I need clarity on "stolen art" 1 1

[Michaeld]

When you read this keep in mind that I didn't read up on any aspect of went on behind the scenes of the comic world. When the great artists of years past (Kirby, Ditko, ect.) spoke of their art being stolen I assumed what happened was that they gave their pieces to the publishers (Marvel, DC, ect,) fully expecting to get it back but never did because someone ran off with it or the companies kept it for themselves. If this is the case then why did the artists continue to work for them for so many years? Was there a contract that stated the art was to belong to the company they worked for or was the contract not clear on the subject? Please fill in the blanks for me.  

[Unca Ben]

4 hours ago, Michaeld said:

When you read this keep in mind that I didn't read up on any aspect of went on behind the scenes of the comic world. When the great artists of years past (Kirby, Ditko, ect.) spoke of their art being stolen I assumed what happened was that they gave their pieces to the publishers (Marvel, DC, ect,) fully expecting to get it back but never did because someone ran off with it or the companies kept it for themselves. If this is the case then why did the artists continue to work for them for so many years? Was there a contract that stated the art was to belong to the company they worked for or was the contract not clear on the subject? Please fill in the blanks for me.  

It's a long story.  You can Google "Marvel stolen art" and other similar phrases for the details.

You can also start here http://www.twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/19stolen.html

and here http://jimshooter.com/2011/03/mystery-of-missing-box-of-marve.html/

There's a master list of all the art cataloged in the Marvel warehouse in the late '60s early '70s (?) floating around somewhere.

there's also lots of information on comicart-l Yahoo forum, and this very forum,  but I don't have the time to dig it up.  Search around and you may find it.

I can't say that artists like Kirby and Ditko expected to get their art back; most artists were work-for-hire back then and the art was considered to be the property of the company.  (This may be a simplified version of the situation - but hey, I'm a simple man).  I suspect when Joe Simon and Kirby himself had their publishing company in the 1950's they kept the original art produced by other artists.
It was in the mid / late '60s when artists like Steranko started stipulating that their art be returned to them.  Up until then, comic book art was perceived by some (many?) to be worthless.  Companies likely wanted to keep the art for copyright reasons and many artists seemed not to care.  Once comic fandom got going and art started showing up at conventions & comic shops, things changed.  Money does that.

And yeah, lots of art walked away from the Marvel offices and warehouse before art began to be returned to the artists.  Kirby in particular got screwed.  And by extension, so did his contemporaries like Ditko, Ayers, Heck, et al. (though not as much)

Edited August 17, 2018 by Unca Ben

[Michaeld]

4 hours ago, Unca Ben said:

It's a long story.  You can Google "Marvel stolen art" and other similar phrases for the details.

You can also start here http://www.twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/19stolen.html

and here http://jimshooter.com/2011/03/mystery-of-missing-box-of-marve.html/

There's a master list of all the art cataloged in the Marvel warehouse in the late '60s early '70s (?) floating around somewhere.

there's also lots of information on comicart-l Yahoo forum, and this very forum,  but I don't have the time to dig it up.  Search around and you may find it.

I can't say that artists like Kirby and Ditko expected to get their art back; most artists were work-for-hire back then and the art was considered to be the property of the company.  (This may be a simplified version of the situation - but hey, I'm a simple man).  I suspect when Joe Simon and Kirby himself had their publishing company in the 1950's they kept the original art produced by other artists.
It was in the mid / late '60s when artists like Steranko started stipulating that their art be returned to them.  Up until then, comic book art was perceived by some (many?) to be worthless.  Companies likely wanted to keep the art for copyright reasons and many artists seemed not to care.  Once comic fandom got going and art started showing up at conventions & comic shops, things changed.  Money does that.

And yeah, lots of art walked away from the Marvel offices and warehouse before art began to be returned to the artists.  Kirby in particular got screwed.  And by extension, so did his contemporaries like Ditko, Ayers, Heck, et al. (though not as much)

Thank you.

 

[PhilipB2k17]

8 hours ago, Unca Ben said:

It's a long story.  You can Google "Marvel stolen art" and other similar phrases for the details.

