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
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.
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.
The Scooter Libby prosecutor called. He wonders it it’s too late to get Kalhoun into that jury slot.
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
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.
The BFP statute to which I’ve been alluding is Section 2-403 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.
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.”
I stand corrected. Poor analogy.
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?”
According to this article 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, 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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
- It appears to be an honest mistake based on his actions of notifying the authorities.
- The statute of limitations lapsed decades ago.
- He’s Steven Spielberg.
cite?
I forgot to add, from the same article,
Good cite, but…
It doesn’t say the onus is on a purchaser to verify the title history of a piece of artwork.
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.
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.