Back at home, Young had a problem: She was in possession of a looted piece of ancient art. She couldn't keep it. She couldn't sell it. And giving it back to its rightful owners was a lot harder than it sounds.
“At that point, I realized I was probably going to need some help,” Young says. “I was probably going to need an attorney.”
So she hired a lawyer in New York who specializes in international art law, Leila Amineddoleh.
I don't really understand why it would be hard or complicated, unless she wanted a payout.
Both for establishing the right of ownership of who she is sending it to, as well as requiring indemnification on the transfer should someone else step forward claiming it.
Worst case would be that she sends it to someone over there, then someone else shows up showing they own it. Imagine if someone in the US ended up showing they owned it and the Germans say tough luck. She would then have to defend herself wherever the claimant chooses (possibly even the US), with no actual object should a court decide she has to produce it.
She's an antiques dealer. It's her job to buy old things and sell them for more. That's why she was in Goodwill.
I think she likely wanted a payout. Also the terms of the deal are confidential. If she didn't get a payout, I don't see why they would be confidential.
* How is it going to be transported? Squashing it into airplane luggage is probably not a good idea, neither is sending it via a parcel.
* What happens if something happens to it during transport? Generally works of art are insured before they are being transported. Do you know insurers though? Before you insure it, you need to determine the value.
* For very important works of art, countries might put restrictions onto exports. Not sure if this includes the US, but customs are certainly an important question.
* You might get sued by the rightful owners for wrong handling... ideally you want an agreement that releases you from any requirements to pay for damages to the object.
* Ideally the insurance, transport, etc is paid by the rightful owners, which would be good to have in a contract. How do you enforce that they really pay? Ideally, the owners would take care about the insurer and transportation directly, so that it's them getting the bills instead of you getting them and then having to get the owners to pay them.
Under the 4th Geneva Convention - looting is a war crime. If you know you're in possession of ill gotten gains - one should always obtain legal advice -
"I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand international law, but despite that (lack of) knowledge I'm going to assume to assume this person was trying to do a bad thing"
> I don't really understand why it would be hard or complicated
If you don't know what to do regarding legal matters, hiring a lawyer is an obvious thing to do. It may not be hard or complicated, or maybe it is, that's for her lawyer to tell.
Yeah the hiring a lawyer thing is mind boggling. If that’s the only option, then just donate the stupid head back to Goodwill and be done with it. Goodwill even says they don’t keep records about who makes donations!
I suggest that the reason that the item is staying in Texas on display at the San Antonio Museum of Art for about a year is that it's going to take that long to complete the paperwork to export it to Germany. It has to pass through a bunch of restrictions related to traffic in antiquities (looted or not), it has a value to be determined for import/export that's potentially going to require duty payments, ownership is not totally established so everyone who touches it needs some sort of indemnification in case someone claiming ownership shows up (even if they are just chancing their arm), and it'll have to be insured. Unfortunately I don't believe the thrift store receipt helps any - otherwise thrift store receipts would be a fantastic tool for e.g. money laundering. It would have taken her and one or more specialist lawyers to get to the stage where she could safely hand it to a museum. I'd expect her to be considerably out of pocket in time and fees. It would make an interesting plot for a movie if you imagine someone trying all the naive approaches and triggering all the things that could possibly go wrong.
Most certainly looking for a payout. Has anyone been to a thrift store recently? About 30% of people are in need/want of inexpensive secondhand items, while the rest of the crowd — smartphones in hand — are trying to see what can be resold for profit on EBay. This whole “side hustle” economy is killing the thrift store as an source for people in need to find inexpensive goods.
The Germans don't really have any more right to it than she does. The most likely story of this bust is from the 5th century until the 18th or 19th centuries, it was buried in the ground somewhere in Italy or former Roman empire.
The person who dug it up and sold it didn't really have an inherent right to it. They just found it.
I say all this not from a legal perspective but from an inheritors of history and culture perspective. We all inherit humanity's history and culture.
While cheesy, Indiana Jones was right: "It belongs in a museum" so it is accessible to humanity. But is that museum inherently this German one?
> The Germans don't really have any more right to it than she does.
Article 56 of the Hague Convention of 1907 disagrees. Stealing art is a war crime. So do the Allies themselves, in their memorandum on January 5th, 1943.
> The most likely story of this bust is from the 5th century until the 18th or 19th centuries, it was buried in the ground somewhere in Italy or former Roman empire.
Given that the person depicted was originally associated with Drusus Germanicus (the name's a hint here) and Aschaffenburg was in fact part of the Roman Empire back in the day, chances are they found it in the vicinity. The object is a lot more related to Aschaffenburg than Texas, which in fact never was part of the Roman Empire.
> But is that museum inherently this German one?
The wartime looting of art and/or cultural objects is barbaric as it robs the object of its historical context and the regions of their heritage. This is true regardless of the uniform that the criminal wore. If you think Germans should hand back art stolen before or during WW2, you cannot really argue against restitution demands for art stolen by Americans.
