View Poll Results: Who should get the paintings

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • The descendants of the artist

    3 25.00%
  • The descendants of the slave owner

    7 58.33%
  • Paintings should be sold to a museum and the proceeds split 50/50 b/w the 2 families

    2 16.67%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Who should get the paintings? (See post)

  1. #1
    Professor
    Luna Tick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,148

    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

  2. #2
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Who should get the paintings? (See post)

    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.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 06-25-11 at 09:00 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  3. #3
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:57 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: Who should get the paintings? (See post)

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    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.
    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)
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  4. #4
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Who should get the paintings? (See post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Luna Tick View 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
    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?
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  5. #5
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Who should get the paintings? (See post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    In this case it would not be reparations but returning the creative work of an individual to his descendants.
    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)
    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?
    Last edited by jamesrage; 06-26-11 at 11:03 AM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #6
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Who should get the paintings? (See post)

    Does statute of limitations apply in this case?
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  7. #7
    Advisor Binky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In the land that is now.
    Last Seen
    07-19-14 @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    595
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Who should get the paintings? (See post)

    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.

  8. #8
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Who should get the paintings? (See post)

    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.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  9. #9
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,917
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Who should get the paintings? (See post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Luna Tick View Post
    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.
    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.
    I may be wrong.

  10. #10
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,917
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Who should get the paintings? (See post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    The people who currently have the art, their ancestors did not pay for the art, as such it was stolen...
    I think that if you examine the laws in place at the time, you will find that the paintings were not stolen.
    I may be wrong.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •