Restitution of Nazi-Looted Modigliani Painting Ends 11-Year Court Battle
A New York State Supreme Court judge has ordered the restitution of “Seated Man with a Cane” (1918) by Amedeo Modigliani to the heirs of Oscar Stettiner, a Jewish art dealer who fled Paris in 1939 as Nazi forces advanced, leaving the painting behind under duress in his gallery. Greason v. Nahmad, Index No. 650646/2014 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty., NY, filed April 3, 2026). The court found that the work was unlawfully seized during the Nazi occupation and later sold without Stettiner’s consent. The painting was purchased at auction in 1996 by International Art Center, a holding company controlled by billionaire art dealer David Nahmad, which relied on provenance presented at auction that the court later characterized as flawed and misleading for obscuring the painting’s Nazi era history. Rejecting the Nahmad defendants’ longstanding claim that the painting could not be definitively identified as the same work taken from Stettiner, the court relied on wartime seizure records, prewar exhibition history, and a 1946 French court ruling recognizing Stettiner’s ownership. Concluding that Stettiner never voluntarily relinquished the painting and that the defendants failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact, the decision ends an 11 year court battle and serves as a noteworthy example in which the court reached the merits of the Nazi-looted art claim decades after the original seizure.
President Signs Into Law Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025
President Donald Trump has signed into law the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2025 (S. 1884), a bill permanently extending and expanding judicial authority under the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016. The law, covered previously in the Art Law Bulletin, significantly expands the protections afforded claimants under the Act currently in place.
Art Commission Gone Wrong: Judy Chicago and Google
In a February 2026 Artnet essay, artist Judy Chicago recounts the collapse of a proposed major public art commission with Google tied to the redevelopment of Chicago’s James R. Thompson Center. Chicago was invited to create an ambitious, site specific installation incorporating a terrazzo floor and a decorative treatment for the building’s 17 story glass elevator shaft. Although her proposal was approved in principle and she began substantial design work—incurring travel and professional costs—the project proceeded without a finalized contract, clear specifications, or compensation. According to Chicago, repeated changes, missing architectural information, and prolonged delays ultimately led Google to abandon the commission, citing an internal construction moratorium and an inability to align on project requirements.
Because no formal commission agreement was executed, Chicago’s legal options appear limited. In the absence of a signed contract, traditional breach of contract claims would be difficult to sustain; potential recourse would more likely rest in quasi contract theories such as promissory estoppel or unjust enrichment to recover out of pocket expenses or the reasonable value of services rendered. The episode underscores a recurring risk in large public and corporate art commissions: artists who commence substantive work before key terms are memorialized may lack enforceable protections regarding payment, scope, timelines and termination. The matter serves as a cautionary reminder that clear, executed agreements are essential before embarking on complex commissioned projects.
Federal Court Confirms Recovery of Basquiat Masterpiece in Philbrick Fraud Case
A federal court has again ruled in favor of the owner of a Jean Michel Basquiat painting entangled in the wide ranging fraud perpetrated by disgraced art dealer Inigo Philbrick. Athena Art Finance Corp. v. that Certain Artwork By Jean-Michel Basquiat Entitled Humidity, 1982, in Rem, No. 20-4669 (S.D.N.Y., filed April 9, 2026). The owner had authorized Philbrick to market the work, but Philbrick instead secretly pledged the painting as collateral for a personal loan from fine art lender Athena Art Finance. When Philbrick’s fraud was uncovered, Athena refused to return the work, asserting an interest based on the loan.
The court rejected Athena’s renewed attempt to assert alternative ownership theories, holding that those arguments were waived because they were not timely raised. Consistent with earlier rulings, the court reaffirmed the core principle that a borrower cannot grant a security interest in property he does not own. The decision clears the way for the painting’s return to the owner who consigned it to Philbrick and underscores the title and due diligence risks faced by lenders accepting artwork as collateral in art market transactions.
