http://thetrack.bostonherald.com/moreTrack/view.bg?articleid=186175
I wonder what will happen now.
Well, since he sits on the Board of the Norman Rockwell Museum, I suspect he will do one of two things:
- Give the painting to the museum and suck up the cash loss.
- Pay the museum the fair market value, and keep the original print.
He collects Rockwell’s fairly seriously and I suspect, based on comments from him and his staff, that he really did NOT know he was buying stolen goods.
We do see a certain theme here in terms of decorative choices. Spielberg also owns one of two extant balsa wood props of the infamous Rosebud sled from Citizen Kane. Apparently idyllic childhood iconography is a biggie with Steve.
Cartooniverse
I always knew he had bad taste.
That seems to be a strange thing to do. The painting was not stolen from the museum.
I suspect he meant pay money to the “gallery” from which it was stolen, not hte Norman Rockwell Museum.
He’ll give the painting back to the rightful owner. $700K? A mere blip on the financial screen for Steven.
If he purchased what he thought was an authentic Norman Rockwell then he would have had his agents authenicate the picture before paying for it. I doubt that people like Spielberg would go for a reproduction.
If Spielberg’s agents authenticated the picture then they must have discovered that it was stolen before he decided to purchase it.
If it were up to me I’d book him for dealing in stolen goods.
Spielberg obviously trusted the dealer he bought it from, and since it was his staff that notified the FBI of the situation (voluntarily), why would he be booked for anything?
How could he not know it was stolen, then?
Well no one can argue with evidence like that. Lock him up.
Not that I’m suggesting “lock him up” but the claim you didn’t know you were trafficking in stolen goods in not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.
Unless you’re ridiculously rich of course.
He bought it from a legitimate dealer, therefore he had no reason to believe it was stolen. The prosecution would have to prove he knew it was stolen.
Indeed, as soon as they learned it was a stolen piece:
“should have known” in this case, I think, should be punished with forty lashes with a wet noodle, at most.
No doubt, LE will be more interested in the “legitimate dealer.”
Without question. And I would guess that a dealer has a lot less room for deniability.
Speaking from a purely civil litigation standpoint, Spielberg would be completely in the clear since he would be considered a bona fide purchaser, free from any potential liability. And if I remember my property law correctly, I don’t believe he is even obligated to give the painting back.
Obviously, that would be a bad PR move and generally a jerkish thing to do, but if he wanted to, he could keep the painting free and clear. I could be remembering incorrectly though, so if there’s any attorneys out there, I appreciate a correction, if neccesary.
Why would he know it was stolen? It’s not like he was buying it out of the back of a truck.
It’s not like there’s a central office where all art owners have to register their paintings. Most paintings have uncertain ownership records and there’s no way to prove that every previous owner bought it legitimately from its prior owner. In some cases, it’s not even possible to determine who all of the previous owners were.
I don’t think you are right about that, at least according to American law.
Except for some weird cases, the property has to be returned to the rightful owner.
Was the painting insured?
And if so, who will the insurance company sue?
I’d like to know the answer to this, as well. I’m not saying he was aware, necessarily, but exactly what do Board Members discuss at these meetings? Do they not at least touch on stolen works? I guess I don’t know how the mechanics of a position like that work.
Today’s Business:
-
Buy some privately owned pieces
-
Loan some pieces to the Art Institute
-
Discuss stolen works and any progress on those cases (?)
-
Play Yahtzee.
Do any Dopers have any experience in this kind of thing?