Cultural Protection without Intellectual Property Protection

Mike Madison has posted a short paper on SSRN titled Intellectual Property and Americana, or Why IP Gets the Blues, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 677, 2008:

This essay, prepared as part of a Symposium on intellectual property law and business models, suggests the re-examination of the role of intellectual property law in the persistence of cultural forms of all sorts, including (but not limited to) business models. Some argue that the absence of intellectual property law inhibits the emergence of durable or persistent cultural forms; copyright and patent regimes are justified precisely because they supply foundations for durability. The essay tests that proposition via brief reviews of three persistent but very different cultural models, each of which represents a distinct form of American culture: The Rocky Horror Picture Show; the town band of Chatham, Massachusetts; and the musical form known as the blues. It concludes that that the relationship between cultural persistence and law is more complex than is generally understood. The essay applies some of that more complex understanding to contemporary problems involving business models, notably the copyright dispute involving Google’s Book Search program.

This article is highly recommended, as any piece which attempts to tie the Rocky Horror Picture Show and the Blues in with a criticism of over-restrictive IP regulations would be.

A different Kind of Restitution

There is an interesting article from Eureka California by Donna Tam in the Times-Standard on Saturday, Wiyot tribe: Return burial artifacts. The Wiyot tribe is requesting that collectors return items removed from burial sites before it was illegal to do so.

It seems at a recent local Indian Art Show, many Wiyot artifacts were offered for sale, and they may have been from the collection of H. H. Stuart, a Eureka dentist who did amateur excavation of Wiyot sites in the 1920's. Those kind of private excavations were not prohibited by law at the time, and privately owned objects are not subject to the relevant State or Federal law, particularly NAGPRA.

These calls for restitution are not dictated by law, so long as these objects were in fact unearthed in the 1920's, and that collection label is not used to mask recently unearthed objects, as often takes place.

Thsi presents an interesting case, because it's a voluntary return of objects which are important to the Wiyot tribe, and it is not done under any legal pressures. Surprisingly perhaps, 1,000 objects have been returned. AS Helene Rouvier, the Wiyot Tribal historic Preservation Officer says in the piece "I would ask people to try and put themselves in the place of the Indians ... How would they feel if this were their relatives?"

Ancient Art at Risk in Utah

Nord Wennerstrom, of the National Trust for Historic Preservation has drawn my attention to a proposed oil and gas development in Utah's Nine Mile Canyon which could affect the 10,000 petroglyphs and pictographs there:

May 1, 2008 is the deadline for contacting the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) about a proposal that could dramatically step up damage to the rock art in Utah’s Nine Mile Canyon, affectionately known as the “world’s longest art gallery” and home to more than 10,000 petroglyphs and pictographs made primarily from the Fremont and Ute Indian cultures. A massive proposed oil and gas development project (more than 800 wells!) would increase truck traffic inside the Canyon by 416% causing enormous amounts of dust, chemical dust suppressants and vehicle exhaust to accumulate on and permanently harm this international treasure.

A recently released study shows a direct link between truck traffic in the Canyon and the deterioration of the rock art panels, due to a build up of dust and harmful chemicals used to control dust on the road. The BLM, which manages much of the land in and around Nine Mile Canyon, needs to recognize the findings of this study and present plans for a new access road to the exploration site, rather than continuing to rely on the narrow dirt roads that run through Nine Mile Canyon.

We urge you to send an email to the Bureau of Land Management today at UT_Pr_Comments@blm.gov and copy the National Trust for Historic Preservation at crc@nthp.org.

Let BLM know that it is imperative for them to protect the thousands of prehistoric petroglyphs and pictographs in Nine Mile Canyon. Tell BLM that it is unacceptable to allow these international treasures to be damaged by the dust and chemicals and exhaust generated by current and proposed truck traffic in Nine Mile Canyon. Ask BLM to perform a detailed evaluation of alternative routes that trucks could use to access the project area instead of the existing dirt roads in Nine Mile Canyon and its narrow side canyons. Encourage BLM to fulfill its role as the steward of the world’s longest art gallery and save our shared heritage for future generations.

If you think as I do that the BLM should seriously consider these alternative proposals, I encourage you to join me in writing a letter.

700 Antiquities Returned to Iraq

Syria returned 700 antiquities to Iraq on Wednesday, undoing in some small measure the theft and looting which has taken place since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Here's an excerpt of the AP story:

The head of the Syrian Antiquities Department, Bassam Jamous, said some of the objects were from the Bronze Age and early Islamic era.

The treasures were returned during a ceremony at the Syrian National Museum attended by senior Syrian officials and the Iraqi state minister for tourism and antiquities affairs, Mohammad Abbas al-Oraibi.

Jamous did not specify the value of the artifacts or single out the most important pieces, but clay jars, coins, daggers and what appeared to be a large trunk were displayed at the ceremony.

Syrian Culture Minister Riyadh Nassan Agha also said a "priceless Iraqi piece" of important historical value had been seized two weeks ago by Syrian customs officers. He gave no details, saying only that it would be returned to Iraq later after experts examined it.

AFP has a wire story as well, estimating that 32,000 objects were looted from 12,000 archaeological sites. Those numbers, though they are just estimates, speak for themselves. Given that Syria has returned 700 objects, this begs the question: how many more objects have been transported out of Iraq and have not been seized or recovered. I imagine many objects, especially the most valuable ones, are being hidden in anticipation of sales in the distant future, much as art seized or confiscated by the Nazis is still appearing.

