171–180 of 281 posts
> She was in possession of a looted piece of ancient art. She couldn't keep it. I don't understand. Museums in the West are full of looted ancient art [1]. Why are they allowed to keep it, but this woman cannot keep this one item? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/learning/should-museums-r...
The Germans don't really have any more right to it than she does. The most likely story of this bust is from the 5th century until the 18th or 19th centuries, it was buried in the ground somewhere in Italy or former Roman empire. The person who dug it up and sold it didn't really have an inherent right to it. They just found it. I say all this not from a legal perspective but from an inheritors of history and culture…
I don't get it. Why wouldn't a person who found it have a right to it?
The Germans don't really have any more right to it than she does. The most likely story of this bust is from the 5th century until the 18th or 19th centuries, it was buried in the ground somewhere in Italy or former Roman empire. The person who dug it up and sold it didn't really have an inherent right to it. They just found it. I say all this not from a legal perspective but from an inheritors of history and culture…
Article 56 of the Hague Convention of 1907 disagrees. Stealing art is a war crime. So do the Allies themselves, in their memorandum on January 5th, 1943.
> The most likely story of this bust is from the 5th century until the 18th or 19th centuries, it was buried in the ground somewhere in Italy or former Roman empire.
Given that the person depicted was originally associated with Drusus Germanicus (the name's a hint here) and Aschaffenburg was in fact part of the Roman Empire back in the day, chances are they found it in the vicinity. The object is a lot more related to Aschaffenburg than Texas, which in fact never was part of the Roman Empire.
> But is that museum inherently this German one?
The wartime looting of art and/or cultural objects is barbaric as it robs the object of its historical context and the regions of their heritage. This is true regardless of the uniform that the criminal wore. If you think Germans should hand back art stolen before or during WW2, you cannot really argue against restitution demands for art stolen by Americans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Imagine if someone in the US ended up showing they owned it She bought it from Goodwill. What benefit would anything think they could get from suing her if she didn't get a payout? >She would then have to defend herself wherever the claimant chooses (possibly even the US), with no actual object should a court decide she has to produce it. How can the court tell her to produce it if she obviously doesn't have it? She…
I think the problem in all those statements is how US law works (e.g. badly). In Europe, yes, I would agree with your assessment.
The contract is generally some generic patchwork piece made with copy and paste. Half the text doesn't apply to the situation at all and when challenged the lawyer says: "These are standard terms that we always put in there".
The Germans don't really have any more right to it than she does. The most likely story of this bust is from the 5th century until the 18th or 19th centuries, it was buried in the ground somewhere in Italy or former Roman empire. The person who dug it up and sold it didn't really have an inherent right to it. They just found it. I say all this not from a legal perspective but from an inheritors of history and culture…
> The person who dug it up and sold it didn't really have an inherent right to it. They just found it. I don't get it. Why wouldn't a person who found it have a right to it?
Back at home, Young had a problem: She was in possession of a looted piece of ancient art. She couldn't keep it. She couldn't sell it. And giving it back to its rightful owners was a lot harder than it sounds. “At that point, I realized I was probably going to need some help,” Young says. “I was probably going to need an attorney.” So she hired a lawyer in New York who specializes in international art law, Leila Amin…
Some points (IANAL): * How is it going to be transported? Squashing it into airplane luggage is probably not a good idea, neither is sending it via a parcel. * What happens if something happens to it during transport? Generally works of art are insured before they are being transported. Do you know insurers though? Before you insure it, you need to determine the value. * For very important works of art, countries mig…
Art logistics is a thriving and lucrative business: https://www.dbschenker.com/de-en/products/art-logistics-
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She specifically stated this in her article, > She was in possession of a looted piece of ancient art. She couldn't keep it. She couldn't sell it. And giving it back to its rightful owners was a lot harder than it sounds. Why are you building up a false narrative?
The article wasn't written by her, that isn't a statement from her. That is the journalist's statement, Matt Largey. It may or may not be completely accurate. What does "couldn't keep it" mean anyway? That she felt morally obliged to return it? Or legally obliged? The article doesn't say.
Back at home, Young had a problem: She was in possession of a looted piece of ancient art. She couldn't keep it. She couldn't sell it. And giving it back to its rightful owners was a lot harder than it sounds. “At that point, I realized I was probably going to need some help,” Young says. “I was probably going to need an attorney.” So she hired a lawyer in New York who specializes in international art law, Leila Amin…
She's an antiques dealer. It's her job to buy old things and sell them for more. That's why she was in Goodwill. I think she likely wanted a payout. Also the terms of the deal are confidential. If she didn't get a payout, I don't see why they would be confidential.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article wasn't written by her, that isn't a statement from her. That is the journalist's statement, Matt Largey. It may or may not be completely accurate. What does "couldn't keep it" mean anyway? That she felt morally obliged to return it? Or legally obliged? The article doesn't say.
She certainly could have kept it on display in her private residence without anyone knowing anything about its provenance except her.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under the 4th Geneva Convention - looting is a war crime. If you know you're in possession of ill gotten gains - one should always obtain legal advice -
Or you could just keep the receipt from Goodwill and use your money in more better ways than paying a lawyer.