Back

Repatriation in Context: The Case for Cooperation

April 14, 2025

The Parthenon Marbles displayed at the British Museum (photograph taken by author on Jan. 21, 2023)

By John Freeman

Cultural heritage is contentious.[1] Recent litigation between the Getty Museum and Italy is a testament to the polarized nature of these disputes, which pit museums against nation states.[2] While Italy argues that the ancient bronze statue known as the “Victorious Youth” should return to Italy, the Getty Museum contends that the work should remain in its collection.[3] This case is individually nuanced and significant; however, in their quarrel over whether to repatriate (i.e., return the object to the nation state), both sides advance arguments that are decades old.

Repatriation has always been controversial. Given the great cultural (and economic) value of these artifacts,[4] it is hardly a surprise that ownership debates have been ongoing for centuries. Over that time, two competing approaches—one in favor of repatriation, one against—have ebbed and flowed in a dance that, as of Getty v. Italy, remains unresolved.

This article traces a brief evolution of that discourse. In doing so, it highlights how arguments against repatriation—the very same arguments now advanced by the Getty—have remained unchanged for decades. While there is truth to these repeated assertions, their ongoing use in litigation today functions to perpetuate polarization. This article suggests that, to reach an enduring resolution, museums should instead collaborate with nations (as they have in recent years) to pursue creative solutions to repatriation disputes, such as replicas and long-term loans. In a world where cultural heritage is undervalued, those who care should be working with—not against—one another.

I. National Laws

The legal grounds for repatriation reside in each nation’s laws. Specifically, cultural property legislation tends to (1) regulate the export of cultural objects or (2) designate certain objects as property of the state.[5] In some cases, nations enacted these laws over a hundred years ago. For these countries, heritage holds national significance, since a connection to the ancient past lies at the heart of their national identity.[6]

Italy, for example, passed its first cultural property regulation in 1902. Law No. 185 levied an export tax on cultural objects older than 50 years and mandated that any discoveries or sales be reported to the government.[7] Seven years later, Law No. 364 went a step further by expressly prohibiting any unapproved sale or export of culturally significant objects, which the Italian Ministry of Education had the power to purchase.[8] More importantly, the law affirmed any archaeological discoveries to be property of the Italian state.[9]

In this respect, Law No. 185 is an example of a patrimony law. From the Latin patrimonium (property inherited from one’s father), patrimony laws dictate an inheritance: The modern nation state inherits the ancient objects found in its region. After 1909, any antiquity discovered in Italy lawfully belongs to the State, as affirmed by subsequent legislation in 1939 and 2004.[10] Likewise in Greece after 1899,[11] Egypt after 1874,[12] and Turkey after 1874.[13]

But even with patrimony laws in place, looting persisted,[14] and with it the need for international cooperation. In 1970,[15] The United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (“UNESCO”) introduced the Convention on the means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (“1970 Convention”).[16] Essentially, the 1970 Convention functions as international enforcement of national patrimony laws. Much like the Italian Law No. 364, the 1970 Convention declares all “Cultural property found within the national territory” to be “part of the cultural heritage of each State.”[17] Other nations, then, must commit to preventing the import of cultural property that has been illegally exported, and to “take appropriate steps to recover and return any such cultural property imported after the entry into force of this Convention.”[18] In other words, nations need to repatriate stolen artifacts (or at least those illicitly exported after the 1970 Convention).

But the 1970 Convention was just that: a convention. Even after entering into force in 1972, its “requirements” remain non-binding. Nations can choose whether to codify the 1970 Convention into law, which creates a distinct division between so-called “source” and “market” nations. As one might expect, the nations ratifying the 1970 Convention were mostly those losing cultural objects, not those benefiting.[19] And even those market nations that did ratify were slow to codify: The United States, for example, ratified the convention in 1972, but waited until 1982 to codify (becoming one of the first market nations to do so).[20] Even then, the Cultural Property Implementation Act only implemented parts of the 1970 Convention.[21] Nonetheless, it was a significant step forward, which—as one might expect—stirred vigorous opposition.