As an indication of how serious the Iraq government considers those who are convicted of smuggling antiquities, despite overcrowding in Iraqi prisons, individuals detained for antiquities-related offenses were not released along with a number of other detainees under a law passed in February by the Iraqi government to ease prison populations. Many may remember that last month Marine Col. Matthew Bogdanos argued insurgents may be using the antiquities trade to fund their activities.

"The Holocaust, Museum Ethics, and Legalism"

Jennifer Anglim Kreder has posted her forthcoming article The Holocaust, Museum Ethics, and Legalism, forthcoming from the Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice, Vol 18, 2008 on SSRN:

The Holocaust art movement has led to significant and controversial restitutions from museums. This article focuses on two emotionally driven claims to recover a suitcase stolen from a murdered man and watercolors a woman was forced to paint for Josef Mengele to document his pseudo-scientific theories of racial inferiority and his cruel medical experiments. Both claims are asserted against the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Poland, and the museum has refused to return the objects. These claims provide insightful case studies to examine the emotional and ethical aspects of such disputes. Drawing from a number of disciplines, this article demonstrates the inadequacy of the dominant frameworks influencing the cultural property field, which are grounded in property law, morality and utilitarianism, for evaluating the Holocaust-related claims. This article also demonstrates that the International Council of Museums (ICOM) Code of Ethics provides a useful construct for evaluating the claims. ICOM Principle 6.7, which calls on museums to promote well-being, should be the guiding light for museums deciding whether to return Holocaust-related objects. The article concludes that the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum's refusal to return the objects is faulty ethically, counter to its mission, and reflective of the inadequacy of Poland's approach to post-war restitution.

James Cuno on Nationalism and Antiquities

James Cuno is developing an interesting line of argument with respect to the intersection of antiquities policy and nationalism. He has a book forthcoming called Who Owns Antiquity?, but he has a number of other smaller pieces currently available, including a section in a work I'm currently reading called The Acquisition and Exhibition of Classical Antiquities: Professional, Legal, and Ethical Perspectives (Robin F. Rhodes ed.).

Cuno also has a short article at YaleGlobal titled Who Owns the Past?

Here's the abstract:

It’s a myth that cultural-property laws protect ancient antiquities or archaeological finds. Instead, the nationalist retentionist cultural-property laws are a dividing force, inhibiting regard for the world’s culture as a common legacy, argues James Cuno, president and director of the Art Institute of Chicago. Nations often use cultural artifacts for political claims, as tools to express a specific identity. Some governments even deny excavation permits or display requests for artifacts that reveal values that don’t reinforce a self-selected national image, and thus deny to the rest of the world the history of our common past. Worse, some nationalistic governments pervert the cultural record to spur racial, religious or ethnic violence. Culture is not a pure force, yet its power extends beyond national boundaries. As Cuno says, “An understanding that ancient and living cultures belong to all of us could contribute to greater respect for the differences among us and serve as a counterargument to the call for cultural purity that flames sectarian violence.”

Included in the article is a version of the same picture I have here, of the destruction of the Buddhas at Bamiyan on March 21, 2001. That of course is an example of the negative consequences which leaving heritage regulation to individual nations can perhaps produce. However it should be noted that the case was a rare occurrence. We don't often see nations intentionally destroying their heritage in such a public way. Also, merely because some nations use over-restrictive policies should not perhaps dictate that all regulation is counterproductive.

Cuno is developing an extension of the line of reasoning which has been employed by Paul Bator, John Merryman and others. They have argued, quite persuasively in many cases, that over-restrictive regulation has actually proved counterproductive and has only served to further incentivize the illicit trade.

David Gill has an interesting response as well, and argues the failure has not been with the legal regime in place, but rather in the ethical standards and acquisition policies which allow Museums to evade these rules. I think he makes an excellent point.

Given the expense and difficulty of prosecution of these cases, the focus now really should be first and foremost to ensure institutions are being careful with what they acquire, and this seems to have worked. To my knowledge it doesn't appear as if the major institutions in North America are purchasing antiquities, though some are in fact accepting donations from benefactors, and it is this acquisition by donation which is perhaps the weak link in the chain for many institutions.

Africa, Repatriation, and Universal Museums

There have been some very interesting exchanges in recent days between Dr. Kwame Opoku and Phillipe de Montebello of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Dr. Opoku wrote an interesting and provocative letter to museum directors entitled Is legality a viable concept for European and American museum directors.

I have been quite familiar with Dr. Opoku's scholarly work for some time, and it's refreshing to see him continue to use the internet to broadcast his arguments; especially as he is a powerful voice for African repatriations, which often receive short shrift when compared to similar arguments for the Mediterranean or Central and South America.

De Montebello responded to the open letter with the following:

I read with interest Dr. Kwame Opoku's article EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN MUSEUM DIRECTORS AND THE LEGALITY CONCEPT? and glanced at the photo that accompanied it.

What a haunting, strange-looking object. There is no caption accompanying
the photograph so I looked in books and found that this was a product of
ancient Nigeria, the Nok culture. I also discovered that more than 2,000
years ago as well an Ife culture in Nigeria produced sculpture that I found
simply divine. As beautiful as anything produced at any time in the West.

