Who should get the paintings? (See post)

A slave in the 1840s in the US created a bunch of paintings which have become valuable today. They're owned by the white descendants of the master who owned the slave at the time because they've been passed down from generation to generation. They now make money from them by touring with them through the country. However, now the descendants of the family of the slave who painted them are suing to get them back, claiming to be the rightful owners because their ancestor painted them and would have been the rightful owner if he had enjoyed the rights he deserved at the time. The white family claims to be the rightful owner because they inherited them and preserved them over the years and made them valuable by publicizing them.

Who should get the paintings?

This was an episode of LA Law, btw:
L.A. Law: Vindaloo in the Villows Episode Summary on TV.com

I do not believe in paying reparations to descendants. So the correct answer is the paintings belong to the current owners of those paintings. A reasonable judge should throw out such a lawsuit. Reparations is a idiotic idea invented by lazy.

jamesrage said:

I do not believe in paying reparations to descendants. So the correct answer is the paintings belong to the current owners of those paintings. A reasonable judge should throw out such a lawsuit. Reparations is a idiotic idea invented by lazy.

Click to expand...

In this case it would not be reparations but returning the creative work of an individual to his descendants. The people who currently have the art, their ancestors did not pay for the art, as such it was stolen, and it should be returned to the rightfulll owners ( the creators family)

Luna Tick said:

A slave in the 1840s in the US created a bunch of paintings which have become valuable today. They're owned by the white descendants of the master who owned the slave at the time because they've been passed down from generation to generation. They now make money from them by touring with them through the country. However, now the descendants of the family of the slave who painted them are suing to get them back, claiming to be the rightful owners because their ancestor painted them and would have been the rightful owner if he had enjoyed the rights he deserved at the time. The white family claims to be the rightful owner because they inherited them and preserved them over the years and made them valuable by publicizing them.

Who should get the paintings?

This was an episode of LA Law, btw:
L.A. Law: Vindaloo in the Villows Episode Summary on TV.com

Click to expand...

Was this a real life case or just a tv show?

I agree with James - heritage and decendency has no strength in 'who owns it' - who owns it is the person who's in posession of it unless they can make a case of intellectual theft.

On top of that - can they prove they are his actual decendents?

Lord Tammerlain said:

In this case it would not be reparations but returning the creative work of an individual to his descendants.

Click to expand...

It is still reparations. It is basically trying to pay or give someone property to someone for work they did not do.The decadents of that slave are not entitled to squat. They did not make the painting nor did they have ownership of the paintings for the past 170 years. The fact one ancestor may have stolen the paintings from another ancestor is irrelevant. Even if one ancestor did not steal the paintings from another there is no guarantee that slave's descendants would even have the paintings because in a 170 years someone in that family could have sold the painting or destroyed the.

The parties involved are no longer alive.The only person who had the right to sue for the paintings has been dead for over a hundred years. The only people who should have been sued for the paintings has been dead for over a hundred years

The people who currently have the art, their ancestors did not pay for the art, as such it was stolen, and it should be returned to the rightfulll owners ( the creators family)

Click to expand...

The rightful owners would be the people whose family has owned it for over a 170 years.

Should I be entitled to money if your ancestor broke make my ancestor's house window and never paid for it? Should you be able to press charges against me if one of my ancestors raped one of your ancestors?

Does statute of limitations apply in this case?

Isn't posession 9/10 of the law? And doesn't he who holds all the cards, so to speak, win? Just wondering. An interesting topic, for sure.

Those who say the slave's descendents are bleeding hearts, and I mean that in a nice way.

#1 Possession is 9/10th of the law.
#2 The slave's decendents would have to prove the slave owner stole the paintings. There's no way to do that 'cause he didn't.
#3 Whatever laws of the land were active at that time would prevail.

Cute moral dilemma. Easy answer.

Luna Tick said:

However, now the descendants of the family of the slave who painted them are suing to get them back, claiming to be the rightful owners because their ancestor painted them and would have been the rightful owner if he had enjoyed the rights he deserved at the time.

Click to expand...

If there was no wrong doing in re the laws of the time then I would say that they don't have a case.
It's not a good idea to go back through events of the past and apply modern laws to them. All sorts of weirdness will result.

That said I think it would be a "right thing" if the owners set up a deal to share the income with the descendants. I don't think that the owners legally owe it to the descendants. But it would be a good idea and be morally fitting.

Lord Tammerlain said:

The people who currently have the art, their ancestors did not pay for the art, as such it was stolen...

Click to expand...

