Controversy over a painting at OU

[Yoshieslunchbox]

I thought that this issue some of the people that frequent these forums, since so much consideration is given to ethics and morality around here. In my state there's a controversy going on because of a Pissarro painting that the University of Oklahoma is holding. The painting was looted from a Jewish businessman by the Nazi's during their occupation of France, and passed into private collectors' hands after the end of WWII. The original owner sought it's return, but was denied by the Swiss courts at the time because of a five-year limitation they set on seeking the restitution of looted artwork during the war (which seems like an awfully short time to get your life together enough to pursue legal action). I was hoping to see how you all felt about this. I'll include some links to news stories on the whole issue to fill in my very lacking description of it.

In cases of seized art, answers aren't always easy to find, Oklahoma legal expert says | News OK

French woman appeals to Oklahomans for return of Nazi-looted painting | News OK

And here is a change.org petition asking OU to return the painting if you feel inclined to sign it:

http://www.change.org/petitions/the...l-heir-dr-leone-meyer-daughter-of-raoul-meyer

Thanks everybody!

 

[Sunstone]

I think that, if Meyer can establish the painting belongs to her, then it should be hers since it was stolen in the first place.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there's going to be a time limit at all, then I think the clock should start when the rightful owner determines who has the painting. Otherwise, all a thief has to do is keep stolen property hidden for five years and then he can do as he pleases with it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Personally, at this point, I'd rather see the painting displayed in a museum than stored in someone's private collection gaining dust, assuming that ownership could be factually established. However, if the woman was willing to donate the painting to a French museum, I think that that would be a good compromise and that, in that case, the University of Oklahoma should certainly transfer the painting.

 

[Yoshieslunchbox]

Personally, at this point, I'd rather see the painting displayed in a museum than stored in someone's private collection gaining dust, assuming that ownership could be factually established. However, if the woman was willing to donate the painting to a French museum, I think that that would be a good compromise and that, in that case, the University of Oklahoma should certainly transfer the painting.

The ownership of the painting has been established pretty much beyond question. The University of Oklahoma hasn't questioned the ownership; what they've done is fallen back on that five-year legal window to say that the owner lost the right to his property shortly after WWII by failing to meet the unrealistic requirements of a foreign court.

I guess I don't see why Mrs. Meyer should have to compromise to see the return of the property. Doing so would mean that there isn't a return of the artwork at all so much as a transfer to another institution that doesn't have a rightful claim to it. If property is stolen from A, then transferred it to B, A has the right to reclaim their property regardless of any outside perception of B's fitness to have such property. Anything else is coercion against A for the sake of B, or C, or D if the property keeps getting passed along.