Then I went to our African galleries and found -- as must our audience of
some 4.5 million visitors a year -- that Nigeria seemed to have produced no
art before the much later Benin period, well represented at the Metropolitan
Museum. Why is that? Simply because the Metropolitan Museum does not own
either a Nok or an Ife object. Their export and acquisition are strictly
forbidden, therefore the Metropolitan Museum has refrained from their
acquisition.

We have tried for years to convince the Nigerian authorities to place one
object from each of these great cultures on loan to the Metropolitan for the
benefit of our audiences, but unfortunately, to no avail.

Dr. Opoku believes all Nok, Ife, and Benin pieces outside of Nigeria should
be returned to Nigeria; that all works produced on its territory should
remain there.

How this advances broad knowledge of the rich cultural history of Nigeria is
a mystery to me.

He's advancing a kind of internationalist perspective here. It strikes me as a bit unfair to say that if wrongfully acquired objects are returned, then all objects would have to be returned. However, some policies certainly do have as a consequence, the possibility of restricting the movement of objects. The difficulty here stems from his argument. He's taking a grain of truth and extrapolating it to an almost illogical extreme. This happens all the time in policy and political debates, not just with respect to cultural heritage. Unfortunately much of the international law-making apparatus on the international level is incapable of successfully bridging these kinds of differences of opinions. As a result, partisans tend to push toward the margins rather than forge workable compromise.

Dr. Opoku responded with a letter which he forwarded to me, and probably others, including the Museum Security Network.

If the Metropolitan Museum has not been able to convince the Government of Nigeria to loan one object of each of the great cultures of Nigeria, there must be some reason which must have been explained by the Nigerian authorities. One cannot comment on this point without first studying the relevant correspondence.

The statement that “Dr. Opoku believes all Nok, Ife, and Benin pieces outside of Nigeria should be returned to Nigeria; that all works produced on its territory should remain there“ is surely incorrect and the maker of the statement knows it. As a person of culture who has spent a considerable part of my life visiting various museums all over the world, I reject very strongly this statement. It is an attempt to attribute to me an extreme position which can be easily dismissed instead of dealing with the serious arguments presented in detail (some would even say too much detail) in my various articles which are freely available on the internet.

Finally, Tom Flynn noted these exchanges and provided the following pointed analysis:

The problem here is the nature of the dialogue, which is not really a dialogue at all, but a series of embittered volleys that merely consolidates the entrenched positions of both parties. Dr Opoku continues to write uncompromising attacks on museum directors. One can understand his growing impatience, given the unwillingness of most museum directors to address what are clearly very serious issues passionately articulated. Moreover, when he does get a response, as was the case here, he is treated with the sort of patrician disdain that has become the lingua franca of leading museum directors across Europe and North America.

I regret I'm pressed for time today and don't have time to dive into the substance of these arguments, however all these links are highly recommended.

Upcoming Event: Protection of Works of Art During Conflict

There appears to be a very interesting event taking place in London on May 8:

PROTECTION OF WORKS OF ART IN AND AFTER CONFLICT

Speakers
Kevin Chamberlain CMG, barrister
Anne-Marie Carstens, Oxford University

Thursday 8 May 2008
13.00-14.30 (With lunch reception 12.30-13.00)

Sponsored jointly by Clifford Chance and the British Red Cross

The meeting will discuss whether existing protection is adequate and the
proposals for new legal protection.
This is a free seminar. All members are welcome to attend but
registration is essential. The seminar will take place at
Chatham House, 10 St James's Square, London, SW1Y 4LE.
Please contact Alis Martin to register stating your name, affiliation
and phone number: amartin@chathamhouse.org.uk

CHATHAM HOUSE - INDEPENDENT THINKING ON INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

The Americana Show on SHMU

For those who have nothing better to do on a Sunday, you can listen to me on Dougie Thomson's Americana show this afternoon from 1-3 GMT.

An archived stream should be available later this week here.

"...no more archeology than...collecting Indian arrowheads"

So says George Bass, a nautical archaeologist at Texas A&M University in an excellent article by John Colapinto in the most recent edition of the New Yorker on Odyssey Marine, titled "Secrets of the Deep".

In May of 2007 the company announced it had discovered a large colonial-era wreck which may perhaps be the largest underwater treasure recovery in history. Before the announcement the company "had transferred the gold to fife hundred and fifty-one plastic buckets, loaded them onto a chartered jet, and flown them to the United States from Gibraltar." The company has termed the wreck a code name, the Black Swan, and refused to divulge its location. At present, Spain has brought suit in Federal District Court in Tampa, Florida seeking recovery of the coins under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Presiding over the case is U.S. District Court Judge Mark Pizzo, who incidentally presided over a Securities and Exchange Commission trial of many of the managers of a company called Seahawk for insider trading. The defendants there were acquitted, but went on to found Odyssey Marine.

Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, of 1976, Spain may be able to claim the coins, so long as the vessel was not engaged in commercial operations. This may lead to the strange issue of Spain and Odyssey Marine arguing over the primary motive of a vessel and her crew which may have sank over two-hundred years ago.

There have been no shortage of critics of Odyssey Marine and its endeavors. UNESCO Director General Koichiro Matsuura strongly condemned the efforts in an editorial in the Miami Herald, and Peru has even stated its ethical claim for the gold.

Greg Stemm is the current CEO of Odyssey Marine, who was acquitted in the earlier SEC prosecution, argues in the New Yorker that "by publicizing the shipwrecks it finds--on TV specials, in books, and on its Web site--the company does more to educate people about our seafaring past than academics do." As Stemm says "If I were an archeologist today, I'd be saying, 'Why aren't we out there working with [them]?"

