$35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII(kut.org)
kut.org
$35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII
https://www.kut.org/life-arts/2022-05-04/so-the-35-sculpture-you-got-at-an-austin-goodwill-was-looted-from-a-museum-during-wwii-now-what
280 comments
Both for establishing the right of ownership of who she is sending it to, as well as requiring indemnification on the transfer should someone else step forward claiming it.
Worst case would be that she sends it to someone over there, then someone else shows up showing they own it. Imagine if someone in the US ended up showing they owned it and the Germans say tough luck. 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.
Worst case would be that she sends it to someone over there, then someone else shows up showing they own it. Imagine if someone in the US ended up showing they owned it and the Germans say tough luck. 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.
>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 was acting in good faith. She bought it for $35, and (assuming she got no payout) gave it to who she thought the rightful owner was for free. Why would anyone think she did anything wrong or owes anyone anything? She got nothing from this. If the museum owns it wrongly, they should sue the museum.
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 was acting in good faith. She bought it for $35, and (assuming she got no payout) gave it to who she thought the rightful owner was for free. Why would anyone think she did anything wrong or owes anyone anything? She got nothing from this. If the museum owns it wrongly, they should sue the museum.
All of that may be true, but none of it means that you will not find yourself on the receiving end of such claims, and in the USA, the cost of your defense is all on you (iirc in England, it is loser pays both attny costs).
So, yes, best to get proper expert advice, even when you are acting in good faith, as there is nothing preventing others from acting in bad faith.
So, yes, best to get proper expert advice, even when you are acting in good faith, as there is nothing preventing others from acting in bad faith.
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.
No, this is just what a lawyer would say. Every time I've consulted a lawyer (in Europe) I was told that the situation is very difficult, and there are big risks involved if I didn't do it properly, and a long and detailed contract would be required to avoid all these risks, and it just so happens that the lawyer I consulted with is very experienced in this area and would offer to set up such a contract for me.
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 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".
> No, this is just what a lawyer would say.
I meant to say that I trust the legal apparatus in Europe to function more or less correctly even without consulting a lawyer.
Conversely, in the US my idea of what is right generally turns out to be wrong as long as the other party has more money to spend on lawyers.
I meant to say that I trust the legal apparatus in Europe to function more or less correctly even without consulting a lawyer.
Conversely, in the US my idea of what is right generally turns out to be wrong as long as the other party has more money to spend on lawyers.
Laws are written by lawyers in such a way as to force you to have to hire lawyers
Yes and no, from experience, it matters a lot who sends that generic paper to another party. When they see it's sent by a lawyer the effect is very different from when a normal person sends it. You hire the lawyer for their title more then for the expertise in such mundane standard cases. It's a signaling thing.
For example, when (in Germany) you get an "Abmahnung" (https://allaboutberlin.com/glossary/Abmahnung) for filesharing even though how to respond is standardized advice you are probably still better off having it sent by a lawyer. It tells the other party that if they escalate that you are less likely to cave in to the pressure, that they would have to actually have to go to court, which is expensive and time consuming and in filesharing cases only worth it when they want to "send a signal" or create a court ruling to be able to point to.
For example, when (in Germany) you get an "Abmahnung" (https://allaboutberlin.com/glossary/Abmahnung) for filesharing even though how to respond is standardized advice you are probably still better off having it sent by a lawyer. It tells the other party that if they escalate that you are less likely to cave in to the pressure, that they would have to actually have to go to court, which is expensive and time consuming and in filesharing cases only worth it when they want to "send a signal" or create a court ruling to be able to point to.
[deleted]
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.
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.
Getting a payout seems fair. I doubt the Germans paid anybody when they took it from Italy.
Like all of Europa, Germany and Italy have thousands of years of history together. You are using nationalist terminology that is not even 200 years old to try to grasp 2000 years of history.
At the time king Ludwig I of Bavaria acquired that bust, the nation you identify as "Italy" didn't yet exist. And that was in the early modern. For most of the medieval age, the small territories that today are within southern germany and northern italy were vassals of the same empires.
And while europa sure was almost constantly at war with itself, there was also a lot of trade going on. Who took that bust from whom and if they paid with coin or sword is most likely lost to time.
At the time king Ludwig I of Bavaria acquired that bust, the nation you identify as "Italy" didn't yet exist. And that was in the early modern. For most of the medieval age, the small territories that today are within southern germany and northern italy were vassals of the same empires.
And while europa sure was almost constantly at war with itself, there was also a lot of trade going on. Who took that bust from whom and if they paid with coin or sword is most likely lost to time.
This just seems to reinforce the notion of "possession is 9/10ths of the law". I'm not saying she should keep it, but it's not obvious who it "belongs" to.
You're assuming it was taken by force. What if... it was bought from an Italian goodwill in the 1800's?
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.
> I doubt the Germans paid anybody when they took it from Italy.
Why? The museum was not built by nazis.
Why? The museum was not built by nazis.
germans were invading and pillaging a long time before Nazi's came to power and that is not unique to Germany - think Napoleon, so it is more likely than not that it was simply stolen, perhaps repeatedly over a couple thousand years.
> germans were invading and pillaging
Ludwig I of Bavaria never invaded Italy but he did frequently travel there for pleasure, and was known for purchasing antiquities and art.
> so it is more likely than not that it was simply stolen
You really have little rational basis for this belief. Could it have been stolen? Sure, maybe by Ludwig or maybe by whichever Italian sold it to Ludwig, or maybe by the great-great-great-great-grandfather of whoever sold it to Ludwig. But "more likely than not" stolen by Ludwig? Such confidence is merely a reflection of your biases.
Ludwig I of Bavaria never invaded Italy but he did frequently travel there for pleasure, and was known for purchasing antiquities and art.
> so it is more likely than not that it was simply stolen
You really have little rational basis for this belief. Could it have been stolen? Sure, maybe by Ludwig or maybe by whichever Italian sold it to Ludwig, or maybe by the great-great-great-great-grandfather of whoever sold it to Ludwig. But "more likely than not" stolen by Ludwig? Such confidence is merely a reflection of your biases.
And the romans before that. Heck they even made just about to Aschaffenburg, where this relic was stolen.
I like that they tacked on that it would be on display in Texas for about a year as part of the deal. It kind of, sort of masks that this was probably a sizable financial transaction.
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 might put restrictions onto exports. Not sure if this includes the US, but customs are certainly an important question.
* You might get sued by the rightful owners for wrong handling... ideally you want an agreement that releases you from any requirements to pay for damages to the object.
* Ideally the insurance, transport, etc is paid by the rightful owners, which would be good to have in a contract. How do you enforce that they really pay? Ideally, the owners would take care about the insurer and transportation directly, so that it's them getting the bills instead of you getting them and then having to get the owners to pay them.
* 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 might put restrictions onto exports. Not sure if this includes the US, but customs are certainly an important question.
* You might get sued by the rightful owners for wrong handling... ideally you want an agreement that releases you from any requirements to pay for damages to the object.
* Ideally the insurance, transport, etc is paid by the rightful owners, which would be good to have in a contract. How do you enforce that they really pay? Ideally, the owners would take care about the insurer and transportation directly, so that it's them getting the bills instead of you getting them and then having to get the owners to pay them.
> * 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.
Art logistics is a thriving and lucrative business: https://www.dbschenker.com/de-en/products/art-logistics-
Art logistics is a thriving and lucrative business: https://www.dbschenker.com/de-en/products/art-logistics-
Ask them to pick it up.
So maybe she emails the museum and says "pick it up." And then a week later a guy shows up on her doorstep and says "I'm here to pick it up." How does she know the guy really works for the museum and is not some criminal who hacked into her email? She's never met him, and he's not going to be carrying an FBI badge after all. If she gives the bust to the wrong guy, maybe the museum sues her because it was their property in the first place.
There are well-established legal procedures to deal with matters like identity verification, and lawyers can handle them. That's one reason why she needs a lawyer.