II. Resistance

John Henry Merryman led that opposition. Merryman, a Stanford Law School professor, identified two approaches to cultural property in the 1980s: nationalism and internationalism.[22] In response to the rising support for national patrimony laws and repatriation (“nationalism”), Merryman instead advocated that museums should keep cultural objects since they belong to a shared human heritage (“internationalism”). In support of his position, he advanced the following arguments (among others):

  • World Heritage: that cultural objects are “components of a common human culture,”[23] and that this idea is embodied in the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict:[24] “Being convinced that damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world.”[25]
  • Part of Nation: that certain cultural objects have, over time, become part of the national heritage of the nation in which they reside.[26]
  • Accessibility: that cultural objects should be “exhibited to a wider audience,” which cannot be achieved when nations hoard antiquities (including duplicates) and “fail to spread their culture.”[27]
  • Time: that repatriation claims are time-barred by statutes of limitations.[28]

Merryman’s arguments against repatriation arose from the most famous repatriation dispute: the Parthenon Marbles.[29] Otherwise known as the “Elgin Marbles,” these monumental pieces of decorative marble once adorned the ancient Athenian Parthenon; that is, until they were taken by British Ambassador Lord Elgin and sold to the British Museum in the first quarter of the 19th century. In 1983, Greece submitted an official, UNESCO-endorsed request to Britain for their return, which the British government adamantly refused.[30] Similarly, museums in the United States continued to resist repatriation requests, and the courts upheld their defense.[31]

III. Persistence

Lack of substantial progress led to another international convention. In 1995, the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (“UNIDROIT”) introduced the Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. UNIDROIT 1995 is far more explicit in its call for repatriation: “The possessor of a cultural object which has been stolen shall return it.”[32] But again, market nations have largely chosen not to ratify the convention.[33]

IV. Further Resistance

Museums responded with a statement. In 2002, a group of eighteen internationally renowned museums signed the Declaration on the Importance and Value of the Universal Museums.[34] The document condemns the illicit trafficking of cultural objects, but it also holds that objects “acquired in earlier times” are more complicated and—while all cases are different—should generally stay in museum collections.[35] Simply put, the declaration resisted repatriation.

Underlying this declaration are Merryman’s arguments from the 1980s:

  • Universal Heritage: that these objects are universally admired and significant “for mankind as a whole.”[36]
  • Part of Museum: that, over time, objects “have become part of the museums that have cared for them, and by extension part of the heritage of the nations which house them.”[37]
  • Accessibility: that public access is the reason why ancient civilizations are now universally admired, and that “museums serve not just the citizens of one nation but the people of every nation.”[38]
  • Time: that museums acquired these objects decades ago “under conditions that are not comparable with current ones.”[39]

V. Getty v. Italy

The Getty has now repurposed the same arguments. While Italy expectedly relies on its national laws to prove the statue was unlawfully exported, the Getty contends:[40]

  • Not Italian Heritage: that the statue—made in Greece and discovered in the sea—does not constitute Italian national heritage.[41]
  • Part of Museum: that, after forty years, the Getty has acquired a right to “the peaceful enjoyment” of the statue.[42]
  • Accessibility: that the statue at the Getty is “available to the general public,” and Italy “failed to clarify how it intended to more effectively facilitate access to the Statue.”[43]
  • Time: that Italy’s claim is time-barred by the statute of limitations.[44]

It is remarkable how little these core arguments have changed over the past forty years.

VI. Progress

But there has been progress. In U.S. courts, United States v. McClain (1997) and United States v. Schultz (2003) were landmark decisions enforcing national patrimony laws, providing nations (or the United States government acting on their behalf) an avenue for repatriation under the National Stolen Property Act of 1934.[45] Since then, litigation has been somewhat successful in compelling the forfeiture and return of stolen objects.[46] The Antiquities Trafficking Unit of the Manhattan District Attorney’s office has also overseen hundreds of repatriations,[47] including recent returns in 2025.[48] But even more important progress has been made outside the courts.

