This is a brief excerpt from the document you requested from IFAR’s Art Law & Cultural Property Database.

Case Summary

Daniel Goldreyer, Ltd. v. Dow Jones & Co.

Daniel Goldreyer, Ltd. v. van de Wetering, 630 N.Y.S.2d 18 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995) (dismissing Goldreyer's defamation claims against defendant-appellant Time Inc. but allowing them to proceed against defendant-appellant Dow Jones), remanded sub nom. Daniel Goldreyer, Ltd. v. Dow Jones & Co., 678 N.Y.S.2d 453 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1998) (denying Dow Jones' motion for summary judgment), rev'd, Daniel Goldreyer, Ltd. v. Dow Jones & Co., 687 N.Y.S.2d 64 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999).

See below also for discussion of a related federal case, City of Amsterdam v. Daniel Goldreyer, Ltd., 882 F. Supp. 1273 (E.D.N.Y. 1995).



Daniel Goldreyer, a New York art conservator and restoration specialist, sued Dow Jones & Co., Inc. (“Dow Jones”) and Time Inc. (“Time”) for libel following articles published about him in the Wall Street Journal and Time International in December 1991, which criticized his restoration of a damaged Barnett Newman painting.


Click here to subscribe to IFAR's Art Law & Cultural Property Database to access this and other documents about U.S. and international legislation and case law concerning the acquisition, authenticity, export, ownership, and copyright of art objects.