Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T04:37:57.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Purchasing Art in a Market Full of Forgeries: Risks and Legal Remedies for Buyers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2015

Leila Amineddoleh
Leila Amineddoleh*
Affiliation:
Galluzzo & Amineddoleh, LLP; Lawyers’ Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation; Fordham University School of Law. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Since the first lawsuit against the Knoedler Gallery was filed for selling forgeries, the art world has been abuzz with stories of high-end fakes. However, forgeries are not a new phenomenon. The law of supply and demand dictates that there will be no end to the rising value of artworks done by the hands of “masters.” And with soaring market prices, art forgery will proliferate as forgers find incentive in skyrocketing sales. At the heart of forgery disputes is the determination of authenticity. Who makes these determinations? How does the market and legal world handle a battle of experts? Moreover, what remedies are available to disappointed buyers? The best method of protection is to complete due diligence; however, the process is often complex and expensive. Even after completing due diligence, it is possible for buyers to be left with sophisticated fakes. What legal remedies are available to buyers?

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 22 , Issue 2-3 , August 2015 , pp. 419 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ayres, Ian. 1993. Mutual and Unilateral Mistake in Contract Law. Journal of Legal Studies 22, no. 2: 309–403, http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/mutual.htm (accessed 21 June 2015).Google Scholar
Brewer, John. 2009. The American Leonardo: A Tale of Obsession, Art and Money. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cheney, James, Finkelstein, Anthony, Ludäscher, Bertram, and Vansummeren, Stijn. 2012. “Principles of Provenance.” Dagstuhl Reports 2, no. 2: 84–113, http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/∼ludaesch/pubs/Dagstuhl-12091-Provenance-2012.pdf (accessed 21 June 2015).Google Scholar
Cohen, Sherri North. 2012. “Panel 1: The Process of Authentication.” The Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts 35, no. 3: 369.Google Scholar
Daab, John. 2010. “Fine Art Authentication: Where Are the Forensic Examiners?” The Forensic Examiner 19, no. 2, http://www.biomedsearch.com/article/Fine-art-authentication-where-are/228171762.html (accessed 21 November 2014).Google Scholar
Dolice, Joe L. 2003. “A History of Art Forgery.” Mystudio, http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/forgery/history/ (accessed 20 December 2014).Google Scholar
Giondonca, Joseph C. 2008. “Can Intellectual Property Laws Stem the Rising Tide of Art Forgeries?” Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 31, no. 1: 47–78.Google Scholar
Goldthwaite, Richard A. 1993. Wealth and the Demand for Art in Italy, 1300–1600. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Keats, Jonathon. 2013. Forged: Why Fakes Are the Great Art of Our Age. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, Jesse. 2001. Michelangelo. London: PRC Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
New York City Bar. 2013. “Report by the Art Law Committee Recommending Amendments to New York’s Arts and Cultural Affairs Law Related to Opinions Concerning Authenticity, Attribution and Authorship of Works of Fine Art,” http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/ArtAuthenticatorProposalArtLawReportFINAL12.19.13.pdf (accessed 21 November 2014).Google Scholar
Ram, Sudha, and Liu, Jun. 2012. “A Semantic Foundation for Provenance Management.” Journal on Data Semantics 1, no. 1: 11–17, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13740-012-0002-0#page-1 (accessed 21 June 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Carol M. 2007. Locating Renaissance Art, 15. London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Salisbury, Laney, and Sujo, Aly. 2009. Provenance: How a Con Man and a Forger Rewrote the History of Modern Art. New York: The Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Kari, Horton, Kristin, Watling, R. John, and Scoullar, Natalie. 2005. “Detecting Art Forgeries Using LA-ICP-MS Incorporating the in situ Application of Laser-based Collection Technology.” Talanta 67, no. 2: 402–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tipton, Seth. 2009. “Connoisseurship Corrected: Protecting the Artist, the Public and the Role of Art Museums through the Amendment of Vara.” Rutgers Law Review 62, no. 1: 269–303.Google Scholar
Veziroglu, Cem. “The Concept of Fundamental Breach in the CISG.” Academia, http://www.academia.edu/2537514/The_Concept_of_Fundamental_Breach_in_the_CISG (accessed 20 December 2014).Google Scholar
Wallace, Judith. 2010. “Your Art Sold at Christie’s or Sotheby’s Auction. Can the Auctioneer Undo Your Sale Years Later? Probably, Yes.” Spencer’s Art Law Journal 1, no. 1: 2–4, http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/spencer/spencers-art-law-journal4-6-10.asp (accessed 21 November 2014).Google Scholar
Worthington, Andrew C. and Higgs, Helen. 2004. “Art as an Investment: Risk, Return and Portfolio Diversification in Major Painting Markets.” Accounting and Finance 44, no. 2: 257–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar