lost art law?

[HuskerT]

19 years ago art was lost in the mail.

It reappeared in an auction lot of multiple un-sorted items 5+ years later.

Does the current holder of the art have rights to sell?

What rights do the original artist have to demand the return of the art?

 

[Zigner]

Was there ever an insurance pay-out?

 

[Silverplum]

19 years ago art was lost in the mail.

It reappeared in an auction lot of multiple un-sorted items 5+ years later.

Does the current holder of the art have rights to sell?

What rights do the original artist have to demand the return of the art?

Sorry, we don't do French law.

 

[Zigner]

Sorry, we don't do French law.

You, of course, are correct

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state, HuskerT?

The original artist could potentially claim rights but, after 19 years, the odds are slim that the artist could show he is rightful the owner of the work (ie, that he did not sell it or give it away a long time ago).

It depends on all facts.

 

[HuskerT]

French law? what?

How would one go about searching for an insurance claim?

Speculation but I'm 99% certain there was no claim at all because the artist was at the beginning of their career and there was no tracking or insurance stamps on the packaging. It was simply addressed to a bad address and then returned to the sender's studio and then lost before the artist discovered it. The artist says it was always thought to have never been returned and lost in postal cyberspace.

Mailed to California. Returned to NE. Lost in NE.

 

[Zigner]

French law? what?

How would one go about searching for an insurance claim?

Speculation but I'm 99% certain there was no claim at all because the artist was at the beginning of their career and there was no tracking or insurance stamps on the packaging. It was simply addressed to a bad address and then returned to the sender's studio and then lost before the artist discovered it. The artist says it was always thought to have never been returned and lost in postal cyberspace.

Mailed to California. Returned to NE. Lost in NE.

The artist should contact the postal service about this matter. He will need some sort of proof of his claims of ownership, etc.

 

[quincy]

French law? what?

How would one go about searching for an insurance claim?

Speculation but I'm 99% certain there was no claim at all because the artist was at the beginning of their career and there was no tracking or insurance stamps on the packaging. It was simply addressed to a bad address and then returned to the sender's studio and then lost before the artist discovered it. The artist says it was always thought to have never been returned and lost in postal cyberspace.

Mailed to California. Returned to NE. Lost in NE.

I would say that the artist is out of luck. Unless the work of art is famous and was stolen instead of lost, the current holder of the work should be able to claim ownership in the artwork and can sell it. After 14 years, there is little likelihood of finding any shipping information.

Are you the artist in question? Or are you the one, having come across the artwork, who wants now to sell the artwork?

 

[HuskerT]

Hear-say note :

the artist believes it was not returned by the post

the owner claims the most likley speculated scenario is that it was returned and then misplaced in the studio and then found way into a clutter of stored items sold in a box at auction


The main question proposed is ownership rights? Once it was officially sold to current owner at auction (even as it is claimed as being undisclosed) is there any copyright claim by the artist?

Are there any cited cases that some of you can direct me too? The two parties have a conference call after considering the comments here.

 

[quincy]

Hear-say note :

the artist believes it was not returned by the post

the owner claims the most likley speculated scenario is that it was returned and then misplaced in the studio and then found way into a clutter of stored items sold in a box at auction


The main question proposed is ownership rights? Once it was officially sold to current owner at auction (even as it is claimed as being undisclosed) is there any copyright claim by the artist?

Are there any cited cases that some of you can direct me too? The two parties have a conference call after considering the comments here.

The artist never lost the copyrights in the work of art. Those must be expressly signed away (transferred) in writing by the artist.

All the current owner of the artwork has is the piece of art. With this art, the current owner can sell it, give it away, throw it away, display it in his home or destroy it.

But the current owner of the artwork cannot exercise any of the exclusive rights held by the copyright owner (the right to copy or reproduce the work of art, create derivatives of the work, distribute copies of the artwork to others, profit off the commercial use of the work). Those rights belong only to the original artist/holder of the copyrights, absent any agreement to the contrary.

In other words, ownership rights are different than copyrights.

 

[Zigner]

Hear-say note :

the artist believes it was not returned by the post

the owner claims the most likley speculated scenario is that it was returned and then misplaced in the studio and then found way into a clutter of stored items sold in a box at auction


The main question proposed is ownership rights? Once it was officially sold to current owner at auction (even as it is claimed as being undisclosed) is there any copyright claim by the artist?

Are there any cited cases that some of you can direct me too? The two parties have a conference call after considering the comments here.

To be clear: The item was NOT lost in the mail, right?

 

[quincy]

To be clear: The item was NOT lost in the mail, right?

I am getting the strange feeling that someone found the artwork in the old studio and took it or sold it and the artist now wants it back.

 

[Zigner]

I am getting the strange feeling that someone found the artwork in the old studio and took it or sold it and the artist now wants it back.

Could be**************

 

[HuskerT]

Consensus so far is:

current owner obtained legal rights to do anything other then violate Copyright law once the works were purchased by current owner at public auction, even if they were undisclosed in a clutter of multiple items. Auction parties (sellers) were liable to itemize the items before selling or relinquish all ownership of enclosed items.

Opposing arguments?

 

[quincy]

Consensus so far is:

current owner obtained legal rights to do anything other then violate Copyright law once the works were purchased by current owner at public auction, even if they were undisclosed in a clutter of multiple items. Auction parties (sellers) were liable to itemize the items before selling or relinquish all ownership of enclosed items.

Opposing arguments?

Oh. Well, I don't think anyone has enough facts to say anything for sure.

I can say with some certainty that the artist retains all copyrights in the artwork unless these were expressly signed away by the artist through a license or assignment of rights or other written agreement. If the artist did not relinquish any copyrights in the work in a written and signed agreement, the copyrights remain with the artist. If the artwork was signed and dated by the artist, this helps to prove who created the work, even if the artwork was not federally registered. The artist should, therefore, be able to prevent the person who has the artwork from reproducing the work or using the work for any commercial purpose without permission from the artist.

The ownership of the artwork appears to be with whoever purchased the artwork at auction, unless the person who auctioned the items off acquired the clutter of multiple items illegally. Then ownership is thrown into question.

But the above is based only on what you have disclosed so far.

For example, there was a case (possibly out of Nebraska, but if memory serves I think it was Utah) where items were hidden or "lost" in a house that was sold and the courts involved in the ownership dispute ruled that the items found in the house by the new owners belonged to the previous owner/home seller and not the new owner/purchaser of the home. So I suppose it is possible, if the artwork was part of a group of items found in a studio/building that was sold, and the purchaser of the studio/building decided to sell what was found, ownership of the items could come into question.

Who are you in all of this? The auctioneer, the buyer of the artwork at auction, the artist? Or are you merely a curious sort?