Museums have become more receptive to repatriation. The turning point came in the early 2000s: As a result of an Italian investigation into Giacomo Medici—the infamous antiquities smuggler convicted in 2005—evidence surfaced proving incontrovertibly that certain objects in museum collections were looted and illicitly trafficked (many post-1970).[49] The investigation implicated museums, and Italy went so far as to indict Getty antiquities curator Marion True.[50] Compounding the reputational damage was a series of Los Angeles Times articles, in which Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino further exposed the Getty Museum’s misconduct.[51] Faced with legal pressure and bad press, museums not only repatriated a wave of looted antiquities—including the famous Sarpedon Krater[52]—but also instituted new guidelines in 2004[53] and 2008.[54] The latter affirmed the so-called 1970 standard: an ethical commitment to only acquire objects removed from their country of origin before the 1970 Convention.[55] In cases violating this standard (i.e. objects looted post-1970), museums generally became more willing to repatriate.[56]

Since then, museums have furthered their investment in the growing field of provenance research (i.e., tracing the history of objects). In 2024 alone, the Metropolitan Museum of Art hired Lucian Simmons as Head of Provenance Research,[57] the Art Institute of Chicago appointed Jacques Schumacher as Executive Director of Provenance Research,[58] and the Princeton University Art Museum brought on MaryKate Cleary as Curator of Provenance.[59] Increasingly, more museums are dedicating time and resources to their responsibility of due diligence, ensuring that their collections are legal and ethical.[60]

Conclusion

Litigation perpetuates polarization. Instead, museums ought to continue their efforts out of court to collaborate with nations in further pursuit of creative resolutions.

One solution could be long term (or even permanent) loans. Many nations do not want everything back: Setting aside the logistical challenges, nations benefit culturally and economically (through tourism) when acclaimed museums feature their heritage. With this in mind, museums could cede ownership of objects and, in turn, nations could allow these artifacts to remain abroad. Greece, for example, reached a 50-year loan agreement with the Metropolitan Museum of Art regarding the Leonard N. Stern Collection of Cycladic figurines.[61] According to Kassandra Marinopoulou, President and CEO of the Museum of Cycladic Art in Athens, “The dissemination and promotion of Cycladic and ancient Greek culture internationally has always been the mission of the Museum of Cycladic Art and it is now being fulfilled to the utmost.”[62]

Another solution could be replicas.[63] For instance, the University of Chicago Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures displays a cast of the famous Rosetta Stone,[64] and the Acropolis Museum in Athens displays plaster copies of the Parthenon Marbles.[65] While arguably less desirable than originals, replicas take on added significance in the context of repatriation: As visual embodiments of cooperation, these duplicates convey the story of the original’s return, educating the public on the value of amicable repatriation. The Archaeological Museum of Palermo, for example, displays a copy of its Parthenon Marble fragment with signage communicating the original’s return to Greece in 2022.[66]

Regardless of the precise method, resolution will require cooperation, not litigation. This is true now more than ever: government actions in 2025 have sought to eradicate the term “cultural heritage” from public discourse[67] and eliminate the Institute of Museum and Library Services,[68] which in 2024 provided $266.7 million in grants to libraries and museums.[69] Faced with neglect and blatant disregard for heritage, those who do care should not be locked in polarizing legal battles, but working together to share and educate the world on these cultural objects and their immense value.

Suggested Readings

About the Author

John Freeman is a Legal Researcher at the litigation firm Sperling Kenny Nachwalter and a volunteer for the Center for Art Law’s Nazi-Looted Art Restitution Project. He graduated in 2024 as the salutatorian of his class at Princeton University, where he earned his bachelor’s degree in Classics and focused his research on the issue of repatriation.