Colapinto has helpfully solicited the opinions of some archaeologists, and they are not positive. George Bass of Texas A&M says "Finding, raising, and conserving artifacts is no more archeology than my aunt's careful collecting of Indian arrowheads on her South Carolina farm." I'm hardly an expert on marine archaeology, but there seems to be a very big gap between Odyssey's activities and Bass' efforts in excavating an 11th-century wreck off Turkey. He and the team of researchers spent three decades "piec[ing] together nearly a million fragments of glass retrieved from the wreck. These yielded beakers, cups, bowls, and bottles, and, for the first time, information about medieval Islamic glassware." Careful excavation of underwater sites can reveal important historical information. The Titanic may not have been sunk by an iceberg, but by cheap rivets (it was this tragic disaster that spawned perhaps the worst movie of the last 20 years).

I find myself becoming more concerned with Odyssey Marine and its methods the more I learn about them. Their purpose in the Black Swan case has been all about the coins, and there are even indications they have manipulated news reports and discoveries to time with selling shares in the company. In this case, the more they know about the wreck, the harder it may be to keep the coins. They do not seem to interested in serious archaeological study, but rather want a kind of superficial appearance of archaeological study to sell more of the objects they find. Odyssey, nor the predecessor company Seahawk has never published any of its research in a peer-reviewed journal. I think there is a lot to criticize about Odyssey's approach. However I do not think the UK and Spain are entirely blameless either. They have hired the company to search their waters, and it strikes me as a bit odd that Spain has reacted in this way when they had hired Odyssey Marine to search Spanish waters.

The presumption has long been that the salvor will be entitled to a portion of what they find on the ocean because they have risked their equipment, or their lives in some cases to salvage underwater sites. That general position will not change any time soon. The 2001 UNESCO Underwater Heritage Convention takes an aggressive line, and prohibits all commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage. This is a step many nations will refuse to take. Only 15 nations have signed on, and the convention requires 20 before it enters into force. In this case, by arguing too vehemently, I think UNESCO has left itself with no say on the disposition of underwater sites found in international waters.

More on Yale and Peru

On Sunday, Peru's state news agency reported that Peruvian researchers have said Yale University researchers (i.e. Hiram Bingham) took more than 40,000 objects from Machu Picchu in the early part of the last century. This, the Peruvian news agency claimed, is 10 times more than the original estimate. Reuters has a summary in English.

Hernan Garrido Lecca released the inventory results to the state news agency. A team from Peru's National Institute of Culture traveled to Yale in March to take an inventory of the objects at the University. Part of the discrepancy here may involve how these objects are accounted. If a ceramic object is in 15 pieces for example, does it qualify as 1 object or 15? I'm not sure of the answer to that question, perhaps there is a standard in the museum community? This may account for the discrepancy, rather than any bad faith on Yale's part.

Some may remember Yale and Peru had a tentative agreement to settle the disposition of these objects, which resulted in a Memorandum of understanding back in September. That agreement appears to have been a good bargain for both parties.

Peru would receive title to the objects, many of the research pieces would remain in Connecticut under a 99-year lease, there would be an international traveling exhibitions, and finally Yale would help build a museum and research center in Cuzco. Such an institution would seem to be badly needed, as there are indications the current museum near the Aguas Calientes train station is not fit for purpose:

The doors were open to the air, which was moist from the nearby river, and the sole official was a caretaker who sold tickets and then exited the building. On display in the attractive (if unguarded) museum are the finds that Peruvian archaeologists have made at Machu Picchu in the years since Bingham’s excavations.

In February, former first lady of Peru Eliane Karp-Toledo had harsh words for the Memorandum of Understanding and for Yale University. Despite what would seem to be a very good agreement for both sides, Karp-Toledo was very critical of Yale University, and indeed Hiram Bingham III who discovered the objects. She argued the objects were only to be taken from Peru for 12 months, and that legal title to all the objects must be returned to Peru. She claimed "Yale continues to deny Peru the right to its cultural patrimony, something Peru has demanded since 1920."

The repatriation claims are often tied to colonial mistreatment, and are often closely aligned with Indigenous-rights movements. Those may be good things, however in this case I am not sure what the current leaders of Peru would want to do differently or would seek. Yale has, it would appear, a very secure interest in the objects; and they are certainly not under any obligation to return them any time soon. By increasing the claims that Yale University has mistreated Peruvian heritage, I wonder if perhaps Peru may risk losing the bargaining chips which were gained in the 2007 MoU.

The Limited Effectiveness of the Art Loss Register

Georgina Adam has a very interesting article in the Art Newspaper on the dispute between Michael Marks and Aziz Kurtha over two works by Indian artist Francis Newton Souza. Pictured here is an unrelated work by Souza, Still Life, which was purchased in 1967 for a mere 50 pounds but was sold recently for 173,000 pounds. This increase in value now makes it more profitable for individual's to bring claims for works by Souza which may have been stolen in the past.

As Adam states:

Mr Marks says he bought the two paintings, Head of a Portuguese Navigator, 1961, and Chalice with Host, 1953, in good faith in 2006. He had conducted a check against the Art Loss Register’s (ALR) stolen art database and was not alerted that there were doubts about the works’ ownership despite the fact that they had been registered with the ALR as missing.

