Rick2you2

I've read this sort of material before, and I don't understand the point you are making about "relevant agreements". You could theoretically have an artist sign a "work for hire" agreement as an employee, but that doesn't make it legally binding (at least post-1976). On the other hand, an artist can give someone an assignment of rights--which is different than a "work for hire" agreement--and transfer the ownership the artist does have. Then, there is the question of what Shooter was specifically saying at the end. If Kirby did get his artwork back from Marvel, then it wasn't stolen from Marvel. So what is the actual concern about current ownership? Did someone steal it from Kirby, or was there art which Marvel claimed that Kirby did not own and would not return? My guess is that the settlement was limited to art which Marvel had on hand, and Kirby waived rights to anything Marvel did not have in its possession. If that's the case, then Marvel would have the right to sue for the value of the old art, not Kirby, to try and get it back if it wanted. I wish I were a "fly on the wall" in those private meetings because it sounds like there were a bunch of overly -aggressive New York lawyers. As you know, settlements are not admissible in evidence to prove liability, so I don't know how that figured into the discussion (the tax issue is an interesting angle, but there may have been a way to avoid it). Copyright ownership of a character, like Captain America, would dwarf the money Kriby could make off selling his art (or licensing it for posters and books, for example). So, I can certainly see how Marvel wouldn't go along with that when the characters were created pre-1976. In any event, I hope the general reader understands this isn't as simple a subject as it sounds. I'm not commenting on morality, by the way, just legality.

I have mentioned this before, and will do so again. If the art is pre-1976 Copyright Act changes, which this is, than the entity who likely owned it is Marvel unless there was some agreement which overcame the "work for hire" doctrine. And yes, it is possible a jury could do that. It is also possible the presumed thief would win a directed verdict or get a summary judgment before trial in its favor. I have seen way too much in court not to expect the unexpected--particularly if a lot of money is at issue. Do people ever lie under oath? You bet they do. On the other hand, I'm not sure what protections would be afforded an innocent purchaser which would amount to much in this case--the innocent purchaser still would have to turn over the "stolen goods". Unlike the Elgin marbles and international law, US law does not create ownership if title is not passed (in absence of adverse possession of property, and frankly, I don't know if that applies outside of real property law). Domestically, that's why you will sometimes hear of cases where someone recovers back an old stolen car taken decades ago (and not claimed by the insurance company). This whole subject is beginning to feel like I'm bringing "coals to Newcastle."

Since there are some comics artists on these boards, I'm curious about their thoughts about evaluating panel pages vs. splashes/covers. Is one considered a tougher skill than the other?

Curiously enough, I too am a civil litigator and have been doing it for several decades. While my cases are not currently in SDNY, nor have I ever been before the CDCal, they have been in SDNY, EDNY, NDNY and DNJ, as well as a fair number of cases in the state courts of NJ and NY focused on commercial construction litigation. And no, I don't agree with you about what you can "prove." What you will likely be working with, eventually, is hearsay and difficult to find people combined with conflicting stories and burden of proof issues. For example, what if someone signed an "assignment", and the artist forgot about it or didn't understand it? That is not the same as a copyright question at all. And don't forget the OP was whether buyers of OA should be worried about their ownership rights. No suit, no judgment, no worries. There is another side to the "moral compass" issue which no longer comes into play anymore with current art. It does, however, deserve an airing. That's the basic rule of contract law which states that a contract is to be construed in accordance with the intent of the parties (whether actual or as applied by rule of law is a different question). If I think I bought a toaster from someone, and he thought he had the right to sell it to me, it's not fair for me to be forced to give up the toaster if he didn't own it. Yes, the original owner lost out, by why should the current buyer also suffer? Well, because someone has to, that's why. I know that comic artists were badly burned by low rates and miserable treatment. Honestly, I still think they are underpaid. But I am trying to stay focused on a very narrow question--that's it.

OMG. Choke. Now I know where all those new Federal tax refunds went.