There are well-established legal procedures to deal with matters like identity verification, and lawyers can handle them. That's one reason why she needs a lawyer.
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
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.
I’d be damned if I were going to pay for a lawyer because of a $35 goodwill thing. Ancient Roman art or no. I can totally see why people just keep it on the mantelpiece.
[deleted]
[deleted]
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 -
Judging by the article, there is no way to prove that it was looted in the first place.
Or you could just keep the receipt from Goodwill and use your money in more better ways than paying a lawyer.
But that’s not how the real world works.
She 100% did the right thing here.
And frankly she deserves a payout for all of the legwork.
She 100% did the right thing here.
And frankly she deserves a payout for all of the legwork.
In the real world, she might lose possession of the object and be out $35 if she can keep her receipt. Still way cheaper than a lawyer.
I doubt I would involve lawyers across multiple nations if I ever encountered such a thing. Preserve it, enjoy it, and donate it to a major museum in my home nation when I die. It will find its way to a rightful home.
I doubt I would involve lawyers across multiple nations if I ever encountered such a thing. Preserve it, enjoy it, and donate it to a major museum in my home nation when I die. It will find its way to a rightful home.
She deserves a payout because she spent money a on lawyer to get a payout? That seems circular.
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?
> 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 art was looted far before it ever came into that museum's possession.
Why do you think you know that? If an Italian noble finds a marble head when digging out a wine cellar on his own property and keeps it for himself, is that looting? That depends entirely on what the local laws said about such artifacts at the time. You don't know who first found it. You don't know where it was found, and when. You don't even know it was buried in the first place; it might have been privately owned the entire time since it was originally carved, passed along for two thousand years through innumerable legitimate private sales.
Here are some things you could know, if you bothered to read up on the matter: Ludwig I never invaded Italy, never sacked Rome, but did visit Italy as was the fashion of anybody in Europe who had the means to do so. He is known to have purchased numerous artifacts and works of art from wealthy Italian collectors and dealers, which might include this bust.
Here are some things you could know, if you bothered to read up on the matter: Ludwig I never invaded Italy, never sacked Rome, but did visit Italy as was the fashion of anybody in Europe who had the means to do so. He is known to have purchased numerous artifacts and works of art from wealthy Italian collectors and dealers, which might include this bust.
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.
If you don't trust statements in the article, then you have absolutely nothing to base any of this discussion on. Following your reasoning, why do you trust anything in the story, rather than just select pieces of it - does the bust even exist? Is the person in the story real or just made up? Is the bust even Roman?
Everyone here is discussing the situation, given the story reported. What else do we, armchair critics, have to go on?
Everyone here is discussing the situation, given the story reported. What else do we, armchair critics, have to go on?
Statements from articles should be considered, not absolutely trusted.
> What else do we, armchair critics, have to go on?
Everything outside of the article, the sum of our experience with the way the world works. Our experience with the way people work, the way people will give accounts of their actions that make themselves look good. The way the "telephone game" works, where the more people something goes through, the more uncertainty there is. Presumably, the journalist was told by the woman that she believed she couldn't keep it, yes? But the journalist didn't actually quote what she said. The journalist paraphrased what she said instead, rephrased it in his own words. This is generally fine, but you have to remain cognizant of the fact that it isn't precisely what she said. The comment I responded to claimed "She specifically stated this in her article", which simply isn't true. That commenter failed to perceive the difference between somebody being quoted, and somebody's statements being paraphrased. Even when you trust the journalist to act in good faith, there is a big difference between quoting somebody and rephrasing what they said.
> What else do we, armchair critics, have to go on?
Everything outside of the article, the sum of our experience with the way the world works. Our experience with the way people work, the way people will give accounts of their actions that make themselves look good. The way the "telephone game" works, where the more people something goes through, the more uncertainty there is. Presumably, the journalist was told by the woman that she believed she couldn't keep it, yes? But the journalist didn't actually quote what she said. The journalist paraphrased what she said instead, rephrased it in his own words. This is generally fine, but you have to remain cognizant of the fact that it isn't precisely what she said. The comment I responded to claimed "She specifically stated this in her article", which simply isn't true. That commenter failed to perceive the difference between somebody being quoted, and somebody's statements being paraphrased. Even when you trust the journalist to act in good faith, there is a big difference between quoting somebody and rephrasing what they said.
Feelings?
No need to be so rude.
The story was ambiguous. Don't pretend it wasn't, and don't turn that into a giant strawman.
The story was ambiguous. Don't pretend it wasn't, and don't turn that into a giant strawman.
As a general rule, outside of the black market you will not find an auction house that touches a looted piece of art with a ten-foot-pole. Looted art is basically unsellable.
She certainly could have kept it on display in her private residence without anyone knowing anything about its provenance except her.
Let's talk to a lawyer first about that little concept of "concealment of stolen goods".
She didn't steal it and there's no way anyone could ever presume she knew it was stolen. IF she had kept her mouth shut.
This is actually an interesting question.
- If you find £10,000 cash in the street, do you keep it?
- If you find a watch in the street, do you keep it?
- If you bought a laptop from your cousin Vinny for $50 and found out it was stolen, do you keep it?
In my country of residence, all of these are crimes (theft by finding / knowingly handling stolen property).
Obviously, someone could choose to keep their mouth shut... but that would not change the fact of it being a crime punishable by law.
- If you find £10,000 cash in the street, do you keep it?
- If you find a watch in the street, do you keep it?
- If you bought a laptop from your cousin Vinny for $50 and found out it was stolen, do you keep it?
In my country of residence, all of these are crimes (theft by finding / knowingly handling stolen property).
Obviously, someone could choose to keep their mouth shut... but that would not change the fact of it being a crime punishable by law.
The average American commits 3 felonies a day.
I'm willing to keep found treasure as one of my 3.
I'm willing to keep found treasure as one of my 3.
And then marvel in wonder of legal problems you are in, because you did not knew this or that.
> I don't really understand why it would be hard or complicated
Why would you expect a priori to understand? Or have you dealt in the past with a meaningfully comparable problem, and found it easy and simple?
Why would you expect a priori to understand? Or have you dealt in the past with a meaningfully comparable problem, and found it easy and simple?
"I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand international law, but despite that (lack of) knowledge I'm going to assume to assume this person was trying to do a bad thing"
Per the article, she is an antiquities dealer who specializes in looking for treasures at thrift stores. So generally speaking she is absolutely looking for a payout. We don't know what terms she negotiated this time, per the article those terms are confidential, but we do know that whatever she negotiated was not a simple return. The article says this much of it: "The exact terms of the deal are confidential, but the head will stay in Texas — on display — for about a year."
But supposing she was looking for a payout in this instance, is it fair to characterize looking for a payout as "trying to do a bad thing"? I don't think so, no. She may well have been within her legal rights to seek a payout. It seems safe to presume she had at least some legal right to the bust, since the deal she came to with the German museum was not simply return it immediately.
The article claims "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." But the article doesn't directly quote her saying this. It's conceivable she felt she was morally or ethically obliged to return it. Or maybe she incorrectly believed she was legally obliged to return it, and learned differently only after hiring the lawyer.
But supposing she was looking for a payout in this instance, is it fair to characterize looking for a payout as "trying to do a bad thing"? I don't think so, no. She may well have been within her legal rights to seek a payout. It seems safe to presume she had at least some legal right to the bust, since the deal she came to with the German museum was not simply return it immediately.
The article claims "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." But the article doesn't directly quote her saying this. It's conceivable she felt she was morally or ethically obliged to return it. Or maybe she incorrectly believed she was legally obliged to return it, and learned differently only after hiring the lawyer.
[deleted]
> I don't really understand why it would be hard or complicated
If you don't know what to do regarding legal matters, hiring a lawyer is an obvious thing to do. It may not be hard or complicated, or maybe it is, that's for her lawyer to tell.