Part of the former Roman empire includes Aschaffenburg (Germany)
The modern notion of either Germany or Italy doesn't fit into the context of this artefact. Both countries share a history with the Roman Empire - just like most of Europe does.
What amazes me about all these stories is the ridiculously low prices the thrift store charged. Here in the Seattle area, everything seems to grossly overpriced in thrift stores.
Goodwill in particular moves items between markets and prices them based on the local economy. Gone are the days of 2010 when you could walk into the Bellevue Goodwill and find lightly used designer clothing that some retired Microsoft engineer was tired of. Now everything's priced higher than eBay and there's no reason to stop by.
Everyone else wants to be a "Boutique" and charge high end prices for used goods. Blame Macklemore?
Having been in a lot of Goodwill stores (including the one in this story, from which I once bought a broken receiver (pro tip: test electronics at the store before buying)) I'm not surprised in the least. Though at least this is one of their more 'upscale' stores, so maybe they get partial credit? I'm going to guess that at least it wasn't on the same shelf with a bunch of old coffee mugs.
“Another auction house managed to find the head in a catalog of items from a German museum in the 1920s and 1930s.” Per the article it was looted from a German museum.
How the german museum acquired it originally is anyones guess. But it’s possible it was legally acquired at some point over the past 1900 years.
Why is it "obviously" not? The subject was named Drusus Germanicus, after all.
The Roman Empire covered everything from Great Britain to the Persian Gulf. Artifacts produced anywhere in that (very large) region could be described as "Roman".
> Odd, why is this Roman sculpture being returned to Germany?
Because the museum was the rightful owner of the piece.
> It’s obviously not a German artifact and while I might be wrong, I assume it was “looted” from Italy.
To start with, Italy has been actively looted by Italians since at least the later part of the Middle Ages, but more actively from the Renaissance onwards. A lot of the pieces you see in other countries, and I'm quite certain this one fits the bill, were just traded privately between aristocrats for centuries.
And that's assuming it's from Italy at all, it could just as well have been found in German soil. Germany happens to host a few major Roman cities.
You generaly loot from occupied territories, not from peer nations.
If Britain invades and occupies Egypt, and starts digging up artifacts that end up on a British museum, that's looting.
If some Frenchman digs up some artifacts in France, and then sells/trades/gives them to a British museum, that's not looting. Because the sale/trade/gift is not done at gunpoint.
In this case, if the artifact was not plundered from an (occupation of)/(war with Italy) to begin with, the most recent rightful owner is someone in Germany, not the nation of Italy.
The article doesn't say and I haven't been able to find any information about that online. However it seems likely that it was purchased in Italy by Ludwig I of Bavaria, sometime in the early 19th century. Ludwig I made the museum in 1840, and was known for buying art and antiquities in Italy.
She paid $35 for a piece of art that was stolen by Nazis and felt that she had the right to “negotiate” the terms of its return? How about just give it back?
Give it back to whom exactly? How does she know who the "rightful" owner is without knowing its provenance? Possessing looted art is not a good look and neither is transmitting (wittingly or not) to a party that isn't the rightful owner. She did the smart thing.
It's harder to steal them because there is nothing to steal. The "art" is programmatically generated and can be instantly created by anybody at any time. It is like having someone steal your grocery store receipt and then worrying that you're going to starve even those the food is still in your fridge.
[+] [-] tpmx|3 years ago|reply
“At that point, I realized I was probably going to need some help,” Young says. “I was probably going to need an attorney.”
So she hired a lawyer in New York who specializes in international art law, Leila Amineddoleh.
I don't really understand why it would be hard or complicated, unless she wanted a payout.
[+] [-] LanceH|3 years ago|reply
Worst case would be that she sends it to someone over there, then someone else shows up showing they own it. Imagine if someone in the US ended up showing they owned it and the Germans say tough luck. She would then have to defend herself wherever the claimant chooses (possibly even the US), with no actual object should a court decide she has to produce it.
[+] [-] Thorrez|3 years ago|reply
I think she likely wanted a payout. Also the terms of the deal are confidential. If she didn't get a payout, I don't see why they would be confidential.
[+] [-] est31|3 years ago|reply
* How is it going to be transported? Squashing it into airplane luggage is probably not a good idea, neither is sending it via a parcel.
* What happens if something happens to it during transport? Generally works of art are insured before they are being transported. Do you know insurers though? Before you insure it, you need to determine the value.
* For very important works of art, countries might put restrictions onto exports. Not sure if this includes the US, but customs are certainly an important question.
* You might get sued by the rightful owners for wrong handling... ideally you want an agreement that releases you from any requirements to pay for damages to the object.
* Ideally the insurance, transport, etc is paid by the rightful owners, which would be good to have in a contract. How do you enforce that they really pay? Ideally, the owners would take care about the insurer and transportation directly, so that it's them getting the bills instead of you getting them and then having to get the owners to pay them.