I think that if you examine the laws in place at the time, you will find that the paintings were not stolen.

WI Crippler said:

Does statute of limitations apply in this case?

Click to expand...

It's not clear that there was a crime in re the paintings, imho

Who should possess the paintings?

Quite a question.

On the one hand, the white family has demonstrated the desire and capacity to care for the paintings well, having preserved them for centuries in good condition for the enjoyment of the public. This, and their current possession, argue that they should retain possession of the paintings.

If the black family has adequate proof beyond reasonable doubt that they are directly decended from the painter, that is something of a claim... but then again let's consider the classical painters of antiquity, like Da Vinci. They usually worked for a patron, who took possession and control of the art they created in return for financial support. Who owns the roof of the Cistine Chapel? The decendents of the painter or the organization that commissioned the painting and owns the cathedral? The latter.

If I were judging the matter, I'd be tempted to do a "King Solomon". Let the white family, who has demonstrated themselves good custodians of the art and are currently in possession, retain possession. However, the net profit realized by displaying the art is another matter... I might apportion 25% of it to the black family decended from the painter, if their claims are borne out. Strictly speaking, the white family's possession is lawful, because at the time of the painting the slave owner had ownership of the production of his slaves, in return for which he housed and fed same. We don't know what the slave got in return for being a talented artist... perhaps better food and quarters, or some other mark of favor. Given the laws of the time, it is more legally supportable that the white family retain possession. Modern sensibilities are appalled by anyone profiting from past slavery (despite how difficult it is to quantify and how widespread by some definitions), so the 25% is a pacifier for that outcry.

:shrug: My 0.02

Goshin said:

If I were judging the matter, I'd be tempted to do a "King Solomon". Let the white family, who has demonstrated themselves good custodians of the art and are currently in possession, retain possession. However, the net profit realized by displaying the art is another matter... I might apportion 25% of it to the black family decended from the painter, if their claims are borne out. Strictly speaking, the white family's possession is lawful, because at the time of the painting the slave owner had ownership of the production of his slaves, in return for which he housed and fed same. We don't know what the slave got in return for being a talented artist... perhaps better food and quarters, or some other mark of favor. Given the laws of the time, it is more legally supportable that the white family retain possession. Modern sensibilities are appalled by anyone profiting from past slavery (despite how difficult it is to quantify and how widespread by some definitions), so the 25% is a pacifier for that outcry.
:shrug: My 0.02

Click to expand...

Tell us o, Suleiman bin Daoud, what would the legal basis of your ruling be? Which law or laws would allow you to make this ruling to apportion part of the proceeds?

Simon W. Moon said:

Tell us o, Suleiman bin Daoud, what would the legal basis of your ruling be? Which law or laws would allow you to make this ruling to apportion part of the proceeds?

Click to expand...

None whatsoever, O Sahib. Just throwing some thoughts out there...

This is a very tough question and may be difficult to figure out as far as the Law is concerned requiring the Wisdom of Solomon to come the proper solution.

Morally I see this as a simple question of right and wrong and whether the current owner should continue to profit from slavery which may have been legal at the time, but has always been wrong.

I voted split the profits of a sale but that is wrong. The current owner need to give them up.

Similar to another recent thread, this is one with two answers...the legal and therefore 'right' thing and the the human and decent thing. Legally...the paintings belong to the current owners. However the 'right' thing to do would be to negotiate a joint offering from both families to a museum. Profiting off of the work today seems a little repulsive.

SPOILER Alert: I'm going to reveal the verdict on the show. Don't read further if you intend to watch it and don't want it spoiled. It's LA Law, Season 7, Episode 19.

Aunt Spiker said:

Was this a real life case or just a tv show?

I agree with James - heritage and decendency has no strength in 'who owns it' - who owns it is the person who's in posession of it unless they can make a case of intellectual theft.

On top of that - can they prove they are his actual decendents?

Click to expand...

It was a TV show. I don't know if it was based on an actual case. I don't think so. On the show, the white family offered to share the profits of a book they wrote about the paintings and the artist, but the black family refused that as a settlement, insisting they were the rightful owners. It was also revealed on the show that the black family had owned some of the artists works, but, not realizing their value, had thrown them out.

I personally voted for selling the paintings to a museum and then splitting the proceeds. However, that's not based on what the law says; it's only based on my personal feelings as to what's the right thing to do. The verdict on the show was that the white family was to retain full ownership. The reasoning was that at the time the paintings were made, slavery was legal and the master was automatically the rightful owner at the time and then his descendants legally inherited them.