# Steven Spielberg bought a stolen Norman Rockwell painting **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 3, 2007, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443 "2007-03-03T18:28:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![StGermain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stgermain/32/2868_2.png) [@StGermain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StGermain)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2007, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/41 "2007-03-05T15:00:31Z")
If the gallery which originally owned the painted filed an insurance claim at the time of the theft, wouldn’t ownership of the painting transfer to the insurance company in the event of recovery? StG ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2007, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/42 "2007-03-05T16:44:03Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] Maybe I’m not clear on what the function of a board is. [/QUOTE] Assumiing the museum is non-profit, the main purpose of a board is simply to provide oversight regarding how the museum is operating, oversight on budget issues and salaries. They might meet four times a year, they might meet one time a year. There is absolutely no reason they would discuss a missing Rockwell paining from another museum, unless it showed up at their museum or was offered to their museum. It might come up more contemerpaneously, in the context of “We need to spend a good portion of our endowment on greater security measures.” Or something like that. Board members are also advocates and fund-raisers, often being required to donate a certain amount and/or bring in a certain level of donation. ---
**Author:** ![Jayrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Jayrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jayrot)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2007, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/43 "2007-03-05T17:29:41Z")
**Kalhoun** , I agreed with you initially but now that I realize that the theft happened 30 years ago… I think you should give it up. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2007, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/44 "2007-03-05T17:30:35Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] You seem to be contending that it would HAVE to come up in a board meeting. No one is saying it’s _impossible_ that the subject could have arisen, but you seem to be contending that it would have been unavoidable when it would have been unlikely at best. It was not a piece that had anything to do with their collection and it was stolen 30 years ago. Why would the subject ever surface in discussions of the day-to-day operations of their own museum? [/QUOTE] The Scooter Libby prosecutor called. He wonders it it’s too late to get **Kalhoun** into that jury slot. ---
**Author:** ![jacob\_wrestling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/76d3ee/32.png) [@jacob\_wrestling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jacob_wrestling)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2007, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/45 "2007-03-05T19:37:19Z")
[QUOTE=Cartooniverse] Is there any analogy to handling a countefeit $ 20 ? I get it from a store. Unknowingly. The store clerk had no clue. The customer who handed it to THAT clerk may or may not have knowingly passed a fraud bill. I go to the bank to make a cash deposit. The bank seizes my 20, smiles and says, " Sorry pal. You're out the 20.00 ". The bank can claim “ownership” based upon their representation of the Federal Reserve in such matters. I doubt I can get my $ 20 back from that store clerk, and the bank isn’t giving me squat. Perhaps you are right- Spielberg has no rights to the painting at all, despite his having paid for it. OTOH, he IS a fan of the artist, and we presume him to be a decent guy. I cannot see him fighting this in court for years. I can see him giving it to the Museum and taking the loss. [/QUOTE] I don’t think counterfit money is really an apt analogy, because the whole BFP thing only applies to purchasers of _goods_. The BFP statute to which I’ve been alluding is ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2007, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/46 "2007-03-05T20:05:43Z")
The only fair punishment for Spielberg is to submerge him in the waters off Coney Island for 2000 years. All current and contracted film projects will be completed by his non-union Mexican equivalent. ---
**Author:** ![jacob\_wrestling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/76d3ee/32.png) [@jacob\_wrestling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jacob_wrestling)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2007, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/47 "2007-03-05T20:15:28Z")
[QUOTE=Cartooniverse] Is there any analogy to handling a countefeit $ 20 ? I get it from a store. Unknowingly. The store clerk had no clue. The customer who handed it to THAT clerk may or may not have knowingly passed a fraud bill. I go to the bank to make a cash deposit. The bank seizes my 20, smiles and says, " Sorry pal. You're out the 20.00 ". The bank can claim “ownership” based upon their representation of the Federal Reserve in such matters. I doubt I can get my $ 20 back from that store clerk, and the bank isn’t giving me squat. Perhaps you are right- Spielberg has no rights to the painting at all, despite his having paid for it. OTOH, he IS a fan of the artist, and we presume him to be a decent guy. I cannot see him fighting this in court for years. I can see him giving it to the Museum and taking the