References:

  1. While the present article focuses on ownership disputes surrounding looted and illicitly trafficked antiquities, there are many other forms of contentious cultural heritage disputes, such as those regarding art allegedly looted by the Nazis. These conversations, while overlapping, are each individually nuanced. Antiquities—the focus of this article—are especially complicated in that these objects were created, used, and lost a long time ago by civilizations with geographic borders different from contemporary geopolitics. The Roman Empire, for example, once spanned fifty modern-day countries. See Introduction to Ancient Rome, The British Museum (last visited Mar. 21, 2025). For further reading on Nazi-looted art, see Nicholas O’Donnell, A Tragic Fate: Law and Ethics in the Battle Over Nazi Looted Art (2017). ↑
  2. This article considers repatriation disputes between museums and nation states. Objects owned by private collectors, although intertwined with museum collections, present different challenges since these artifacts are significantly less accessible and therefore less known to the public. For further reading on private collections specifically, see Erin Thompson, Possession: The Curious History of Private Collectors from Antiquity to the Present (2016). ↑
  3. For a full case review, see Livia Solaro, Case Review: Getty v. Italy (2024), Ctr. Art L. (July 24, 2024). ↑
  4. For reference, the “Victorious Youth” is valued at $16 million. See Id.Ancient artifacts also hold great value for scholarship. But for these objects to inform contemporary understanding of the ancient past, archaeological context is crucial. The looting and circulation of unprovenanced antiquities has had disastrous consequences to the archaeological record. An early study by David Gill and Christopher Chippendale on Cycladic Figures presented an extreme example of widespread historical misconceptions arising from unprovenanced and fake antiquities. See David Gill and Christopher Chippendale, Material and Intellectual Consequences of Esteem for Cycladic Figures, 97 Am. J. Archaeology 601 (1997). For more reading on the loss of knowledge that accompanies looting, see David Gill and Christopher Chippendale, Material Consequences of Contemporary Classical Collecting, 104 Am. J. Archaeology 463 (2000); Colin Renfrew, Loot Legitimacy and Ownership: The Ethical Crisis in Archaeology (2000); and All the King’s Horses: Essays on the Impact of Looting and the Illicit Antiquities Trade on Our Knowledge of the Past (Paula Lazrus and Alex Barker, eds., 2012). ↑
  5. Export and ownership laws bear a critical distinction in whether the nation itself claims ownership or is acting as a private party on behalf of the claimant. As far as this author is aware, no country has filed a claim in the United States for the latter. See Patty Gerstenblith, The meaning of 1970 for the acquisition of archaeological objects, 38 J. Field Archaeology 364, 370 (2013). As an example highlighting this distinction, see Merryman’s discussion of King of Italy v. De Medici in John Henry Merryman, Thinking About the Elgin Marbles, 83 Mich. L. Rev. 1881, 1890 (1985). ↑
  6. For example, Hamilakis expertly lays out the significance of antiquity to Greek national identity in his book. See Yannis Hamilakis, The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology and National Imagination in Greece (2007). ↑
  7. Legge 12 giugno 1902, n.185, G.U. Jun. 27, 1902, n. 149 (It.). ↑
  8. Legge 20 giugno 1909, n. 364, G.U. Jun. 28, 1909, n. 150 (It.). ↑
  9. Id. ↑
  10. Legge 1 giugno 1939, n. 1089, G.U. Aug. 8, 1939, n. 184 (It.); Decreto legislativo 22 gennaio 2004, n. 42, G.U. Feb. 24, 2004, n. 45 (It.). ↑
  11. The Greek 1834 law broadly considered Greek antiquities property of Greeks in general whereas the later 1899 Law No. 2646 established government ownership over discovered antiquities. See Katerina Ampela, The Parthenon Marbles and Greek Cultural Heritage Law, The Laws.’ Comm. for Cultural Heritage Preservation (Jan. 6, 2022). ↑