You can also start here http://www.twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/19stolen.html

and here http://jimshooter.com/2011/03/mystery-of-missing-box-of-marve.html/

There's a master list of all the art cataloged in the Marvel warehouse in the late '60s early '70s (?) floating around somewhere.

there's also lots of information on comicart-l Yahoo forum, and this very forum,  but I don't have the time to dig it up.  Search around and you may find it.

I can't say that artists like Kirby and Ditko expected to get their art back; most artists were work-for-hire back then and the art was considered to be the property of the company.  (This may be a simplified version of the situation - but hey, I'm a simple man).  I suspect when Joe Simon and Kirby himself had their publishing company in the 1950's they kept the original art produced by other artists.
It was in the mid / late '60s when artists like Steranko started stipulating that their art be returned to them.  Up until then, comic book art was perceived by some (many?) to be worthless.  Companies likely wanted to keep the art for copyright reasons and many artists seemed not to care.  Once comic fandom got going and art started showing up at conventions & comic shops, things changed.  Money does that.

And yeah, lots of art walked away from the Marvel offices and warehouse before art began to be returned to the artists.  Kirby in particular got screwed.  And by extension, so did his contemporaries like Ditko, Ayers, Heck, et al. (though not as much)

The story about how X-Men #1 pages mysteriously surfaced is a classic example. Some guy goes to a local comic shop in NYC, peddling the art. IF that's what happened. (I have my doubts). 

[pemart1966]

If one looks at the big picture it tells us that most, if not all of the Marvel Silver Age art exists - it's out there.

Had art "liberation" not occurred, it's quite possible that all or most of that art could have been shredded, dumped or otherwise disposed of much like the fate that befell a lot of the Silver Age DC art.

This forum would have a whole different context to it.  We'd all be lamenting the fact that there are only a handful of pages known to exist...

 

[Funnyslover]

As mentioned above there is ‘a master list of all the art cataloged in the Marvel warehouse in the late '60s early '70s (?) floating around somewhere’

and here it is  Enjoy ? 

http://www.comicartfans.com/galleryroom.asp?gsub=38988

plus a few more snippets :

http://www.tcj.com/kirby-and-goliath-the-fight-for-jack-kirbys-marvel-artwork/

http://www.comicsbeat.com/marvel-sold-original-art-in-1973/

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=700711

https://books.google.fr/books?id=TrZ7Jx2nqIQC&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=pete+koch+marvel+art&source=bl&ots=NC8-kzjRvG&sig=Qn4O4eFobqkE8Bvd3OrnZ0OSkPQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjakY7cy9zLAhUE7xQKHXCcBSUQ6AEIHTAB#v=onepage&q=pete%20koch%20marvel%20art&f=false

http://irenevartanoff.com/?p=505

https://irenevartanoff.com/more-about-original-comic-book-artwork/

https://irenevartanoff.com/about-marvel-comics-original-artwork-in-the-1960s/

http://gregtheakstonteasemag.blogspot.com/2011/06/jack-magic-v2-pt2.html

https://books.google.fr/books?id=TrZ7Jx2nqIQC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=marvel+silver+age+covers+journey+into+mystery+80+89&source=bl&ots=NC8-kzhRDI&sig=gy-GeYDbGEXzY-gPy8sIyKG61_U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ45XJxNzLAhUDTCYKHdf-CWUQ6AEIITAD#v=onepage&q=marvel%20silver%20age%20covers%20journey%20into%20mystery%2080%2089&f=false

http://www.twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/19stolen.html

https://irenevartanoff.com/marvel-comics-original-art-the-topic-that-keeps-on-giving/

http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/original-art-stories-jack-kirbys.html

http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.fr/2011/04/marvel-worldwide-inc-et-al-v-kirby-et_17.html

Go to faq 30

http://unitedfanzineorganization.weebly.com/ditkofaq.html#005

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-09-02/features/0809010104_1_artwork-comic-book-steve-ditko

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=700711&fpart=4

https://books.google.fr/books?id=TrZ7Jx2nqIQC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=list+art+returned+to+kirby&source=bl&ots=NC8-kAiMBA&sig=xjW6De3BOjn2mo4QNSSV2H2qo-s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi98PnK69zLAhVGzRQKHZ0RD_sQ6AEIMTAH#v=onepage&q=list%20art%20returned%20to%20kirby&f=false

http://unitedfanzineorganization.weebly.com/ditkofaq.html#030

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-09-02/features/0809010104_1_artwork-comic-book-steve-ditko

http://jimshooter.com/2011/03/mystery-of-missing-box-of-marve.html/

http://jimshooter.com/2011/12/surprising-sinnott-and-items-of.html/

http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/695/original-art-essay-ditko.jpg

http://s45.photobucket.com/user/chromiumcomics/media/c7648c2251eb552da790bd4cfb59b0a8_zpsvrldsasx.jpg.html

http://www.pipelinecomics.com/the-mystery-of-60s-marvel-jack-kirby-original-artworK

http://zak-site.com/Great-American-Novel/ff_Lee-Kirby.html

https://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/2012/05/joe-simon-fbi-and-strange-case-of.html

http://originalcomicartlocator.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-real-story-how-original-art-to-x.html

go to shooter’s candid views on page 4 below (at 09.34 pm on 31-August-2018) ———>  

 

 

 

G'nite  

Edited September 5, 2018 by Funnyslover
added a link to Irene Vartanoff’s January 2017 update regarding her Marvel warehouse list.

[JadeGiant]

It's a long read but you will find some fascinating stuff. At least I did. Enjoy

[georgefhagenauer2]

I did a long article on the legal issues on stolen art for the CFA APA years ago that was also published serially in CBG.  The headache here is what is defined as stolen . If art was originally done under a work for hire law (and I wrote under those rules i n the 1960s for Warren) The publisher owns the art . That was the case until both Marvel and DC began doing different contracts in the 1970s. At that point both companies began giving art back based on their own formulas for division between inkers and pencillers and for a while in some cases to writers. Art that left before that point can be under a cloud unless there is good provenance ie Dc giveaway art often on their weekend tours . Artists periodically would request or even remove their own art from the company storage. In most cases the documentation comes from the artist or who received the art as a gift not from the company.  Realistically the companies did not keep good records though Marvel later did an inventory on what they had (though some art appeared years later after all of it should have been given back). Note in addition to DC and Marvel (both of which have had documented thefts) warren also had some early art removed especially done by Neal Adams.

Because of weak records the companies who legally owned the earlier Golden age and silver age art have not pursued art that may well have been illegally removed from their storage areas. Some artists over time have raised the issue or harassed owners of art the artists felt should have been returned to them . To date to my knowledge none of this nor the type of documentation often used for art that is in contentions (i.e. artist signatures or dedications on the art that may signify transfer of title) has ever been tested in court. The issue of course being that when the art was removed it had little or no value and now it can be worth tens of thousands of dollars. Note also in cases where it is determined that art is stolen there is I believe no statute of limitations on recovering the art providing due process is followed - I had a friend who lost an expensive Mucha painting back to the artist's descendants  because it's provenance had problems. In those cases you can collect from whoever sold you the stolen piece of art what you paid for it. As such it is good to keep track of where art came from in the unlikely case any claims are made as on art that is determined to be stolen of having provenance problems you can be liable for art you traded or sold off long after it is gone.

[Michaeld]

7 hours ago, georgefhagenauer2 said:

I did a long article on the legal issues on stolen art for the CFA APA years ago that was also published serially in CBG.  The headache here is what is defined as stolen . If art was originally done under a work for hire law (and I wrote under those rules i n the 1960s for Warren) The publisher owns the art . That was the case until both Marvel and DC began doing different contracts in the 1970s. At that point both companies began giving art back based on their own formulas for division between inkers and pencillers and for a while in some cases to writers. Art that left before that point can be under a cloud unless there is good provenance ie Dc giveaway art often on their weekend tours . Artists periodically would request or even remove their own art from the company storage. In most cases the documentation comes from the artist or who received the art as a gift not from the company.  Realistically the companies did not keep good records though Marvel later did an inventory on what they had (though some art appeared years later after all of it should have been given back). Note in addition to DC and Marvel (both of which have had documented thefts) warren also had some early art removed especially done by Neal Adams.

