Calls For Return Of Lewis Chess Set - Scotland Or Iom?

[Skeddan]

Incidentally, given that the legal ownership has not been determined, there is an interesting question of copyright and reproduction rights. The British Museum has been making reproductions of these - and potentially these are pirated if the BM is not the owner of the originals - if not a copyright issue as such, it is nevertheless potentially a 'tresspass on chattels' The issue is not just the Sodor chessmen themselves, but all ancillary rights as well.

[Frances]

Incidentally, given that the legal ownership has not been determined, there is an interesting question of copyright and reproduction rights. The British Museum has been making reproductions of these - and potentially these are pirated if the BM is not the owner of the originals - if not a copyright issue as such, it is nevertheless potentially a 'tresspass on chattels' The issue is not just the Sodor chessmen themselves, but all ancillary rights as well.

well with your 'undoubted' legal ability + interest in righting all wrongs, why not obtain a mandate from King David and sue for these ancillary rights - I'm sure Manx Post would deliver all mail c/o Fairy Bridge

[VinnieK]

Incidentally, given that the legal ownership has not been determined, there is an interesting question of copyright and reproduction rights. The British Museum has been making reproductions of these - and potentially these are pirated if the BM is not the owner of the originals

 

I doubt the Chessmen are protected by copyright. Even if they were, something tells me that it might just have expired by the 19th century.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the flight of fantasy fully underway here. I think we should claim the Elgin Marbles. Here's my legal case:

 

1. The British Museum isn't entitled to have them.

 

2. They were made in the city state of Athens, which no longer exists as a sovereign body. Indeed, this so called "Greece" hasn't actually existed for that long at all.

 

3. Since both nations have NO RIGHT to the marbles, and are BASTARDS, the best possible outcome is that they're delivered to the Isle of Man - which due to its old, funny shaped hill and ancient parliament, is in fact the TRUE heir of the Athenian legacy and all its physical remains.

 

4. Isle of Man! Isle of Man! Isle of Man! YAY!

 

I also suggest that the Ford motor car company should be sued for infringing upon the patent rights belonging to the inventor of the wheel, and that all parents should pay their own parents royalties for unauthorized copying of their genes.

[Skeddan]

Incidentally, given that the legal ownership has not been determined, there is an interesting question of copyright and reproduction rights. The British Museum has been making reproductions of these - and potentially these are pirated if the BM is not the owner of the originals

 

I doubt the Chessmen are protected by copyright. Even if they were, something tells me that it might just have expired by the 19th century.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the flight of fantasy fully underway here. I think we should claim the Elgin Marbles. Here's my legal case:

 

1. The British Museum isn't entitled to have them.

 

2. They were made in the city state of Athens, which no longer exists as a sovereign body. Indeed, this so called "Greece" hasn't actually existed for that long at all.

 

3. Since both nations have NO RIGHT to the marbles, and are BASTARDS, the best possible outcome is that they're delivered to the Isle of Man - which due to its old, funny shaped hill and ancient parliament, is in fact the TRUE heir of the Athenian legacy and all its physical remains.

 

4. Isle of Man! Isle of Man! Isle of Man! YAY!

 

I also suggest that the Ford motor car company should be sued for infringing upon the patent rights belonging to the inventor of the wheel, and that all parents should pay their own parents royalties for unauthorized copying of their genes.

 

VinnieK - to answer the only relevant point you seem to make -

 

I doubt the Chessmen are protected by copyright. Even if they were, something tells me that it might just have expired by the 19th century.

 

The British Museum sell postcards of the Lewis chessmen (90p each) with a copyright notice : “© 2006 The Trustees of the British Museum”. The reproduction chess sets they sell (£99.00) display a notice on the box: “no unauthorised reproduction permitted”.

 

Of course there is no copyright in the chessmen themselves. However it could be argued there is a valid copyright ownership of the photographic images, just as the National Portrait Gallery claims copyright in digital images of their artworks. On the other hand if you were to argue this, I’d agree with you that no new copyright is created in images which are simply reproductions of an original. In this case I think there may be valid copyright, but there is a question of the British Museum's exploitation of those rights.

 

As I noted the issue isn’t simply one of copyright, but might be one of 'trespass on chattels’ or - as you might have pointed out - ‘unjust enrichment’ might be a better basis for this.

 

Suppose ‘relic-owner’ has an ancient statuette and ‘relic-hunter’ borrows this without permission. Relic-hunter then starts selling reproductions of the statuette, postcards, t-shirts, etc. making a tidy sum from exploiting relic-owner’s property. Do you think that these relic-owner has no claim beyond getting the statuette returned?

 

In the case of the British Museum there is all kinds of merchandising of the Lewis Chessmen. There are the postcards, the keyring, the books and DVD with ‘copyright’ images, the tee-shirt, the tie, the £99 reproduction chess set, the special £45 Harry Potter authorised reproduction chess set, the £990 3ft models of the Queen, all no doubt sold with very high profit margins. This is clearly commercial exploitation of the Lewis Chessmen, and it is conducted in a way where the Trustees of the British Museum are very protective over the rights they claim over these.

 

If however it turns out that someone else is the rightful owner of the Lewis chessmen, then IMO it makes sense to consider that there are ancillary rights involved as well.

 

 

As for the rest of your post, I take it you are just engaging in the usual banal ridiculing an ‘argument’ of your own creation, making out this is a disparaging critique of a view you have no better means of objecting to. While you’ve clearly mastered the sugared bonhomie used by some fourth rate academics in this tactic, there is little more to be said in favour of this. It’s a shame as you can evidently offer intelligent and sensible criticisms on occassions, and though I wish you’d do so more often, I don’t expect it.

 

Having said that, perhaps I am missing your point. It could be fair to criticise the SNP for failing to make any sensible legal argument to support their position, and instead only using this for political capital. The question of the legal position has been bandied about, e.g in the Guardian (“the British Museum acquired its pieces legally and fairly”), and this is a valid and interesting question, particularly since no inquest was held by the Procurator Fiscal as there should have been – a point which though arcane is nevertheless one which has bearing on this question.

 

As there is no time limit for reporting a find to the Procurator Fiscal, IMO the SNP would do better by making a long overdue report of the find and leaving it to the proper authority to make a determination of ownership in accordance with the law rather than engaging in the kind of blah-blah-blah argument of the sort given in your post. However it may be that the SNP choose not to approach the issue in this way because it would be a dry legal matter on a particular case rather than a wider emotive political/cultural issue they appear to want to make of it. If that's the point your trying to make, then fair comment.

[VinnieK]

As for the rest of your post, I take it you are just engaging in the usual banal ridiculing an ‘argument’ of your own creation, making out this is a disparaging critique of a view you have no better means of objecting to... it’s a shame as you can evidently offer intelligent and sensible criticisms on occassions...

 

I'd try, but I don't quite see how it's worth the effort. A discussion on where the chessmen belong is fair play: that's a serious discussion. Although I disagree with it, the idea that major artefacts should be relocated to the region they were found in is a genuine argument, but these fantastical tangents of copyright and "returning" the Chessmen to the mighty Kingdom of Mann you've shot off on are so absurd as to barely warrant even ridicule.

 

The Chessmen were found on British soil by a British subject, who then sold them on to a British institution. If you truly think that the Isle of Man has a stronger legal claim on the basis that it was a part of a kingdom that once, a long time ago, incorporated Lewis, but which no longer exists, then by all means raise you claim with the relevant authorities. Just try not to be too disappointed when they laugh and tell you to sod off.

 

To be honest, your affection for the Island and desire to correct the injustices its suffered was at first kind of sweet, if quixotic and misdirected, but now it's looking more akin to a creepy obsession.

