Found art has no owner but the buyer?

[Richard Irving]

Say you found a piece of art, say it's a painting by a famous dead artist. Say you bought it for a pittance from someone who didn't know the value of what they sold you. So, now you've got a painting by a famous dead artist, but do you actually own it? Can the organisation or whomever is running the foundation of this dead artist claim to own this painting you bought? Of course they could if they can prove it was stolen, for instance, and no one wants to be involved with breaking the law, so if it was stolen you would just hand the painting back and bank some Karma. No problems.

But, what if it's a painting which was somehow lost in history? Say it was given as a gift to a friend of the dead artist, and then handed to someone else by the friend in a similar scenario, until you pick it. I mean, once you buy something you own it, right?

Is there any way the foundation for the dead artist might have a legitimate case on claiming ownership of the painting?

Cheers,
Rich

 

[Zigner]

Say you posted on a legal forum designed to answer real life questions based on US (and specific state) laws...

 

[Silverplum]

Say you found a piece of art, say it's a painting by a famous dead artist. Say you bought it for a pittance from someone who didn't know the value of what they sold you. So, now you've got a painting by a famous dead artist, but do you actually own it? Can the organisation or whomever is running the foundation of this dead artist claim to own this painting you bought? Of course they could if they can prove it was stolen, for instance, and no one wants to be involved with breaking the law, so if it was stolen you would just hand the painting back and bank some Karma. No problems.

But, what if it's a painting which was somehow lost in history? Say it was given as a gift to a friend of the dead artist, and then handed to someone else by the friend in a similar scenario, until you pick it. I mean, once you buy something you own it, right?

Is there any way the foundation for the dead artist might have a legitimate case on claiming ownership of the painting?

Cheers,
Rich

Cheers,
US law only.

 

[quincy]

Say you found a piece of art, say it's a painting by a famous dead artist. Say you bought it for a pittance from someone who didn't know the value of what they sold you. So, now you've got a painting by a famous dead artist, but do you actually own it? Can the organisation or whomever is running the foundation of this dead artist claim to own this painting you bought? Of course they could if they can prove it was stolen, for instance, and no one wants to be involved with breaking the law, so if it was stolen you would just hand the painting back and bank some Karma. No problems.

But, what if it's a painting which was somehow lost in history? Say it was given as a gift to a friend of the dead artist, and then handed to someone else by the friend in a similar scenario, until you pick it. I mean, once you buy something you own it, right?

Is there any way the foundation for the dead artist might have a legitimate case on claiming ownership of the painting?

Cheers,
Rich

Finding valuable artwork and purchasing valuable artwork are two entirely different things.

In the U.S. (and in many other countries), purchasing artwork or another valuable work (a diary, letters, book, whatever) from the current legal owner gives you ownership, this regardless of whether you buy the work for a pittance or not and from an uninformed seller or not. Many valuable works of art, for example, have been purchased at gargage sales (Ansel Adams photos, a Warhol sketch, a Renoir, Picasso's, a Peter Paul Rubens ...) at garage sale prices, and the works have turned out to be worth millions.

Finding a work of art, however (and, again, this is U.S. law), depends on the laws of the state in which the artwork was found. In many states, a finder must make a concerted effort to find the owner of the artwork - and this often requires under state law in turning the work over to the police, who will hold the work for X amount of time. If the owner cannot be located or does not turn up to claim the work, the finder can then claim the work as his/her own.

And, as you recognize, stolen works of art do not belong to the thief or the purchaser of the stolen property but rather to the owner from whom the work was stolen.

Richard Irving, if you reside in the U.S. and provide us with the name of your state, and this is not a hypothetical but a real situation you find yourself involved in, giving us more details can help us help you determine if any artwork you have is legally yours or whether you must jump through some hoops before you can legally claim ownership.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Say you found a piece of art,

You found a piece of art.

say it's a painting by a famous dead artist.

It's a painting by a famous dead artist.

Say you bought it for a pittance from someone who didn't know the value of what they sold you.

you bought it for a pittance from someone who didn't know the value of what they sold you.

See. and people say I can't follow directions.

 

[Richard Irving]

Finding valuable artwork and purchasing valuable artwork are two entirely different things.

I agree entirely -- I was vague for the purposes of sifting-out the halfwits and their undergrad attempts at intellectual stimulation. Thankfully, this forum has you and you chose to respond, and so with your good grace we can proceed on this our somewhat different level of correspondence. I do hope you return.

In the U.S. (and in many other countries), purchasing artwork or another valuable work (a diary, letters, book, whatever) from the current legal owner gives you ownership, this regardless of whether you buy the work for a pittance or not and from an uninformed seller or not. Many valuable works of art, for example, have been purchased at gargage sales (Ansel Adams photos, a Warhol sketch, a Renoir, Picasso's, a Peter Paul Rubens ...) at garage sale prices, and the works have turned out to be worth millions.

I'm in Australia, and as you would be aware not only do we have the ANZUS Treaty between our two great nations, we also share much of the same freedoms and laws. I therefore saw no harm in posting on a specifically US law-related forum, since much of our laws on such a subject as this would be similar if not exactly the same, and it would give me a good idea where and/or how I might proceed, specifically here in Australia, after getting the figurative lay of the land, if you will, on the subject. Moreover, I observed that this forum had an active membership, the essential ingredient in exploring a topic, whilst the one here in Australia was quite the opposite.

Finding a work of art, however (and, again, this is U.S. law), depends on the laws of the state in which the artwork was found. In many states, a finder must make a concerted effort to find the owner of the artwork - and this often requires under state law in turning the work over to the police, who will hold the work for X amount of time. If the owner cannot be located or does not turn up to claim the work, the finder can then claim the work as his/her own.

Firstly, let me say that it was highly perceptive of you to make the distinction between literally finding a work of art, and simply finding it at a garage sale for a pittance, in my OP. Again, I was being vague for the purpose earlier expressed, and you have really inspired me to work this scenario from more angles and at greater detail.

In the case of the former form of "finding" you identify, it appears that you infer that an artist's foundation or legal organisation acting on behalf of the dead artist's interests, would hold a very strong legal claim of ownership of a found artwork. For instance: It was lost, now it is found, it must therefore belong to its natural owner. So, that raises two points of interest worth expanding on: 1.) The location or manner of finding the artwork. I mean, if you bought a house and found the artwork in the basement; then since you bought the house as it came, you essentially own the house and everything in it, even though it wasn't perhaps on the manifest, for instance? 2.) If you were given a bunch of stuff (boxes and suitcases) by a deceased estate and the artwork was found among the contents -- was it still lost?

My main point here therefore, is one where it might even be difficult for the foundation to know the artwork was lost in the first place, when they wouldn't be aware of all the artworks the artist had fashioned expressly as personal gifts. So whilst the work of art might have been found, it hasn't necessarily been lost?

I mean, yes I agree with the proposition that if an artwork features somewhere in the artist's entire catalog of work, and it wasn't stolen, and yet it's missing since no paperwork exists of its handling, then it can be understood to have been lost and a claim of ownership can be handled in the similar way for a stolen artwork. But what if it never made it into the catalog because it was given away or made as a gift for a friend of the artist? Can the foundation identify it as being lost when they cannot prove it was ever part of the body of work completed by the artist? You cannot lose something you don't know you have? Unless you own the signature? And that's what bothers me about the power of an artist's foundation -- can they own the artist's signature on an artwork they never knew the artist made, and therefore somehow own the artwork?

I realize this raises entirely different issues concerning questions of authenticity. However, for me it's about safeguarding my ownership of the artwork prior to contact with foundation or artist's interests organization.

And, as you recognize, stolen works of art do not belong to the thief or the purchaser of the stolen property but rather to the owner from whom the work was stolen.

Yes, but it would appear that even a lost work of art has a similar force.

Richard Irving, if you reside in the U.S. and provide us with the name of your state, and this is not a hypothetical but a real situation you find yourself involved in, giving us more details can help us help you determine if any artwork you have is legally yours or whether you must jump through some hoops before you can legally claim ownership.

As mentioned previously, I've enjoyed this correspondence with you Quincy, and hope that you might return to keep it going. Thank you for your intelligence and time -- much appreciated!

To the others who posted: Please examine the spirit, if not definition, of what constitutes a forum? Some people just enjoy corresponding on a said topic in an informative and intelligent manner, and so therefore perhaps you might be less inclined in being so dismissive about this forum's functions. This is just a suggestion, so please don't get into a huff about it.

Regards,
Rich

 

[Silverplum]

Well, now nobody has to bathe Quincy for a while.

I agree entirely -- I was vague for the purposes of sifting-out the halfwits and their undergrad attempts at intellectual stimulation. Thankfully, this forum has you and you chose to respond, and so with your good grace we can proceed on this our somewhat different level of correspondence. I do hope you return.



I'm in Australia, and as you would be aware not only do we have the ANZUS Treaty between our two great nations, we also share much of the same freedoms and laws. I therefore saw no harm in posting on a specifically US law-related forum, since much of our laws on such a subject as this would be similar if not exactly the same, and it would give me a good idea where and/or how I might proceed, specifically here in Australia, after getting the figurative lay of the land, if you will, on the subject. Moreover, I observed that this forum had an active membership, the essential ingredient in exploring a topic, whilst the one here in Australia was quite the opposite.



Firstly, let me say that it was highly perceptive of you to make the distinction between literally finding a work of art, and simply finding it at a garage sale for a pittance, in my OP. Again, I was being vague for the purpose earlier expressed, and you have really inspired me to work this scenario from more angles and at greater detail.

In the case of the former form of "finding" you identify, it appears that you infer that an artist's foundation or legal organisation acting on behalf of the dead artist's interests, would hold a very strong legal claim of ownership of a found artwork. For instance: It was lost, now it is found, it must therefore belong to its natural owner. So, that raises two points of interest worth expanding on: 1.) The location or manner of finding the artwork. I mean, if you bought a house and found the artwork in the basement; then since you bought the house as it came, you essentially own the house and everything in it, even though it wasn't perhaps on the manifest, for instance? 2.) If you were given a bunch of stuff (boxes and suitcases) by a deceased estate and the artwork was found among the contents -- was it still lost?

My main point here therefore, is one where it might even be difficult for the foundation to know the artwork was lost in the first place, when they wouldn't be aware of all the artworks the artist had fashioned expressly as personal gifts. So whilst the work of art might have been found, it hasn't necessarily been lost?

I mean, yes I agree with the proposition that if an artwork features somewhere in the artist's entire catalog of work, and it wasn't stolen, and yet it's missing since no paperwork exists of its handling, then it can be understood to have been lost and a claim of ownership can be handled in the similar way for a stolen artwork. But what if it never made it into the catalog because it was given away or made as a gift for a friend of the artist? Can the foundation identify it as being lost when they cannot prove it was ever part of the body of work completed by the artist? You cannot lose something you don't know you have? Unless you own the signature? And that's what bothers me about the power of an artist's foundation -- can they own the artist's signature on an artwork they never knew the artist made, and therefore somehow own the artwork?

I realize this raises entirely different issues concerning questions of authenticity. However, for me it's about safeguarding my ownership of the artwork prior to contact with foundation or artist's interests organization.

Yes, but it would appear that even a lost work of art has a similar force.



As mentioned previously, I've enjoyed this correspondence with you Quincy, and hope that you might return to keep it going. Thank you for your intelligence and time -- much appreciated!

Regards,
Rich

 

[Zigner]

Hey Richard -

This forum is for real situations dealing with US law elsewhere. Take your attitude and...well, have a good day.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

There are distinctions made between property that is lost, mislaid, abandoned, or treasure trove.

The owner (or lessee) of the land on which it was found may have a right of possession superior to that of the finder.

 

[quincy]

... I'm in Australia, and as you would be aware not only do we have the ANZUS Treaty between our two great nations, we also share much of the same freedoms and laws. I therefore saw no harm in posting on a specifically US law-related forum, since much of our laws on such a subject as this would be similar if not exactly the same, and it would give me a good idea where and/or how I might proceed, specifically here in Australia, after getting the figurative lay of the land, if you will, on the subject. Moreover, I observed that this forum had an active membership, the essential ingredient in exploring a topic, whilst the one here in Australia was quite the opposite.

... In the case of the former form of "finding" you identify, it appears that you infer that an artist's foundation or legal organisation acting on behalf of the dead artist's interests, would hold a very strong legal claim of ownership of a found artwork. For instance: It was lost, now it is found, it must therefore belong to its natural owner. So, that raises two points of interest worth expanding on: 1.) The location or manner of finding the artwork. I mean, if you bought a house and found the artwork in the basement; then since you bought the house as it came, you essentially own the house and everything in it, even though it wasn't perhaps on the manifest, for instance? 2.) If you were given a bunch of stuff (boxes and suitcases) by a deceased estate and the artwork was found among the contents -- was it still lost?