Because of weak records the companies who legally owned the earlier Golden age and silver age art have not pursued art that may well have been illegally removed from their storage areas. Some artists over time have raised the issue or harassed owners of art the artists felt should have been returned to them . To date to my knowledge none of this nor the type of documentation often used for art that is in contentions (i.e. artist signatures or dedications on the art that may signify transfer of title) has ever been tested in court. The issue of course being that when the art was removed it had little or no value and now it can be worth tens of thousands of dollars. Note also in cases where it is determined that art is stolen there is I believe no statute of limitations on recovering the art providing due process is followed - I had a friend who lost an expensive Mucha painting back to the artist's descendants  because it's provenance had problems. In those cases you can collect from whoever sold you the stolen piece of art what you paid for it. As such it is good to keep track of where art came from in the unlikely case any claims are made as on art that is determined to be stolen of having provenance problems you can be liable for art you traded or sold off long after it is gone.

I was reading what Unca Ben linked but there was so much info I missed a few things. Was the art that was under "work for higher law" (legally own by the company) ordered to go back to the artists?

[Funnyslover]

No 

[alxjhnsn]

Quote

10 hours ago, Michaeld said:

Was the art that was under "work for higher law" (legally own by the company) ordered to go back to the artists?

 

There's room to debate George's statement though I'm sure he knows more than I. 

The arguments against company ownership are:

1. If the companies bought the actual artwork, they should have paid sales tax on the art. They didn't. So, ...
2. A contract was seldom signed from what I understand so the rules of who owned what were a little vague.

Edited August 18, 2018 by alxjhnsn

[Rick2you2]

11 hours ago, Michaeld said:

I was reading what Unca Ben linked but there was so much info I missed a few things. Was the art that was under "work for higher law" (legally own by the company) ordered to go back to the artists?

First, it is "work for hire". By analogy, it is like working for a company which has "hired" you and you developed something of value. As an employee, they own it. For artwork, it is a little more complicated.

Second, copyright law changed in 1976. Even if the artist worked for a company and the company claimed it was performed as "work for hire", it shouldn't stand up in court. What the artist drew was his--unless he/she deliberately "assigns" it to someone else. So, if you wanted to hire an artist to design a costume, for example, it is his to do with, duplicate and reprint, unless he signs something giving up all right, title and interest in it. You are just buying the title to a hand-drawn copy of the created work. I recall one poster who mentioned having seen reprints of art he bought (and being annoyed about it). Well, for reprint purposes, that's almost certainly not the poster's art, either. At least for works after 1976, those rights still reside with the artist.

Third, there is no statute of limitations on stolen art--there can't be. When a buyer buys from a thief, the buyer only gets possession, not title. That's because the thief had no title to sell. So, the actual, original title holder can sue to get possession back. 

[Michaeld]

11 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

First, it is "work for hire". By analogy, it is like working for a company which has "hired" you and you developed something of value. As an employee, they own it. For artwork, it is a little more complicated.

Second, copyright law changed in 1976. Even if the artist worked for a company and the company claimed it was performed as "work for hire", it shouldn't stand up in court. What the artist drew was his--unless he/she deliberately "assigns" it to someone else. So, if you wanted to hire an artist to design a costume, for example, it is his to do with, duplicate and reprint, unless he signs something giving up all right, title and interest in it. You are just buying the title to a hand-drawn copy of the created work. I recall one poster who mentioned having seen reprints of art he bought (and being annoyed about it). Well, for reprint purposes, that's almost certainly not the poster's art, either. At least for works after 1976, those rights still reside with the artist.

Third, there is no statute of limitations on stolen art--there can't be. When a buyer buys from a thief, the buyer only gets possession, not title. That's because the thief had no title to sell. So, the actual, original title holder can sue to get possession back. 

