What would you do if you spent millions of dollars on an art work only to have a court order you to turn it over to someone else? What about those millions of dollars you spent? Would you give over the art work or would you risk fines or imprisonment? Or, might you just flee with the art work?

The statute of the “Victorious Youth,” dating back anywhere from 300 B.C.-100 B.C has caused much commotion in the art world. The statue itself was literally pulled from the sea in 1964 by Italian fishermen near the eastern town of Fano. In 1977, the famed Paul Getty Museum paid $4 million for the statute and it’s been part of the Los Angeles museum ever since.

Until now. On Thursday, an Italian court ordered the ancient Greek statute be seized and brought back to Italy. Now its fate is unknown.  

The Italian government has launched a heated and actually quite nasty campaign to reclaim looted antiquities and the “Victorious Youth” has become one such art work. In response, the Getty maintains that it was bought in good faith and that Italy has absolutely no claim over the work.

So, who is right? Does it matter that the Getty paid $4million for it? Would it matter if Italy paid the museum for the work?

The Italian court’s order is effective immediately. Because this is an international case, the Italian courts will ask the U.S. government to intervene and “force” the Getty to fork it over.

The statue has no name, though it’s been dubbed the “Getty Bronze.” It’s 5 feet tall and is rumored to be the work of Lysippos, the personal sculptor of Alexander the Great. It is rumored to have sunk with a ship carrying it to Italy. After it was found by the fishermen in international waters, it was allegedly buried in an Italian cabbage patch and hidden in a priest’s bathtub before it was removed from Italy.

From what I gather from the court case, it’s unclear why the court ruled as it did other than because it was an Italian court that wants the work back in Italy. In fact, the Italian government’s attorney has said that was is at stake in the trial is that the property was somehow “owned” by Italy and therefore the Getty must return it.

Being a lawyer, I must ask: why should a U.S. museum be obligated to obey an Italian court’s ruling? Should the U.S. government and courts be forced to recognize a foreign country’s orders? Does Italy have any jurisdiction here?

What is clear that it seems to be a matter of choice for U.S. authorities. If they opt not to recognize the Italian court’s decision,the Italian government has said that it would bring the case in a U.S. court.

Interestingly enough, there have been artifact looting cases where the allegedly looted art works were returned. In 2008, the MOMA returned a Greek Vase, the Euphronios Krater, which it bought for $1 million back in 1972. Perhaps because of this return, the Italian government has focused its attention on getting back much of what it called “looted”antiquity.