  12. A full list of Egyptian national antiquities (including earlier laws in 1835 and 1869) has been published by the International Council of Museums. See Int’l Council of Museums, Emergency Red List of Egyptian Cultural Objects at Risk 3 (2011). ↑
  13. The Ottoman Empire (present-day Turkey) passed its first law regulating the export of antiquities in 1869, but it was not until the 1874 decree that the government took ownership over the undiscovered antiquities in its territory. See Sibel Özel, Under the Turkish Blanket Legislation: The Recovery of Cultural Property Removed from Turkey, 38 Int’l J. Legal Info. 177 (2010). ↑
  14. Professor Clemency Coggins brought attention to the looting and illicit trafficking of antiquities from Guatemala and Mexico in 1969. See Clemency Coggins, Illicit Traffic of Pre-Columbian Antiquities, 29 Art J. 94 (1969). Coggins’ scholarship was a factor in forming the 1970 Convention. See Patty Gerstenblith, Implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention by the United States and Other Market Nations, in The Routledge Companion to Cultural Property, 70 (Jane Anderson & Haidy Giesmar, eds., 2017). ↑
  15. The 1970 Convention evolved from the 1956 Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations and the 1964 Recommendation on the means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Export, Import and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. See Gerstenblith, supra note 5. ↑
  16. UNESCO, Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, No. 11806, 823 U.N.T.S. 231 (Nov. 14, 1970). ↑
  17. Id. at art. 4. ↑
  18. Id. at art. 7. ↑
  19. John Henry Merryman, Two Ways of Thinking About Cultural Property, 80 Am. J. Int’l L., 831, 843, (1986). ↑
  20. When the United States ratified the 1970 Convention in 1972, it did so with the understanding that the convention would not have domestic legal impact until Congress passed implementing legislation. See Gerstenblith, supra note 14. ↑
  21. The Cultural Property Implementation Act only implemented Article 7(b) and Article 9 of the 1970 Convention, although it incorporated parts of other sections. Notably, it failed to implement Article 3, which states, “The import, export or transfer of ownership of cultural property effected contrary to the provisions adopted under this Convention by the States Parties thereto, shall be illicit.” See Gerstenblith, supra note 14. ↑
  22. Merryman, supra note 19. ↑
  23. Id. at 831. ↑
  24. Id. at 836–37, 841. ↑
  25. Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, No. 3511, 249 U.N.T.S. 215 (May 14, 1954) (emphasis added). ↑
  26. Merryman, supra note 5, at 1916. ↑
  27. Merryman, supra note 19, at 847. ↑
  28. Merryman, supra note 5, at 1900–01. ↑
  29. It is worth noting that the Parthenon Marbles case, despite being the most famous and influential case study for repatriation, differs from many of the cases discussed in this article in that Greece was not a nation at the time of taking. This means that there were no Greek cultural patrimony laws in place, which complicates the legal argument for repatriation. ↑
  30. For further reading on the Parthenon Marbles debate, see Alexander Herman, The Parthenon Marbles Dispute: Heritage, Law, and Politics (2023). Scholarship advocating for return includes Christopher Hitchens, The Parthenon Marbles: The Case for Reunification (2008); Geoffrey Robertson, Who Owns History?: The Case of Elgin’s Loot (2019); and Catherine Titi, The Parthenon Marbles and International Law (2023). Scholarship advocating against return includes Merryman, supra note 5; James Cuno, Who Owns Antiquity?: Museums and the Battle over Our Ancient Heritage (2008); and Tiffany Jenkins, Keeping Their Marbles: How the Treasures of the Past Ended up in Museums—and Why They Should Stay There (2016). ↑
  31. For examples of early rulings against nation state claimants, see Peru v. Johnson, 720 F. Supp. 810 (C.D. Cal. 1989) and Republic of Croatia v. The Trustee of the Marquess of Northampton 1987 Settlement, 610 N.Y.S.2d 263 (1st Dept. 1994) mentioned in Gerstenblith, supra note 5, at 370. ↑
  32. UNIDROIT, Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, 34 I.L.M. 1322 (June 24, 1995). ↑