Dr Kurtha, who owns a collection of over 200 works by Souza, said that, at some point in the 1990s, some of these were stolen...

The two paintings in the present dispute were registered by Dr Kurtha as missing with the ALR in 2005... Mr Marks, who was then unknown to the ALR, telephoned the organisation to check the provenance of the paintings and paid the ALR search fee with a credit card. Julian Radcliffe, ALR’s chairman, admitted in court that he deliberately misled Mr Marks by telling him there was no claim on the Souzas. Mr Radcliffe said that it was sometimes necessary to mislead people who make enquiries about the database in order to establish identity and bank details, which he did in this case; Dr Kurtha then took Mr Marks to court to recover the paintings.

Speaking to The Art Newspaper, Milton Silverman, the solicitor for Mr Marks, described this as a “potentially nightmare scenario for a dealer. He could buy works of art, certain in his own mind that they are free of any problems, only to find himself landed with a dispute on their title.” Mr Radcliffe told us that the circumstances were exceptional in that Mr Marks was unknown to them. ALR would not act in the same way with a known dealer, collector or auction house, he says.

The emphasis is mine. Marks now has a potential claim against whoever he purchased the works from in 2006, whoever that may be. One would assume such a claim would probably still leave Marks in a difficult position, as works by Souza have been increasing dramatically in value in recent years.

The priority for the ALR would seem to be to return paintings to their original owners, but not necessarily to guarantee the legitimacy of current transactions, as indicated by Radcliffe's admission that the ALR misleads some. Add to that the fact that the ALR sometimes takes commissions for facilitating the return of works of art to original owners, and we are left with what appears to be a troubling state of affairs.

As an aside, I'm not sure what the ALR guarantees when one does ask for a search of the ALR, and I'd imagine they have done their best to disclaim liability in this situation, but I wonder if Marks may have some kind of claim against the ALR itself. Though in this case the paintings have been returned to their original owner, I wonder if perhaps this kind of misleading information would give dealers pause when they are considering whether to consult the database.

The ALR is the most widely-used and cited cultural property database, however it makes no claims to being a cure-all for the problems with the cultural property trade. Though the ALR is in some cases useful, it should not be mistaken for a check on cultural property transactions generally, and it should be pointed out that Julian Radcliffe and the ALR are quick to point out that they do not attempt to police the whole market. What they do, they do well, but there are limitations to its effectiveness. David Gill and Tom Flynn have both pointed out the dubious usefulness of the ALR with respect to recently unearthed antiquities and export restrictions. As the ALR counsel, Christopher A. Marinello has recently indicated via the Museum Security Newwork, "the database does not contain information on illegally exported artefacts unless they have been reported to us as stolen."

The Difficulty of Nazi Spoliation Research

Camille Pissarro's Le Quai Malaquais, Printemps (pictured), was owned by a Jewish book publisher in 1938 in Austria. When he fled Austria, the work was lost. A history professor, Jonathan Petropoulos has been involved in attempts to return the works to the descendants.

Last week, Elise Viebeck a student reporter at Claremont McKenna College reported that Petropoulos will resign as director of the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide and Human Rights.

Yesterday Mike Boehm a LA Times Staff Writer picked up the story as well.

The descendant, Gisela Bermann Fischer, has accused Petropoulos of trying to extort 18% of the work's value as payment for "facilitating" its return. It seems Petropoulos hoped to end controversy and spare the Holocaust center and Claremont McKenna College any more distraction. It seems his involvement may be more than a mere "distraction" as Swiss authorities are holding the painting as evidence in an ongoing German investigation into possible extortion by Petropoulos and a German art dealer, Peter Griebert. The LA Times Story has the details according to Petropoulos:

Petropoulos said he got involved at the behest of Fischer and the Art Loss Register, a London-based company that keeps a database of stolen art and in some cases helps to get it back.

In December 2006, he said, he met in Munich with Griebert, whom he knew as an art-business associate of Lohse. Griebert, the professor said, was now apparently angry with the ex-Nazi. Petropoulos said Griebert told him about papers he'd found showing that Lohse had sold the Pissarro in 1957 to a man who bequeathed it to a foundation in Lichtenstein.

Working for what he said was his customary consultant's fee of $350 an hour plus expenses, Petropoulos said he reported the news to his client, the Art Loss Register, which was then negotiating a contract with Fischer to recover the painting. The professor said he did more sleuthing on his own, with a view to recovering the Pissarro and gathering material for a book.

In late January 2007, he said, he viewed, authenticated and photographed the painting in the conference room of a Zurich bank. He also said he dined with Fischer and Griebert later that day and that they reached a deal: Fischer, who'd had a falling out with the Art Loss Register, would sell the Pissarro at Christie's in New York and Griebert would get his customary 10% art dealer's fee.

Both Julian Radcliffe and prominent restitution attorney E. Randol Schoenberg are quoted as saying Petropolous got himself too involved in the negotiations to return the work, rather than simply do the research for the fee which had been agreed upon. The seems to have been a miscommunication at some point, and the "champagne" agreement that Petropolous thought he was entitled to rely upon was it seems not reduced to writing, and in return Petropolous refused perhaps to continue to bring the parties together.

The ultimate issue I suppose is what kind of compensation these kinds of experts can and should claim. The lawyers involved, and the Art Loss Register all take a healthy commission; and Petropolous certainly seems to have been amply compensated for his time at $350/hour. Though there may be powerful historical, legal and ethical arguments compelling the restitution of these Nazi spoliated works, we should perhaps bear in mind that it is the very large sums of money they fetch at acution which is driving these restitution efforts.

Related Posts:

Dividing a Nazi Art Dealer's Collection

Compensation for Restitution Experts

Antiquities Recovered in Rome

Italian authorities announced on Friday they had recovered over a dozen antiquities hidden in a boat garage near Fiumicino, which is very near Rome's Leonardo da Vinci airport. The AP report indicated:

The most spectacular find was a marble head of Lucius Verus, a portrait of the emperor who co-ruled Rome from 161 until his death in 169 alongside his adoptive brother, Marcus Aurelius.

The bearded visage of the emperor is believed to have been secretly dug out at a site in the Naples area and was probably destined for the international market, said Capt. Massimo Rossi, of a special police unit that hunts down archaeological thieves.

No arrests have been made, but 13 people are being investigated for allegedly trafficking in antiquities, Rossi said.

The announcement also indicated another recovery:

In a separate operation, Italy recovered a marble head depicting Faustina, the wife of the Emperor Antoninus Pius, the predecessor and adoptive father of Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius, police said in a statement.

Faustina's portrait had been stolen in 1961 from an ancient theater in Minturno, south of Rome, and made its way to an American collector. The statue was returned by the collector through U.S. authorities after he realized it had been looted, Rossi said.

This strikes me as the more interesting announcement. It strikes me as odd, and is more indication of the means Italy has used to recover objects. They really have capitalized on this tide of repatriation from North America, and have secured a number of secondary returns, without having to resort to costly international litigation. The legal claims for this portrait, apparently illegally excavated in 1961, would have probably been expensive and time-consuming, and likely quit difficult. It is interesting the success Italy has had by eschewing litigation, and pointing out (rightly so) of the damage done to contextual information.

It seems a bit odd though that we do not learn of the collector, how she acquired the object, or who the dealer was who sold it. At a certain point, it may be worth asking the Italian authorities where all these recovered objects are going to be studied or displayed, and if these "repatriation exhibitions" will serve to decrease illegal excavation and export, or merely serve to display some drugs on the table. Perhaps this display does give heart to the authorities and heritage advocates, however these gains also provide other political benefits; and may provide an distorted image of the effectiveness of Italian and international efforts. After all, even well-known sites are being damaged in the heart of Rome.

Baghdad Museum: Five Years On

Without question the invasion of Iraq has produced tremendous theft from Museums, as well as illegal excavation. It has been five years since the Iraqi National Museum was ransacked. At the time, reports were too-quick to judge the damage, and many outlets reported that as many as 170,000 objects had been taken. As it turns out, present estimates indicate that perhaps 15,000 objects were taken, and of that number a still-disheartening half are missing. Plus, the museum itself still seems a long way from opening its doors.

Last week, at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. the University of Chicago's Cultural Policy Center held a panel discussion, "Antiquities Under Siege," to examine the ongoing situation in Iraq. The event is in conjunction with the publication of Antiquities Under Siege: Cultural Heritage Protection after the Iraq War, edited by Lawrence Rothfield. I haven't yet had a chance to read this, but the work aims to look at went went wrong with the protection of Iraqi heritage, and what can be done better in the future. Also last week, there was an exhibition called "Catastrophe!" at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute Museum.

Setting aside the issue of whether the invasion was even an acceptable course of action, it seems to me a straightforward problem arose, which was entirely predictable. Looting of art and cultural sites is an inevitable outflow of armed conflict, and where the US and coalition forces did not have nearly enough troops to accomplish what they had intended, looting of all kinds occurred.

Below is a riveting interview with a couple of journalists, John Burns and Dexter Filkins of the New York Times. If you pick up the interview at just before the 40-minute mark, Filkins is describing the theft of Arabian horses on April 9, 2003 from the Iraqi Olympic headquarters right in front of American marines. There were only 7,000 troops policing an area where Saddam had had 250,000.




There's another very interesting article in the Sunday Times by John Curtis of the British Museum who had conducted digs in Iraq in the past, and who flew to Baghdad on April 22 with reporters from the BBC:

Files, papers, index cards, photographs, films and computer software had all been swept off the shelves and onto the floor. It seemed that the intention had been to start bonfires, but fortunately this did not happen. All the safes in the building had been broken open. It was also clear that the intruders had broken into the storerooms, but at this stage nobody had been inside to assess the extent of the losses. There has been much speculation as to whether the looting that took place was spontaneous or organised – and who, precisely, was behind it. Theories have ranged from the involvement of Ba’athist loyalists, determined to cause maximum civilian unrest, to the connivance of international antique-dealers, requesting items to be stolen to order. Five years on, these questions remain unanswered. The whereabouts of looted material is also hotly disputed. There is clearly a black market in Iraqi antiquities, but where the pieces have ended up is not yet known.

The Baghdad museum suffered theft which has been well-documented, but a number of other sites have been damaged at the hands of coalition forces and looters, including the looting of a museum in Mosul, and the damage at Babylon. Coalition forces are finally now being educated and informed, but there is a continuous problem of widespread looting in more remote regions.

I think it is great that more attention is being paid to Iraqi Heritage at the 5-year anniversary. However this looting and theft will continue into the foreseeable future. Policing of sites is important, however that seems incredibly difficult given the security situation in the country. Perhaps we could continue to make sure the appropriate penalties are in place for buying and selling these objects as both the US and the UK have done; but the looting appears to be ongoing. Buyers all over the world seem inclined to buy these objects, and this demand will likely continue to make it profitable to steal objects and illegally excavate sites.

Friday Reading Recommendations

A few noteworthy articles have been published by The Fordham Journal of International Law (volume 31) via a symposium on cultural property. Many thanks to Gary Nurkin for passing these along:

Copyright (c) 2008 Fordham University School of Law Fordham International Law Journal, February, 2008, 31 Fordham Int'l L.J. 684, 2207 words, SYMPOSIUM: PERSPECTIVES ON CULTURAL PROPERTY & THE LAW: INTRODUCTION: NEW DIMENSIONS OF CULTURAL PROPERTY, Susan Scafidi*

Copyright (c) 2008 Fordham University School of Law
Fordham International Law Journal, February, 2008, 31 Fordham Int'l L.J. 690, 14197 words, ESSAY: NEW WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT CULTURAL PROPERTY: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE ANTIQUITIES TRADE DEBATES, Alexander A. Bauer*

Copyright (c) 2008 Fordham University School of Law Fordham International Law Journal, February, 2008, 31 Fordham Int'l L.J. 725, 6526 words, ESSAY: THIEVES OF BAGHDAD: COMBATING GLOBAL TRAFFIC IN STOLEN IRAQI ANTIQUITIES, Colonel Matthew Bogdanos*


Copyright (c) 2008 Fordham University School of Law Fordham International Law Journal, February, 2008, 31 Fordham Int'l L.J. 741, 16383 words, ESSAY: REPATRIATION OF THE KOHINOOR DIAMOND: EXPANDING THE LEGAL PARADIGM FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE, Saby Ghoshray*

Copyright (c) 2008 Fordham University School of Law Fordham International Law Journal, February, 2008, 31 Fordham Int'l L.J. 781, 15892 words, ARTICLE: THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT: USING A "SHIELD" STATUTE AS A "SWORD" FOR OBTAINING FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN ART AND ANTIQUITIES CASES, Lauren Fielder Redman*

There are no links on the journal's website yet, and they don't appear to be on SSRN so the only way to get these at the moment is probably via lexis/westlaw/hein online.

Another recommendation is the work of a fellow arts blogger who I've rediscovered recently when he started blogging again last autumn: Tom Flynn an art historian writes at Art Knows. Highly recommended.

Finally, I've added a few new bells and whistles to the blog at the left. One is a search box, which allows you to search this blog, the blogs I recommend, and the sites I've linked to. I'm still figuring out how to maximize it, but this has already really proved useful to me, hopefully others will as well.

Second, blogger has a great new blog list feature; I've included a list of blogs which I read often, with the title of the most recent post.

Strong Criticism of the Artist Resale Right in the UK (UPDATE)

There exist strong differences of opinion with respect to the question of whether the sale of contemporary art--such Damien Hirst's next "pickled shark", or For the love of God --should be subject to a royalty scheme which takes a piece of the sale price and gives it back to contemporary artists. For two years now, the UK has implemented such a royalty scheme, commonly known as "droite de suite".

A report by Toby Froschauer, sponsored by the Antiques Trade Gazette has strongly criticized the Artists' Resale Right (ARR). The report indicates the ARR has "caused serious problems since its introduction in the UK two years ago." The ARR pays royalties to artists on a sliding scale, and was dictated by an EU directive. Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament was adopted in 2001. The ARR in the UK was implemented in the UK in February 2006 by SI 2006 No. 346.

Melanie Gerlis of the Art Newspaper explained the royalty scheme and Froschauers's findings:

The royalty, which is paid to artists on a sliding scale of up to 4% of their works resold above E1,000 ($1,500; and with a E12,500 threshold), was found to have benefited just 1,004 EU artists (of which 568 were British) in the first 18 months of implementation. The top 20 artists—including Damien Hirst, David Hockney, Peter Doig and Banksy—were found to have received 40% of the total amount collected (£3.8m; $7.6m) in the first 18 months since ARR’s introduction. The bottom 30% received payments of less than £100 ($200), the report said. In his foreword to the report, Antiques Trade Gazette editor Ivan Macquisten, said that the ARR “singularly fails to benefit the very people it was set up to help”.

The Design and Artists Copyright Society (Dacs) is responsible for distributing the royalty payments to artists. The art market in the UK has claimed that the ARR puts it at a disadvantage when compared with other art markets without these so-called droite de suite arrangements. Dacs has responded to this study by saying the interviews with dealers and auctioneers are "not an acceptable scientific methodology", and also that they are preparing data to send to the Antiques Trade Gazette.

A different survey by Maven Research, commissioned by Dacs last year found "87% of art market professionals say that the resale right has not damaged their business." That would seem to comport with another recent study conducted by Katy Graddy, Noah Horowitz and Stefan Szymanski, "A study into the effect on the UK art market of the introduction of the artist's resale right". The study, sponsored by the UK Intellectual Property Office found "there is no evidence that ARR has diverted business away from the UK, where the size of the art market has grown as fast, if not faster, than the art market in jurisdictions where ARR is not currently payable." It also found that there have been difficulties in establishing the nationalities of artists, and a "significant minority of art market professionals, including the major auction houses, deem the administration of ARR to be intrusive and burdensome".

