- Joined
- Dec 3, 2006
- Messages
- 14,984
- Reaction score
- 1,302
I was under the impression that there was NO time limit on claims to recover stolen and looted artworks by the Nazis. Perhaps that is the international scene and courts.
But I found this article just a few moments ago that is a very questionable decision.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/18/art.vangogh.taylor.reut/index.html
⢠Elizabeth Taylor allowed to keep Van Gogh painting
⢠Work may have been seized by Nazis during World War II
⢠Taylor bought work in 1963
⢠Family that once owned painting said it belonged to them
I think it is rather presumptuous of the judicial panel to "assume" that the claimant would have or should have known by now that Elizabeth Taylor has this work.
I am familiar with this painting having studied art history pursuing my first degree while an undergrad majoring in commercial art with a minor in fine arts, studio arts, and art history. (long story, boring...also minor in socio and psych)
Typically when a work of art in private hands, it is listed as PRIVATE COLLECTION without ever disclosing who the owner is and where it is located.
Taylor said she was the rightful owner of the painting and asserted it had passed through two Jewish art dealers without any sign of Nazi coercion before she bought it. It would be a shocker to think that any art dealer would lie to make a sale.
Any claim to the painting, Thomas said, "expired in or before 1993, three years after the last public announcement of Taylor's ownership." Somtimes news does not get around to every corner of the globe. Although I had no personal interest in this item, I was totally unaware that she was the buyer or the owner.
...claiming that the work had been confiscated by the Nazis and should be returned to them under the 1998 U.S. Holocaust Victims Redress Act.
If I am not mistaken, 1998 is five years AFTER the panel is claiming the right to claim expired in 1993.
Whether or not the family making the claim is telling the truth and can provide proof does not even seem to have been raised or even considered a factor at this stage. Granted, I don't have the full court ruling, but they seem to be fixated on a date rather than the claim to rightful ownership.
I would imagine that this is not the end of this furor.
In regards to value...add to the fact that this is a Van Gogh, celebrity owned, now highly publicized, this would without question be worth in the hundreds of millions and would quite possibly set a new auction record by a modern master let alone for a work by Van Gogh. So there is no wonder why this will most likely be in contention for quite sometime.
Looks just like some of the WIPO decisions I have seen...makes no sense sometimes.
But I found this article just a few moments ago that is a very questionable decision.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/18/art.vangogh.taylor.reut/index.html
⢠Elizabeth Taylor allowed to keep Van Gogh painting
⢠Work may have been seized by Nazis during World War II
⢠Taylor bought work in 1963
⢠Family that once owned painting said it belonged to them
I think it is rather presumptuous of the judicial panel to "assume" that the claimant would have or should have known by now that Elizabeth Taylor has this work.
I am familiar with this painting having studied art history pursuing my first degree while an undergrad majoring in commercial art with a minor in fine arts, studio arts, and art history. (long story, boring...also minor in socio and psych)
Typically when a work of art in private hands, it is listed as PRIVATE COLLECTION without ever disclosing who the owner is and where it is located.
Taylor said she was the rightful owner of the painting and asserted it had passed through two Jewish art dealers without any sign of Nazi coercion before she bought it. It would be a shocker to think that any art dealer would lie to make a sale.
Any claim to the painting, Thomas said, "expired in or before 1993, three years after the last public announcement of Taylor's ownership." Somtimes news does not get around to every corner of the globe. Although I had no personal interest in this item, I was totally unaware that she was the buyer or the owner.
...claiming that the work had been confiscated by the Nazis and should be returned to them under the 1998 U.S. Holocaust Victims Redress Act.
If I am not mistaken, 1998 is five years AFTER the panel is claiming the right to claim expired in 1993.
Whether or not the family making the claim is telling the truth and can provide proof does not even seem to have been raised or even considered a factor at this stage. Granted, I don't have the full court ruling, but they seem to be fixated on a date rather than the claim to rightful ownership.
I would imagine that this is not the end of this furor.
In regards to value...add to the fact that this is a Van Gogh, celebrity owned, now highly publicized, this would without question be worth in the hundreds of millions and would quite possibly set a new auction record by a modern master let alone for a work by Van Gogh. So there is no wonder why this will most likely be in contention for quite sometime.
Looks just like some of the WIPO decisions I have seen...makes no sense sometimes.
