jueves, 20 de febrero de 2014

Renoir Painting Bought at Virginia Garage Sale Sparks Legal Battle

A woman bought a painting at a garage sale, but a museum claims it was stolen and belongs to them. Find out all the details by watching this ABC's news story.

Self-study activity:
Watch the video and answer the questions.
The activity is suitable for intermediate students.

1 How much did the woman pay for the painting?
2 How big is the painting?
3 When did Renoir paint it?
4 What does 1951 refer to?
5 Where's the painting now?
6 What documents has the museum produced to show the painting is theirs?
7 Who was the original owner of the painting, according to the family?

You can check your answers by reading the transcript below.

Was it a deal or a steal? A woman says she purchased this painting at a flea market, seven dollars, a painting that turned out to have been painted by the great Renoir. But a museum says it was stolen from its collection, now wants it back so there's a tug of war and this morning who should get it? Here's ABC's Jeff Celany. 
A lucky find or a stolen treasure? This morning that's the question for a federal judge with a one of a kind Renoir painting at the center of an intense legal battle. The tiny work of art, the size of a napkin, is an 1879 landscape called On the shore of the Seine.  A Virginia woman claims the Renoir is hers. Martha Fuqua says she bought it at a flea market back in 2009 for just seven dollars. The Baltimore Museum of Art says that price was a real steal, that's because they claim the painting was actually stolen in 1951, and they want it back now that it’s resurfaced.
The FBI seized the painting until a judge determines the rightful owner. In court papers filed this week, the museum produced a list of evidence it says proves the Renoir was stolen, including a sixty year old police report, old museum catalogues and even a receipt showing a patron bequeathed the painting to the museum.
The museum is claiming it owned it and claims that it was stolen so the museum needs to prove that it was in fact stolen and the fact they did own it.
Neither Fuqua nor her attorneys would speak to ABC news but her brother says she took the painting years ago from her mother, an art aficionado.
So even if Martha Fuqua paid, as she claims here, seven dollars or she paid 70,000 dollars, if in fact the painting was stolen a thief can’t obtain, can't pass ownership on to somebody else.
Now both sides are scrambling to paint a convincing picture to the judge when they face off in court next week.