Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T18:52:44.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fake or Fortune? Art Authentication Rules in the Art Market and at Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2015

Anne Laure Bandle
Anne Laure Bandle*
Affiliation:
Art-Law Centre, University of Geneva, and London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). Email: abandle@lse.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This article analyzes the dichotomy between the practices of the art market and of court judges when it comes to the authentication of works of art. While judges very much rely on experts acting in the art market, they may not necessarily pursue the same examination methods and conclusions, which can have serious repercussions on the art object and for its owner. The dichotomy unavoidably leads to the questions of what the correct assessment is and whether court judges should be conducting such examinations.

Taking account of the difficulties judges and legislators face in attempting to interfere with established art market practices, it is suggested that courts are not an adequate forum to resolve authenticity disputes. Instead, scholars and art market actors should adopt improved authentication standards and, in the event of a dispute, refer to alternative means of dispute resolution.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 22 , Issue 2-3 , August 2015 , pp. 379 - 399
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

Authentication in Art, Art and Law Work Group. 2014. “The Technical Requirements for Valid Written Expert Opinion Reports on the Authenticity of Paintings for Use by the International Art Community Privately and in Judicial Proceedings Determining the Authenticity of Paintings as a Matter of Law,”http://www.authenticationinart.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Authentication-In-Art-Congress-May-2014_Recommendations-of-Art-and-Law-Work-Group_Official-Release.pdf (accessed 27 December 2014).Google Scholar
Bandle, Anne Laure. 2015. “Sleepers—The Sale of Misattributed Artworks and Antiques at Auction.” PhD diss., University of Geneva.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandle, Anne Laure. 2014a. “Arbiters of Value—The Complexity and Dealers’ Liability in Pricing Art”. In L’art a t-il un prix? The Art of Pricing the Priceless, Studies in Art Law, Vol. 25, edited by Gabus, Pierre and Bandle, Anne Laure, 29–76. Geneva et al.: Schulthess.Google Scholar
Bandle, Anne Laure. 2014b. “Fakes, Fears, and Findings—Disputes over the Authenticity of Artworks.” Transnational Dispute Management 2, http://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=2100 (accessed 4 November 2014).Google Scholar
Becker, Joëlle. 2011. La vente aux enchères d’objets d'art en droit privé suisse: représentation, relations contractuelles et responsabilité, Studies in Art Law, Vol. 21. Geneva et al.: Schulthess.Google Scholar
Chappuis, Christine. 2007. “L’authentification d’œuvres d’art: responsabilité de l’expert et qualification du contrat en droit Suisse.” In L’expertise et l’authentification des œuvres d’art, Studies in Art Law, Vol. 19, edited by Renold, Marc-André, Gabus, Pierre, and Werra, Jacques de, 47–74. Geneva et al.: Schulthess.Google Scholar
Christ, Thomas, and Selle, Claudia von. 2012. “Basel Art Trading Guidelines. Intermediary report of a self-regulation initiative.” Working Paper Series 12, http://www.collective-action.com/sites/collective.localhost/files/publications/basel_art_trade_guidelines.pdf.Google Scholar
Duret-Robert, François. 2007. “L’authenticité des œuvres d’art dans la pratique du marché de l’art.” In L’expertise et l’authentification des œuvres d’art, Studies in Art Law, Vol. 19, edited by Renold, Marc-André, Gabus, Pierre, and Werra, Jacques de, 30–37. Geneva et al.: Schulthess.Google Scholar
Gerstenblith, Patty. 2012. “Getting Real: Cultural, Aesthetic and Legal Perspectives on the Meaning of Authenticity of Art Works.” The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 35, no. 3: 321–56.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, Tristram. 1990. Expert Evidence: Law and Practice. London: Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar
Holland, Jordan. 2012. “The Approach of the English Court to Connoisseurship, Provenance and Technical Analysis.” Art Antiquity and Law 17, no. 4: 365–75.Google Scholar
Honsell, Heinrich. 2012. “Gutachterhaftung in der Schweiz.” Conference paper presented at the Kunst & Recht Conference, Haftung von Gutachtern im Kunstrecht, Europainstitut, University of Zurich (27 November).Google Scholar
