What more can be said about art law in 2024? While developments might feel less transformational than in previous years, the past 12 months have offered some very important shifts that, at a distance, reveal themselves to be highly significant. This is certainly true in relation to artificial intelligence, copyright, restitution and heritage protection around the world. Let’s consider them each in turn.

We begin with AI, in many ways the topic of the year. Its impact has been felt in legal, academic and political circles, but also in our daily lives thanks to platforms like ChatGPT and Dall-E. In June, the EU Parliament and Council passed a bold new regulation that will begin to apply throughout the EU over the next three years, referred to quite simply as the ‘AI Act’. A little further behind, the UK Government has now announced a consultation on AI and copyright (closing 25 February 2025), which appears to be leaning in a similar direction.

The ‘scraping’ of content to train generative AI systems continues to cause concern for copyright owners, with litigation ongoing in multiple jurisdictions. For our blog’s coverage of the developments, see here and here, as well as the comprehensive two-part article by Pierre Valentin, Stephanie Drawdy and Eloise Calder published in the latest issues of Art Antiquity and Law. Our Assistant Director Emily Gould is a recognised expert on the topic, and addressed the European Registrars Conference in November and, more recently, spoke to Richard Harwood and Clarissa Levi on the Contested Heritage podcast.

Also on the copyright front, the UK museum sector has had a fair amount of argy-bargy around museum photography of collection objects, a perennial issue dating back (at least) to the Bridgeman/Corel litigation of 1998-99. A decision from November of last year, THJ v Sheridan, caused a stir when its potential impact was flagged by Bendor Grosvenor in his Art Newspaper column: are museums no longer able to rely on copyright to control re-use (by academics, publishers and others) of their photos of two-dimensional public domain works in their collections? Several outfits have sought to clarify the legal position and THJ’s impact, if any, on the museum sector (Creative Commons, the Association for Cultural Enterprises, etc). Emily has provided a helpful primer here. In other countries, the approach will be different: for instance, in the US, it is fairly settled that copyright does not subsist in mere photos of 2D works.

The most important judicial decision(s) for the artistic community this year – more for symbolic value than as precedent – involved the appropriation artist Richard Prince, who had been sued in US District Court by two photographers (Donald Graham and Eric McNatt) in separate claims back in 2015-16. In January, two judgments were registered in favour of the plaintiffs. This marked the final resolution of a longstanding dispute relating to Prince’s use of photographic images in two of his artworks without rightholder consent. It was the first time final judgments were obtained against the artist (he often settles, and Cariou v Prince was overturned on appeal), resulting in a resounding victory for the photographers. We reported on it in February and want to draw attention to a revealing interview given by one of the successful photographers (Donald Graham) about the arduous judicial process and his eventual victory here.

Still on copyright, the year 2024 had been heralded in the media as the year Mickey was freed… A great fuss was made about the figure of Mickey Mouse, who had first appeared in the black-and-white film Steamboat Willy in 1928, entering the public domain. As reported by Chiara Gallo, this is only half true: the situation only pertains to American copyright protection, which lasts 95 years from the end of the year of first publication (1928), thus expiring on 31 Dec 2023; and the expiry relates only to Mickey’s appearance in that particular film (no colour, no gloves, etc). So for many of us, it’s likely we’ll have to wait some time before the figure we all know is truly in the public domain for good.

Speaking of public domain, it’s evident that Italy has a very particular way of protecting images of its most important cultural artefacts, most of which are hundreds of years old. The Italian Code of Cultural Heritage, while not specifically bestowing perpetual copyright, does something quite similar by requiring permission and fees for the commercial use of images of important cultural objects in Italian institutions. Museums and the Ministry of Culture have sought to enforce this rule against foreign companies, and the Italian courts have generally complied. But this year, a German court refused to follow an Italian judgment against the puzzle company Ravensburger within Germany. The question now is whether the matter will escalate to a European court. For instance, it would be helpful for the Court of Justice of the EU to once and for all assess the Italian rule, which is an anomaly in the EU – and indeed globally.

The theme of Italy seeking extra-jurisdictional enforcement of its heritage laws is not limited to this particular string of cases. It also played out this year at the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the ‘Victorious Youth’ statue held at the Getty Museum in Malibu, California. After its discovery in the Adriatic Sea by Italian fishermen in the 1960s (almost certainly in international waters), the sculpture was taken out of the country and sold to the Getty Trust in 1977. Thirty years after the purchase, the Italian prosecutor brought a case for its return in 2007 through the Italian courts, winning at every step of the way. The Getty sought assistance from the European Court, which in May this year approved of Italy’s approach in a lengthy decision of 409 paragraphs. There are astonishing elements to this judgment in relation to international cultural heritage protection, due diligence and the trade in antiquities, but some parts were left tantalisingly under-explained.

On other heritage matters, after many years of organised resistance by archeology groups, including a successful judicial review in 2021, the new UK Government decided to dump plans for the A303 tunnel beneath Stonehenge (prior to this, our Rebecca Hawkes Reynolds had been following the story closely). Certain sites like Stonehenge are invested with so much meaning for different groups that it is almost impossible to strike the right balance between competing interests: efficiency or heritage, development or preservation, the state vs. private parties…

Another site with similar potency lies 600 meters below sea level in the Caribbean Sea, the famous wreck of the San José. The location was discovered nearly ten years ago but the exploration has been delayed due to extensive litigation, pitting the government of Colombia against a private exploration company, the flag state of Spain and certain indigenous groups. As one historian has said, ‘It’s a great mess and I see no easy way out of this.’ It is perhaps to be expected when the galleon, which sunk in 1708, is said to carry 11 million pesos of gold and silver, carrying an estimated worth of $17 billion today. And – of course – we must not forget its heritage value. Barrister Paul Stevenson has this year written no fewer than three pieces on the San José, keeping us properly abreast of the situation: in January, July and November.

And, lastly, in Nazi spoliation cases, we saw perhaps fairly anticipated decisions from the UK’s Spoliation Advisory Panel (involving Rubens paintings at the Courtauld) and the Dutch Restitutions Committee (involving a Matisse at the Stedelijk), but a bombshell from Germany. After much discussion around the effectiveness of the Advisory Commission (the ‘Beratende Kommission’) and its ability to deal with claims against uncooperative museums, the German government decided to pull the plug on the entire operation, announcing the replacement of the Commission with a new process of ‘binding arbitration’. This process will, unlike its predecessor, be capable of being triggered unilaterally by claimants and will be enforceable against the museums. The expert scholar on this is Matthias Weller from the University of Bonn and he kindly provided coverage of this breaking development back in March.

Finally, for those used to me banging on about restitution developments in France and surprised not to see any news about it in the above – fear not. I have an entire column dedicated to the topic in the January Art Newspaper (link forthcoming). Until then, we wish everyone a healthy and safe holiday season. We will be back in January to report on whatever wild stories 2025 has for us. From the whole team here at IAL, thanks for reading.

Keep up to date by following our blog and subscribing to the quarterly law journal Art Antiquity and Law.