My main point here therefore, is one where it might even be difficult for the foundation to know the artwork was lost in the first place, when they wouldn't be aware of all the artworks the artist had fashioned expressly as personal gifts. So whilst the work of art might have been found, it hasn't necessarily been lost?

... I realize this raises entirely different issues concerning questions of authenticity. However, for me it's about safeguarding my ownership of the artwork prior to contact with foundation or artist's interests organization. ...

Thank you for the nice words, Richard, but this forum is actually not the proper venue for discussions such as the type you desire. In addition, this forum handles U.S. law questions only and, despite the long history of friendship between Australia and the U.S. (and a defense treaty between them), many of their laws are, in fact, significantly different.

And the laws on the particular subject you wish to discuss here actually differ in many significant ways even between the states of the U.S.

For one look at how one court in one state in the U.S. (Utah) handles "found" artwork, you can search online for the 2012 James Castle Collection LLP v Jeannie Schmidt case involving Schmidt, the owner of a home once owned by the U.S. artist James Castle, and James Castle heirs. Schmidt purchased the home from the heirs after Castle's death.

James Castle's heirs brought suit against Schmidt after she discovered artwork created by Castle hidden in the floors, walls and attic of the home, years after her purchase of it. The heirs claimed ownership of the artwork and the Court found in their favor, based on a Utah statute which essentially states that the finder of lost or abandoned property becomes the owner of the property unless ownership is "against the wishes of the 'true owner.'"

The Castle case could have been (and probably would have been) decided differently if it had been heard in one of the other U.S. states, or if it had been heard, say, in Sweden (where items of cultural or historic worth that are found are turned over to the government in exchange for a finder's reward) or if it had been heard, say, in New Zealand, where found cultural and historic property belongs to the Crown.

Again, in the U.S. there are legal distinctions made between lost and abandoned items, treasure troves (eg, gold and silver), items of historic and cultural value, and where exactly the property is found. Each "lost and found" case will be decided on its own merits, based on the laws of the state that is deciding the matter.

You may wish to seek out legal assistance in Australia, perhaps through a law school.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

It also depends on the way the art work became lost. For example, the ****'s took several masterpieces from the Jews and from German museums. The German courts recently ruled the pieces coming from museums were not stolen because the ****'s were the German gov't who owned the museums.

 

[Richard Irving]

Well, now nobody has to bathe Quincy for a while.

I'm not sure I understand your meaning, I'm not sure I want to, but it seems you are reaching for the lowest common denominator, also known as toilet humor reference, so you are not offering much of any real substance to the discussion, and indeed are bringing down the forum, evidently to a level you obviously find quite comfortable with the inclusion of the emoticon. I'm sorry for you.

Hey Richard -

This forum is for real situations dealing with US law elsewhere. Take your attitude and...well, have a good day.

You are bringing my attitude into question when all I have done is explained my opinion on the way some have chosen to reply. I don't believe anyone is forcing you to comment, and clearly when one doesn't have any substance or knowledge worthy of furnishing the forum, they instead choose to take such a dismissive stance, since it is easy to be an expert in minor functions. Please observe that in seeking to join a free advice forum it is -- in effect -- your reasonable responsibility to offer some advice. Unless you are a site moderator you have little effect on making such demands of me.

There are distinctions made between property that is lost, mislaid, abandoned, or treasure trove.

The owner (or lessee) of the land on which it was found may have a right of possession superior to that of the finder.

Thank you for your reply, that it is important information.

Thank you for the nice words, Richard, but this forum is actually not the proper venue for discussions such as the type you desire. In addition, this forum handles U.S. law questions only and, despite the long history of friendship between Australia and the U.S. and a defense treaty between them, many of their laws are, in fact, significantly different.

My apologies if my words have somehow embarrassed you on this forum Quincy, it is always a risk to use polite language and regard with fellow forum posters, when there is a contingent such as Silverplum, who would seek to pseudo-bully proper discourse or impose themselves with their tired comments.

I think you have been influenced by this negativity, and I would request that you ignore it. Silverplum doesn't understand polite company because he wasn't raised properly, and it actually reflects an element of his character which suggests that he won't amount to much in society. You are offering free advice, this is a free advice forum, and I do actually have some association with America since I have family living in Detroit, family friends in Chicago, and a friend in California. This is significant, since I will endeavor to use all available means at my disposal to safeguard the artwork in my possession and protect my potential ownership of it by using the legal system. Moreover, I think anyone in a similar position to me would do the same, since such a find may present a significant financial outcome. In addition, please understand that I am not ignorant of an outcome whereby both parties reach a fair and equitable understanding. I just don't want to be bullied by big law, out of my fair share of the market value of the find.

