Hans sounds very reasonable in that discussion, he makes a lot of sense.
Yes and his Comment detractors much less so.
+1. After reading the linked article, its comments, this article https://itsartlaw.com/tag/nazi-looted-art/, and this article https://itsartlaw.com/2012/10/18/seven-year-saga-of-bakalar-v-vavra-ends-in-victory-for-current-owner-of-schiele-drawing-and-settles-concerns-over-application-of-the-laches-defense/, I am firmly on the side that the Mr. Kirby's heirs have a difficult path. The referenced Bakalar case on Nazi stolen art shows us that the
"case ultimately turned on the defense of “laches,” an equitable doctrine asserted by Bakalar that bars title actions in which there has been a lengthy delay in filing a claim. Ultimately, the district court ruled in favor of Bakalar. It stated that to prevail in asserting the laches defense, a defending party must show that (1) the claimant was aware of the claim (or had reason to know of the claim), (2) the claimant inexcusably delayed in taking action, and (3) the defending party was prejudiced as a result. The district court held that Vavra and Fischer’s “ancestors were aware of–or should have been aware of–their potential intestate rights to Grunbaum property,” and that the ancestors “were not diligent in pursuing their claims to the drawing.”
This thread is full of reasons why a laches defense would apply to Kirby art. Here's another reason, the mid 90's I purchased 6 pages from a 1962 kirby pencilled Marvel from a purchaser who had bought them at a Christy's auction in the early 90's. I would argue that the fact that a highly visible public auction was held without any claims of stolen artwork being made effectively scrubs the provenance clean. The same could be argued for pieces having sold on Ebay and Heritage in the past. Obviously, without knowing all the facts this must be determined on a case by case basis. All original art, not just Kirby's, faces the same issue and prices will most likely chill as a result.