[Freggyragh]

Vinnie K, to be honest your disdain for your own country and desire to deny away its history and culture was kind of misdirected to begin with, but your creepy obsession with the UK has started to become quite sweet - like a melonchlic 'Last Night of the Proms'.

[Skeddan]

...

A discussion on where the chessmen belong is fair play: that's a serious discussion.

...

The Chessmen were found on British soil by a British subject, who then sold them on to a British institution.

...

I’d think the first question on where the chessmen belong surely concerns who they belong to. Just because they were sold does not mean anything much unless the person they were bought from was the rightful owner. Just because someone found them doesn't mean they were the owner. In a case of a find like this in Scotland, ownership is presumed to vest in the Crown until settled by the proper authorities.

 

You could perhaps argue that some statute of prescriptions and limitations might apply. As I said before the British Museum should have known better than to buy the items in this dodgy deal, and so IMO the BM were not good faith purchasers. Hence I think it is far from being clear cut that the BM is the owner.

 

If the proper authorities determined it belongs to the BM, then fair enough for the BM to keep these and only make temporary loans. That would put an end to the dispute. Alternatively they might determine that the pieces are treasure trove and belong to the Crown, in which case they would be allocated to museum(s) in Scotland – again fair enough. A third option is that the heir or successor of the original owner might be identified, in which case the chessmen would belong to them.

 

Do you consider anything so far to be ‘absurd’, or even just wrong? Do you think it is absurd to suppose other than that the BM is the lawful owner of the chessmen – if so, why?

 

For the sake of getting some clarity on your view, hypothetically, suppose, a letter were to be found at Trondheim showing the chessmen were given to the Bishop of Sodor and Mann and had been carried to Lewis by one of his envoys. Would you think there was a valid claim by the heir or successor of the original owner in this instance? If not, why not?

 

One of the issues you seem to make much of is that the Kingdom of Mann no longer exists. Is it perhaps you view that for this reason any such claim would be extinguished? Could you also clarify your understanding of when and how the Kingdom of Mann ceased to exist – i.e. date and relevant treaty or whatever. Was this 1266, or 1301, 1505, 1765, 1826 or some other date? Are you supposing it ceased to exist as a sovereign nation and changed its status because of adopting a change of style from ‘King’ to ‘Lord’?

 

I’d like to understand your argument, but so far I’m just getting “Isle of Man is shite, UK rules, YA YA YA – anyone who says different is a wanker and should sod off”. If there is more to you view than an opinionated stance, it would help if you would answer the above questions. That way there might be a serious discussion on the topic having identified the points of disagreement.

 

BTW, I’m close to being persuaded that the Scots might have the best claim of all. Do you have an argument against that? (Other than a Scots version of where you might be coming from on this - as for example is expressed here i.e. antagonism towards what you take to be a suggestion that the Lewis chessmen are a reason to be proud to be Scottish - or Manks - and that all the chessmen in the world won't make any difference).

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Sorry to be rude and put my perspective onto this but does it actually matter that much? As VinnieK says it was found on British soil and the British Museum would seem as good a place as any to hold onto them. I just don't see why it matters if it was in a Manx or Scottish Museum. I think as long as it is accessible to the public there should be no problem.

 

I don't think the pieces belong to any NATION STATE in particular as such nation states with identical cultures, boundaries and laws exist today. You could argue this any old way. Norway, Scotland, Isle of Man, British Museum in England. I don't see how a Scottish Museum have any more right to them than the British Museum.

 

And for the sake of the completely hypothetical idea that today's Bishop owns them, would it be better if he could take personal ownership of them or have them in a BRITISH museum accessible to the public (and I am under the assumption that these pieces are accessible to the public).

 

I really do not see why it matters at all as long as they are not in some private collection.

[VinnieK]

For the sake of getting some clarity on your view, hypothetically, suppose, a letter were to be found at Trondheim showing the chessmen were given to the Bishop of Sodor and Mann and had been carried to Lewis by one of his envoys. Would you think there was a valid claim by the heir or successor of the original owner in this instance? If not, why not?

 

No. The reason being that there is little way to chart to which strand of the descendents of the Bishop the Chessmen belong. We could award precedence to any claim via selecting the closest next of kin of the Bishop onwards, but this would be arbitrary for such a treasure and such a long line of descendents and risks benefitting no one but that particular person. Were there only a couple of generations between their loss and recovery then yes there would be a case for a return to the estate of the original owner, but for this amount of time, and considering that an acient Bishop's present day relatives, if they can even be traced entirely, must constitute a large and disparite body of people, I think 700 years is long enough to consider an unclaimed property lost and confer the right to sell them on whoever happens to discover them (excepting perhaps an artefact of major and direct local significance, which these aren't)

 

In any case, isn't this a moot point? No such letter exists to our knowledge, so the best you can possibly hope to achieve with it is that the decision is put off indefinitely until some wonderful solution presents itself, as if by magic, in the form of a letter, a painting of the bishop clutching a receipt from Crazy Olaf's Luxury Chess Accessories, or a very suggestive omen. In other words, preserving the status quo for the foreseeable future, since the argument does nothing to actually challenge it.

 

 

I’d like to understand your argument, but so far I’m just getting “Isle of Man is shite, UK rules, YA YA YA – anyone who says different is a wanker and should sod off”.

 

No, you're not. That's just what you'd like me to say, most probably because it would complement your own opinions which at their root are a simple converse of this statement. I have not once said that the Isle of Man is shite, or that the UK "rules": a belief that the British Museum is the best place for the chessmen is not the same as a broad insult towards the Isle of Man, or a wide ranging celebration of the UK . You'll also remember that I said I'd be happy to see them go to Norway instead, being the country of origin. How then does this fit in with my supposed belief that the UK is supreme amongst nations? I suggest your answer come in the form a private message, and ask there for my general views on the Island if you want them: this thread is already as bizarre and pointless as it needs to be without yet another dreary wankfest of parochial indignation masquerading as pride in one's heritage or nationality.

[Skeddan]

La_Dolce_Vita - glad to have your view, and I don't have much issue wiht what you say. Though I think that from a legal ownership perspective a Scottish Museum might have more right than the British Museum, the point you are making is that what actually matters is about being accessible to the public.

 

From what I can gather VinnieK's position seems to be like that of the UK Minister for Culture, who is saying any suggestion of these being other than in the British Museum is 'nonsense'. While you are saying one place is as good as another provided the public have access, this is asserting that any suggestion they should be anywhere other than BM is ludicrous, aburd, and villifies it as ridiculous etc. I just don't buy into that attitude, and think that it is an arrogant, bogus and phoney 'argument' - if you can call it that. I'm interested in whether there is more to this that I am missing - and hopefully VinnieK will set out the basis for his view which might help show there is more substance to this than there appears to be.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

La_Dolce_Vita - glad to have your view, and I don't have much issue wiht what you say. Though I think that from a legal ownership perspective a Scottish Museum might have more right than the British Museum, the point you are making is that what actually matters is about being accessible to the public.

 

From what I can gather VinnieK's position seems to be like that of the UK Minister for Culture, who is saying any suggestion of these being other than in the British Museum is 'nonsense'. While you are saying one place is as good as another provided the public have access, this is asserting that any suggestion they should be anywhere other than BM is ludicrous, aburd, and villifies it as ridiculous etc. I just don't buy into that attitude, and think that it is an arrogant, bogus and phoney 'argument' - if you can call it that. I'm interested in whether there is more to this that I am missing - and hopefully VinnieK will set out the basis for his view which might help show there is more substance to this than there appears to be.

 

I don't understand what you are looking for. Are you looking for some conclusive proof of where these chess pieces ought to belong? Or are you trying to understand the argument that it seems to make most sense to leave these artefacts in the British Museum?