If you don't know what to do regarding legal matters, hiring a lawyer is an obvious thing to do. It may not be hard or complicated, or maybe it is, that's for her lawyer to tell.
Yeah the hiring a lawyer thing is mind boggling. If that’s the only option, then just donate the stupid head back to Goodwill and be done with it. Goodwill even says they don’t keep records about who makes donations!
Why is it mind boggling?
I'd hire a lawyer instantly if I became aware I was in possession of stolen war loot. It's a war crime, and things can get quite iffy really quickly - especially if somehow it goes viral.
Much better to just CYA and spend $500 on a lawyer so you ensure you don't go to prison or be held liable for something silly.
Call it a hard lesson I've learned multiple times over throughout my life. When in doubt, it's never inappropriate to hire legal counsel.
I'd hire a lawyer instantly if I became aware I was in possession of stolen war loot. It's a war crime, and things can get quite iffy really quickly - especially if somehow it goes viral.
Much better to just CYA and spend $500 on a lawyer so you ensure you don't go to prison or be held liable for something silly.
Call it a hard lesson I've learned multiple times over throughout my life. When in doubt, it's never inappropriate to hire legal counsel.
> So she hired a lawyer in New York who specializes in international art law, Leila Amineddoleh.
> Negotiations began. It was complicated. It takes a long time to figure out all this stuff — even in the best of times. But the pandemic complicated things even further.
The article doesn't say what the legal fees were, but based on this description I could imagine scenarios where they were well in excess of $500.
> Negotiations began. It was complicated. It takes a long time to figure out all this stuff — even in the best of times. But the pandemic complicated things even further.
The article doesn't say what the legal fees were, but based on this description I could imagine scenarios where they were well in excess of $500.
> Why is it mind boggling?
Because in this situation it’s comically risk-averse and a good way to burn $500 (which I would guess is quite low for what sounds like protracted negotiations) — if she was trying to protect herself and not cash in on this thing.
She’s not a war criminal, she bought a statue at Goodwill.
Once word’s out, just don’t hire a lawyer and stick it in your attic. Somebody’s either gonna come get it or they won’t. If you absolutely must, take it to a police station and drop it off or call the local news and see if they want to do a story on it.
Because in this situation it’s comically risk-averse and a good way to burn $500 (which I would guess is quite low for what sounds like protracted negotiations) — if she was trying to protect herself and not cash in on this thing.
She’s not a war criminal, she bought a statue at Goodwill.
Once word’s out, just don’t hire a lawyer and stick it in your attic. Somebody’s either gonna come get it or they won’t. If you absolutely must, take it to a police station and drop it off or call the local news and see if they want to do a story on it.
That's like an hour or two of a lawyer's services. It seems like it took much more time.
[deleted]
My guess is that she placed a high value on trying to get an ancient piece of art back to its rightful owner without falling afoul of any laws governing possession of stolen art, and that hiring a lawyer is a pretty good way to deal with that situation. She could have saved herself a lot of trouble by chucking it in a lake, but something tells me that wouldn't have been a satisfying outcome to her. Everything humans do isn't always about maximizing value to oneself.
Yeah, I guess I just don’t get placing a higher value on this thing than whoever it belonged to. If they want it back, just come get it. If I have to get a lawyer involved and beg them to take it off my hands, seems like they don’t really give a shit so why should I?
> I have to get a lawyer involved and beg them to take it off my hands
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from. I'm sure there were plenty of people willing to take it off her hands. The lawyer is there to help that happen in a legal way.
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from. I'm sure there were plenty of people willing to take it off her hands. The lawyer is there to help that happen in a legal way.
From rereading the article, it’s pretty clear that she got paid off. Sounds like that’s what the lawyer was for.
Because if I just want to be rid of the thing, I don’t need a JD to fire off an email that says, “Hey, I’ve got this thing. If somebody wants it, figure it out and let me know, otherwise it’s in the attic.”
Because if I just want to be rid of the thing, I don’t need a JD to fire off an email that says, “Hey, I’ve got this thing. If somebody wants it, figure it out and let me know, otherwise it’s in the attic.”
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 not totally established so everyone who touches it needs some sort of indemnification in case someone claiming ownership shows up (even if they are just chancing their arm), and it'll have to be insured. Unfortunately I don't believe the thrift store receipt helps any - otherwise thrift store receipts would be a fantastic tool for e.g. money laundering. It would have taken her and one or more specialist lawyers to get to the stage where she could safely hand it to a museum. I'd expect her to be considerably out of pocket in time and fees. It would make an interesting plot for a movie if you imagine someone trying all the naive approaches and triggering all the things that could possibly go wrong.
You do have some good points there.
[deleted]
Most certainly looking for a payout. Has anyone been to a thrift store recently? About 30% of people are in need/want of inexpensive secondhand items, while the rest of the crowd — smartphones in hand — are trying to see what can be resold for profit on EBay. This whole “side hustle” economy is killing the thrift store as an source for people in need to find inexpensive goods.
I see a variation on this comment all the time now and it makes me slightly crazy. It feels like the product of extremely online culture (or just Twitter) where people work up a hypothesis of outrage with no connection to reality at all and just run with it forever until it's fact.
The thrift store has never been about getting the items on sale to needy people that's just literally not the philosophy behind the entire concept.
The thrift store model has been about getting money from the people who shop there who are people who have money but not having to pay for the goods they sell because they are charitably donated to be sold and then using the money they make to advance the mission of the charity.
It's a fundraising concept. The funds come from people who have funds. The goods come from people that have spare goods. And then THE MONEY THEY MAKE goes to actually do good in the world. The limiting factor on every thrift store model I've ever seen is having enough customers. There's always tons and tons of stuff to sell, many have to throw away half the donations they get because there's no room.
The people who are in thrift stores buying things for Ebay and increasing the money that goes to the charity are HELPING the thrift store, not killing it. This mindless outrage is literally the opposite of the actual dynamic at work here.
The thrift store has never been about getting the items on sale to needy people that's just literally not the philosophy behind the entire concept.
The thrift store model has been about getting money from the people who shop there who are people who have money but not having to pay for the goods they sell because they are charitably donated to be sold and then using the money they make to advance the mission of the charity.
It's a fundraising concept. The funds come from people who have funds. The goods come from people that have spare goods. And then THE MONEY THEY MAKE goes to actually do good in the world. The limiting factor on every thrift store model I've ever seen is having enough customers. There's always tons and tons of stuff to sell, many have to throw away half the donations they get because there's no room.
The people who are in thrift stores buying things for Ebay and increasing the money that goes to the charity are HELPING the thrift store, not killing it. This mindless outrage is literally the opposite of the actual dynamic at work here.
>>is killing the thrift store as an source for people in need to find inexpensive goods.
thrift stores don't exist to help people find cheap stuff - they exist to raise or earn money, and many org's then use that money to fund the things they want to fund.
It might not be a 'side hustle' for some of these people, it may be the only income they earn, and good for them for showing their entrepreneurial instincts - and doubt very many are getting rich at it (except perhaps a few lucky ones that find that needle in a haystack).
thrift stores don't exist to help people find cheap stuff - they exist to raise or earn money, and many org's then use that money to fund the things they want to fund.
It might not be a 'side hustle' for some of these people, it may be the only income they earn, and good for them for showing their entrepreneurial instincts - and doubt very many are getting rich at it (except perhaps a few lucky ones that find that needle in a haystack).
Pretty sure that's just the market getting efficient.
It’s pretty bad. I was at a community yard sale last week, and I was genuinely looking for interesting and useful things not to turn around and sell on eBay but to have an use. Unfortunately, I do a more than a few individuals who were running from table to table tossing around things looking for vintage items that they can turn a profit on and most interesting things were sold before I could even get to the table.