Landmark Ownership Resolution for Works by Enslaved Potter David Drake
The resolution arose from provenance research undertaken during the MFA’s 2023 exhibition Hear Me Now: The Black Potters of Old Edgefield, South Carolina, which prompted dialogue with Drake’s descendants about the legality and ethics of title to works created by enslaved artists. Both vessels—commonly known as the “Poem Jar” and the “Signed Jar”—were made for the benefit of Drake’s enslaver and could not legally or practically have been owned by Drake at the time of their creation. The MFA characterized the agreement as the first instance in which it has resolved an ownership claim for U.S. artworks wrongfully taken under slavery, explicitly applying restitution principles similar to those used in Holocaust era claims. Coverage in the Boston Globe emphasized the agreement’s broader significance as a potential precedent in American art law, reframing enslaved artists as the original rightful owners of their works despite historical legal regimes that denied their personhood and property rights. Legal advocates for Drake’s descendants described the resolution as recognition that slavery created a broken chain of title, while museum officials framed the outcome as an ethical rather than court mandated restitution, signaling how museums may address comparable claims involving art created under coercive conditions.
Amicus Brief Challenges Legality of Proposed “Independence Arch” in Lemmon v. Trump
In Lemmon v. Trump, members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate filed an amicus brief supporting plaintiffs’ effort to block construction of a large monument—commonly referred to as the “Independence Arch”—planned for Memorial Circle near Arlington National Cemetery. Lemmon v. Trump, No. 26-00544 (D.D.C., filed March 5, 2026). The amici argue that the project violates the Commemorative Works Act (CWA) and related federal statutes by proceeding without explicit congressional authorization, which is a mandatory prerequisite for erecting commemorative works on federal land in the District of Columbia.
The brief emphasizes Congress’s longstanding and exclusive role in approving monuments and memorials, underscoring that executive branch agencies lack independent authority to construct such works absent statutory approval. Drawing on legislative history and past monument approvals, the amici contend that the CWA was designed to prevent unilateral, rushed or politically motivated construction projects that could permanently alter historically and symbolically significant public spaces. According to the brief, allowing the proposed arch to proceed would undermine congressional primacy and set a precedent eroding democratic oversight of the nation’s commemorative landscape.
From an art law perspective, the amicus filing situates monument siting and public art within a strict statutory framework, reinforcing that cultural heritage projects on federal land implicate not only aesthetics and historical meaning, but also separation of powers principles and property governance. The case highlights how public art, memorial architecture, and landscape interventions remain subject to rigorous legal controls—particularly when they intersect with nationally significant sites and narratives.
AI Art and Copyright After Thaler v. Perlmutter
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Thaler v. Perlmutter, drawing renewed attention to the case but changing very little for artists using AI tools. Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 25-449 (U.S., issued March 2, 2026). By declining review, the Court left in place the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that copyright protection requires human authorship, and that works created entirely autonomously by AI are not registrable under U.S. copyright law.
The Thaler case addressed a narrow question. Stephen Thaler sought copyright registration for an artwork he asserted was created autonomously by his AI system, the Creativity Machine, with no human involvement, and asked that the machine be listed as the sole author. At every level, the Copyright Office and the courts rejected that claim, emphasizing that U.S. copyright law protects works of human authorship only. The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits; it simply declined to intervene.
Importantly, Thaler does not resolve the far more common scenario in which humans and AI collaborate. That distinction is central to a separate lawsuit brought by Colorado artist Jason Allen, whose AI assisted work, “Space Opera,” was created using more than 600 prompts on Midjourney. Allen argues that his sustained creative control and artistic judgment distinguish his work from Thaler’s fully autonomous AI output.
Consistent with that distinction, the Copyright Office continues to allow registration of works with AI contributions, provided the AI generated elements are disclaimed and protection is limited to the human authored components. The unresolved legal question—how much human input is enough—remains the key battleground for future AI art disputes.