Hudson, Anthony H. 1999. “Limited Liability and the Director’s Warranties—Ojjeh v. Waller and Galerie Moderne.” Art Antiquity and Law 4, no. 3: 247–49.Google Scholar
Jornod, Jean-Pierre. 2007. “L’expert et son rôle.” In L’expertise et l’authentification des œuvres d’art, Studies in Art Law, Vol. 19, edited by Renold, Marc-André, Gabus, Pierre, and Werra, Jacques de, 13–27. Geneva et al.: Schulthess.Google Scholar
Kendall, John. 1997. “Expert Determination: Its Use in Resolving Art and Antiquity Disputes.” Art Antiquity and Law 2 no. 4: 325–30.Google Scholar
Ladd, Mason. 1952. “Expert Testimony.” Vanderbilt Law Review 5: 414–31.Google Scholar
Marino, Thomas V. 2011. “Cross-Examination of Experts.” New York County Lawyers’ Association Fourth Annual Art Litigation and Dispute Resolution Institute course material, http://www.nycla.org/index.cfm?section=CLE&page=CLE_Detail&itemID=2553&dateID=20111118.Google Scholar
Martinez, Cristina S. 2007. “The Painter’s Eye and the Lawyer’s Tongue: The Artist as a Witness.” In The Trials of Art, edited by McClean, Daniel, 105–133. London: Ridinghouse.Google Scholar
McClean, Daniel and Avanessian, Armen. 2007. “Trials of the Title: The Trials of Brancusi and Veronese.” In The Trials of Art, edited by McClean, Daniel, 37–63. London: Ridinghouse.Google Scholar
McKeown, Paul, ed. 2014. Evidence. 17th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Francis V. 2004. “Authenticating the Attribution of Art—Connoisseurship and the Law in the Judging of Forgeries, Copies, and False Attribution.” In The Expert versus the Object—Judging Fakes and False Attributions in the Visual Arts, edited by Spencer, Ronald D., 3–27. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Norman. 1992. “The Civil Liability of the Professional Appraiser or Attributer of Works of Art under English Domestic Law.” In L’expertise dans la vente d’objets d’art—Aspects juridiques et pratiques, Studies in Art Law, Vol. 1, edited by Byrne-Sutton, Quentin and Renold, Marc-André, 19–36. Zurich: Schulthess.Google Scholar
Reeves, Van Kirk. 2007. “L’expertise devant les tribunaux : expériences en France et aux USA.” In L’expertise et l’authentification des œuvres d’art, Studies in Art Law, Vol. 19, edited by Renold, Marc-André, Gabus, Pierre, and Werra, Jacques de, 39–44. Geneva et al.: Schulthess.Google Scholar
Ringe, Friederike J. 2007. “Le pouvoir de l’expert face au droit de la concurrence.” In L’expertise et l’authentification des œuvres d’art, Studies in Art Law Vol. 19, edited by Renold, Marc-André, Gabus, Pierre, and Werra, Jacques de, 135–147. Geneva et al.: Schulthess.Google Scholar
Senn, Mischa. 2013. “Kunstexperte und Kunstrichter—Das Gutachten der Experten im Urteil der Richter.” KUR 6: 171–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Ronald D. 2010. “When Experts and Art Scholars Change Their Minds.” Spencer’s Art Law Journal 1, no. 1, http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/spencer/spencers-art-law-journal6-25-10.asp#spencer.Google Scholar
Spencer, Ronald D. 2004a. “The Risk of Legal Liability for Attributions of Visual Art.” In The Expert versus the Object—Judging Fakes and False Attributions in the Visual Arts, edited by Spencer, Ronald D., 143–87. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, Ronald D. 2004b. “Authentication in Court: Factors Considered and Standards Proposed.” In The Expert versus the Object—Judging Fakes and False Attributions in the Visual Arts, edited by Spencer, Ronald D., 189–215. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tarsis, Irina. 2014. “The Shifting Sands of Art Authentication: As Calder Foundation finds itself in court again who will have the last word regarding authentication?” Center for Art Law blog, 23 April, http://itsartlaw.com/2014/04/23/shifty-art-authentication/ (accessed 27 December 2014).Google Scholar
Thaw, Eugene Victor. 2004. Interviewed by Ronald D. Spencer. “The Authentic Will Win Out.” In The Expert versus the Object—Judging Fakes and False Attributions in the Visual Arts, edited by Spencer, Ronald D., 73–77. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thévenoz, Luc. 1992. “La responsabilité de l’expert en objets d’art selon le droit suisse.” In L’expertise dans la vente d’objets d’art: Aspects juridiques et pratiques, Studies in Art Law Vol. 1, edited by Byrne-Sutton, Quentin and Renold, Marc-André, 37–65. Geneva et al.: Schulthess.Google Scholar
Von Brühl (born Ringe), Friederike Gräfin. 2008. “Marktmacht von Kunstexperten als Rechtsproblem: Der Anspruch auf Erteilung einer Expertise und auf Aufnahme in ein Werkverzeichnis.” PhD diss., University of Lausanne.Google Scholar