[deleted]
No good deed goes unpunished
If you live by that maxim and never do good, you'll never see it refuted. Truth is, people do good things all the time and are frequently rewarded for it. Sometimes people get punished for doing a good thing, but it's scarcely a certainty and our society would be a lot shittier if everybody went around assuming it was.
I was that guy in the office who would volunteer to help move equipment or furniture for office events. I made a lot of friends.
My boss would make fun of me when my good deeds would result in hassle for me. She was a meanie.
I have been reward cash, wine, simple thanks etc... on the numerous times I've handed in lost property or helped a stranger with directions etc.
My boss would make fun of me when my good deeds would result in hassle for me. She was a meanie.
I have been reward cash, wine, simple thanks etc... on the numerous times I've handed in lost property or helped a stranger with directions etc.
Just like trying to report a security vulnerability to a company in good faith, you are often better off just publishing it anonymously even if it is worse for the company.
I think you assuming that she is some sort of art blackmailer is a truly awful take. Maybe she just want to make sure it went back to the rightful owners? So she contacted a expert.
There is nothing wrong with that
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 perspective. We all inherit humanity's history and culture.
While cheesy, Indiana Jones was right: "It belongs in a museum" so it is accessible to humanity. But is that museum inherently this German one?
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 perspective. We all inherit humanity's history and culture.
While cheesy, Indiana Jones was right: "It belongs in a museum" so it is accessible to humanity. But is that museum inherently this German one?
> The Germans don't really have any more right to it than she does.
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.
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.
> Stealing art is a war crime.
Is there anything that isn't a war crime at this point?
Declaring war? War crime.
Making a plan for war? War crime.
Deportation? War crime.
Blowing stuff up? War crime.
Stealing art? Believe it or not, also war crime.
Is there anything that isn't a war crime at this point?
Declaring war? War crime.
Making a plan for war? War crime.
Deportation? War crime.
Blowing stuff up? War crime.
Stealing art? Believe it or not, also war crime.
>Declaring war?
not a war crime
>Making a plan for war?
not a war crime
>Deportation?
war crime.
>Blowing stuff up?
depends on what you blow up.
>Stealing art?
war crime.
not a war crime
>Making a plan for war?
not a war crime
>Deportation?
war crime.
>Blowing stuff up?
depends on what you blow up.
>Stealing art?
war crime.
> Declaring war?
> Making a plan for war?
These two are, on the stipulation that it's a war of aggression and not a defensive one.
> Making a plan for war?
These two are, on the stipulation that it's a war of aggression and not a defensive one.
Which is one of the reasons the US refuse to be subject to international tribunals on war crimes. No president would live to see their retirement as a free person.
Deportation is a war crime?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
I guess article 56 of the Hague convention does not apply to the British Museum?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_(cultural_propert...
It does, but international law doesn't work like national law. Who are you goig to sue? The British Museum? The United Kingdom? The Crown? Under whose jurisdiction? Sure, you can prove that the British Museum outright admits a given artefact's origin but how do you establish rightful ownership? It's not enough to prove that something was stolen, you also need to prove who the rightful owner would be, possibly generations after the initial theft.
And if the British Museum (or the Crown, or the UK) flat out says no, what are you going to do? The US infamously established that it will invade The Hague if any US citizen is ever put in front of the Human Rights tribunal, but even without such blatant threats it's difficult to coerce anyone under international law if their own nation refuses to comply. You can try to propose sanctions but there's no "international community", you just have a whole bunch of politicians representing different nations voting on things and they likely don't care about those artefacts enough to do anything especially things that would damage their already subdued economies.
It does, but international law doesn't work like national law. Who are you goig to sue? The British Museum? The United Kingdom? The Crown? Under whose jurisdiction? Sure, you can prove that the British Museum outright admits a given artefact's origin but how do you establish rightful ownership? It's not enough to prove that something was stolen, you also need to prove who the rightful owner would be, possibly generations after the initial theft.
And if the British Museum (or the Crown, or the UK) flat out says no, what are you going to do? The US infamously established that it will invade The Hague if any US citizen is ever put in front of the Human Rights tribunal, but even without such blatant threats it's difficult to coerce anyone under international law if their own nation refuses to comply. You can try to propose sanctions but there's no "international community", you just have a whole bunch of politicians representing different nations voting on things and they likely don't care about those artefacts enough to do anything especially things that would damage their already subdued economies.
No retrospective application. Hague convention 1907 predates ww2 postdated most acrimonious BM acquisition, noting they repatriate some things (human remains, religious and culturally sensitive objects) and not others (Elgin marbles, bought off the Turks, disputed by the greeks) and the Benin bronzes.
Well they certainly have lawyered up!
> 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.
The Germans lost
The Germans lost
Part of the former Roman empire includes Aschaffenburg (Germany)
The modern notion of either Germany or Italy doesn't fit into the context of this artefact. Both countries share a history with the Roman Empire - just like most of Europe does.
The modern notion of either Germany or Italy doesn't fit into the context of this artefact. Both countries share a history with the Roman Empire - just like most of Europe does.
> 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?
I don't get it. Why wouldn't a person who found it have a right to it?
Not Italy, but as an example, the legal process for the UK is described here:
https://www.gov.uk/treasure
I'd assume other European countries have similar laws and processes.
https://www.gov.uk/treasure
I'd assume other European countries have similar laws and processes.
If you travel to Pompeii right now, “find” a Roman vase and bring it home, did you have a right to it?
If I go and dig up a fresh grave right now and steal all the valuables, do I have a "right" to those?
How old does the grave, in your opinion, have to be for me to get that right?
How old does the grave, in your opinion, have to be for me to get that right?
In most places, you don't. Even if the land is yours, the state has the ownership rights. You can get a decompensation so. Which sucks in cases were they find some roman ruins when digging the basement of your house... But then you can also find WW2 bombs were I live, luckily, they didn't find neither under our house.
What amazes me about all these stories is the ridiculously low prices the thrift store charged. Here in the Seattle area, everything seems to grossly overpriced in thrift stores.
Goodwill in particular moves items between markets and prices them based on the local economy. Gone are the days of 2010 when you could walk into the Bellevue Goodwill and find lightly used designer clothing that some retired Microsoft engineer was tired of. Now everything's priced higher than eBay and there's no reason to stop by.
Everyone else wants to be a "Boutique" and charge high end prices for used goods. Blame Macklemore?
Everyone else wants to be a "Boutique" and charge high end prices for used goods. Blame Macklemore?
A lot of people that I know and know of shop at goodwill and then resell the items on places like Depop (marked up). I also know of some boutiques that have a similar tactic. It’s worth it to some people to buy marked up items from these places and individuals because going and finding something at goodwill can be a pain and there’s no guarantee you will find anything worthwhile anyway. I think goodwill has caught onto this and has decided to raise prices on some goods.
I suspect that it's largely because Goodwill and Sally Ann became unofficial suppliers for vintage clothing stores. They probably upped their prices in response to that market.
And now Facebook neighborhood free groups are (often unknowingly) supplying such stores; as well as folks simply turning around and relisting on Facebook marketplace.
And now Facebook neighborhood free groups are (often unknowingly) supplying such stores; as well as folks simply turning around and relisting on Facebook marketplace.
They've been that for at least 30 years. When I was a kid a friend of mine had a vintage shop in Portland, OR, and they got first crack at what came into a couple of local thrift stores. This was official - vintage shop people would show up at a specific time while the stuff was still in bins and pick through it before it went into the store.
You can still find great deals at university surplus sales. more fun than goodwill ever was. Scored a $1500 RF amp for $25 at one of those.
I think more than that, the good stuff ends up on shopgoodwill.com, so it's increasingly difficult to find interesting or valuable things in the physical stores.
It makes some amount of sense; there's a bigger market online so they get higher prices and people looking for obscure things are more likely to find them than by visiting stores and hoping to get lucky. It's kind of a shame though that the stores are less fun to visit.