As an aside, one wonders if more of these royalty schemes might be implemented in the future, and whether they will expand. It strikes me that such a royalty scheme for antiquities might be a potential model for reinvesting the proceeds of antiquities transactions into source nations; though given the controversy surrounding the program with respect to contemporary art, the likelihood of such a change may be remote.

UPDATE:

Jamie Grace, who has done some research of his own on this topic has forwarded me a letter he wrote to the Art Newspaper with respect to their article:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am an associate lecturer at the University of Derby, and I myself am conducting research into the resale right as part of a PhD programme over the next three years. Firstly, I must highlight how simply expected Froschauer's findings are - the 2006 legislation is experiencing predictable teething problems. These are problems that need to be resolved, but a campaign for better understanding of the resale right itself might allow DACS and other organisations to better serve the interests of commercial artists.

Allow me to give one example:

Toby Froschauer has been attributed as reporting, by the ATG, that galleries are discouraged from promoting younger artists' work as a result of the resale right reducing their margins - and instead are relying more so on established artists, whose prestige allows those galleries to preserve more of their profit.

I believe this is an incorrect assumption on the part of Froschauer; or perhaps a misinterpretation of the legislation guiding the resale right by the galleries concerned.

The 2006 Regulations quite clearly state (Regulation 12(4)) that no royalty be paid by a gallery or other art market professional on an original work sold within three years of direct purchase from the creator his or herself; and where the later sale by the gallery etc. does not exceed 10,000 Euros.

Clearly this exemption leaves a great deal of scope for the promotion of the interests of younger, up-and-coming or lesser-known artists.

Kind regards,

Jamie Grace.

Something Completely Different... Best Shot Ever

My Jayhawks finally pulled one out last night. An all-time great shot that won the national championship.

Stripping Trajan's Forum

Trajan's forum was built by the order of its namesake after the conquest (and the pillaging which ensued) of Dacia, which ruled parts of present day Romania and Moldova. The forum opened in 112 AD, and Trajan's column was inaugurated a year later. Parts of the market and Trajan's column remain.

However yesterday archaeologists in Rome said the Forum had been stripped of all the statue fragments and amphorae shards. An Italian reporter also carried away boxes of ancient artifacts without being challenged. Malcolm Moore has more in today's Telegraph:

An archaeologist working at the site, who asked not to be named, said: "Everything has been taken from Trajan's Forum. The close-circuit television cameras are pointless, and the gates are practically non-existent. Even a child could climb over them.

"The treasures of ancient Rome are very vulnerable, but there are lots of gaps in the security system of one of the most important archaeological areas in the world." He added that he had often seen people in restricted areas, collecting keepsakes.

The newspaper blamed the 20 million tourists who pass through the city each year for the looting. "Who knows how many of these small fragments now adorn living rooms all over the world?" it said...

"This is an open-air museum," said Eugenio La Rocca, the head of Rome's cultural heritage authority.

"You have to bear in mind that we cannot cover every angle, especially since restoration work is going on. We cannot put bunkers of guards everywhere. If we did the whole of Rome would be a giant bunker.

"However, the area is closed off and the television monitoring system is connected to a cabin staffed by guards. It is also connected to the police."

Recently the Italian authorities announced the recovery of 1.000 objects from Trajan's Villa which had been stolen in 2002. Even policing known sites, in the middle of a city is difficult. The protest really points out the difficulty in this kind of heritage tourism. It brings tremendous economic benefits, but does have negative consequence, including disturbing sensitive areas, and also this kind of petty looting and taking. I'm not sure if the answer to this problem is more security, though that would certainly help. Perhaps what is needed is more public education about why this kind of taking is destructive, and damages these ancient monuments.

I wonder if perhaps these protests are too quick to blame foreign tourists. It seems possible Italians may want a piece of the forum as well.

100 Antiquities Returned to Mexico

There is a report in the Dallas Morning news on the repatriation of 100 pre-Columbian objects to Mexico, many of which were of museum-quality.

A treasure-trove of about 100 artifacts, believed to be pre-Columbian, is on its way to Mexico, its presumed home, U.S. customs agents and Mexican diplomats said Tuesday.

Among the antiquities is a stone mask of a broad-featured man, which is believed to come from the Olmec civilization, the oldest in the Americas, and it dates as far back as 1000 BC, experts said. Other items include figurines in jadeite, precious stones symbolically linked to fertility for the people of ancient Mesoamerica and once valued more than gold.

"We're so very happy about the return of these pieces," said Eduardo Rea Falcón, the consul in charge for Mexico's diplomatic post in Dallas. "It is unfortunate that through looting and robbing, these items fell into private hands."

One of the most stunning pieces is the mask, Mr. Rea said.

But when the experts at Mexico's National Institute for Anthropology and History unpack the goods, they may unravel far more significant mysteries, as authentication deepens, he said. "They may find something of incalculable value," Mr. Rea said.

Equally mysterious is the trajectory of the smuggled artifacts into the Dallas vaults of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The goods represent several seizures in Texas and New Mexico, including an initial seizure in 2001, said Carlos Fontanez, a CBP spokesman in the Houston office.

But Mr. Fontanez gave few details to the whodunit tale. No one has been charged with smuggling the goods into the U.S., he said, though it is illegal to traffic in antiquities under U.S. law.

It's an odd story, as there is no indication of how or under what circumstances these objects were seized. Dealing and importing these objects is of course illegal; one wonders why there was no arrest, and also why it took so long to return them to Mexico. One possible answer is the objects were being held for possible prosecution or criminal charges.