loss. [/QUOTE] The BFP statute to which I’ve been alluding is [Section 2-403](http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-403.html) of the Uniform Commercial Code (enacted in every state, I believe) if you are interested in taking a look yourself. I don’t think counterfit money is an apt analogy, because the whole BFP thing only applies to purchasers of goods. You can’t have “title” to cash. As a guess, I would say that the person who gets stuck with counterfeit cash is SOL, unless he can track down who passed the bill. Practically speaking, he would go back to the store, talk to a manger, and probably get refunded the $20 because the store wants to keep him a happy customer. Here’s an example of where a BFP _would_ have title superior to even that of the original true owner. Let’s say I own a car dealership. I’ve got a Bugatti Veyron sitting on my lot priced at $1.5 million dollars. Sammy Slick walks onto my lot, writes a check for the full amount, and I let him drive off into the sunset. The next day, Sammy sells the Bugatti to Joe Moneybags for $1 million, pockets the money, and heads to Argentina. Meanwhile, I find out Sammy’s check has bounced. I also find out that the car has been sold to Joe Moneybags, so I sue to get it back from him. Presuming Joe was a BFP, he would have better title than me.\*\* Why? By purchasing the Bugatti with a bad check, Sammy acquired _voidable_ rather than _void_ title. When Sammy sold that car to the BFP, the voidable title blossomed into full title. On the other hand, if Sammy had stolen the car from my lot, he only would have acquired void title. Void title cannot blossom into full title simply by selling to a BFP. In the first scenario, the original owner is an “active” partcipant in the loss of his property, so the BFP wins. In the second scenario, the original owner didn’t do anything wrong at all, so he wins. Unfortunately, when there are two innocent parties and the wrongdoer has slipped away, somebody has to lose. Like I said, I don’t think Spielberg has rights to the painting, but I could be wrong. Also, if he’s really keen on getting his money back, he may have a cause of action against the art dealer he bought it from. Art dealers are held to much higher standards in determing whether a painting can be sold than are private collectors. You’re right, since he’s presumably a decent guy, and this loss isn’t going to wreck his life, he’ll probably give it back to the true owner without a fight (assuming that owner can be found). \*\*Some states have enacted statutes to prevent exactly this type of thing from happening re: motor vehicles. ---
**Author:** ![nashiitashii](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7c8e57/32.png) [@nashiitashii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nashiitashii)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2007, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/48 "2007-03-05T20:48:23Z")
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus] Assumiing the museum is non-profit, the main purpose of a board is simply to provide oversight regarding how the museum is operating, oversight on budget issues and salaries. They might meet four times a year, they might meet one time a year. There is absolutely no reason they would discuss a missing Rockwell paining from another museum, unless it showed up at their museum or was offered to their museum. It might come up more contemerpaneously, in the context of “We need to spend a good portion of our endowment on greater security measures.” Or something like that. Board members are also advocates and fund-raisers, often being required to donate a certain amount and/or bring in a certain level of donation. [/QUOTE] In many cases, local people who are in the museum field are members of a museum board as well. Depending on how many museums are in town, the employees of one museum may have seats on the board of another museum, and laypeople who are not donors also are eligible for roles on the board of the museum. The point, for the most part, is to have a governing body that holds the interests of the surrounding community as a supervisor of museum activities. Now, in regard to the issue of a stolen artwork… The original owners have the right to the object if they can provide substantial proof that, not only do they own the painting, but that they are the last owners and the painting was stolen. (This comes up a lot concerning art stolen by the Nazis in WWII, and provenance during that period can be tricky because of the “confiscations” that were done throughout Europe and then later sold off randomly.) There are different methods for proof, but in this case, it does appear that the gallery from which it was stolen have the rights to the painting within the guidelines of museum-related ethics policies. (If a museum is found to have purchased items that were stolen but had an unreliable provenance at the time of purchase, they have to forfeit the pieces at their own cost. This is why it’s especially important for museums and galleries to verify the provenance of any object that they acquire before an acquisition is made.) Considering that Spielberg is a board member of the Norman Rockwell Museum, it would behoove him to return the painting to the gallery at his own cost, lest he face suggestions that he is no longer welcome as a board member of the museum. Now, I’m not aware of what the law specifies in regard to situations like this, but am working under the premise of theory in practice in the museum world, which works within a framework of “what should one do to appear an ethical member of the community” rather than “what are we minimally responsible for according to the law.” ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2007, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/49 "2007-03-06T00:37:01Z")
