PhilipB2k17 Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 58 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said: 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. Oh please. delekkerste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick2you2 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 12 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said: Oh please. You are missing the point. Conviction for theft requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For conversion, the non-criminal version, you must establish the legal points by a preponderance of the evidence. One way to “beat” those standards is to show the possibility of another cause, even if unlikely (with even less likely ones capable of working in a criminal case because of its tougher standard). In the case of ownership of a piece of art, at least before 1976, the legal title of the original piece is open to question. So, a possible scenario, even if unlikely, can be enough to meet those standards. Do I think a janitor at Marvel found them? No. But the possibility can be enough to lose the case, once you add some supposed witness testimony and the lack of security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB2k17 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 3 hours ago, Rick2you2 said: You are missing the point. Conviction for theft requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For conversion, the non-criminal version, you must establish the legal points by a preponderance of the evidence. One way to “beat” those standards is to show the possibility of another cause, even if unlikely (with even less likely ones capable of working in a criminal case because of its tougher standard). In the case of ownership of a piece of art, at least before 1976, the legal title of the original piece is open to question. So, a possible scenario, even if unlikely, can be enough to meet those standards. Do I think a janitor at Marvel found them? No. But the possibility can be enough to lose the case, once you add some supposed witness testimony and the lack of security. The Statute of limitations has long since run on the crime pertaining to the stolen art. The question is chain of title and whether or not anyone who buys this art legally owns it. I think the folks paying big prices for this older marvel stuff are taking a huge risk, if it is not blessed by either Marvel, the Kirby estate or the Ditko estate. Now, Marvel may in fact not be trying to assert ownership, because they gave up title back in the 70's to the artists. But, what about the art that went (conveniently) missing before that transfer of ownership happened? This is a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick2you2 Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 22 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said: The Statute of limitations has long since run on the crime pertaining to the stolen art. The question is chain of title and whether or not anyone who buys this art legally owns it. I think the folks paying big prices for this older marvel stuff are taking a huge risk, if it is not blessed by either Marvel, the Kirby estate or the Ditko estate. Now, Marvel may in fact not be trying to assert ownership, because they gave up title back in the 70's to the artists. But, what about the art that went (conveniently) missing before that transfer of ownership happened? This is a mess. I don’t agree, as written, but as clarified. A statute of limitations runs on the act of the theft, not ongoing possession. So, if it were stolen in 1985, the thief could be charged in a state with a 6 year statute of limitations until 1991 (or so). But, the possession of the stolen goods is a separate crime which continues. If later found in 2017, it may still be the crime of receiving stolen goods which is chargeable. That is the chain of title issue which is mentioned. I doubt there is much criminal jeopardy because of the high burden of proof. For civil liability, the party making the claim has to prove it. That is the hard part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB2k17 Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 24 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said: I don’t agree, as written, but as clarified. A statute of limitations runs on the act of the theft, not ongoing possession. So, if it were stolen in 1985, the thief could be charged in a state with a 6 year statute of limitations until 1991 (or so). But, the possession of the stolen goods is a separate crime which continues. If later found in 2017, it may still be the crime of receiving stolen goods which is chargeable. That is the chain of title issue which is mentioned. I doubt there is much criminal jeopardy because of the high burden of proof. For civil liability, the party making the claim has to prove it. That is the hard part. It’s pretty easy to prove that most very early Jack Kirby Marvel hero art was stolen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick2you2 Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 1 minute ago, PhilipB2k17 said: It’s pretty easy to prove that most very early Jack Kirby Marvel hero art was stolen. Then why hasn’t it been? He certainly has the supporters (or at least his estate does). I think it would be harder than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB2k17 Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said: Then why hasn’t it been? He certainly has the supporters (or at least his estate does). I think it would be harder than you do. Because it would essentially blow up the entire hobby. Jack's estate got paid off handsomely, so have no incentive to rock the boat. And the collector community (the Cabal?) doesn't want to do it either. So everybody plays nice. So, if neither Marvel (which doesn't want to open up a can of legal worms about how they let the stuff get stolen in the first place), and the Kirby estate are not asserting title, then everyone can pretend the whole thing doesn't stink, and the initial thieves get away with it. I mean, the person who had the AF #15 pages offered them back to Steve Ditko first. And when he refused them, they donated them to the LOC anonymously rather than sell them off at auction. What does that tell you? They knew they were stolen, and didn't want to get tainted with the stench. To this day, there is a lot of speculation about who donated them but nothing confirmed. The person who is rumored to have donated them worked at Marvel. This suggests that a LOT of this art may have been pilfered through embezzlement. Edited August 22, 2018 by PhilipB2k17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pemart1966 Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said: Because it would essentially blow up the entire hobby. Jack's estate got paid off handsomely, so have no incentive to rock the boat. And the collector community (the Cabal?) doesn't want to do it either. So everybody plays nice. So, if neither Marvel (which doesn't want to open up a can of legal worms about how they let the stuff get stolen in the first place), and the Kirby estate are not asserting title, then everyone can pretend the whole thing doesn't stink, and the initial thieves get away with it. I mean, the person who had the AF #15 pages offered them back to Steve Ditko first. And when he refused them, they donated