Since you're getting into the legal weeds, I don't think you would be in a better position in a civil suit, even though the burden of proof is less. To establish conversion will still require proof of initial entitlement. There, you have an ownership issue under the old copyright laws where the artist is not the owner of work performed on a "work for hire" basis. That changed in 1976 when the "work for hire" doctrine could no longer be applied to art like this. Apart from the legal issues, you then hit evidence issues. If you think it is easy getting "chain of possession" depositions of people who had possession over 20 years ago, you are wrong. They can't be found, or they may be dead. You will also encounter classic hearsay issues, which are not within any exceptions. Ditko's statements are not going to be admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted. That is classic hearsay. They might be useful for x-exam, or for some other issue, but that's it. So, let's say your artist-client still sues and goes to trial. If you are representing the estate, so much the worse--the artist can't testify so the estate would be relying on hearsay. But go back to our living artist example. The artist who originally did the piece says he never sold it. Think about the cross-examination: (a) what took so long? (b) did you ever sell anything before? Gift it? (c) Why, with all your work, just this person? (d) How is your memory so clear? (e) Did you file a police report? Then, the buyer takes the stand and says he bought it from John Smith. He somehow gets John Smith to testify. Smith says he bought it from Richard Roe. He even produces a receipt. Then, the buyer's lawyer makes it sound like the artist is a gold-digger who is conveniently forgetting what happened all those years ago. If you think that's an easy win for the artist, you are wrong. Finally, if you think people always tell the truth in court, or even to their lawyers, throw that misconception out, too.

I think the endgame is to quell some fears that buying old Marvel art, in particular, may be risky if the seller didn't have actual ownership of it in the first place. The fact that there is all this discourse and speculation is why the old stuff is probably safely "owned". To establish ownership, or to challenge it successfully, requires proof in court which meets assorted rules on admissibility. The point I was trying to make is if the background is murky and filled with "hearsay", it won't be of much use in a court proceeding. So, as a practical matter, he who has it, keeps it.

You have raised something I have long agreed with: panel pages are under appreciated. Comics are a story-telling medium in which the art is supposed to advance the story. A cover may look great, but it doesn’t do that. So when I find an artist who knows how to effectively use borders, unorthodox panel shapes, pop outs and the like in a way which emphasizes speed, or pauses, or drama, I love it. An artist who can interject interest into a standard 6 panel with lots of dialog is an artist in every sense of the word, as well as being a great craftsman. I love them, too.

I think you will enjoy OA more if you remember it is a hobby. Treating it as an investment is dangerous, particularly in lesser pieces, because the market can come to a dead end on them. I am not a dealer, by any stretch, but there seem to be a fair number of low priced pieces that simply don't move due to a lack of general interest. But, I have bought a few of them and I don't care if they go up or not because I like them.

I think you are setting too high a standard. "Cookie cutter" quality and unimaginative, but not dreck.

What the market treats as "D-F" "ain't necessarily so." A published piece of work by the Big 2 is rarely, if ever, garbage. It just doesn't command a high price. And honestly, I think the way OA has moved from an artistic perspective from the early 70's forward has improved its story-telling roll. So, in that sense, you are getting a better "art bargain".

I agree, but taste is personal, even for a dealer. Look who wanted the Romita cover.

Personally, I love the Battle Action cover. You can really feel the gritty coldness of killing in war. No glory, just the job.

I’m not sure I would look at it that way because I don’t recall seeing major pieces on the market for several prior years. In that event, those sales recently may have been the result of pent up demand and some overheated bidding. Some of his more common stuff was on the market and it was moving up pretty consistently, at least for Phantom Stranger art, which roughly paralleled that rise.

No. Lesser priced good quality pieces will do better, all things being equal. More people can afford lower priced pieces, so there is more competition. In simple numbers, a $1,000 piece is easier to sell for $2,000 than a $50,000 piece for $100,000. But, all things have to actually be equal. Some stuff runs up steadily and hits a wall. Other stuff just sits; some keeps zooming. I would not buy a single primo piece for a different reason: I like to look at variety.

Nose hairs.

^ Nice image, and thank you for posting. But, the 2 lenses did not have to contain identical content, and in fact, are slightly different. Since each lense is picking up a reflection from a slightly different angle, and the lenses contain slight curvatures to account for his lousy vision, they should be slightly different. So, they could have been inked. Still, they aren’t right for a different reason and technical accuracy could have been tough. The lenses should be darker, so the reflected image should be somewhat darker, to a slightly lighter image, but less so if they have a mirror-sunglass coating (which is common these days). Artistically, that could reduce their impact.

Over the next 5 years, top tier pieces of popular artists are likely to keep going up, maybe a lot. The problem I see is that they are likely to slow down and drop beginning in about 15 or 20 years.

Sienkiewicz used to run his site with listed prices for things that were more reasonable. When Sal S. took over, things jumped by 250%. So, this definitely looks like an attempt to move the market.

I don’t have a stake in it either, except to wish publicly it could addressed in private.

And then there is “Sin-Kay-Vitch” or however he spells it phonetically. I think his best work has moved out of the “production art” aspects of OA where sequential panel story-telling is part of the art form. The result can be visually stunning but it won’t necessarily help the story.

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.

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.

Interesting idea for a thread: who has gotten better as time went on? I think you can add Mignola to that list.

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.