The IPKat has received the following from Thorsten Lauterbach (Robert Gordon University).
"I read an interesting but disturbing article published in the "Sueddeutsche Zeitung" on 16 January 2007: "Mengeles Malerin" ("Mengele's painter") by Reymer Kluever:,panm3/leben/artikel/341/98243/

It informs about a copyright dispute between Dina Babbitt and the Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau. Mrs Babbitt (née Gottliebova) had been asked by Auschwitz 'Angel of Death' Josef Mengele to paint portraits and sketches of Concentration Camp prisoners (Sinti and Roma gypsies) who were about to be killed. These pictures would constitute evidence of the alleged inferior, non-Aryan nature of those prisoners, so Mengele. Painting these portraits which she was permitted to sign with her first name saved Mrs Babbitt's life and the life of her mother.

For more than thirty years she has been trying to have these paintings returned to her by the museum (the paintings had been originally acquired by the museum as anonymous works). There is no doubt that she is the author of the works and also the first owner under copyright law, despite some preposterous arguments by the then Polish government during the days of the late Cold War that if anyone had ownership rights it would be Mengele, having "ordered" them.

The museum has been arguing since that these portraits should remain in the museum for the benefit of the many visitors and in the memory of the millions who perished in this camp. The museum maintains that they constitute part of the "heritage of humanity" which should supersede individual copyright claims.

I would be interested if anyone has done any research into these harrowing aspects of copyright law."
If you want to get in touch with Thorsten, email the IPKat, who will forward your message.
NAZI COPYRIGHT QUESTION NAZI COPYRIGHT QUESTION Reviewed by Unknown on Friday, January 19, 2007 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.