In 2017, Federal Law No.11 Concerning Antiquities (the “Federal Law”) was enacted in the United Arab Emirates to preserve the country’s antiquities as part of its national identity and cultural heritage. The Federal Law formalised the framework for antiquities protection, ownership and registration across the UAE, while leaving ample room for each emirate and their respective “Competent Authority” to legislate locally on a number of matters, including import licensing, trading permits, discovery procedures, loan of state-owned antiquities, without specifying the operative rules.

This past April, visitors to the AIPAD Photography Show in New York encountered an unexpected reimagining of one of the most celebrated photographs in American history.

Photographs by Ansel Adams, including his iconic Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico (1941), were exhibited and offered for sale in colourized form. Created using artificial intelligence and presented by veteran gallerist James Danziger, the works reportedly sold for between $6,000 and $10,000 USD each.

To understand the controversy, one must begin with a visual analysis.

The restitution of nazi-looted art is a morally charged and technically complex subject. It requires the law to retrace histories deliberately broken across missing archives, vanished witnesses, fractured successions, competing property rules, limitation periods, good-faith purchases and transactions blurred by persecution, exile and war. It must do so to answer a question at once simple and almost impossibly difficult: what does justice require now?

For centuries, stolen artworks had an unnerving habit of simply disappearing. Once a painting or antiquity slipped into the shadows of the art market, it could remain lost for decades.

Artificial intelligence may be changing that.

In December 2020, at the Ricci Oddi Gallery in Piacenza, a pair of gardeners were clearing ivy from an exterior wall when they noticed a small metal door half hidden by leaves. It gave way easily. Behind it, a black bin bag, folded in on itself. And within that, rolled with improbable care, was Portrait of a Lady by Gustav Klimt.

After more than a decade of litigation, countless filings, and one spectacular leak of offshore secrets, the saga of Seated Man with a Cane (1918) by Amedeo Modigliani seems to have finally reached its conclusion. In a recent decision by the New York Supreme Court, the painting has been ordered to be returned to the heir of its original owner.

The recent US-Israeli strikes caused damage to Tehran’s Golestan Palace, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a masterpiece of the Qajar Dynasty. Based on available information, the damage to the Golestan Palace was not a deliberate act targeting the site itself, but rather collateral damage from nearby military strikes by the US and Israel^[1].

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision of 2 March 2026 to deny certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter may sound significant upon first reading, but it is far less dramatic than some headlines suggest. The D.C. Circuit’s ruling of 18 March 2025 stands: copyright protection requires human authorship, and Thaler’s AI-generated work cannot be registered as a U.S. copyright-protected work.

After a turbulent few months, Laurence des Cars has resigned as director of the Louvre.

Many will remember the headline-grabbing €88 million jewel heist last October: four burglars, eight minutes, global coverage. But that wasn’t the only scandal to define Laurence des Cars’ final months at the French museum. Another, less cinematic, scandal also caused some inner turmoil: ticket fraud.

Everything is on fire.

Or at least that’s how it feels whenever Washington starts talking about tariffs. Markets begin to sway like nervous tightrope walkers. Importers start refreshing government websites. Deals pause mid-handshake. And anyone who moves objects across borders starts recalculating.

Parthenon Marbles this, Parthenon Marbles that. For the past few years, the debate has been relentless and inescapable. News headlines, diplomatic misfires, UNESCO interventions and a growing swell of international tension have all revolved around the same fragments of classical sculpture. And yet, despite the noise, the situation remains unchanged. Due to the British Museum Act 1963, the British Museum still cannot return the marbles, no matter how compelling the ethical case. For those hoping the law might finally budge, manage your expectations: nothing appears to be changing any time soon.

The heist of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre in 1911 was so audacious that it inspired the theory of Picasso as a suspect. A century later, art thefts still dominate headlines and dinner party conversations. From smashed display cases in Dresden to vanishing crown jewels in Paris, recent heists have reignited global fascination with the black market for cultural treasures. But while the cinematic smash-and-grab gets all the attention, the biggest trove of looted art may be hiding in plain sight.

In the industrial outskirts of Geneva, Singapore, or Luxembourg, you might pass a building that looks like any other warehouse: windowless, nondescript, quiet. Yet behind its steel doors could lie billions of dollars’ worth of masterpieces, ancient artefacts, and rare collectables; these facilities are freeports.

The entire Trump-tariff saga is as chaotic as it is confusing. Since January 2025, the current Trump administration has wielded various US statutes to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly all imports. These measures, implemented via a patchwork of executive orders and shrouded in emergency-powers justifications, sent shockwaves through global supply chains, battered US businesses facing higher input costs, and left economists scrambling to forecast the next twist in an ever-evolving trade battle.

Unsurprisingly, lawsuits followed almost immediately.

Artworks and antiquities don’t always stay put. They travel. That’s why art law demands a little more from its practitioners. Unlike some legal niches, it requires not just knowledge of local statutes, but an international mindset. A solicitor dealing in local corporate transactions can survive without ever thinking about Chinese export laws or UNESCO conventions. An art lawyer cannot.

Navigating international cultural heritage law requires knowledge of a patchwork of legal systems. Some are straightforward, others less so. China falls into the latter category. With its vast history and evolving political priorities, understanding its cultural property laws is uniquely challenging. With China’s latest overhaul of its Cultural Property Protection Law, the landscape has changed yet again.

Back in 2022, Council Directive (EU) 2022/542 introduced sweeping reforms to VAT taxation across the European Union. Among its most consequential provisions for the art world was the significant curtailment (some might say near-eradication) of the “margin scheme”, a mechanism previously relied upon by many in the secondary art market.

In light of these changes, Member States were encouraged to adjust their VAT rates on works of art, collectors’ items, and antiques; reducing them from the standard rate (typically around 22%) to a lower threshold (no lower than 5%) by the end of 2024. The clock began ticking, and EU Member States all began to recalibrate their fiscal strategies accordingly.

When the nazis were in power between 1933 and 1945, they looted approximately one-fifth of Europe’s art, stripping Jewish families and political opponents of their heritage. Despite global efforts to return artworks unlawfully dispossessed from persecuted families, many remain locked in legal limbo, sheltered by technicalities or foreign laws that protect current owners.

Just think of the Cassirer, Zuckerman or Von Saher cases. All three were dismissed due to defences based on the passage of time, adverse possession, acquisitive prescription, or other such technical defences.

[…]

Last month, we published a blog on the European Commission’s second edition of the “Questions & Answers on the EU legislation on the introduction and the import of cultural goods (Regulation (EU) 2019/880)” (the “Q&A”). In that blog, we focused on the second part of the Q&A, namely three hypothetical case scenarios and the Commission’s commentary on those scenarios.

In this blog, we address some of the issues raised by the 43 questions and answers in the first part of the Q&A.

Bill Pallot — once considered the foremost authority on French royal furniture — is currently standing trial in France, accused of orchestrating the manufacture and sale of expertly forged antique chairs and other furniture. The trial began on 25 March 2025 and concluded on 2 April 2025 at the Pontoise Criminal Court (in Val-d’Oise).

Known for his distinctive long hair and three-piece suits, Pallot has been described by Vanity Fair as “the world’s leading expert on the works of 18th-century France”, while Paris Match branded him “the Bernard Madoff of art”.

The European Commission recently released its second edition of the “Questions & Answers on the EU legislation on the introduction and the import of cultural goods (Regulation (EU) 2019/880)” (the “Q&A”).

The Q&A is prefaced as follows: “The present collection of questions and answers aims to inform and raise awareness among stakeholders about the EU legislation on the import of cultural goods. Any case examples given are purely fictional, and any views expressed are not legally binding. Only the European Court of Justice is competent to deliver a binding interpretation of Union legislation”. Whilst this is correct, the Commission’s interpretation of EU legislation carries significant weight.

From June 2025, collectors importing into the EU cultural property originally created or discovered outside the EU must comply with new EU regulations (Regulation (EU) 2019/880).

If Dante were alive today, he might be drafting a tenth circle of Hell exclusively for Italy’s art dealers, collectors, and galleries. However, unlike the lustful, the gluttonous, the hoarders and the wasteful, the Italian art market has been condemned by no fault of its own.

The United Arab Emirates has enacted Federal Decree by Law No. (29) of 2024 “On Empowering the Arts Sector”, a landmark law designed to strengthen the cultural sector. The Decree came into force on 13 November 2024.

Whilst the Decree is evidently aimed at promoting the arts in the UAE, artistic activities remain strictly controlled by the State. Practicing any artistic activity without a license is prohibited.

Osamu Tezuka (1928-1989), known as the “God of Manga,” made a huge impact on comics and animation. His legacy took a new path with the release of Phaedo, a manga created through a mix of AI and human efforts under a project known as TEZUKA 2020. This project aims to honour Tezuka’s pioneering manga style but, as noble as that may be, it raises important questions about how to protect an artist’s legacy in the digital age.

We are delighted to announce that Constantine Cannon has been recognised as a Band 1 law firm for its distinguished Art & Cultural Property Law… Read More »Constantine Cannon’s Art & Cultural Property Law Group Recognised as a Band 1 Leading Practice in Chambers UK 2021 Guide