casemark/art-law-summaries
skills/legal/art-law-summaries/SKILL.md
Generates structured U.S. art law summaries with Bluebook citations, doctrinal analysis, and stakeholder guidance. Use when researching art law precedents, advising on art transactions, preparing for art market litigation, or surveying a doctrine or statute across ownership, provenance, copyright, VARA, NAGPRA, authentication, NFTs, or AI-generated art.
$ install --global
skillsauthnpx skillsauth add casemark/skills art-law-summariesInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
Security Scan Results
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
3
Scanners Passed
9
Scanners in report
Clean
TrivyContainer and dependency vulnerability scanner
95%
Clean
SemgrepStatic code analysis for vulnerabilities
95%
Clean
mcp-scan (Snyk)Model Context Protocol security validation
95%
Skipped
Snyk (dep)Open source security scanning
50%
Skipped
Socket.devSupply chain security analysis
50%
Skipped
VirusTotalMulti-engine malware detection
50%
Skipped
CrowdStrikeAdvanced threat intelligence
50%
Skipped
OSV-ScannerOpen Source Vulnerability database check
50%
Skipped
OWASP Dep-Check
50%
Last scanned: May 25, 2026, 3:28 AM34.5s1 file scanned
SKILL.md
- name:
- art-law-summaries
- language:
- en
- description:
- Generates structured U.S. art law summaries with Bluebook citations, doctrinal analysis, and stakeholder guidance. Use when researching art law precedents, advising on art transactions, preparing for art market litigation, or surveying a doctrine or statute across ownership, provenance, copyright, VARA, NAGPRA, authentication, NFTs, or AI-generated art.
Art Law Summaries
Produces structured art law research with case citations, holdings, reasoning, and stakeholder-specific guidance across major art market legal categories.
Quick Start
Gather before generating:
- Topic — specific area (e.g., VARA, Holocaust restitution, NAGPRA) or "comprehensive overview"
- Jurisdiction — U.S. federal (default), specific circuit/state, or international
- Audience — artist, gallery/dealer, collector, or legal professional
- Specific case or question — optional; narrows to targeted analysis
Coverage Areas
| Area | Key Authorities | Common Disputes |
|------|----------------|-----------------|
| Ownership & Title | UCC Art. 2; state property law | Stolen art recovery, estate disputes, consignment |
| Provenance & Holocaust Claims | HEAR Act (2016); FSIA | Chain-of-title gaps, good-faith purchaser, SOL revival |
| Copyright & Moral Rights | 17 U.S.C. §§ 101–1332; VARA § 106A | Reproduction, site-specific destruction, waiver scope |
| Cultural Heritage | NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. §§ 3001–3013); UNESCO 1970; UNIDROIT 1995 | Patrimony claims, museum deaccessions, export restrictions |
| Authentication | Common law fraud; UCC § 2-312 | Expert liability, catalogue raisonné disputes, forgery |
| Digital Art & NFTs | No settled federal framework [VERIFY] | Ownership vs. license, smart contract enforceability |
| AI-Generated Art | Copyright Office guidance (2023–present) [VERIFY] | Authorship threshold, training data infringement |
| AML Compliance | AML Act of 2020 (31 U.S.C. § 5312) | Dealer reporting, beneficial ownership |
Case Summary Format
Use this template for each landmark case:
**[Case Name]**, [Bluebook Citation]
Court: [Jurisdiction / Level] | Year: [YYYY]
Facts: [2–3 sentences]
Issue: [Legal question presented]
Holding: [Court's ruling]
Reasoning: [Key doctrine or test applied]
Takeaway: [Practical implication for stakeholder]
Status: [Good law | Distinguished by X | Overruled by Y]
Stakeholder Guidance
Artists — Copyright registration timing; VARA scope (visual art, editions ≤200, written waiver required); destruction claims per Carter v. Helmsley-Spear [VERIFY]; gallery contract terms (exclusivity, consignment, resale royalties).
Galleries & Dealers — Provenance due diligence (Art Loss Register, INTERPOL, Getty Provenance Index); consignment essentials (title retention, insurance, authority-to-sell); buyer disclosure and UCC § 2-312 warranty [VERIFY]; AML reporting thresholds.
Collectors — Acquisition docs (bill of sale, provenance, export/import certificates); forgery recourse (contractual vs. statutory); estate planning (IRC § 170 appraisal, charitable contributions, fractional interests).
Emerging Issues
| Issue | Status | Key Authority |
|-------|--------|---------------|
| NFT ownership vs. license | Unsettled | No controlling precedent [VERIFY] |
| AI-art copyright | Evolving | Copyright Office guidance; Thaler [VERIFY] |
| Art market AML reporting | Active | AML Act of 2020; FinCEN rulemaking |
| Climate & cultural heritage | Framework stage | UNESCO 1972 World Heritage Convention |
Pitfalls & Checks
- All citations: Bluebook format; mark unverified ones
[VERIFY] - Circuit splits: Flag explicitly (e.g., VARA "recognized stature" standard varies)
[VERIFY] - HEAR Act: Note SOL revival for Holocaust-era claims filed after 2016
- NAGPRA: Applies to federally funded institutions only — note private museum carve-outs
- VARA vs. state: Distinguish federal VARA from broader state statutes (CA Art Preservation Act, NY Artists' Authorship Rights Act)
- Repatriation: UNESCO 1970 = public law framework; UNIDROIT 1995 = private law claims
- NFT/AI authority: Rapidly evolving — always flag publication date of cited sources
Related Skills
casemark/skills/legal/automated-contract-summary
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
name: automated-contract-summary language: en description: Generates structured executive summaries of contracts using ML — captures key terms, party obligations, risk allocations, and compliance requirements in a standardized format. Optimized for high-volume review where speed and consistency matter. tags: - summarization - agreement - corporate --- # Automated Contract Summarization Produces standardized executive summaries of contracts using machine learning, capturing essential term
21SKILL.mdUpdated May 26, 2026
casemark/obligation-mapping
tools
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Extracts regulatory obligations from dense regulations across jurisdictions. Breaks down multi-level regulations into clear article-level obligations, classifies applicability to a business, and prioritizes by risk level. Use when translating regulations into actionable compliance requirements.
21SKILL.mdUpdated May 25, 2026
casemark/horizon-scanning
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Continuously monitors regulatory landscapes for changes relevant to a specific business. Ingests global regulatory updates, filters by relevance, summarizes impact, and produces an actionable change advisory. Use when tracking regulatory developments affecting a particular product or market.
21SKILL.mdUpdated May 25, 2026
casemark/gap-analysis
testing
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Compares an organization's existing compliance controls, policies, and procedures against extracted regulatory obligations to identify coverage gaps. Produces a remediation plan with prioritized actions. Use when assessing compliance maturity or preparing for regulatory audits.
21SKILL.mdUpdated May 25, 2026