3 ms·

We would likely all agree that seizing these stolen items back is the right decision, but I think it does raise an interesting question. Can a stolen item be p

by slg 7y ago

We would likely all agree that seizing these stolen items back is the right decision, but I think it does raise an interesting question. Can a stolen item be possessed long enough for the person or entity in possession of it to rightfully be considered the owner? There are countless museum collections around the globe that are made up of mostly stolen material. At one extreme you have ancient artifacts that were taken by colonial era archaeologists. Does the British Museum have an obligation to return the Elgin Marbles to Greece? What about items that were stolen less than a human lifetime ago? There have been plenty of examples of art stolen by the Nazis that both have and have not been returned to the rightful owners. There doesn't appear to be any consensus on this issue which results in every case resulting in its own negotiation. EDIT: I'm a little confused why this is being downvoted. Is it because of the belief that the stolen items should always belong the the original owner? I agree with that in a theoretical sense, but I was just commenting on the fact that this isn't how things operate in practice and seemingly few governments actually hold anyone to that ethical standard.

azernik 7y ago
Generally the consensus on art stolen by the Nazis, both legal and moral, is that it should be returned; when pieces are found, the original owners usually go to court and get massive public sympathy even when they don't win the case. The case of art stolen during the colonial period, e.g. the Elgin Marbles, seems to mostly be argued on pragmatic grounds, such as by saying that a mass return of all plundered art would empty out the largest museums in the world. I find this... morally unconvincing, to say the least.
- slg 7y ago
  I agree morally, but legally it doesn't appear as cut and dry as you imply. Earlier this month there was a NYT article [1] about artwork looted by the Nazis that is currently held in Polish musuems and The Culture Ministry of Poland responded [2] with an argument against the return. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/arts/design/poland-nazi-looted-art.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/arts/design/poland-nazi-l... [2] - https://polandin.com/46197504/polish-ministry-of-culture-rejects-nyt-accusations https://polandin.com/46197504/polish-ministry-of-culture-rej...
- toyg 7y ago
  There is an argument for conservation that is hard to dismiss. A lot of artefacts were found in countries that are currently unstable or otherwise struggle to care appropriately even for what they already hold. Repatriating everything would likely mean, in most cases, a reduction of publicly-available material (as more stuff is simply removed from view due to lack of funds), and at worst destruction or loss (Syria being the most famous example, but even Greece during the crisis was reportedly considering selling a lot of their artefacts). As much as I’d like the Louvre gutted of its looted contents, I am pretty sure that returning yet another Leonardo painting to Italy or yet another marble statue to Greece, will just satisfy the basest nationalist instincts (which will probably move on to some other complaint a minute later) while impoverishing the global public.
rhizome 7y ago
IANAL, but I believe the concept you're talking about is called "adverse possession," and that it's complicated. Some say yes, the British Museum should return its fruits of conquest, and other museums have indeed repatriated stolen artifacts. Heck, one recent example involves the owner of Hobby Lobby: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scandal
- beerandt 7y ago
  The technical term for recognized squatters rights, for instance, is "prescription by adverse possession" or "prescription by good-faith possession". (Obviously varies some by jurisdiction.) The difference is that the law in most places recognizes fault vs no-fault of the possessor, and so the requirements for legal ownership are different, usually about 10 years vs 30 years of possession. Movable property is much more varied and complicated.
- bdowling 7y ago
  Adverse possession is a doctrine which exclusively applies to real property, i.e., land, and is therefore inapplicable here.
bdowling 7y ago
> Can a stolen item be possessed long enough for the person or entity in possession of it to rightfully be considered the owner? A true owner can recover a stolen item from a thief who still has possession. However, if the thief sells the item to a bona fide purchaser (i.e., one who pays fair market value without knowing or having reason to know that the item was stolen), then the bona fide purchaser receives superior title to the item than that of the prior owner. So, the prior owner cannot force a court to transfer the item to him and is limited to attempting to recover the value from the thief. The idea here is that the bona fide purchaser did nothing wrong, so he should not end up the loser in the deal.

by slg 7y ago

azernik 7y ago

Generally the consensus on art stolen by the Nazis, both legal and moral, is that it should be returned; when pieces are found, the original owners usually go to court and get massive public sympathy even when they don't win the case. The case of art stolen during the colonial period, e.g. the Elgin Marbles, seems to mostly be argued on pragmatic grounds, such as by saying that a mass return of all plundered art would empty out the largest museums in the world. I find this... morally unconvincing, to say the least.

slg 7y ago
I agree morally, but legally it doesn't appear as cut and dry as you imply. Earlier this month there was a NYT article [1] about artwork looted by the Nazis that is currently held in Polish musuems and The Culture Ministry of Poland responded [2] with an argument against the return. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/arts/design/poland-nazi-looted-art.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/arts/design/poland-nazi-l... [2] - https://polandin.com/46197504/polish-ministry-of-culture-rejects-nyt-accusations https://polandin.com/46197504/polish-ministry-of-culture-rej...
toyg 7y ago
There is an argument for conservation that is hard to dismiss. A lot of artefacts were found in countries that are currently unstable or otherwise struggle to care appropriately even for what they already hold. Repatriating everything would likely mean, in most cases, a reduction of publicly-available material (as more stuff is simply removed from view due to lack of funds), and at worst destruction or loss (Syria being the most famous example, but even Greece during the crisis was reportedly considering selling a lot of their artefacts). As much as I’d like the Louvre gutted of its looted contents, I am pretty sure that returning yet another Leonardo painting to Italy or yet another marble statue to Greece, will just satisfy the basest nationalist instincts (which will probably move on to some other complaint a minute later) while impoverishing the global public.

rhizome 7y ago

IANAL, but I believe the concept you're talking about is called "adverse possession," and that it's complicated. Some say yes, the British Museum should return its fruits of conquest, and other museums have indeed repatriated stolen artifacts. Heck, one recent example involves the owner of Hobby Lobby: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scandal

beerandt 7y ago
The technical term for recognized squatters rights, for instance, is "prescription by adverse possession" or "prescription by good-faith possession". (Obviously varies some by jurisdiction.) The difference is that the law in most places recognizes fault vs no-fault of the possessor, and so the requirements for legal ownership are different, usually about 10 years vs 30 years of possession. Movable property is much more varied and complicated.
bdowling 7y ago
Adverse possession is a doctrine which exclusively applies to real property, i.e., land, and is therefore inapplicable here.

bdowling 7y ago

> Can a stolen item be possessed long enough for the person or entity in possession of it to rightfully be considered the owner? A true owner can recover a stolen item from a thief who still has possession. However, if the thief sells the item to a bona fide purchaser (i.e., one who pays fair market value without knowing or having reason to know that the item was stolen), then the bona fide purchaser receives superior title to the item than that of the prior owner. So, the prior owner cannot force a court to transfer the item to him and is limited to attempting to recover the value from the thief. The idea here is that the bona fide purchaser did nothing wrong, so he should not end up the loser in the deal.