The complaint then introduces the Torlonia family, a line of Italian nobles who, during the 18th and 19th centuries, amassed a stunning collection of hundreds of pieces of classical sculpture and other artworks.  The collection has mostly been kept out of public view for decades, despite pressure from the Italian government on the current Torlonia family members to make the collection publicly available.  According to the plaintiffs, they learned through other dealers that parts of the Torlonia collection might be up for sale.  At some point, the plaintiffs (through Phoenix’s agent, Electrum) began working with the Torlonia family to catalogue the collection, a daunting task that allegedly included years of work photographing and researching, as well as developing relationships with both the family and relevant Italian authorities.  The plaintiffs’ ultimate goal was not just to help with the cataloguing in preparation for a sale, but to be involved in brokering that sale; thus, they say, they kept their research “under reasonable security measures” and treated as trade secrets their knowledge of the collection, and their relationships with key players connected to the collection.
More typically, provenance will be scrutinized where questions of authenticity arise. A few years back, an issue arose concerning the authenticity of a century-old sculpture attributed to a 20th-century artist of iconic stature. The work was sold to a prominent collector through an auction house with a certificate of authenticity from a qualified and appropriately-credentialed scholar of the artist’s work. According to the provenance provided at the time of sale, the work had been acquired in Paris after World War II by an art history professor from an Ivy League university. When questions of authenticity arose several years later, an Internet search and a few telephone calls to the university revealed that no such art history professor ever existed. Also left off the provenance was the fact that just months prior to the multi-million dollar sale to the prominent collector, the work had been purchased from an obscure antique store owned and operated by someone who had served jail time for art insurance fraud. Had these “errors and omissions” in the provenance been discovered at the time of the sale, the sale itself and several years of costly litigation would have been avoided.
In an effort to make the legal climate more hospitable to individuals and organizations providing art authentication services, since early 2015 the New York State Legislature has been considering legislation3  that would offer a degree of protection for art authentication opinions by limiting the legal liability of authenticators offering those opinions.4  The high costs of lawsuits coming out of these determinations have been cited by several prominent art authentication boards as the primary reason for their elimination of authentication services.  Given that the authentication of a work plays an integral role of the purchase and sale of fine art, this legislation is aimed at incentivizing art authenticators to continue their work in New York.
The Art Dealers Association of America (ADAA), a non-profit organization in New York, was ahead of its time in the early 1960s when it established perhaps the first art theft registry (a list of paintings known to have been stolen) not maintained by a law enforcement agency or an insurance company. The registry allowed ADAA members to determine if works brought to them had been reported missing by their owners.
“I write computer algorithms, i.e. rules that calculate and then generate a work that could not be realized in any other way. It is not necessarily the system or the logic I want to present in my work, but the visual invention that results from it. My artistic goal is reached when a finished work can visually dissociate itself from its logical content and convincingly stand as an independent abstract entity.”

The complaint, which seeks the return of the painting, alleges substantive claims for conversion; replevin; constructive trust; declaratory relief; restitution base on unjust enrichment; and two counts of breach of contract against third-party beneficiary (relating to museum and international provenance guidelines and requirements).  Background regarding the lawsuit can be found here.
The exquisite painted limestone bust of Nefertiti, Akhenaten’s wife, was discovered in 1912 by the German archaeologist Ludwig Borchardt, who claimed to have done a deal with Egypt to share rights to half his findings; it entered Berlin’s Egyptian Museum in 1923 (it’s now in the Neues Museum). But a recent document suggests Borchardt lied about the sculpture’s composition and true value in order to keep his most treasured discovery. Egypt has requested its return since 1933; Germany insists its ownership is not in doubt. In 2009 two historians claimed – to widespread outrage – that the great beauty queen was a fake.
Meyer’s amended complaint, which can be found here, names as defendants the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma; David Boren, the University’s President, who is named in both his individual capacity and his capacity as President of the University; the University of Oklahoma Foundation; several New York art galleries and related entities; and the American Alliance of Museums and the Association of Art Museum Directors.

on April 21, 2018 I will be contacting the Federal Trade commission as well. I just returned from a cruise this month. And already attempted to cancel. After 6 calls, 4 different CSR for a week at Park West and a big run around I am now awaiting my "1 to 2 billing cycles" to get a credit. However, from all I found online, it is sketchy I will. As well the cruise line acted surprised this is taking place on their ships. I find that a bit surprising and sketchy too. Maybe if they were to get a class action too for partaking in collecting the money for park West on sign and sail accounts, things would change.

That issue will be decided in the trial of a high-profile lawsuit against the Knoedler Gallery and its former director Ann Freedman scheduled to begin on January 25th. They are alleged to have knowingly sold some $60 million in fake Abstract Expressionist paintings in a massive scandal that shook the art world. It’s undisputed that Knoedler sold fakes, but the defendants deny wrongdoing; they say they too were duped.
The complaint then introduces the Torlonia family, a line of Italian nobles who, during the 18th and 19th centuries, amassed a stunning collection of hundreds of pieces of classical sculpture and other artworks.  The collection has mostly been kept out of public view for decades, despite pressure from the Italian government on the current Torlonia family members to make the collection publicly available.  According to the plaintiffs, they learned through other dealers that parts of the Torlonia collection might be up for sale.  At some point, the plaintiffs (through Phoenix’s agent, Electrum) began working with the Torlonia family to catalogue the collection, a daunting task that allegedly included years of work photographing and researching, as well as developing relationships with both the family and relevant Italian authorities.  The plaintiffs’ ultimate goal was not just to help with the cataloguing in preparation for a sale, but to be involved in brokering that sale; thus, they say, they kept their research “under reasonable security measures” and treated as trade secrets their knowledge of the collection, and their relationships with key players connected to the collection.
We have continuously followed stories in the news and in the courts about the continuing efforts of the art market to deal with the problem of forgeries.  From the Knoedler scandal to the concerns about counterfeit Old Masters being peddled on the European market, this issue is clearly not going away anytime soon.  Today, we take note of developments in three more cases that shine a spotlight on this ongoing challenge.
Spanish Civil Guards carry a box containing Picasso's painting "Head of a Young Woman" at the Reina Sofia museum in Madrid after being transferred from the French island of Corsica, on August 11, 2015. The Picasso worth more than 25 million euros and owned by the Spanish banker Jaime Botin, was transferred to Reina Sofia museum today after it was seized from a yacht on July 31 by French customs agents who accused the painting's owner of trying to illegally export it to Switzerland. AFP PHOTO / GERARD JULIENGERARD JULIEN/AFP/Getty ImagesGERARD JULIEN / AFP - Getty Images
×