 

I see your point with the UK Minister saying it is "nonsense". It doesn't exactly explain much. But this is the question of why they should be moved to Scotland. But why should they?

[VinnieK]

From what I can gather VinnieK's position seems to be like that of the UK Minister for Culture, who is saying any suggestion of these being other than in the British Museum is 'nonsense'. While you are saying one place is as good as another provided the public have access, this is asserting that any suggestion they should be anywhere other than BM is ludicrous, aburd, and villifies it as ridiculous etc.

 

More misrepresentations. I stated the public access offered by the BM as an argument for the Chessmen staying there at the very beginning, and I believe it's still one of the most powerful arguments for them remaining there. And no, I haven't vilified the idea of them being anywhere else as "ridiculous". I don't believe that them being in Edinburgh is ridiculous (although that doesn't mean I think they should be shipped off there, but it's certainly not a ridiculous idea. I might, however, find some of the reasons stated as to why they belong there ridiculous), and nor (and again I have to bring this up) would I view them as being in one of the major Norwegian museums as ridiculous, or indeed in Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow, or any other major city that can preserve them and provide good wide reaching access to them (unlike the Island or Lewis).

 

Now, I've stated that explicitely. I've stated that I believe the BM offers both the best access, and provides the pieces with more exposure than they might otherwise get, and used that in my argument for them remaining there. So you're either immensly forgetful, or you're simply happy to lie through your teeth to create whatever impression you happen to think will help you win an argument. What I have vilified as ridiculous is the tangential invocation of copyright, and to the claims that the Island should have them because "oh, well, they might have been coming here originally when they were lost" - arguments that neither aid nor, in the former instance, complement the present one, other than as a cheap tactic to reinforce the supposed moral "wrongness" of the BM having them.

 

You accuse me of sounding like a politician, but you're happy to misrepresent my position, lie, go off on barely related tangents for what can only be presumed to be emotional effect, and the age old trick of trying to use uncertainty and ambiguity (in this case the original ownership of the Chessmen) to weaken an opposing argument instead of strengthening your own. Now we can add hypocrite to the list as well.

[Skeddan]

I don't understand what you are looking for. Are you looking for some conclusive proof of where these chess pieces ought to belong? Or are you trying to understand the argument that it seems to make most sense to leave these artefacts in the British Museum?

 

I see your point with the UK Minister saying it is "nonsense". It doesn't exactly explain much. But this is the question of why they should be moved to Scotland. But why should they?

When the chessmen were found, instead of being handing over to the proper authorities in Scotland, they were sold on what amounts to a ‘blackmarket’ and so ended up in London. Had they been handed over as they should have been they would probably be in a museum in Scotland.

 

I think there are different arguments that can be made about who they belong to. It just seems plain arrogant to brush off what may be a genuine claim that others might have. I can see why it makes sense to keep them in the British Museum – what I want to find out is why it is absurd to suggest that someone else might have the right to these.

[Skeddan]

VinnieK - the issue arose from the question of who might have a good legal claim to the chessmen: I made an argument that the BM might not have bona fide legal title to these. You made some very flippant comment. As far as I could gather you were mocking any suggestion that the legal ownership might be disputed - just as Hodge had done. The argument about where would be best is another matter - you were explicit about that - but not on the ownership issue. Your haven't been exactly clear in often sarcastic remarks on the ownership issue and it is often hard to understand what your view really is.

 

I said it was 'from what I can gather' - you can always come in and clarify exactly what you are trying to say as I tried to get you to do in post#54. If you are concerned about mispreresentations of your view then you should try making your points without sarcasm, ridicule and snide flip comments which obscure anything worthwhile that you might have to say.

[Frances]

I don't wish to encourage trolls, but if our fishy friend wants to try his hand then consider the Norse ring money almost certainly dug up on the Island and now in the National Museum Dublin via a similar illegal sale