I stand corrected. Poor analogy. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2007, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/50 "2007-03-06T01:10:14Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] Why wouldn’t they? They discuss other pieces that aren’t in their collection. You really think the concept of discussing stolen Rockwells would be preposterous at a Rockwell Museum board meeting? You don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that it would come up once in a while, seeing as they’re dedicated to the art of Norman Rockwell? You don’t think the board members would discuss their own collections once in a while? Yeah…that’s a real stretch. [/QUOTE] What the hell would they have to say about it? “Anyone seen this painting since the last meeting?” “Nope.” “Not me.” “No.” “I got nothing.” “Okay, next item on the agenda. Anyone seen _this_ painting since the last meeting?” ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2007, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/51 "2007-03-06T03:10:43Z")
According to [this article](http://www.dailytexanonline.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=1d1d058d-3d7c-46ea-a220-0346a2a3cd07) dated almost a year ago, Linda Pero, curator of the Norman Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge, Mass., didn’t even know the painting was stolen but the museum passed up a chance to bid on it when it turned up in 1988. According to [this article,](http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2007-02-28/news/the-purloined-rockwell/) at least two people saw it put up for sale again in 1989 and tried to get police to reopen an investigation, but failed. About the woman who sold it last: > [@](#): > > That story, by longtime contributor Wm. Stage, recounts a conversation with Goffman Cutler, noting that the art dealer “doubted whether the Rockwell in her possession had likely been stolen.” Stage wrote that Goffman Cutler “had gotten it from someone who’d purchased it at auction,” and that “the stolen Rockwell was a different version of the one she had just sold – to an undisclosed person for an undisclosed sum.” > > The FBI art crime team believes that “undisclosed person” to whom Goffman Cutler refers was Spielberg. > > Brostrom says his “friendly source” indicated the “undisclosed sum” was $200,000. > > Goffman Cutler did not return a phone call requesting comment for this story. Sounds fishy. In 1993 Spielberg helps build a new Norman Rockwell museum in Stockbridge, Mass., and becomes a founder and member of the Board of Trustees. Well, I assume that’s when he became a founder and board member. Even though he’s known to be among an elite of Rockwell collectors, he never mentions his personal stash to other members of the museum. Yuh, uh-huh. In 2004 the FBI forms a new unit devoted to recovering stolen art just like the missing Rockwell. In 2006 Linda Pero, who must know Spielberg personally, is surprised to hear the painting is stolen. Meanwhile, the FBI are closing in on the “undisclosed” person who bought it in 1989. In 2007, someone on Spielberg’s staff _suddenly_ realizes they have a stolen painting and they _immediately_ call the FBI. Yuh, uh-huh. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but I think the FBI busted him and suggested he “discover” he’s got a stolen painting, so things don’t get too messy. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2007, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/52 "2007-03-06T09:45:34Z")
Why is it that you can accept the fact that a Rockwell expert like Linda Pero can see a Rockwell painting for sale and then go twenty years without knowing it was stolen but you can’t believe Steven Spielberg did the same thing? According to the articles, the FBI recently started an investigation into the painting’s current whereabouts and was sending inquiries out to known Rockwell collectors. One of Spielberg’s people heard about this investigation and said, “Hey, we’ve got that painting” and called the FBI. ---
**Author:** ![Fir\_na\_tine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Fir\_na\_tine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fir_na_tine)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2007, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/53 "2007-03-06T14:15:04Z")
[QUOTE=levdrakon] Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, . [/QUOTE] You Sir, are a conspiracy theorist of the highest order.! Next folks will be saying that Judge Crater and Jimmy Hoffa are interred in the foundations of Spielberg’s home. ---
**Author:** ![middleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9a140/32.png) [@middleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/middleman)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2007, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/54 "2007-03-07T16:21:19Z")
I didn’t think you could be a BFP if there was fraud or theft up the line of commerce. Especially in art law, where theft is commonplace. The duty was on Spielberg to verify its chain of ownership. However, I am sure he will not face criminal charges for three reasons: 1. It appears to be an honest mistake based on his actions of notifying the authorities. 2. The statute of limitations lapsed decades ago. 3. He’s Steven Spielberg. ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2007, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/55 "2007-03-07T16:39:00Z")
[QUOTE=middleman] The duty was on Spielberg to verify its chain of ownership. [/QUOTE] cite? ---
