Famous photograph of Winston Churchill missing from Ottawa Hotel

[r.e.]

In a year or so, it won't be remembered by many. The world of art dealers is rife with dishonest liars and cheats. If it was eventually obtained by such a dealer, it could probably be sold without much effort.

OK, if the person who stole the print sells it to a dealer who's a "dishonest liar and cheat", who is presumably going to stiff the vendor as well as a buyer, the dealer may be able to sell it to someone who doesn't care where it came from or is too gullible to ask for proper provenance.

Don't know what I'm supposed to do with that information

We seem to have gone from suggesting that the authorities won't be able to prove that the print, if it emerges, was stolen (an idea that, with all due respect, doesn't make a lot of sense) to suggesting that the thief may sell the print to an unscrupulous crook. Well yeah, that's pretty obviously possible.

The Chateau Laurier is open to communicating with whoever took the print. I imagine that that route might be more attractive to him/her than the scenario that you're now talking about.

All I did in post #7 was add some info on the theft that hadn't been covered earlier. Wasn't planning on getting into a debate about solving art theft crimes and the ethics/criminality of art galleries that deal in photographs.

[Pieter]

OK, if the person who stole the print sells it to a dealer who's a "dishonest liar and cheat", who is presumably going to stiff the vendor as well as a buyer, the dealer may be able to sell it to someone who doesn't care where it came from or is too gullible to ask for proper provenance.

Don't know what I'm supposed to do with that information

We seem to have gone from suggesting that the authorities won't be able to prove that the print, if it emerges, was stolen (an idea that, with all due respect, doesn't make a lot of sense) to suggesting that the thief may sell the print to an unscrupulous crook. Well yeah, that's pretty obviously possible.

The Chateau Laurier is open to communicating with whoever took the print. I imagine that that route might be more attractive to him/her than the scenario that you're now talking about.

All I did in post #7 was add some info on the theft that hadn't been covered earlier. Wasn't planning on getting into a debate about solving art theft crimes and the ethics/criminality of art galleries that deal in photographs.

There is probably a lot less monkey business with dealers in photos as the prices are much less than paintings. Take the Rothko case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothko_case or the movie Made You Look about the Knoedler Gallery in New York.