[+] [-] pigtailgirl|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwanem|3 years ago|reply
Why would you expect a priori to understand? Or have you dealt in the past with a meaningfully comparable problem, and found it easy and simple?
[+] [-] dymk|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GuB-42|3 years ago|reply
If you don't know what to do regarding legal matters, hiring a lawyer is an obvious thing to do. It may not be hard or complicated, or maybe it is, that's for her lawyer to tell.
[+] [-] paulcole|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taffronaut|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] notadev|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ryan_j_naughton|3 years ago|reply
The person who dug it up and sold it didn't really have an inherent right to it. They just found it.
I say all this not from a legal perspective but from an inheritors of history and culture perspective. We all inherit humanity's history and culture.
While cheesy, Indiana Jones was right: "It belongs in a museum" so it is accessible to humanity. But is that museum inherently this German one?
[+] [-] DocTomoe|3 years ago|reply
Article 56 of the Hague Convention of 1907 disagrees. Stealing art is a war crime. So do the Allies themselves, in their memorandum on January 5th, 1943.
> The most likely story of this bust is from the 5th century until the 18th or 19th centuries, it was buried in the ground somewhere in Italy or former Roman empire.
Given that the person depicted was originally associated with Drusus Germanicus (the name's a hint here) and Aschaffenburg was in fact part of the Roman Empire back in the day, chances are they found it in the vicinity. The object is a lot more related to Aschaffenburg than Texas, which in fact never was part of the Roman Empire.
> But is that museum inherently this German one?
The wartime looting of art and/or cultural objects is barbaric as it robs the object of its historical context and the regions of their heritage. This is true regardless of the uniform that the criminal wore. If you think Germans should hand back art stolen before or during WW2, you cannot really argue against restitution demands for art stolen by Americans.
[+] [-] was_a_dev|3 years ago|reply
The modern notion of either Germany or Italy doesn't fit into the context of this artefact. Both countries share a history with the Roman Empire - just like most of Europe does.
[+] [-] golergka|3 years ago|reply
I don't get it. Why wouldn't a person who found it have a right to it?
[+] [-] tomcam|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Arainach|3 years ago|reply
Everyone else wants to be a "Boutique" and charge high end prices for used goods. Blame Macklemore?
[+] [-] Isamu|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] usefulcat|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tamaharbor|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] O__________O|3 years ago|reply
It’s obviously not a German artifact and while I might be wrong, I assume it was “looted” from Italy.
[+] [-] conk|3 years ago|reply
How the german museum acquired it originally is anyones guess. But it’s possible it was legally acquired at some point over the past 1900 years.
[+] [-] disgu|3 years ago|reply
The Roman Empire covered Germany and it covered that specific part of Germany (Aschaffenburg) as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
[+] [-] Turing_Machine|3 years ago|reply
Why is it "obviously" not? The subject was named Drusus Germanicus, after all.
The Roman Empire covered everything from Great Britain to the Persian Gulf. Artifacts produced anywhere in that (very large) region could be described as "Roman".
[+] [-] Bayart|3 years ago|reply
Because the museum was the rightful owner of the piece.
> It’s obviously not a German artifact and while I might be wrong, I assume it was “looted” from Italy.
To start with, Italy has been actively looted by Italians since at least the later part of the Middle Ages, but more actively from the Renaissance onwards. A lot of the pieces you see in other countries, and I'm quite certain this one fits the bill, were just traded privately between aristocrats for centuries. And that's assuming it's from Italy at all, it could just as well have been found in German soil. Germany happens to host a few major Roman cities.
[+] [-] vkou|3 years ago|reply
If Britain invades and occupies Egypt, and starts digging up artifacts that end up on a British museum, that's looting.
If some Frenchman digs up some artifacts in France, and then sells/trades/gives them to a British museum, that's not looting. Because the sale/trade/gift is not done at gunpoint.
In this case, if the artifact was not plundered from an (occupation of)/(war with Italy) to begin with, the most recent rightful owner is someone in Germany, not the nation of Italy.
[+] [-] LanceH|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buescher|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JKCalhoun|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaapz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fziz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rambambram|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] purple_ferret|3 years ago|reply
Wished they at least said what it would go for on the open market, so we could get a hint of how much she banked!
[+] [-] ada1981|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m463|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robonerd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ansil849|3 years ago|reply
I don't understand. Museums in the West are full of looted ancient art [1]. Why are they allowed to keep it, but this woman cannot keep this one item?
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/learning/should-museums-r...
[+] [-] newaccount2021|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] smiddereens|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] LA-resident|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IAmGraydon|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phs318u|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elliekelly|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdonaldson|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jandrese|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toxicFork|3 years ago|reply
The art is not the NFT. The person only "owns" a hash code that points to the art.
[+] [-] Tepix|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] i386|3 years ago|reply