It makes some amount of sense; there's a bigger market online so they get higher prices and people looking for obscure things are more likely to find them than by visiting stores and hoping to get lucky. It's kind of a shame though that the stores are less fun to visit.
True. Getting great deals at thrift stores is information arbitrage, which is increasingly hard to do in the internet age. Before the internet, it could be a goldmine.
At least in socal stuff at goodwill is still cheap. What's been happening though is the rise of resellers online and physical antique/botique shops (both brick and mortars and at pop up stuff like neighborhood markets) buying everything any good thats set out. If I walk into goodwill at any given point there are 35 people in there, not buying, just roaming and looking like a bunch of jackals around carcasses already picked clean to the bone. They will go through all the racks and look at nothing but the brand on the tags, not the sizes nor the color or anything because its about the resale not their personal use. All the stuff that's left is mostly ugly junk that people keep passing over. I find good stuff occasionally but the hit rate has been so low because of these small business people that I just opt to play their damn game and pay higher prices at the consignment shops where all the decent stuff has been carted off to.
This hasn't been my experience. I recently moved to Colorado and I think they have the best Goodwill's in the country. Not for clothing but all the other stuff, I would never own a $250 coffee maker but I got it at Goodwill for $20.
My best find though is back around 2015, I walked into a Goodwill in Buckhead Atlanta (Atlanta's Beverly Hills) looking for a suit for an interview. Found a matching 5 piece Hugo Boss suit, all in all cost me about $50 but had a retail of I think around $2500. Absolutely insane find, ended up selling it on eBay for a few hundred and getting a brand new suit.
My best find though is back around 2015, I walked into a Goodwill in Buckhead Atlanta (Atlanta's Beverly Hills) looking for a suit for an interview. Found a matching 5 piece Hugo Boss suit, all in all cost me about $50 but had a retail of I think around $2500. Absolutely insane find, ended up selling it on eBay for a few hundred and getting a brand new suit.
Goodwill is (and was in 2010) fairly shrewd about this stuff. They were running pretty successful auctions on their own site last time I checked. I once got caught up in the bidding for a rare board game there that ended up going for hundreds of dollars.
My Goodwill in San Rafael takes all the good stuff that comes in the back, and it goes to the San Francisco store to put on ebay. The junk stays in the stores. Every once in awhile something of value does not automatically go to their internet store because it was missed by a back room staffer.
A few years ago my Goodwill went through three store managers in a row for stealing over a period of 10 years. One manager was pilfering the jewelry from the safe regularity, and loading up her van after everyone left.
I find it ironic they have cameras everywhere, and signs worning about shoplifting, when it was the employees stealing for years.
You can still get lucky on books, but you need to show up early. The professional resellers are there with their bar code readers at opening. Every once in a while a decent business suit can be found, but those days are kinda gone too. None of the clothing is cleaned before being put out.
Another manager had multiple antique dealers that he was selling to. He was so out in the open about it, the employees didn't batman eye. Good stuff would never leave the back room. He basically had everything sold within hours to his cronies.
There's a good book out their on how Goodwill is run.
It's eye opening. Supposedly the only employees making a real living wage were the Regional managers. 20 years ago they were getting $250,000/yr., and a car.
Don't get me completely wrong, I don't dislike Goodwill. They hire felons for a year.
They are a bit better than most of our 501c3. That's still a low bar though where so many, especially the nonprofits who incorporate in Deleware, are basically formed to reward the founders.
I won't even get started on In Defence for Animals because the founder died a few years ago.
A few years ago my Goodwill went through three store managers in a row for stealing over a period of 10 years. One manager was pilfering the jewelry from the safe regularity, and loading up her van after everyone left.
I find it ironic they have cameras everywhere, and signs worning about shoplifting, when it was the employees stealing for years.
You can still get lucky on books, but you need to show up early. The professional resellers are there with their bar code readers at opening. Every once in a while a decent business suit can be found, but those days are kinda gone too. None of the clothing is cleaned before being put out.
Another manager had multiple antique dealers that he was selling to. He was so out in the open about it, the employees didn't batman eye. Good stuff would never leave the back room. He basically had everything sold within hours to his cronies.
There's a good book out their on how Goodwill is run.
It's eye opening. Supposedly the only employees making a real living wage were the Regional managers. 20 years ago they were getting $250,000/yr., and a car.
Don't get me completely wrong, I don't dislike Goodwill. They hire felons for a year.
They are a bit better than most of our 501c3. That's still a low bar though where so many, especially the nonprofits who incorporate in Deleware, are basically formed to reward the founders.
I won't even get started on In Defence for Animals because the founder died a few years ago.
Goodwill computer stores have this issue. Managers filter out all the good stuff and sell it off for bucks they pocket themselves.
Yeah, I can never find a reasonable price on a first century Roman antiquity, and believe me I’ve tried.
How hard have you tried? Assuming antiquities.co.uk is legitimate, I see a Romana-British bronze brooch offered for sale at $44, circa mid 1st century BC to late 1st century AD. There seem to be many small Roman trinkets you could buy for about the price of a pair of blue jeans.
Just visit your preferred museum on free admission day. They leave things on display for anyone.
Having been in a lot of Goodwill stores (including the one in this story, from which I once bought a broken receiver (pro tip: test electronics at the store before buying)) I'm not surprised in the least. Though at least this is one of their more 'upscale' stores, so maybe they get partial credit? I'm going to guess that at least it wasn't on the same shelf with a bunch of old coffee mugs.
I understand that some thrift shops charge “50 dollars for a T-shirt, that’s just some ignorant bitch shit”.
Odd, why is this Roman sculpture being returned to Germany?
It’s obviously not a German artifact and while I might be wrong, I assume it was “looted” from Italy.
It’s obviously not a German artifact and while I might be wrong, I assume it was “looted” from Italy.
“Another auction house managed to find the head in a catalog of items from a German museum in the 1920s and 1930s.” Per the article it was looted from a German museum.
How the german museum acquired it originally is anyones guess. But it’s possible it was legally acquired at some point over the past 1900 years.
How the german museum acquired it originally is anyones guess. But it’s possible it was legally acquired at some point over the past 1900 years.
It was legally acquired by the woman who just paid $35 at Goodwill. The thing is two thousand years old. Why do people care who owned it during the Weimar Republic?
Possession and sale of stolen goods is not legal, just not a crime unless you are aware it's stolen/likely stolen.
Genuinely curious, what if something is sold three times? Imagine a collector's edition book - Say it's stolen, then a month later it's listed on FB Marketplace, then the buyer re-lists it on ebay, then that ebay buyer sells it to a pawn shop. Does the person who was robbed still have a right to the book? Or are there special laws for the consideration of historical artifacts?
Yes, the law is that it belongs to the bona-fide owner. The third buyer needs to get their money back from the second, the second gets their money back from the first, the first goes to jail. The fact that this is often impossible is legally irrelevant, it belongs to the original owner.
One interesting place this came up was in the post-2008 financial crisis... turns out a lot of banks had been using an off-the-books legal record system, and transferred ownership of the property to the record system, and the record system would move it around internally to avoid filing fees every time a mortgage was resold. But this is actually specifically illegal in most jurisdictions, governments have a strong interest in a verifiable chain of custody maintained by themselves, they don't want it to go to an off-the-books system because then they might not be able to trace the true owner of a property. There is actually case-law dating back to the mid-1800s on specifically this - modern bankers aren't the first ones to try and create a "bearer note" conveying ownership of a mortgage lien, and it was specifically slapped down at that time, ruling that doing so would "separate" the note from the actual deed, invalidating the lien.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/business/06mers.html
https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
And it also turns out that many of the banks did it digitally, so they could not actually provide the original wet-ink mortgage, so they did not have an effective lien on the property at all in any respect, nor could they rebuild it themselves unless the owner voluntarily re-signed a note. So many of the properties in that era have (big airquotes) """title insurance""" that includes a clause that basically says "in the event of a defect in title, the title insurance doesn't pay out". So if the original owner figured out they might be off the hook, they could come back with improper foreclosure and get the property back, and you would be left paying a mortgage on nothing because the title insurance didn't pay out. My parents were looking to buy a foreclosed property in that timespan and the bank tried to pull one of those and they walked away.
