So this is an interesting case. A world-famous piece of impressionist art on display at OU's Fred Jones Jr. Museum of Art is now the center of a lawsuit from a family who says it was stolen from them by the Nazis. Here's the Oklahoman story:

Holocaust survivor's son demands University of Oklahoma return painting stolen by Nazis | News OK (http://newsok.com/holocaust-survivors-son-demands-university-of-oklahoma-return-painting-stolen-by-nazis/article/4791112)

Here's where it gets really interesting. Apparently, the fact that the painting was stolen by the Nazis is not in dispute. A 1953 lawsuit in Switzerland established its ownership. But that same lawsuit dismissed the case because the Swiss have a 5 year statute of limitations on such things. More info here:

Daughter of former owner of a painting stolen by Nazis is suing the University of Oklahoma in hopes of getting it back | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2542152/Daughter-former-owner-painting-stolen-Nazis-suing-University-Oklahoma-hopes-getting-back.html)

OU is citing that lawsuit as a reason why they feel they shouldn't have to return the painting to its rightful owner. They also argue that they received it not knowing it was stolen and have acted in good faith.

What reminded me of this story was an unrelated news story I saw today about Quentin Tarantino's famous Chevy Malibu from Pulp Fiction. It was stolen shortly after the movie was released. It turned up this year following a simple VIN number check on a car that an older gentleman had purchased, in good faith, and had been restoring for several years. In addition to the price of the car he also sunk $40k in restoration costs into it. What did the police do? Why they confiscated and returned it to Tarantino, no compensation offered, of course:

https://autos.yahoo.com/news/how-quentin-tarantino-s-stolen-chevy-from--pulp-fiction--was-discovered-nearly-two-decades-later-170713276.html

So is this a case of the little guy getting the shaft while a big institution gets afforded more leeway? Or are these two completely different scenarios. Or perhaps in both cases the stolen property should be returned to the rightful owner, but then how should the innocent buyer be redressed?

It's an interesting problem.

So this is an interesting case. A world-famous piece of impressionist art on display at OU's Fred Jones Jr. Museum of Art is now the center of a lawsuit from a family who says it was stolen from them by the Nazis. Here's the Oklahoman story:

Holocaust survivor's son demands University of Oklahoma return painting stolen by Nazis | News OK (http://newsok.com/holocaust-survivors-son-demands-university-of-oklahoma-return-painting-stolen-by-nazis/article/4791112)

Here's where it gets really interesting. Apparently, the fact that the painting was stolen by the Nazis is not in dispute. A 1953 lawsuit in Switzerland established its ownership. But that same lawsuit dismissed the case because the Swiss have a 5 year statute of limitations on such things. More info here:

Daughter of former owner of a painting stolen by Nazis is suing the University of Oklahoma in hopes of getting it back | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2542152/Daughter-former-owner-painting-stolen-Nazis-suing-University-Oklahoma-hopes-getting-back.html)

OU is citing that lawsuit as a reason why they feel they shouldn't have to return the painting to its rightful owner. They also argue that they received it not knowing it was stolen and have acted in good faith.

What reminded me of this story was an unrelated news story I saw today about Quentin Tarantino's famous Chevy Malibu from Pulp Fiction. It was stolen shortly after the movie was released. It turned up this year following a simple VIN number check on a car that an older gentleman had purchased, in good faith, and had been restoring for several years. In addition to the price of the car he also sunk $40k in restoration costs into it. What did the police do? Why they confiscated and returned it to Tarantino, no compensation offered, of course:

https://autos.yahoo.com/news/how-quentin-tarantino-s-stolen-chevy-from--pulp-fiction--was-discovered-nearly-two-decades-later-170713276.html

So is this a case of the little guy getting the shaft while a big institution gets afforded more leeway? Or are these two completely different scenarios. Or perhaps in both cases the stolen property should be returned to the rightful owner, but then how should the innocent buyer be redressed?

It's an interesting problem.

This is a case where the family has already pursued their remedies in the courts abroad and lost. It's not so simple as OU just turning the artwork over, it's pledged as collateral on various loans. Further, the state owns it and a public gift to a private individual would violate the Oklahoma Constitution. That said, the family regardless of what they say would probably sell it in a minute to go to a private collection.

In the words of Indiana Jones,

-abUtRbUS_U

I don't want my alma mater's museum to keep a painting that was stolen from from the rightful owners by the Nazis. They should give it back.

I don't want my alma mater's museum to keep a painting that was stolen from from the rightful owners by the Nazis. They should give it back.

Even in the law, after being in possession of something for a certain amount of time, lawful title ultimately passes to you. They also received it from someone who had no notice that the painting was stolen. I'm glad this artwork is going to remain a part of a public collection.

As an Oklahoman, I don't like to see multimillion dollar assets of the state given away for free to people with no legal claim to them.

They should be suing Germany, not OU.

Germany stole it, OU obtained it legally.

It's probably only in the news because the family (or whoever has invested in their lawsuit to obtain the painting) has hired a PR firm.

They should be suing Germany, not OU.

Germany stole it, OU obtained it legally.

Aren't there laws against obtaining stolen property? Not saying OU should give it back, but it's hard to argue OU's point here.

Not after statutes of limitations expire and you obtained the property without knowing.


I'm sure this is all about waging a PR campaign in an attempt to publicly shame a university into submission. They have absolutely zero legal ground to stand on.

Aren't there laws against obtaining stolen property? Not saying OU should give it back, but it's hard to argue OU's point here.

I don't personally have an opinion about the painting, and haven't seen it. However, no, it's not hard to see or support the position of the university.

The art was legally acquired.
The person(s) with a claim that the art belongs in the hands of a specific family have pressed the claim, and lost due to the delay in bringing the matter.
That point, coupled with the university being an innocent possessor, and further coupled with restrictions on disposition of state property, basically require the art remain in its current status.

Bad things happen to nice people, and the law does not always have a remedy.

Had the painting been stolen by a neighbor or some distant relative, the end result today would be the same. That Nazis were involved at one point in the past doesn't mean the rules today are invalid or should not be uniformly applied.

OK. Thanks for the explanation.

Related: we should probably also give Oklahoma back to the Indians.

Actually, there's a federal law that requires Native American cultural items, such as artwork, religious items, and graves, in the possession of the USG or any entity receiving federal funding, to be returned to the tribes.

In the 1990s several countries including the US signed a non-binding memo of understanding to try and right the wrongs related to the Nazi Plunder. So far, France is really the only one making good on it.

Art stolen by Nazis is returned to Nick Florescu's family - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Art-stolen-by-Nazis-is-returned-to-Nick-5308044.php)

It's probably only in the news because the family (or whoever has invested in their lawsuit to obtain the painting) has hired a PR firm.

I'm guessing the movie The Monuments Men also has driven some of the publicity.

...So far, France is really the only one making good on it...
They are world leaders in surrender.

When you look around and find yourself on the same side of history as the Nazi's, you should probably just give it back.

Haha good point. It's a tough issue for sure.

I don't think this is a tough issue. Return the painting. As an alum, I'm embarrassed that we haven't already. I don't care what the law says, what's right?

Saying you don't care what the law says is fine but when you are a government institution you don't have that choice. If you, as an individual, want to make a decision like that go right ahead. I'm an alum also and have no problem with how it's being handled.

Stolen? It was the spoils of war. If every country returned every artifact it acquired during a war 90% of the stuff in 100% of the museums around the world would be gone. Maybe the next time some government goes door to door looting personal belongs the people will fight back a little harder.

Stolen? It was the spoils of war. If every country returned every artifact it acquired during a war 90% of the stuff in 100% of the museums around the world would be gone. Maybe the next time some government goes door to door looting personal belongs the people will fight back a little harder.

Exactly JTF. We should not be required to release any piece.

I don't think this is a tough issue. Return the painting. As an alum, I'm embarrassed that we haven't already. I don't care what the law says, what's right?

As an alum, I don't think we need to rush to any position as of yet.

You know something else I find inconsistent - is many of the same people 'outraged' about this piece of art also support The State of Oklahoma building a Native American Cultural Center which by its very nature is the State taking ownership of Native American culture, boxing it up, marketing it and selling it at a profit for the State. Go figure.

You know something else I find inconsistent - is many of the same people 'outraged' about this piece of art also support The State of Oklahoma building a Native American Cultural Center which by its very nature is the State taking ownership of Native American culture, boxing it up, marketing it and selling it at a profit for the State. Go figure.

What profit?

What profit?

I'll post my response in the AICC thread.

http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=American%20Indian%20Cultural%20 Center&page=35#post791135

If all is fair, the responsibility should flow back to the perpetrators. Ultimately, the German government should pay fair market value to OU and return the painting to the rightful owners from whom it was looted by the German military. The family should sue the people who took it.

When you look around and find yourself on the same side of history as the Nazi's, you should probably just give it back.

Godwin's Law.

When you look around and find yourself on the same side of history as the Nazi's, you should probably just give it back.

You mean by taking things just because you want them regardless of multiple international court rulings?

I don't think this is a tough issue. Return the painting. As an alum, I'm embarrassed that we haven't already. I don't care what the law says, what's right?I'll tell you what..... it's NOT right for me NOT to have a McLaren P1 and I don't care what the law says, I'm going to go take what is rightfully mine dammit!!! ;)


I'm just kidding of course :p

You mean by taking things just because you want them regardless of multiple international court rulings? the only reason that lawsuit was dismissed back in the 50's was because it had been more than 5 years since it was stolen by the nazis. It never said that it wasn't stolen.

You know something else I find inconsistent - is many of the same people 'outraged' about this piece of art also support The State of Oklahoma building a Native American Cultural Center which by its very nature is the State taking ownership of Native American culture, boxing it up, marketing it and selling it at a profit for the State. Go figure.

One group has voluntarily provided support to their museum, and if an artifact is in dispute there is a process in place that allows for redress without having to resort to a lawsuit. The other does not. Apples and oranges.

I'm also shooting generally cynical eyeballs at anyone who equates returning stolen items to the original owner with a state organization "gifting" that item.

Stolen? It was the spoils of war. If every country returned every artifact it acquired during a war 90% of the stuff in 100% of the museums around the world would be gone. Maybe the next time some government goes door to door looting personal belongs the people will fight back a little harder.

Are you being serious? We're talking about Nazi's conducting a Holocaust. Your last sentence is absolutely disgusting. You're either incredibly uninformed about the Holocaust or you're a sick, sick person.

"There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all..." - Martin Luther King in Letter from the Birmingham Jail

Accreditation board will not investigate University of Oklahoma museum's handling of Nazi-looted artwork | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/accreditation-board-will-not-investigate-university-of-oklahoma-museums-handling-of-nazi-looted-artwork/article/5364252)


national museum accreditation board will not investigate the University of Oklahoma art museum’s handling of a case involving a painting that was looted by Nazi soldiers from a family in Paris during World War II, the group’s president said.

In a letter last week, Oklahoma Rep. Mike Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City, asked the American Alliance of Museums to investigate the accreditation status of OU’s Fred Jones Jr. Museum of Art in light of the recent resignation of the museum’s director.