Pages

.

ARCA 2013 Art Crime Conference on Saturday Afternoon: Derek Fincham and Stefano Alessandrini discuss the Fano Athlete/Getty Bronze

Dr. Derek Fincham, Associate Professor at South Texas College of Law where he teaches art law and legal writing, has researched legal statutes under intentional and cultural law of who should possess the Fano Athlete/Getty Bronze when the statue is ancient Greek, found in Italy, smuggled out of the country, conserved in England and sold to the J. Paul Getty Museum in the United States.

The statue was created using a lost wax technique in the 2-3rdcentury BCE and lost in the Adriatic Sea. Around 1964, Italian fisherman retrieved the hollow bronze in a chance find in either Italian or international waters. Since the sea-encrusted statue began to smell after a few days, the statue was sold to a priest then handed over to the Barbetti brothers who moved it inland and buried it from the authorities. The statue was illegally exported to Brazil and then returned to Europe, first England then Germany, for conservation work.

The Italian justices prosecuted the buyers but the conviction was overturned because they were unable to establish that the statue was an object of cultural importance because no photo of it could be produced in court. Where was it found – in international or domestic waters?

J. Paul Getty himself was reluctant to purchase the bronze without approval from the Italian authorities but the museum trustees approved the $4 million purchase in 1977 after Getty’s death.

The Italians knew it has been illegally exported so they came up with a new strategy: initiate a forfeiture proceeding in Italy and look to have it honored by the Getty or if necessary, enforced by a U.S. Court.

In April 2012, an Italian court has ordered the return of the statue. Can the courts in the US get the Getty to comply? The Getty hired Italian lawyers to fight the forfeiture action.

The Mutual Legal Assistant Treaty, signed in 1982 and renewed in 2010, is the legal tool used to facilitate enforcement of legal decisions between Italy and the United States.

The Getty arguments are based on prescription (timeliness); that the object was found in international waters; that the US doesn’t enforce public laws absent a treaty; no defendant has been convicted in Italian court for handle the bronze; and the statue is being cared for at the museum in Malibu.

Meanwhile, the town of Fano has installed a copy of the bronze at its harbor.

Here's a link to Professor Fincham's essay "Will the Getty have to return "Victorious Youth""?


No comments:

Post a Comment