(also, in that era many banks responded by simply forging the wet-ink mortgage notes. When they got caught, oops, no penalty and they got to try it again. Laws are for plebians.)
https://www.propublica.org/article/disputes-over-citigroups-...
https://financialpost.com/news/economy/four-years-later-u-s-...
One interesting place this came up was in the post-2008 financial crisis... turns out a lot of banks had been using an off-the-books legal record system, and transferred ownership of the property to the record system, and the record system would move it around internally to avoid filing fees every time a mortgage was resold. But this is actually specifically illegal in most jurisdictions, governments have a strong interest in a verifiable chain of custody maintained by themselves, they don't want it to go to an off-the-books system because then they might not be able to trace the true owner of a property. There is actually case-law dating back to the mid-1800s on specifically this - modern bankers aren't the first ones to try and create a "bearer note" conveying ownership of a mortgage lien, and it was specifically slapped down at that time, ruling that doing so would "separate" the note from the actual deed, invalidating the lien.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/business/06mers.html
https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
And it also turns out that many of the banks did it digitally, so they could not actually provide the original wet-ink mortgage, so they did not have an effective lien on the property at all in any respect, nor could they rebuild it themselves unless the owner voluntarily re-signed a note. So many of the properties in that era have (big airquotes) """title insurance""" that includes a clause that basically says "in the event of a defect in title, the title insurance doesn't pay out". So if the original owner figured out they might be off the hook, they could come back with improper foreclosure and get the property back, and you would be left paying a mortgage on nothing because the title insurance didn't pay out. My parents were looking to buy a foreclosed property in that timespan and the bank tried to pull one of those and they walked away.
(also, in that era many banks responded by simply forging the wet-ink mortgage notes. When they got caught, oops, no penalty and they got to try it again. Laws are for plebians.)
https://www.propublica.org/article/disputes-over-citigroups-...
https://financialpost.com/news/economy/four-years-later-u-s-...
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 know it was stolen - it's still not yours, it belongs to the person it was stolen from. It's your job to get your money back from the last person, and their job to get their money back from the previous person - all the way back to the thief.
If it's not possible to recover the money from the thief - wow, sucks to be you. You have a claim against the thief, but that doesn't matter if they don't have any money. You can garnish their wages from their McJob when they get out of prison.
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 know it was stolen - it's still not yours, it belongs to the person it was stolen from. It's your job to get your money back from the last person, and their job to get their money back from the previous person - all the way back to the thief.
If it's not possible to recover the money from the thief - wow, sucks to be you. You have a claim against the thief, but that doesn't matter if they don't have any money. You can garnish their wages from their McJob when they get out of prison.
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
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
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 stolen item does not become un-stolen with time, nor does the claim of the original owner diminish. Morally that's not how people think, but legally that's how it works.
The British Museum argument does not work for plebians. It's not "yours" just because you kept it for 100 years. Nor is it the next person's because they didn't know it was stolen.
The British Museum only works for the British because they were a god-ordained royal family that controlled an empire spanning the globe, then a nuclear-armed imperial power. It was based on the rather debatable legal theory of "try and stop us". It's increasingly recognized that it's unjust and seems increasingly likely that it will be dissolved sometime in the next hundred years. Because yeah, the same arguments apply to shit the British looted as shit the Nazis looted. It's not theirs. Maybe some countries will be willing to loan them back on a permanent basis though.
Morally, it's debatable. Legally, it's straightforward, a stolen item does not become un-stolen with time, nor does the claim of the original owner diminish. Morally that's not how people think, but legally that's how it works.
The British Museum argument does not work for plebians. It's not "yours" just because you kept it for 100 years. Nor is it the next person's because they didn't know it was stolen.
The British Museum only works for the British because they were a god-ordained royal family that controlled an empire spanning the globe, then a nuclear-armed imperial power. It was based on the rather debatable legal theory of "try and stop us". It's increasingly recognized that it's unjust and seems increasingly likely that it will be dissolved sometime in the next hundred years. Because yeah, the same arguments apply to shit the British looted as shit the Nazis looted. It's not theirs. Maybe some countries will be willing to loan them back on a permanent basis though.
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.
[deleted]
In German law, buying it in good faith gives you unassailable ownership rights.
Not if the good is of historic significance.
> Does the person who was robbed still have a right to the book?
Yes, and everyone who bought it under false pretenses are entitled to a refund, but what actually happens in reality is messy and pretty much down to how far law enforcement is willing to go. Someone is always left holding the bag, ideally it would be the original thief but it's most likely going to be the last person in the chain who can be identified or isn't willing to go to the effort.
Yes, and everyone who bought it under false pretenses are entitled to a refund, but what actually happens in reality is messy and pretty much down to how far law enforcement is willing to go. Someone is always left holding the bag, ideally it would be the original thief but it's most likely going to be the last person in the chain who can be identified or isn't willing to go to the effort.
Well by that logic it was stolen by the person who dug it up in Italy. After all, there’s someone walking around Italy today that is the heir to this sculpture. You have to draw the line somewhere.
How do you know it was dug up in Italy?
It could also be from the following countries:
At its zenith, the Roman Empire included these today's countries and territories: most of Europe (England, Wales, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Gibraltar, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine), coastal northern Africa (Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Egypt), the Balkans (Albania, Greece, Hungary, Bosnia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Turkey), the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, Asia Minor, and some parts of Mesopotamia and the Middle East (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Israel).
It could also be from the following countries:
At its zenith, the Roman Empire included these today's countries and territories: most of Europe (England, Wales, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Gibraltar, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine), coastal northern Africa (Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Egypt), the Balkans (Albania, Greece, Hungary, Bosnia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Turkey), the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, Asia Minor, and some parts of Mesopotamia and the Middle East (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Israel).
People get funny of the provenance of things that were taken by military force, go figure.
I'm trying to remember which state it is that periodically asks for their Confederate flag back from the Union state that acquired it on the battlefield.
I'm trying to remember which state it is that periodically asks for their Confederate flag back from the Union state that acquired it on the battlefield.
Interesting! I hadn’t heard of that issue before.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/28th_Virginia_battle_flag
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/28th_Virginia_battle_flag
[deleted]
It’s also possible it was legally brought to the US. Speculation about it being looted doesn’t really hold a lot of legal weight I think.
Are you being serious?
The Roman Empire covered Germany and it covered that specific part of Germany (Aschaffenburg) as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
The Roman Empire covered Germany and it covered that specific part of Germany (Aschaffenburg) as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
> It’s obviously not a German artifact
Why is it "obviously" not? The subject was named Drusus Germanicus, after all.
The Roman Empire covered everything from Great Britain to the Persian Gulf. Artifacts produced anywhere in that (very large) region could be described as "Roman".
Why is it "obviously" not? The subject was named Drusus Germanicus, after all.
The Roman Empire covered everything from Great Britain to the Persian Gulf. Artifacts produced anywhere in that (very large) region could be described as "Roman".
> Odd, why is this Roman sculpture being returned to Germany?
Because the museum was the rightful owner of the piece.
> It’s obviously not a German artifact and while I might be wrong, I assume it was “looted” from Italy.
To start with, Italy has been actively looted by Italians since at least the later part of the Middle Ages, but more actively from the Renaissance onwards. A lot of the pieces you see in other countries, and I'm quite certain this one fits the bill, were just traded privately between aristocrats for centuries. And that's assuming it's from Italy at all, it could just as well have been found in German soil. Germany happens to host a few major Roman cities.
Because the museum was the rightful owner of the piece.
> It’s obviously not a German artifact and while I might be wrong, I assume it was “looted” from Italy.
To start with, Italy has been actively looted by Italians since at least the later part of the Middle Ages, but more actively from the Renaissance onwards. A lot of the pieces you see in other countries, and I'm quite certain this one fits the bill, were just traded privately between aristocrats for centuries. And that's assuming it's from Italy at all, it could just as well have been found in German soil. Germany happens to host a few major Roman cities.
You generaly loot from occupied territories, not from peer nations.
If Britain invades and occupies Egypt, and starts digging up artifacts that end up on a British museum, that's looting.
If some Frenchman digs up some artifacts in France, and then sells/trades/gives them to a British museum, that's not looting. Because the sale/trade/gift is not done at gunpoint.
In this case, if the artifact was not plundered from an (occupation of)/(war with Italy) to begin with, the most recent rightful owner is someone in Germany, not the nation of Italy.
If Britain invades and occupies Egypt, and starts digging up artifacts that end up on a British museum, that's looting.
If some Frenchman digs up some artifacts in France, and then sells/trades/gives them to a British museum, that's not looting. Because the sale/trade/gift is not done at gunpoint.
In this case, if the artifact was not plundered from an (occupation of)/(war with Italy) to begin with, the most recent rightful owner is someone in Germany, not the nation of Italy.
> If some Frenchman digs up some artifacts in France, and then sells/trades/gives them to a British museum, that's not looting
According to French law, it is both looting and traficking ;) We have a different approach to it than the British.
According to French law, it is both looting and traficking ;) We have a different approach to it than the British.
Sure, that may be the case - but my point is that if French law allowed what I described, it wouldn't be looting, because France is a peer of the UK, as opposed to a vassal.
It's not Italian either.
it could be. the article says it comes from a museum dedicated to pompei
Let's just assume that the way 19th century, Ludwig-II-style museums worked was not exactly historically accurate. This is the king who built Neuschwanstein Castle. He essentially cosplayed as a Roman sometimes, and he built a "Roman villa", more as a holiday home than a museum, and a roman villa needs roman stuff in it. It only became a museum later, half dedicated to the Romans, half to the old king.
https://www.schloesser.bayern.de/englisch/palace/objects/as_...
https://www.schloesser.bayern.de/englisch/palace/objects/as_...
[deleted]
Some roman may have left it in Germany.
When I saw it I assumed it was of Charles Laughton from "I, Claudius".
Just here to note that "kut.org" is a pretty funny domain name if you speak Dutch
Try reading the about page without chuckling: https://www.kut.org/about
Just here to note that I also had a little smile about this.
>Finally, they got a deal: The Germans would take Dennis back. The exact terms of the deal are confidential,
Wished they at least said what it would go for on the open market, so we could get a hint of how much she banked!
Wished they at least said what it would go for on the open market, so we could get a hint of how much she banked!
I don’t think Germany gets to reclaim “looted” art.
But how did the german museum get it?
The article doesn't say and I haven't been able to find any information about that online. However it seems likely that it was purchased in Italy by Ludwig I of Bavaria, sometime in the early 19th century. Ludwig I made the museum in 1840, and was known for buying art and antiquities in Italy.
> 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...
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...
Well, being a cynic, because she was in possession of a looted piece from some relatively powerful sources, a German museum! And the looting happened during a famous war, and the Germans are America's allies now and like really powerful allies.
but reading closer it says:
>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.
So it sounds more like she felt she couldn't keep it or sell it because of her morals.
on edit: of course if she had sold it maybe 10 years down the road the Germans come and say we want our head of Germanicus back please, then either the people who bought it are on the hook or maybe also her for selling stolen goods (depending on laws and how much people want to enforce them)
but reading closer it says:
>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.
So it sounds more like she felt she couldn't keep it or sell it because of her morals.
on edit: of course if she had sold it maybe 10 years down the road the Germans come and say we want our head of Germanicus back please, then either the people who bought it are on the hook or maybe also her for selling stolen goods (depending on laws and how much people want to enforce them)
Can I recommend a podcast called 'Stuff the British Stole' by Marc Fenell (aka 'That Movie ... Guy'). It looks at exactly this, including situations where an artefact only exists _because_ it was stolen.
http://www.marcfennell.com/stolen (Sorry I couldn't find the RSS feed)
http://www.marcfennell.com/stolen (Sorry I couldn't find the RSS feed)
Ansil849(5)
Links:
PODCAST MAIN PAGE: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-brit...
RSS FEED: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-brit...
PODCAST MAIN PAGE: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-brit...
RSS FEED: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-brit...
Ah thankyou I was looking on his page and could only see Spotify/Apple Podcasts
The issue of "this is a convenient thing to think if you want to feel less bad about stuff being stolen" aside, it's worth considering that a world in which these things weren't stolen might also be a world where colonialism didn't run rampant throughout the world and the "destruction" they were saved from may have been a consequence of that colonialism.
Anyways, I think to some extent our civilization is descending into a kind of mass packrat disorder. We seem to fetishize preservation to an unhealthy degree on both small and large scales. Sometimes things break, are burnt down, or are left unmaintained until they die. But new things are created all the time, and maybe sometimes we get a little too stuck on the old stuff and don't acknowledge the new.
Anyways, I think to some extent our civilization is descending into a kind of mass packrat disorder. We seem to fetishize preservation to an unhealthy degree on both small and large scales. Sometimes things break, are burnt down, or are left unmaintained until they die. But new things are created all the time, and maybe sometimes we get a little too stuck on the old stuff and don't acknowledge the new.
Kids these days. If they’re not addicted to novelty and the social media algorithm, they’re freebasing historical preservation. I’m honestly not sure how you square the circle between obviously consumerist trends like fast fashion and mass-produced “collectibles” with fetishization of preservation and franchise-based popular culture. It kind of seems like different people like different stuff?
Of course if you’re talking about architecture, there’s lots of fetishization of the not-very-old stuff from last century, because They don’t want you to know that we lost the building techniques of the Tartarian Empire. Or something.
Of course if you’re talking about architecture, there’s lots of fetishization of the not-very-old stuff from last century, because They don’t want you to know that we lost the building techniques of the Tartarian Empire. Or something.
Even within disposable consumer goods people stick random products from the 80s in plexiglass and call it precious and sell it for hundreds of thousands of dollars. There's an idea out there that actually "using" a product like an old video game is somehow debasing it. In the end though I don't think people have much choice on the consumer product side of things. It is what it is for various reasons.
But really I'm talking about broader social trends and what we do at the society level. Yes, architecture. Mustn't tear down that building that no one has been able to live in for 20 years, it's sacred. But also relics, ideas, monuments to even monumentally stupid and awful things, etc.
But really I'm talking about broader social trends and what we do at the society level. Yes, architecture. Mustn't tear down that building that no one has been able to live in for 20 years, it's sacred. But also relics, ideas, monuments to even monumentally stupid and awful things, etc.
We should upload historical artifacts to the Blockchain and they will live forever as NFTs.
Problem solved
Problem solved
I agree, I don't understand the principle here. And what about things like the Horses of Saint Mark [0], which were looted by Venetians after the sack of Constantinople in 1204?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_of_Saint_Mark
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_of_Saint_Mark
The Louvre is basically all looted art from Napolean's wars.
The building itself has passed hands numerous times through questionable means. Should the Coup of 18 Brumaire count as Napoleon stealing the entire country, Louvre included? What of the subsequent Bourbon restoration; another crime or merely a rectification of the first? And what of the Charter of 1815? Or the second Bourbon Restoration?
Or is all of that legitimate because they all spoke French? (Remember, Napoleon was a Corsican!)
Or is all of that legitimate because they all spoke French? (Remember, Napoleon was a Corsican!)
[deleted]
Well there’s even a looted diamond sitting in the crown of the British queen[0].
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh-i-Noor
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh-i-Noor
I read it more like her morals prevented her from keeping/selling it, not that some outside entity was preventing her from keeping it. I sometimes say "I can't have that" to a food item I'm physically capable of eating but my moral framework precludes me from eating.