If the artist claims that found "stolen art" is his but he had never reported theft to the police how does he have the legal standing to claim ownership? If I have a commission made and I do not receive a receipt can the artist later claim it was stolen and should be returned to him?  

[Rick2you2]

1 hour ago, Michaeld said:

If the artist claims that found "stolen art" is his but he had never reported theft to the police how does he have the legal standing to claim ownership? If I have a commission made and I do not receive a receipt can the artist later claim it was stolen and should be returned to him?  

Your questions go to proof, which is different. I was referring to what you must establish to win.

The artist might have reasons for either of these. Similarly, the person having possession of the art probably did not get or save a receipt from the artist who sold it. 

And that's why people go to court and often settle. The provable facts might not be the actual facts. Since the party asserting the claim has "the burden of proof", he/she has a tougher case.

[PhilipB2k17]

7 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Your questions go to proof, which is different. I was referring to what you must establish to win.

The artist might have reasons for either of these. Similarly, the person having possession of the art probably did not get or save a receipt from the artist who sold it. 

And that's why people go to court and often settle. The provable facts might not be the actual facts. Since the party asserting the claim has "the burden of proof", he/she has a tougher case.

This is why I mostly buy art directly from the artist, or his representative. It’s anazing to me that a lot of the old Kirby stuff, which was clearly stolen (Hello, X-Men #1) sells for as much as it does. 

[Rick2you2]

5 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

This is why I mostly buy art directly from the artist, or his representative. It’s anazing to me that a lot of the old Kirby stuff, which was clearly stolen (Hello, X-Men #1) sells for as much as it does. 

The old Kirby stuff was under the older copyright law where the Rules favored Marvel and ownership may well be legit.

[PhilipB2k17]

14 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

The old Kirby stuff was under the older copyright law where the Rules favored Marvel and ownership may well be legit.

Nope. I’ve read the story about how X-Men #1 entered the market. They were clearly stolen. 

[Rick2you2]

41 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

Nope. I’ve read the story about how X-Men #1 entered the market. They were clearly stolen. 

Take what you read with a grain of salt. I don’t know what it is you read, but if it really were clear as someone says, then something would have been done by now.

[PhilipB2k17]

9 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Take what you read with a grain of salt. I don’t know what it is you read, but if it really were clear as someone says, then something would have been done by now.

The description of how a certain well-known collector originally (1st known person, anyway) obtained them said a guy came into a NYC comic shop with some ASM #1 art, when this collector happened to be there. The Collector offered to buy them on the spot, and didn't have enough cash. So they agree to come back the next day (or in a couple of days) to sell. They came back, and they said they sold the ASM art already, but brought the X-Men #1 pages instead. The Collector bought them complete, and held onto them until he broke them up years later. This description (if True) is clearly a description of some thief fencing this stuff with a comic shop. Alternatively, the original collector just made this whole story up and is trying to cover up how he got them. Either way, it's theft.

The only people who should have had that art are either Marvel, Steve Ditko, or the Kirbys at the time. Period. 

It's a dead giveaway that it was theft because they had both ASM #1 and X-Men art. And, of course, this collector played dumb about it. (Assuming that's how it actually happened).

 

 

Edited August 20, 2018 by PhilipB2k17

[Rick2you2]

1 minute ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

The description of how a certain well-known collector originally (1st known person, anyway) obtained them said a guy came into a NYC comic shop with some ASM #1 art, when this collector happened to be there. The Collector offered to buy them on the spot, and didn't have enough cash. So they agree to come back the next day 9or in a couple of days) to sell. They cam back, and they said they sold the art already, but  brought the X-Men #1 pages. The Collector bought them complete, and held onto them until he broke them up years later. This description (if True) is clearly a description of some thief fencing this stuff with a comic shop. Alternatively, the original collector just made this whole story up and is trying to cover up how he got them. Either way, it's theft.

The only people who should have had that art are either Marvel or the Kirbys at the time. Period. 

 

You are assuming the seller had obtained them illegally. They may have been a gift by Stan Lee, for example, who had them as legal “work for hire” OA. Or maybe they were being thrown out, and the janitor found them. Remember, they are pre-1976 art where the rules were different.