them to the LOC anonymously rather than sell them off at auction. What does that tell you? They knew they were stolen, and didn't want to get tainted with the stench. To this day, there is a lot of speculation about who donated them but nothing confirmed. The person who is rumored to have donated them worked at Marvel. This suggests that a LOT of this art may have been pilfered through embezzlement. Does the LoC normally willingly accept "stolen" goods? Edited August 22, 2018 by pemart1966 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB2k17 Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 47 minutes ago, pemart1966 said: Does the LoC normally willingly accept "stolen" goods? If Ditko disclaimed any interest in it, they may not have been concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB2k17 Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 So, what's the verdict? Junkies? http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-iron-man-suit-theft-20180509-story.html Quote Los Angeles police are investigating the disappearance of the original Iron Man suit worn by Robert Downey Jr. from a Pacoima warehouse, officials said Wednesday morning. The costume, valued at $325,000, vanished from a prop storage warehouse in the 13000 block of Weidner Street sometime between February and late April, according to Officer Christopher No, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Police Department. The famous red-and-gold suit, which first flashed across movie screens in the 2008 "Iron Man" film that kick-started Marvel's movie empire, was reported missing Tuesday, No said. Employees at the warehouse "just happened to check" Tuesday and noticed the costume was gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESeffinga Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 Joe Kennedy. Again!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeGiant Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 46 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said: So, what's the verdict? Junkies? http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-iron-man-suit-theft-20180509-story.html Are you saying the same junkies are at it again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeGiant Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 I find the whole story fascinating and interesting to read/listen to when it is brought up. I tend to agree with the notion that so much time has elapsed and so many details are unknown or unsubstantiated ... that there may not be much that can be done. The ever-rising tide of comic art makes me wonder how long this will hold true before the value of the art in question reaches a point where legal action is pursued. I know I would hate to be holding art that falls under the umbrella of suspicion of theft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pemart1966 Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 5 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said: If Ditko disclaimed any interest in it, they may not have been concerned. Highly doubtful that L of C contacted: Ditko; Stan Lee; Artie Simek; Stan Goldberg; or anyone else involved... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick2you2 Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 9 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said: Because it would essentially blow up the entire hobby. Jack's estate got paid off handsomely, so have no incentive to rock the boat. And the collector community (the Cabal?) doesn't want to do it either. So everybody plays nice. So, if neither Marvel (which doesn't want to open up a can of legal worms about how they let the stuff get stolen in the first place), and the Kirby estate are not asserting title, then everyone can pretend the whole thing doesn't stink, and the initial thieves get away with it. I mean, the person who had the AF #15 pages offered them back to Steve Ditko first. And when he refused them, they donated them to the LOC anonymously rather than sell them off at auction. What does that tell you? They knew they were stolen, and didn't want to get tainted with the stench. To this day, there is a lot of speculation about who donated them but nothing confirmed. The person who is rumored to have donated them worked at Marvel. This suggests that a LOT of this art may have been pilfered through embezzlement. If Marvel paid off Kirby’s estate, it probably included an assignment of whatever right, title and interest Kirby had in it to Marvel. Marvel doesn’t want to waste time and money fighting this battle—Disney’s got bigger fish to fry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB2k17 Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 14 hours ago, pemart1966 said: Highly doubtful that L of C contacted: Ditko; Stan Lee; Artie Simek; Stan Goldberg; or anyone else involved... "[Sara W. Duke, a curator of popular and applied graphic art at the Library of Congress] said the ['Amazing Fantasy' #15 art] donor wrote to Ditko offering to return the 'Amazing Fantasy' pages or give them to the Library of Congress. Ditko declined to receive them, Duke said. 'Acquiring almost any comic book art is controversial,' said Duke. 'And I was told by the donor that provenance could be traced if necessary. It's not been an issue. There's a lot of artwork out there, and how it was dispersed is controversial.' http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-09-02/features/0809010104_1_artwork-comic-book-steve-ditko Catwoman_Fan, JadeGiant, Unca Ben and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pemart1966 Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 10 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said: "[Sara W. Duke, a curator of popular and applied graphic art at the Library of Congress] said the ['Amazing Fantasy' #15 art] donor wrote to Ditko offering to return the 'Amazing Fantasy' pages or give them to the Library of Congress. Ditko declined to receive them, Duke said. 'Acquiring almost any comic book art is controversial,' said Duke. 'And I was told by the donor that provenance could be traced if necessary. It's not been an issue. There's a lot of artwork out there, and how it was dispersed is controversial.' http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-09-02/features/0809010104_1_artwork-comic-book-steve-ditko Sounds as if they didn't contact anyone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB2k17 Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 10 hours ago, pemart1966 said: Sounds as if they didn't contact anyone... The person who wrote the article contacted Ditko for a comment. He said “I couldn’t care less” or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pemart1966 Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 3 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said: The person who wrote the article contacted Ditko for a comment. He said “I couldn’t care less” or something like that. Yeah...I meant anyone at L of C... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aliens Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 On 8/24/2018 at 6:13 AM, PhilipB2k17 said: The person who wrote the article contacted Ditko for a comment. He said “I couldn’t care less” or something like that. i mean a response like that sounds about right for Ditko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
