The second issue of 2022 from Art Antiquity and Law has now gone to press and hard copy will be sent out to subscribers next week.

This issue covers a range of topics: Emily Gould, Assistant Director of the Institute of Art and Law, provides a detailed examination of the law relating to NFTs. These digital assets have sprung to prominence over the past couple of years, frequently featuring in relation to art works. However, there have been few in-depth analyses to date of the many aspects of law which regulate them. These include copyright, contracts and taxation as well as trade marks, property law and privacy rights.

Rod Thomas, Associate Professor, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand, examines the inconsistencies in New Zealand auction law and practice (as well as in the common law more generally) concerning questions of authenticity and who should bear the risk that a work is inauthentic.

In July this year, Nigeria and Germany signed a joint declaration on the return of the Benin Bronzes in German collections and Alexander Herman, Director of the Institute of Art and Law, expands in the journal on his shorter piece from the blog.

The long-running quest by the heirs of Lilly Cassirer to recover a work by Camille Pissarro which had been the subject of a forced sale in Nazi Germany in 1939 has been mentioned in the pages of Art Antiquity and Law on many occasions over the years (see, inter alia, Kevin Chamberlain in 2006, Martha Lufkin in 2006, Lauren Redman in 2008 and Nicholas O’Donnell in 2017). And still the proceedings rumble on. In this issue of the journal, artist and attorney (and frequent blog contributor) Stephanie Drawdy examines the latest stage of the legal proceedings brought by the heirs against the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation of Spain before the US courts.

Difficulties relating to the application of time limits for service out of the jurisdiction were at the centre of a decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in Qatar Investment and Project Development Holding Co. and His Highness Sheikh Hamad Bin Abdullah Al Thani v. Phoenix Ancient Art S.A. The earlier High Court decision was noted in the journal in 2021 (and mentioned on the blog), but this note provides the necessary corollary.

A rather different case is noted by Emily Gould and Ruth Redmond-Cooper: Shazam Productions Limited v. Only Fools the Dining Experience Limited where the central issue for decision was whether or not a fictional character in a TV sitcom could be considered to be an independent copyright work.

Finally, we offer a review of the recently published book, Contested Heritage: Removing Art from Land and Historic Buildings by Richard Harwood Q.C., Catherine Dobson and David Sawtell.

You can subscribe to the journal, which comes out quarterly, HERE. The hardcopy cost is £200.00 per year, plus shipping (digital subscription is availble through Hein).

We also have back copies available from across the previous 25 years of the journal’s publication history.