  33. Although market nations did not ratify UNIDROIT, some—faced with a relatively more strict convention—ratified the 1970 Contention in response. See Gerstenblith, supra note 14. ↑
  34. Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums, Cleveland Museum of Art (2003). ↑
  35. Id. ↑
  36. Id. ↑
  37. Id. ↑
  38. Id. ↑
  39. Id. ↑
  40. Arguments initially gleaned from Solaro, supra note 3. ↑
  41. Case of the J. Paul Getty Trust and Others v. Italy, 35271/19, Judgment 2.5.2024, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0502JUD003527119 at 190, 326, 327. ↑
  42. Id at 190. ↑
  43. Id. at 328 ↑
  44. Id. at 286. Specifically, the Getty argued that Article 174 § 3 of Decree no. 42/2004 “lacked clarity as it did not impose any time-limit.” The Getty pointed out that Articles 77 and 78 of Decree no. 42/2004 “set a time-limit of three years from the date on which the requesting State became aware of the location of the object for claims concerning restitution of cultural goods lodged against Italy,” and that UNIDROIT 1995 “provided for a three-year time-limit of instituting actions for the recovery of unlawfully exported cultural objects.” ↑
  45. See Kelly Cannici, Heritage of Law: McClain at Forty-Five, Ctr. Art L. (Oct. 31, 2022). ↑
  46. Id. For example, United States v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton, 12 Civ. 4760 (PKC), 2012 Dist. LEXIS 165153; 2012 WL 5834899 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2012) and United States v. A 10th Century Cambodian Sandstone Sculpture, 12 Civ. 2600 (GBD), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45903; 2013 WL 1290515 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2013). ↑
  47. Matthew Bogdanos ‘83: Righting Ancient Wrongs, Colum. L. Sch. (Mar. 27, 2023). ↑
  48. D.A. Bragg Announces Return of 107 Antiquities To The People Of Italy, Manhattan Dist. Att’y’s Off. (Feb. 18, 2025); D.A. Bragg Announces Return of 11 Antiquities To The People Of Greece, Manhattan Dist. Att’y’s Off. (Feb. 25, 2025); D.A. Bragg Announces Return Of 20 Antiquities To The People of Nepal, Manhattan Dist. Att’y’s Off. (Mar. 7, 2025) ↑
  49. For a full account of the Italian investigation and trials, see Peter Watson & Cecilia Todeschini, The Medici Conspiracy: The Illicit Antiquities from Italy’s Tomb Raiders to the World’s Greatest Museums (2007). ↑
  50. Id. ↑
  51. A list of Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino’s Los Angeles Times articles exposing the Getty Museum in 2005 and 2006 can be found at Jason Felch: Publications, Trafficking Culture (last visited Mar. 17, 2025). The series was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in investigative reporting. See Finalist: Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino of Los Angeles Times, The Pulitzer Prizes (last visited Mar. 17, 2025). ↑
  52. For further reading on the Sarpedon Krater case, see Nigel Spivey, The Sarpedon Krater: the Life and Afterlife of a Greek Vase (2019) and Marina Papa-Sokal, Who “Owns” the Euphronios Krater? Nationalism and Internationalism in the Protection of Archaeological Heritage, 3 Present Pasts 2 (2011). ↑
  53. See American Association of Art Museum Directors, Report of the AAMD Task Force on the Acquisition of Archaeological Artifacts and Ancient Art (2004). The 2004 policy allowed museums to acquire objects proven to be outside their country of origin for at least ten years, which critics deemed insufficient. See Gerstenblith, supra note 5, at 367. ↑
  54. See American Association of Art Museum Directors, Report of the AAMD Task Force on the Acquisition of Archaeological Artifacts and Ancient Art (revised 2008), 15 Int. J. Cultural Property 397 (2008); American Alliance of Museums, Standards Regarding Archaeological Material and Ancient Art, 15 Int. J. Cultural Property 401 (2008); Gerstenblith, supra note 5, at 367-8; Patty Gerstenblith, Laina Lopez & Lucille Roussin, International Art and Cultural Heritage, 43 Int’l Law. 811, 816 (2009). ↑
  55. See Gerstenblith, supra note 5 at 364, 367-8. ↑
