If art is sold, due to dire circumstances in pre-WWII Germany is sale illegal later?

[astro]

Per this story what are the legal or moral obligations of Ms. Taylor to give the art back to the descendants even if it was sold “uder acute political pressure and economic duress”? In looking at the timelines Hitler came to power in 1933, so I can imagine worried Jewish citizens were converting valuables to cash in getting ready to leave, or possibly trying to weather the political storm. If it was taken/stolen by the German government I could understand the demand for return, but selling it to dealer seems to put it into a somewaht different category.

WWII HAUNTS LIZ’S VAN GOGH

SCREEN legend Elizabeth Taylor could be forced to hand over a $15 million van Gogh painting allegedly looted by the Nazis from a prominent Jewish family who fled Germany in 1939.

The painting, “View of the Asylum of Saint-Remy,” was bought for Taylor by her art-dealer father at a London auction in 1963 for around $170,000. At the time, “Cleopatra” had just been released and she was at the height of her fame, about to marry her co-star Richard Burton (for the first time.)

However, in the 1930s, the painting was one of seven van Goghs owned by Margarete Mauthner, a German-Jewish patron of the arts who is thought to have acquired the work directly from van Gogh’s family. Her descendants are now demanding the painting be returned to them.

---

Two-time Oscar-winner Taylor, who converted to Judaism when she married Eddie Fisher, has said previously: “I have not been presented with any information that suggests the painting was ever in Nazi possession, nor that there is any other basis for these claims.” Her lawyers claim the van Gogh was freely sold to a legitimate German dealer in 1933.

Orkin’s lawyer in Washington, D.C., Thomas Hamilton, confirmed he would be “filing a pleading,” but declined to release any details. However, he has stated, “U.S. policy and law immediately after World War II have been consistent and clear: European Jews sold property during the Holocaust era under acute political pressure and economic duress and it must be returned to them.”

[iwakura43]

IANAL of course, but I don’t think Liz has any legal or moral obligation to give (or even sell) the painting back. I’m not sure what the lawyer is referring to with “U.S. policy and law immediately after World War II have been consistent and clear: European Jews sold property during the Holocaust era under acute political pressure and economic duress and it must be returned to them.”, but if the painting was purchased at a legitimate auction from a legitimate dealer, then the seller has no claim to it. It’s not stolen property–people sell their assets all the time to rescue themselves from dire straits. That’s the breaks.

[DrDeth]

You know, after it changes hands a few times, and the dudes it was taken from are all now dead- does it really have a “rightful” owner? I mean, the US took most of the Indian land and most of the Mexican land “under duress & pressure”(if not plain out & out force) and I don’t see us offering that back any time soon.

Look at the line “Her descendants are now demanding…”. Eh. They didn’t buy it or own it.

There isn’t a square inch of land in Europe or the Middle East that hasn’t been taken & retaken under force or “duress & pressure”. :rolleyes:

[Huerta88]

An interesting question to the “rightful owners” would be, if this art is so important and valuable and part of the cultural patrimony of Europe, how did it come to be the private property of you (assuming you’re not the artist or his family member)?

An especially interesting question when you consider all the impecunious artists whose paintings may never have sold during their lifetimes, or were peddled for a few sous to buy bread to keep the guy from starving. Should we be looking up the heirs of the artists, who sold under the “economic duress” of being poor as churchmice? I don’t see any of the Austrian or German families lining up to make such an offer . . . .