And the laws on the particular subject you wish to discuss here actually differ in many significant ways even between the states of the U.S.

The U.S. is one of the most litigious nations in the world, so whilst laws differ considerably from state to state, what might be regarded as the harshest examples of such findings would be very helpful for me, since laws across the legal spectrum in Australia are very weak in comparison to the USA. This is a result of our penal colony foundation and history, and the weak resolve of present-day politicians to address the community's concerns for tougher sentencing penalties and laws. For instance, aggravated assault resulting in death, recently caused a storm of public outrage here in Sydney -- where I live -- when the accused was found guilty and was sentenced to only four years imprisonment.

For one look at how one court in one state in the U.S. (Utah) handles "found" artwork, you can search online for the 2012 James Castle Collection LLP v Jeannie Schmidt case involving the owner of a home (Schmidt), a home once owned by the U.S. artist James Castle. Schmidt purchased the home after Castle's death from the Castle heirs.

Thank you for this direction, I will certainly take a closer look.

James Castle's heirs brought suit against Schmidt after she discovered artwork created by Castle hidden in the floors, walls and attic of the home, years after her purchase of it. The heirs claimed ownership of the artwork and the Court found in their favor, based on a Utah statute which essentially states that the finder of lost or abandoned property becomes the owner of the property unless ownership is "against the wishes of the 'true owner.'"

The Castle case could have been (and probably would have been) decided differently if it had been heard in one of the other U.S. states, or if it had been heard, say, in Sweden (where items of cultural or historic worth that are found are turned over to the government in exchange for a finder's reward) or if it had been heard, say, in New Zealand, where found cultural and historic property belongs to the Crown.

Is there a particular reference for the type of law concerned with the Arts and artworks, in a similar way criminal law is used and associated with crimes? Would intellectual property law be associated with artworks where the artist gave away the artwork, and it was never included in his/her catalog?

Again, in the U.S. there are legal distinctions made between lost and abandoned items, treasure troves (eg, gold and silver), items of historic and cultural value, and where exactly the property is found. Each "lost and found" case will be decided on its own merits, based on the laws of the state that is deciding the matter.

You may wish to seek out legal assistance in Australia, perhaps through a law school.

I have given some thought to this, but it would be good for me to be confident about the subject matter first, for the counsel and navigation of the discussion, to be effective.

It also depends on the way the art work became lost. For example, the ****'s took several masterpieces from the Jews and from German museums. The German courts recently ruled the pieces coming from museums were not stolen because the ****'s were the German gov't who owned the museums.

I am aware of the example you cite since it made worldwide news and some news outlets ran with it here, and it is a significant case, but I'm not sure I can learn much from it since it deals with a much bigger and more narrow result or effect. Nevertheless, thank you for bringing it to the forum's attention, it does have some bearing.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Zigner]

This forum is not for hypothetical non-US law matters. It's really that simple. Quincy has gone above and beyond and I commend him for that.

 

[Richard Irving]

This forum is not for hypothetical non-US law matters. It's really that simple. Quincy has gone above and beyond and I commend him for that.

This is not a hypothetical matter, and I don't understand why you cannot understand the fact, that I will use all options of the legal system to support my claim for the artwork, including using my USA contacts if necessary to assist me in supporting my case. You seem to think that you have the authority to commend people when you have provided zero advice.

So far I have identified this question to be the best way for me to proceed, and the states would be California, Michigan, and Illinois, but primarily the former: Would intellectual property law be associated with artworks where the artist gave away the artwork, and it was never included in his/her catalog?

Do you have some advice? I bet not.

R

 

[Zigner]

This is not a hypothetical matter, and I don't understand why you cannot understand the fact, that I will use all options of the legal system to support my claim for the artwork, including using my USA contacts if necessary to assist me in supporting my case. You seem to think that you have the authority to commend people when you have provided zero advice.

So far I have identified this question to be the best way for me to proceed, and the states would be California, Michigan, and Illinois, but primarily the former: Would intellectual property law be associated with artworks where the artist gave away the artwork, and it was never included in his/her catalog?

Do you have some advice? I bet not.

R

...again with the attitude.