  56. For example, in 2019 the Metropolitan Museum of Art willingly returned an Egyptian sarcophagus (acquired in 2017) after discovering that the artifact had been looted in 2011. See Victoria Stapley-Brown and Nancy Kenney, Met hands over an Egyptian coffin that it says was looted, The Art Newspaper (Feb. 15, 2019). ↑
  57. The Met Appoints Head of Provenance Research, The Metropolitan Museum of Art (Mar. 22, 2024). ↑
  58. Art Institute of Chicago Appoints Dr. Jacques Schumacher as Executive Director, Provenance Research, The Art Institute of Chicago (Aug. 6, 2024). ↑
  59. Princeton University Art Museum Appoints MaryKate Cleary as Curator of Provenance, Princeton University Art Museum (last visited Mar. 17, 2025). ↑
  60. Ted Loos, The Met May Have Millions in Stolen Art. It’s Not Waiting to Be Asked to Return It, Wall St. J. (Mar. 18, 2025). ↑
  61. The agreement regarding the Stern Collection has also been highly controversial, especially among Greeks. See “The agreement on the Stern Collection antiquities should be cancelled” Association of Greek Archaeologists says, archaeology.wiki (Dec. 23, 2022); Michael Kaplan, Critics ‘angry’ over Greece’s deal with art collector Leonard Stern, N.Y. Post (Oct. 12, 2022); and Karen Ho, The Greek Deal with Businessman Leonard Stern and The Met for Large Cycladic Art Collection Looks Like a Mess, ARTnews (Nov. 4, 2022). ↑
  62. The Met to Feature New Installation of Extraordinary Cycladic Art from The Leonard N. Stern Collection on Loan from the Hellenic Republic, The Metropolitan Museum of Art (Jan. 23, 2024). ↑
  63. Erin Thompson, Mighty Shiva Was Never Meant to Live in Manhattan, N.Y. Times (Feb. 4, 2024). ↑
  64. Stele (Cast), U. Chi. Inst. for the Study of Ancient Cultures (last visited Mar. 17, 2025). The original Rosetta Stone is on display at the British Museum. See stela, The British Museum (last visited Mar. 17, 2025). ↑
  65. The Parthenon Gallery, Acropolis Museum (last visited Mar. 17, 2025). The Parthenon Gallery at the Acropolis Museum incorporates stone originals and plaster copies to reconstruct the Parthenon’s architectural decor to the fullest extent possible. While approximately half of the Marbles are at the British Museum, the Louvre has South Metope 10, most of East Frieze Block 7, and multiple head fragments (from the West Pediment, North Frieze Block 19, and South Metope 7); the National Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen has two heads from South Metope 4; the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna has fragments from North Frieze Block 9, South Metope 1, and West Frieze Block 3; and the University Museum of Würzburg has a head from South Metope 5. ↑
  66. Author visited the Archaeological Museum of Palermo on October 20, 2023. At the time, a label next to the fragment read, “Copia della lastra marmorea raffigurante il piede di una divinità femminile pertinente al fregio orientale del Partenone. L’orginale è in esposizione presso il museo dell’Acropoli di Atene.” [Copy of a marble fragment depicting the foot of a female goddess from the eastern frieze of the Parthenon. The original is now on display at the Acropolis Museum of Athens.] ↑
  67. Karen Yourish, et al., These Words are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration, N.Y. Times (Mar. 7, 2025). ↑
  68. Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy, The White House (Mar. 14, 2025) ↑
  69. Benjamin Sutton, Trump signs executive order to ‘eliminate’ agency that funds museums and libraries, The Art Newspaper (Mar. 17, 2025). ↑

 

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not meant to provide legal advice. Readers should not construe or rely on any comment or statement in this article as legal advice. For legal advice, readers should seek a consultation with an attorney.

Related Posts

https://www.redbubble.com/people/outlawsmedia/shop screen shot shot on Redbubble

The (Red)Bubble of Legal Protections for Digital Art Marketplaces

March 13, 2024

Fires Ravaging Aleppo’s Ancient Souk Raise Concerns Over Destruction of Cultural Heritage Sites in Syria

October 11, 2012

YouTube copyright case in Spain — Google cleared

September 26, 2010