Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

$35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

kut.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 281 posts

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#271

Post by Dylan16807 »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #264
Dylan16807 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my email's hacked I have much bigger worries than a fake delivery pickup. That's a real stretch of a scenario.

I disagree that this scenario is far-fetched: https://archive.ph/prAfe

I'm not saying that an email hack is far-fetched, I'm saying that worrying about this specific consequence of an email hack, while otherwise not worrying about an email hack, is far-fetched. It's like refusing to go to a specific store because you're worried your car engine will catch fire. If you have bigger problems, deal with those first! Don't use them as an excuse while not trying to fix them or take them seriously in any other way.

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#272

Post by TheCoelacanth »

kbelder wrote: post #270
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "King" in front of his name definitely proves that either it or the wealth that was used to acquire it was ill-gotten. All power and wealth of royalty was taken by force.

By force, true, but not necessarily illegally.

Of course not. They used force to make unjust laws that allowed them to do it. The laws of royalty are fundamentally illegitimate.

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#273

Post by Ansil849 »

_jal wrote: post #239
Ansil849 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a glib fact (and in fact, not even a fact as you by definition cannot assert something that didn't happen as a fact) that detracts from the theft. But sure, yes, if they had not been stolen, certain items may have been destroyed. OK. And, so what, what's your point beyond this trite truism?

The point was to attempt to correct an apparent misunderstanding. What's the point of your weirdly aggressive hostility?

What do you see as being the apparent misunderstanding?

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#274

Post by stolen_biscuit »

readbeard wrote: post #79
stolen_biscuit wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Museums shouldn't be full of looted treasures, museums should be full of treasures of the culture who built the museum. It is an injustice that any significant artifact is not in the custodianship of the culture it belongs to and when the infrastructure is in place to preserve the items, they should be returned to the community they came from.

To what modern-day culture do Roman artifacts belong?

I dunno, maybe some historians would know the best place to return it?

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#275

Post by asdff »

paulmd wrote: post #166
asdff wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in this case the museum doesn't have a better claim than you do either that they aren't the thief, just an older one. In fact theirs seems worse, just a record that they possessed it at one point in the 1920s. Could be that the curators who first logged it into inventory were the original thieves in the line plundering it from someone else vs paying fairly.

In the legal perspective, none of that matters. If the artifact can be definitively proven to have belonged to X, and they were robbed, then it belongs to X regardless of who's done anything in the meantime. That's the legal answer here. The same is true of real property, or a stereo. It belongs to the person it originally belonged to, before it was stolen. Morally, it's debatable. Legally, it's straightforward, a st…

It seems to me if they want to have a legitimate claim strong enough to take it from someone who legitimately purchased it, then they will need to come up with some evidence that they themselves did not steal the statue from somewhere else in the first place.

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#276

Post by gnopgnip »

paulmd wrote: post #156
gnopgnip wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone buying something from a pawnshop usually is a bonafide purchaser. They would have a valid title to the property

No, that's the opposite of how it works, and that's what I'm saying in my comment. The original owner doesn't lose valid title just because it was stolen, and two people can't hold valid title at the same time (unless shared obviously, but you can't have two 100% owners). The second purchaser's title would not be valid, even if they initially thought it was at the time of purchase. It doesn't matter that you didn't k…

When art or other property is stolen often collecting from the thief is not possible, there are two innocents, the most recent purchaser and the original owner. The common law principle is that a buyer cannot pass on a greater title to previously stolen property, the original owner has the superior claim. But there are some exceptions. A good faith(bona fide purchaser for value without notice) buyer obtains a lawful title, even if there are others with a competing claim to the title provided several related requirements are met. Davis v. Carroll digs in to examples of what does and does not qualify as a good faith purchase in the context of valuable art.

Also notable here is that German law, and many other European countries is opposite the English common law rule, and effectively the burden goes the other way and the scope of good faith is widened. Article 932(2) of the German Civil Code covers this for instance.

When dealing with stolen property from 50+ years ago there are issues with the statute of limitations, and with laches as well

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#278

Post by asdff »

robonerd wrote: post #250
asdff wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could not imagine that whatever this process must have looked like in the 1840s was completely bilateral for all parties. This was the era where you just sent an archaeologist and got some local day laborers to dig where you heard there might be good stuff, and took whatever you wanted back no questions asked.

> I could not imagine that whatever this process must have looked like in the 1840s was completely bilateral for all parties Then let me help your imagination: A rich Bavarian king frequently goes on holiday in Italy, as was the fashion in Europe at the time. There, he regularly meets and intermingles with rich Italians who share his interests in antiquities. He purchases numerous artifacts from them, at a price both…

It would be great if it happened like that, but all the museum has produced in terms of provenance is that it sat in their inventory at one point in the 1800s. No mention of the circumstances of how it came to be in the collection, unlike the legitimate purchaser who bought it and has a receipt.

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#279

Post by tpmx »

taffronaut wrote: post #260
tpmx wrote: post #4

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…

I suggest that the reason that the item is staying in Texas on display at the San Antonio Museum of Art for about a year is that it's going to take that long to complete the paperwork to export it to Germany. It has to pass through a bunch of restrictions related to traffic in antiquities (looted or not), it has a value to be determined for import/export that's potentially going to require duty payments, ownership is…

You do have some good points there.

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#280

Post by bawolff »

stormbrew wrote: post #266
bawolff wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the actual harm here? If one group doesn't want something and another group finds the item interesting, who is hurt by the second group valuing it? If nobody is hurt, then where is the sin?

the harm is that usually the decision about whether the "one group" wanted it was made by the "another group", probably without actually consulting with anyone in the first group. And you know what, maybe they don't in the moment. But essentially none of these things ever get repatriated even when the people they came from explicitly say they want them back . And you can see the logic that justifies this ongoing thef…

> If I steal your TV and then your house burns down, have I "saved" your TV even though I still won't give it back?

What if you die and i buy your tv at an estate sale, and then later your ancestors change their mind? [I'm mostly just posing this as a thought experiment, i dont think its exactly the same as this either]

I mean there is a lot of nuance involved. Sometimes i think repatriating artifacts is the right thing to do. However, if we were talking about say Roman artificats i would say that the modern descendents are so far removed that their claim is no more legitament than anyone else. But there are certainly cases where modern descendents have compelling claims.

Post reply on HN