Steven Spielberg bought a stolen Norman Rockwell painting

[glee]

@Miller

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?”

I like this and think there is a play crying out to be written…

Scene 1
DAY
Location: A boardroom, with a valuable wooden table and plush chairs. There is a side table with bottles of mineral water and glasses.

Door opens.

A number of well-dressed businessmen enter, followed by an attractive female secretary.
One businessman (Keyser Soze) strides to the head of the table and sits. The others make way for him, showing a mixture of deference and fear.

Keyser Soze: Be seated gentlemen. (He waves a hand dismissively.) Miss Lemon, I’ll have a water.

The secretary (Miss Lemon) pours a drink and brings it to Soze.
The businessmen sit down. One of them, with a deferental air, hands round copies of a sheet of paper.

Keyser Soze: I bring the March meeting of the museum committee to order. The first item on the agenda is - Wormtongue?

Wormtongue (the obseqious man): Ah, Sir, it’s the minutes of the previous meeting.

Keyser Soze: We don’t need those read. (Aggressively) Any objections?

The other men look down, refusing to mee his gaze.

Keyser Soze: Good. Next?

Wormtongue: Sir, it’s stolen paintings.

Keyser Soze: Really? Very well, read the list.

Wormtongue: Yes Sir. The first item is Edvard Munch’s ‘The Scream’.

Businessman1 (Lestrade): Wasn’t that recovered?

Keyser Soze: (grinning) Yes of course. No doubt about it. Move on.

Wormtongue: The next item is L.S. Lowry’s ‘Two Women and Children’.

Businessman2 (Bertie Wooster): Is he English? What’s his style?

Businessman1 (Lestrade): He did stick figures. Actually the painting in Mr. Soze’s office is a fine example of the genre.

Heads turn to Keyser Soze, then quickly look away.

Keyser Soze: (frowning) Thank you Lestrade for that … interesting … observation. (Lestrade pales).
This meeting is now over.

Miss Lemon and all businessmen (except for Lestrade), plus hurry out the room. Lestrade seems unable to move as Soze stares menacingly at him.

Keyser Soze: Lestrade … don’t let me detain you.

Lestrade runs out the room.

FADE

[middleman]

@Zakalwe

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.

Not so. This seems to be one of those areas in law that duty can be established ex post facto (something that always bothered me a little).

If they are CURRENTLY establishing a duty to search for cases stemming out of WW2 era purchases, then that clearly predates the 1989 purchase.

Just because there was no case law establishing a duty at the time of purchase apparently does not prevent the courts from saying such a duty (or burden) existed even absent legal notice.

Personally, it is not such a ridiculous premise. If you are going to spend large coin on a painting, something known to be subject to theft and fraud, you probably SHOULD perform a little due dilligence.

[Zakalwe]

@middleman

Personally, it is not such a ridiculous premise. If you are going to spend large coin on a painting, something known to be subject to theft and fraud, you probably SHOULD perform a little due dilligence.

Or you buy from a reputable dealer assuming that they’ve done due diligence.

From your second quote:

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.

I’m not saying the courts might not take the painting away from Speilberg, I’m just saying that it’s revisionist nonsense to paint (heh) him as somehow culpably negligent in the purchase of this piece of art.

[garygnu]

@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.

It would appear from most of the articles I’ve read that Spielberg isn’t opposed to giving up the painting to whomever is declared the rightful owner, which is what your cite says should happen. Some in this thread want Spielberg strung up because he “should have known.” He’s an innocent buyer cooperating with authoraties, which, according to your cite, is all that should be asked of him. Zakalwe is absolutely right, it’s that seller that’s in the hot seat.

[middleman]

@Zakalwe

I’m not saying the courts might not take the painting away from Speilberg, I’m just saying that it’s revisionist nonsense to paint (heh) him as somehow culpably negligent in the purchase of this piece of art.

The law often goes the lesser of two evils route. Do we place the burden on a Spielberg who could have looked into the history of the painting prior to spending a lot of money or do we punish the rightful owner who was the victim of the theft? It is sort of a zero sum game here (absent compensation by the dealer). I think the court is not out of bounds or revisionist to devise the “due dilligence” test in deciding between two competing, good faith parties.

PS- Re: “paint” pun? BOOOOO!

@garygnu

It would appear from most of the articles I’ve read that Spielberg isn’t opposed to giving up the painting to whomever is declared the rightful owner, which is what your cite says should happen. Some in this thread want Spielberg strung up because he “should have known.” He’s an innocent buyer cooperating with authoraties, which, according to your cite, is all that should be asked of him. Zakalwe is absolutely right, it’s that seller that’s in the hot seat.

I’m not one of those strung up folk. I am more concerned with how you settle the dispute between two competing victims. I agree that Spielberg is not a bad human being or morally corrupt. I also agree that in a perfect world, a rich man should be able to go to a reputable dealer and assume that he is buying a work with clear title.

But this does not seem to be an unknown or uncommon occurance in the world of art. I don’t think this is the first time this has happened. (Cite: most good “caper” movies :D) I just think this is the first time it has happened to the director of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

In the end, it is likely Spielberg who will be inconvienced. Even if he is successful in his pursuit of the dealer, he will still be out time, energy and legal fees. A little due dilligence beyond mere assumption would be wise (going forward anyway).

Even though Speilberg is a victim here, I argue that the more sympathetic (legally and morally) is the original vicitm of the theft.