Apr. 26, 2021), available at https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-york-post-mortem-statutory-right-of-8632490/
  7. Howard G. Zaharoff, IP News: Senate Bill S5959D: New York Extends Its Right of Publicity and Penalizes Sexually Explicit Deepfakes, Morse, Barnes-Brown & Pendleton, (Jan. 6, 2021), available at https://www.morse.law/news/new-york-extends-its-right-of-publicity-and-penalizes-sexually-explicit-deepfakes/
  8. Christian B. Ronald, Burdens of the Dead: Postmortem Right of Publicity Statutes and the Dormant Commerce Clause, 42 Colum. J.L. & Arts 123 (2018) Postmortem Right of Publicity Statutes and the Dormant … https://academiccommons.columbia.edu › download
  9. David Rowell, The Spectacular, Strange Rise of Music Holograms, The Washington Post, (Oct. 30, 2019), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2019/10/30/dead-musicians-are-taking-stage-again-hologram-form-is-this-kind-encore-we-really-want/
  10. Jana M. Moser, Tupac Lives! What Hologram Authors Should Know About Intellectual Property Law, American Bar Association, (Sep. 30, 2012), available at https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications/blt/2012/09/02_moser/
  11. Paige Frankel, The King of Pop’s 2014 Hologram Performance Was Legal – But This Wasn’t a Green Light for All Postmortem Hologram Concerts: A Glimpse into the Various Intellectual Property Concerns Surrounding Hologram Performances, Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, (Jan. 25, 2021), available at https://cardozoaelj.com/2021/01/25/the-king-of-pops-2014-hologram-performance-was-legal-but-this-wasnt-a-green-light-for-all-postmortem-hologram-concerts-a-glimpse-into-the-various-intellectual-property-con/
  12. Anna Rose, Whitney Houston hologram used without permission from estate, New Musical Express, (Sep. 30, 2020), available at https://www.nme.com/news/music/whitney-houston-hologram-used-without-permission-from-her-estate-2765256
  13. Peter Helman, Whitney Houston Hologram Is On The Loose, Stereogum, (Sep. 29, 2020), available at https://www.stereogum.com/2100422/whitney-houston-hologram-alki-david/news/
  14. Digital Media Law Project, California Right of Publicity Law, available at https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-right-publicity-law#:~:text=Generally%20speaking%2C%20the%20Right%20of,and%20a%20common%20law%20right, (last visited Dec. 11, 2022)
  15. New York State Department of State Division of Licensing Services, Right of Publicity Claim Registration DOS-2175-f, (last visited Dec. 11, 2022). https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/05/2175-f.pdf
  16. SAG-AFTRA, Digital Image Rights & Right of Publicity, available at https://www.sagaftra.org/get-involved/government-affairs-public-policy/digital-image-rights-right-publicity, (last visited Dec. 11, 2022)
  17. Vilius Petkauskas, Think you’ve spotted a deepfake? This tool allows you to know for sure, Cybernews.com, (Feb. 15, 2022), available at https://cybernews.com/news/think-youve-spotted-a-deepfake-this-tool-allows-you-to-know-for-sure/
  18. Ian Sample, What are deepfakes and how can you spot them?, The Guardian, (Jan. 13, 2020), available at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/13/what-are-deepfakes-and-how-can-you-spot-them
  19. Jeremy M. Norman, Video Rewrite, Origins of Deepfakes, HistoryofInformation.com, https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=4792, (last visited Dec. 11, 2022)
  20. Amy B. Goldsmith, New York State Establishes Descendible Right of Publicity, Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, (Dec. 2, 2020), available at https://www.tarterkrinsky.com/publications/new-york-state-establishes-descendible-right-of-publicity
  21. Jonathan Faber, A Concise History of the Right of Publicity, Right of Publicity.com, available at https://rightofpublicity.com/brief-history-of-rop, (last visited Dec. 11, 2022).
  22. California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 3344
  23. White v. Samsung, 971 F.2d 1395, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992)
  24. Stephano v. News Group Publications, 474 N.E.2d 580 (N.Y. 1984).

Citations:

  1. Peter Helman, Whitney Houston Hologram Is On The Loose, Stereogum, (Sep. 29, 2020), available at https://www.stereogum.com/2100422/whitney-houston-hologram-alki-david/news/ ↑
  2. Jonathan Faber, A Concise History of the Right of Publicity, Right of Publicity.com, available at https://rightofpublicity.com/brief-history-of-rop, (last visited Dec. 11, 2022). ↑
  3. Judith B. Bass, New York’s New Right of Publicity Law: Protecting Performers and Producers, New York State Bar Association, (Mar. 17, 2021), available at https://nysba.org/new-yorks-new-right-of-publicity-law-protecting-performers-and-producers/ ↑
  4. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/S5959 ↑
  5. California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 3344 ↑
  6. White v. Samsung, 971 F.2d 1395, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992) ↑
  7. Stephano v. News Group Publications, 474 N.E.2d 580 (N.Y. 1984). ↑
  8. Amy B. Goldsmith, New York State Establishes Descendible Right of Publicity, Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, (Dec. 2, 2020), available at https://www.tarterkrinsky.com/publications/new-york-state-establishes-descendible-right-of-publicity ↑
  9. Judith B. Bass, New York’s New Right of Publicity Law: Protecting Performers and Producers, New York State Bar Association, (Mar. 17, 2021), available at https://nysba.org/new-yorks-new-right-of-publicity-law-protecting-performers-and-producers/ ↑
  10. Amy B. Goldsmith, New York State Establishes Descendible Right of Publicity, Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, (Dec. 2, 2020), available at https://www.tarterkrinsky.com/publications/new-york-state-establishes-descendible-right-of-publicity ↑
  11. Jeremy M. Norman, Video Rewrite, Origins of Deepfakes, HistoryofInformation.com, https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=4792, (last visited Dec. 11, 2022) ↑
  12. Ian Sample, What are deepfakes and how can you spot them?, The Guardian, (Jan. 13, 2020), available at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/13/what-are-deepfakes-and-how-can-you-spot-them ↑
  13. Vilius Petkauskas, Think you’ve spotted a deepfake? This tool allows you to know for sure, Cybernews.com, (Feb. 15, 2022), available at https://cybernews.com/news/think-youve-spotted-a-deepfake-this-tool-allows-you-to-know-for-sure/ ↑
  14. SAG-AFTRA, Digital Image Rights & Right of Publicity, available at https://www.sagaftra.org/get-involved/government-affairs-public-policy/digital-image-rights-right-publicity, (last visited Dec. 11, 2022) ↑
  15. New York State Department of State Division of Licensing Services, Right of Publicity Claim Registration DOS-2175-f, (last visited Dec. 11, 2022). https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/05/2175-f.pdf ↑
  16. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, New York Post-Mortem Statutory Right of Publicity Set to Take Effect, JD Supra, (Apr. 26, 2021), available at https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-york-post-mortem-statutory-right-of-8632490/ ↑

 

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: The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi
Next Lensa & the Law: A Story of “Magic” or Theft?

Related Posts

A cathedral with an advertisement hung on its side facade.

Financial Crisis Leads Many European Nations to Consider Commercial Measures to Secure Restoration Funds

July 5, 2012

In Sobel v. Eggleston, Limited Edition Is NO Limit to Subsequent Editions

April 15, 2013

Twitter it or Not: Agence France Presse v. Morel Held in Favor of Photographer

March 11, 2013
Center for Art Law
Center for Art Law

Follow us on Instagram for the latest in Art Law!

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
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
  • 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