**Author:** ![middleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9a140/32.png) [@middleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/middleman)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2007, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/56 "2007-03-07T16:52:50Z")
[QUOTE=garygnu] cite? [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > Original owners face difficult evidentiary burdens and other litigation barriers, but law and policy nevertheless favor original owners above innocent buyers. In particular, courts have become increasingly impatient with the anarchy of the international art market and are prepared to impose a duty to search upon those who invest in valuable works of art. Under these circumstances, most disputes between original owners and innocent buyers are likely to be settled out of court. Moreover, the art world, in response to the duty to search, has begun developing title search methods and other title-related policies so future art buyers can rest assured that they have not brought looted property. … > [@](#): > > The law clearly favors the original owner over a subsequent innocent purchaser in stolen art cases. States have attempted to protect good-faith purchasers to some extent through various statute of limitations schemes. However, statutes of limitations are probably irrelevant in most World War II loot cases since the owners were generally in no position either to prevent the theft in the first place or to search effectively for their property after the end of the war.[239] > > ``` > The good-faith purchaser is not left entirely without recourse, however. There remains the possibility of demanding compensation from the dealer from whom the work was purchased and who may have had a duty to inspect the title.[240] In theory, the line of purchasers could be traced all the way back to the first dealer who knowingly purchased the work from the Nazis or other looters. Of course, the result of such actions could be additional cost and time burdens on the plaintiff.[241] > > One new development that might help to protect good faith purchasers is title insurance for art.[242] Such insurance did not exist until very recently, so it is not a factor in disputes over artwork purchased before the 1990s.[243] However, in the future, such insurance could help to mediate the harshness of current law towards innocent buyers.[244] > > ``` [Vanderbilt Law Journal](http://law.vanderbilt.edu/journals/journal/32-05/32-5-6.html) ---
**Author:** ![middleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9a140/32.png) [@middleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/middleman)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2007, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/57 "2007-03-07T16:54:26Z")
I forgot to add, from the same article, > [@](#): > > In the United States and other common law countries, a thief cannot pass title.[188] This means that absent other considerations an artwork stolen during World War II still belongs to the original owner, even if there have been several subsequent buyers and even if each of those buyers was completely unaware that she was buying stolen goods.[189] This rule, the U.S. rule, which is also the rule in England and other common law countries, differs sharply from the rule in most civil law countries. In most civil law countries, a thief can pass title to a good faith purchaser if the owner does not find the stolen item or the thief within very few years.[190] The civil law rule has the advantage of quieting title after a period of time to a bona fide purchaser who does not know she is buying stolen goods and assigning the risk of theft to the owner, who is theoretically in the best position to protect her possessions. However, this could also present a huge and unfair burden in the situation arising from looting during the Holocaust since in many cases there was really nothing the owners could have done to better protect their property. ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2007, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/58 "2007-03-07T18:55:31Z")
Good cite, but… It doesn’t say the onus is on a purchaser to verify the title history of a piece of artwork. ---
**Author:** ![middleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9a140/32.png) [@middleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/middleman)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2007, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/59 "2007-03-08T14:06:37Z")
It does in the sense that if you don’t do a title search, courts are willing to take it away without compensation. It does not create a duty to do a title search to avoid criminal liabilty, if that is what you mean. Perhaps the word “burden” would have been more appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2007, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443/60 "2007-03-08T14:36:43Z")
[QUOTE=middleman] It does in the sense that if you don’t do a title search, courts are willing to take it away without compensation. It does not create a duty to do a title search to avoid criminal liabilty, if that is what you mean. Perhaps the word “burden” would have been more appropriate. [/QUOTE] It also very clearly says that this is a recent occurence and that the tools the courts want people to use didn’t even exist until recently. Spielberg bought the painting 18 years ago. Unless you can find a cite establishing a duty to search title in 1989 your cite is irrelevant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steven-spielberg-bought-a-stolen-norman-rockwell-painting/394443.md?page=4)