Restitution - a serious threat to the art market?
 

Now read the article about the latest attempt by the restitution of the Mexican collection (http://artinvestment.ru/news/artnews...ollection.html), and then immediately about the exhibition "From Russia", held in London, which our museums for fear of lawsuits prerevolutionary heirs did not want to do while in England introduced a law that guarantees the return of artworks to their homeland ...
It is already becoming a massive disaster, frankly. Everyone is trying to find that they could "belong to the Law" and to challenge it in court, then to sell quickly at the first auction. This is an attempt to earn easy money, I think the art market poses a serious threat .. During the two world wars, the owners of the paintings have changed many times ... but the rake is the past is hardly necessary, or will soon do the exhibition will not pass ... I think it is necessary to take any steps that ...

Who thinks that?

And what steps can be taken here? If the person who considers himself the true owner shall submit to the court and is conclusive (in terms of the court) evidence, the decision of the court now will oblige him to return. Another thing is whether it will be done, especially if the painting has long been in another country. But in any case, auctions are unlikely to take it on sale.

then I think this falls under the good half of the paintings that are, and from private collectors and public museums, even the largest. The market will fall into panic and freeze at all ...
consider themselves as the true owner of those whose relatives in the early 20 century. belonged to one or another job ... But where is the confidence that she would have reached them, and not sold or bequeathed to someone else?

Well, it's all trial and review. And if they did not present evidence that the painting was stolen from them, then the decision will be in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff will cover the legal costs, which can be quite considerable. So, before you sue these people even think twice whether to do it.

And then ... After all, you can return to file a lawsuit for libel, demanding compensation for moral (and some still there) damage.

No one knows how a court will lead after his so-called "transparency", if this reform is generally held.

freshest example - as he led a court in Mexico? properly, shut his eyes to some of the laws, the interest of the judges will not go away ... to agree with many of you can ...
Here, for example. Do you have a picture of Modigliani, which you bought 3 years ago for several million dollars. Lives themselves, rejoicing, enjoying her ... One fine day, get out some horseradish, who says - I was here the other day, rummaging through the family archives, and realized that this is my picture. And you know why? Here is a picture of my grandparents in 1938, you look, there in the background? correctly, is the kind of work Modigliani ... further, he begins pottaskivat pile some papers that his family sent to concentration camps and confiscation, etc. Court, long poraskinuv brains, obliges you to return the job "rightful heir" ... and what? Doubtful legal heir to receive the work that immediately put up for auction, but you can only deal with the auctions and the previous owner ...

But the case with Longvinenko and Titian, where the court took the side of good acquirer, although the Germany side and proved that "Tarquinius and Lucretia" was brought from Germany.

Restitution.
 

As far as I know. is usually the return of works from the museums, which got there after the war. and which were confiscated. mainly Jews. And in order to bring them back. heirs usually sudyats years.
  A bona fide purchaser is generally not apply if the work was acquired by legal means, to him no claims can not show your.

threat? To market it, on the contrary, the only remaining legitimate channel of the commercial traffic antique masterpieces. And restorative work after the auction is practically immune to legal prosecution, ie investment is very safe. Confused, that they leave the museum, where they were exhibited for public display? But not gone as Klimt, Kirchner has not gone, not gone Schiele - all exposed like a lamb. Moreover, often in the best museums of the world. It is clear that the group of heirs - it is usually water at the seventh porridge, but what can you do? It is better so. If you recall the circumstances under which this work is requisitioned or forcibly bathed at ridiculous price, it does not seem outrageous injustice. If the museum shows things on which the blood and tears of the owners, the question must somehow solve ...

[color="# 666686"]Added after 5 minutes[/color]
I am not a lawyer, but being familiar with the background information, I would venture to suggest that it is not. Bona fide purchaser is not threatened with prosecution for the illegal acquisition (fencing, etc.), but the thing itself to be restored to its rightful owner. That is a good faith purchaser simply nothing will happen for the fact that he once bought a criminal thing, but the painting will return to Lube. Not?

Restitution
 

I am also not a lawyer, but as far as I know, return the work or the money for it will have to, to whom she came illegally., Ie if lawfully acquired it. nobody has the right you take it away.
Basically all confiscated by the Nazis things are in museums. sued for the work. which there are direct heirs (about Klimt, for example, history). Only in this case there is a chance to win at the museum. And our museums, as far as I know, things are beginning to show. who came to us after the war, as booty. only after the statute of limitations, which, in my opinion, there.
And if your grandfather brought it out of that Berlin, then you will have it back, because. was moraderstvo.