My reading might be wrong.
My reading might be wrong.
> Why are they allowed to keep it
I own land in the UK, which in reality means I brought it from someone who brought it from someone who brought it from someone who brought it from someone who was given it by the king as a reward for helping kill the previous owner.
And if someone quarries marble on my land to make a statue, it has the same provenance.
So we've basically decided there's a sliding scale. If it was stolen at gunpoint 1960 you've got to return it, but if it was in 1690 you get to keep it.
I own land in the UK, which in reality means I brought it from someone who brought it from someone who brought it from someone who brought it from someone who was given it by the king as a reward for helping kill the previous owner.
And if someone quarries marble on my land to make a statue, it has the same provenance.
So we've basically decided there's a sliding scale. If it was stolen at gunpoint 1960 you've got to return it, but if it was in 1690 you get to keep it.
The principle is quite old: its incarnation for normal individuals is called the “statute of limitations”.
This is true for many things: homes which people own taken from Japanese-Americans, wage theft discovered too late,…
If you only care about your children and you have an effective means of transmitting wealth gotten through evil means, you merely have to forgo the benefit yourself.
This is true for many things: homes which people own taken from Japanese-Americans, wage theft discovered too late,…
If you only care about your children and you have an effective means of transmitting wealth gotten through evil means, you merely have to forgo the benefit yourself.
Because she doesn't have an army to protect her. The US returned a stolen bell from the Philippines after 117 years. The Philippines has been asking for it to be returned for a very long time.
“Allow”? Who do you think is the authority here? What means do they have to enforce their judgment?
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?
Even if we assume it rightfully belongs to people with Roman ancestry, that describes many modern Germans as well as it does modern Italians. People from these two regions were moving around and in near constant contact with each other for thousands of years. Somebody who is German today may have ancestors who were Italian two hundred years ago, and Greek 2000 years before that.
[deleted]
Which part of Rome? It depends. It doesn't make sense to send the Roman baths in England back to Italy for example.
I dunno, maybe some historians would know the best place to return it?
Most countries are full of land stolen from the ancestors of the people who lived there, which was then exploited by the thieves, to make them and their descendents, incredibly wealthy and powerful.
Indeed, across the entire globe, only a tiny fraction of the population own the vast majority of land and other resources.
Let's all sort out this much bigger and globally impactful inequality first, before worrying about some museum pieces.
Indeed, across the entire globe, only a tiny fraction of the population own the vast majority of land and other resources.
Let's all sort out this much bigger and globally impactful inequality first, before worrying about some museum pieces.
[deleted]
Her and what army?
[deleted](1)
MomoXenosaga(2)
Elon Musk wants his bust back!
She paid $35 for a piece of art that was stolen by Nazis and felt that she had the right to “negotiate” the terms of its return? How about just give it back?
Give it back to whom exactly? How does she know who the "rightful" owner is without knowing its provenance? Possessing looted art is not a good look and neither is transmitting (wittingly or not) to a party that isn't the rightful owner. She did the smart thing.
The article clearly states it was from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompejanum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompejanum
That wiki page and the article clearly state this museum was built in the 1840s. So what is your basis for asserting this sculpture was stolen by nazis?
From the article it sounds like it was stolen from the German people by an American soldier.
The German people stole it from someone else so why does it matter
You don't know that. The German museum it was in was built in the 1840s, a hundred years before this sculpture was looted from it. It may well have been legally purchased a century or more before nazis existed.
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 agree is fair.
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 agree is fair.
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.
Roman artefacts are dug up all over western Europe and even further. Is your premise that only one country is the allowed descendants of the Empire and that other constituted parts of the Empire aren't allowed their shared legacy?
You’re basing this statement on what?
The sculpture is of a man named Drusus Germanicus. What do you think "Germanicus" means?
If the statue is the Drusus Germanicus I think it is, he was a Roman general and politician who earned the agnomen Germanicus for leading successful military campaigns in Germania.
See also: Scipio Africanus; he got that name for conquering Carthage.
See also: Scipio Africanus; he got that name for conquering Carthage.
It didn't look like the famous one, at least to me.
Romans were notorious for reusing names.
Even if it were the famous one, he was, in fact, in Germany, yes?
Romans were notorious for reusing names.
Even if it were the famous one, he was, in fact, in Germany, yes?
> It didn't look like the famous one, at least to me.
You're not alone in thinking that. The article says the sculpture might actually be Pompey, not Drusus Germanicus. Evidently there's no name written on it, so it was probably catalogued as Drusus Germanicus because somebody thought it looked like the Drusus Germanicus, but they may well have been wrong.
> Even if it were the famous one, he was, in fact, in Germany, yes?
He certainly was. As far as I'm concerned, Germany is a perfectly fitting place for a sculpture of Drusus Germanicus.
My main point here is you can't assume a Roman was from the place they were named after. They might have been, or might not have been. Generally speaking, it's not even a given that a person named Germanicus was ever in Germania nor had any ancestry from Germania. The son of Drusus Germanicus was the Germanicus, the most famous Germanicus. The Germanicus to whom you can refer with the name Germanicus alone. The Germanicus inherited that name from his father Drusus. Complicating the matter, the Germanicus then went on to lead numerous military campaigns in Germania as his father did before him, but he already had the name Germanicus as a child, inherited from his father Drusus. There are actually a whole slew of Romans with the name Germanicus and many of them likely never set foot in Germania. Emperor Claudius (brother of the Germanicus and son of Drusus Germanicus) had the name Germanicus as well, but he was probably never in Germania. Nero and Caligula were also named Germanicus. A ton of Romans were.
You're not alone in thinking that. The article says the sculpture might actually be Pompey, not Drusus Germanicus. Evidently there's no name written on it, so it was probably catalogued as Drusus Germanicus because somebody thought it looked like the Drusus Germanicus, but they may well have been wrong.
> Even if it were the famous one, he was, in fact, in Germany, yes?
He certainly was. As far as I'm concerned, Germany is a perfectly fitting place for a sculpture of Drusus Germanicus.
My main point here is you can't assume a Roman was from the place they were named after. They might have been, or might not have been. Generally speaking, it's not even a given that a person named Germanicus was ever in Germania nor had any ancestry from Germania. The son of Drusus Germanicus was the Germanicus, the most famous Germanicus. The Germanicus to whom you can refer with the name Germanicus alone. The Germanicus inherited that name from his father Drusus. Complicating the matter, the Germanicus then went on to lead numerous military campaigns in Germania as his father did before him, but he already had the name Germanicus as a child, inherited from his father Drusus. There are actually a whole slew of Romans with the name Germanicus and many of them likely never set foot in Germania. Emperor Claudius (brother of the Germanicus and son of Drusus Germanicus) had the name Germanicus as well, but he was probably never in Germania. Nero and Caligula were also named Germanicus. A ton of Romans were.
It means he has an awfully Italian sounding name.
And? My FIL has an "Italian sounding name", but he's never been within 3,000 miles of Italy.
The Roman Empire covered a lot of territory.
The Roman Empire covered a lot of territory.
it's Latin
His very great friend in Rome was called Biggus Dickus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrcbCW4y9Dw
One problem with NFTs is that it's harder for them to be stolen. And once lost, they can never be recovered.
It's harder to steal them because there is nothing to steal. The "art" is programmatically generated and can be instantly created by anybody at any time. It is like having someone steal your grocery store receipt and then worrying that you're going to starve even those the food is still in your fridge.
Screenshot.
The art is not the NFT. The person only "owns" a hash code that points to the art.
The art is not the NFT. The person only "owns" a hash code that points to the art.
There's nothing stopping you from creating a NFT that the original author can mark as invalid.
No. Just no.
“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 Amineddoleh.
I don't really understand why it would be hard or complicated, unless she wanted a payout.