With reference to the ICOM Code of ethics in respect of museum acquisitions and Patrick Boylan's comments on the Denney case, see below. I perhaps gave the wrong impression that the Toulouse museum was something of a bystander concerning the acquisition of the Denney collection. In fact, my paper at http://museum-security.org/denney/index.htm shows that the Toulouse Museum provided the cover of respectability for the movement of the pictures and the funds for transport and insurance and storage for the pictures. However the real point at issue concerning the ICOM code lies in the subsequent acquisition of the pictures and relates to the testing of a prospective donor's claim to ownership. Should the museum take the claim to ownership at face value or not? If the Museum is following the ICOM code, what should it do to test the donor's claim to ownership? What constitutes sufficient proof of ownership? Or, what constitutes a sufficient doubt on ownership requiring the museum to put a donation project on hold? In the Toulouse case, the donor's claimed to be heir to Denney's entire estate by virtue of a Spanish will. But the collection had not been declared on the inventory of the Declaration of Inheritance signed by the donor and the museum knew this. In other words, the donor had no documentary proof of ownership. Also the donor's claim to be sole heir to the estate was the subject of litigation in the Spanish Courts and both the Museum and the City Authorities knew this. I maintain that a prudent course of action for the City of Toulouse - consistent with following the ICOM Code - would have been to mothball plans for a donation until all ownership issues had been definitively settled in the Spanish Courts. However the City thought differently and went ahead with the donation. In the Denney case the donor's claim to ownership appears to have been taken at its face value by the museum and the City of Toulouse and any counter claims were severely severely discounted. In my view a disturbing precedent has been set, which runs against the whole spirit of the ICOM Code. But perhaps I am wrong? What do other people think? Antony Anderson ---------- From: Boylan P[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 30 April 1997 12:09 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: staff code of ethics The ICOM Code of Ethics is quite explicit that museums must ensure that they can get a valid legal title to any acquisition, whether purchase, gift or bequest. The "Denney Case" referred to by Anthony Anderson below raises important issues, though perhaps not on that point as such, which essentially involves an allegation that there was a complex fraud perpetrated by someone with close "inside" information about the "donor's" circumstances, and in particular that written instructions to transfer works of are to Toulouse must have been forged as the "donor" had died several days earlier. The real issues seem to me to be: (1) the extent to which the legal concept of "due diligence" requires museums accepting the ICOM Code to assume fraud by a third party in EVERY case where items are offered (ie. all apparently legitimate documents to be more or less automatically regarded as fraudulent). (Certainly English courts at least rejected such extreme automatic suspicion of everthing as unreasonable and unworkable centuries ago, and in the case of commercial transactions and transfers of chattels (though not real estate) all those taking part in a transaction are allowed to regard documents as legitimate unless it is proved otherwise.) (2) more relevant, I think, what should be done in case of the (extremely tiny) proportion of cases where such a fraud is subsequently alleged. Here, the conduct of the museum and its staff may become an issue, though as I understand it from Dr Anderson's notes the Toulouse Museum as such is something of a bystander in the current controversy: in actual or prospective legal actions it is the Mayor and Council who are in control of what is going on, both administratively and legally. Patrick Boylan (Chairman, ICOM Ethics Committee 1984 - 1990, & currently ICOM Vice-Pres.) ======================================================================= On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Antony F Anderson wrote: > > Suggest that you look at the ICOM Code of Ethics which is available at: > > http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/icom/ethics > > You should pay particular attention to developing a clear acquisitions policy. You should not assume that just because someone offers to donate something to your museum they have full title. If you accept without exercising due diligence in investigating the title you may find yourself subsequently in a very hot legal dispute when the real owners turn up and claim what is rightfully theirs. > A recent case shows how essential a code of ethics is. The Museum of Modern Art in Toulouse appears to have accepted a donation before all questions of ownership had been settled - moreover the museum appears to have been fully aware of the questionable title being passed on. This is quite contrary to the ICOM code which puts the onus on Museums to exercise the utmost caution when accepting donations and to examine the provenance very carefully. > The pictures had been on long term loan to the Dallas Museum of Art and were extracted by means of forged signatures shortly after the owners death. Full details of the case can be seen at: > http://museum-security.org/denney/index.htm