Rick2you2

I don’t think keeping them separate is a major problem. I just separate the two pieces and slip each one next to the other in an Itoya portfolio. You can also stitch 2 together in Photoshop, if you want the whole image.

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.

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.

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.

Just curious why you picked the yellow border. Does it pick up something in the room?

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

Cranky guy. And, a lousy businessman. Doesn’t he know a picture is worth a 1,000 words? Unless the book was great and the price was cheap to you, or if you really had to have it, move on.

Was it all from a single published source? Not an excuse, but that may have been his reasoning.

It sounds like either the artist, or confusion between the artist and dealer. Either way, a good deal.

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.

If you feel unfairly pressured, don't. This is a hobby, not a charity. Sometimes, $75 is a lot of money.

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.

I don't really use the "Premium" aspect of the subscription, but it does help to pay for the upkeep. Since I use it a lot, I felt it was only fair to subscribe.

My suspicion is that the prospective buyer expressed too much interest in the piece to the dealer.

I've seen Burchett do some very good work, too, with clean lines and layout. But, this isn't one of his better efforts. All that background "noise" is distracting, and the panels look cramped, to boot.

This may not have been the doing of the dealer but the artist. Since the piece was not listed for sale, it may not have been the rep who had the right to sell it. The artist may have made a private deal which went badly, or he originally used the excuse of private sale because he wanted to keep it and then he changed his mind. A less likely possibility is that the rep did have a right to sell, told the artist he couldn't make a private deal, and ended up getting the right to sell it.

If mtg has a long life-span, that great for the players and the buyers. I don't know the hobby and I was just making a general observation. No disrespect taken. But, I would still watch the market carefully on any popular collectible.

Sure. I had been looking for a "cartoony" image of the Phantom Stranger by Bruce Timm without success (and no, I did not want to commission a piece). Then, I kept my eyes out for a decent cartoony image by someone else (I really like the Scribblenauts version and the Scooby-Doo riff is pretty good, too). I saw what follows on eBay for $90.00. Burchett did the pencils, and according to provided information, he inked it separately (the published version does not have his inks). The panels are cluttered, the background is distracting, the inking is mediocre, at best, and the whole page is flat. And while we are at it, why is the Phantom Stranger grinning while Batman looks like a corpse? It is horrible? No. Would a little kid reading a comic find it okay? Probably. For me, I might give it a C- or a D instead of an E, but it richly deserves a lousy grade. And yes, I would buy it again...sigh.

If only that were true. Since I focus on the character, I sometime buy mediocre art because I want a piece which is representative of the artist or something else.

I know nothing about mtg except for that one mediocre image which was posted. I also don't think all comic art is good. A fair amount of comic art is just run-of-the-mill (if it weren't at least okay, it wouldn't get published). But about mtg art, if what you are saying is correct, and it is 30 years "ahead" of comic art, then take what I wrote and drop it in a time capsule to be opened in 30 years. Same principle. One major difference, however, is that "collectible" pricing is higher now, I think, than 30 years ago, across the board. So, the baseline is different. Hope that's clear. My focus has really just been on the idea that price is primarily a function of demand, and the overall market for a subject (OA, or anything else) will have a greater impact on price than the quality of a particular piece within the subject. A rising tide floats all boats, but also, in reverse. Each generation values what it grew up with. So, as generations move up to and out of their peak discretionary spending years, so will the price of a collectible. It goes up, hits a high, and eventually sinks. Tom Mix play outfits anyone?

That raises still another question from the OP: how does one judge "craft"? Will the loss of knowledge from the current generation result in a lesser appreciation of craft in future generations? And, let me add a further step: can you fairly base an understanding of craft in the present of what will be prized in the future? Van Gogh wasn't. I was trying to focus on what I thought was the primary question raised by the OP: "I've had a LOT of discussions with friends and fellow collectors recently about the whole "nostalgia vs. craft" debate in the original art hobby, as it seems that, at least as far as market values go, ...". I think I will leave some of these questions to Dr. Fate.

I like those, incidentally.

Actually, no, it is purely a function of demand. Different styles go in and out of fashion, and this can result in a lot of lower prices. The craft hasn't changed, but if people don't want to buy "Hudson School" landscapes, they don't. My parents made a similar mistake by buying Persian rugs in the 1970's and early 1980's. Their value has tanked. OA carries a triple-whammy on pricing: nostalgia for particular characters/events/artists, craftsmanship of the particular piece, and general public interest in the type of art itself. If people stop buying comics in 50 years, and instead just read on-line, I question if the value of any OA will hold up or just be regarded as an artifact of the past. Add in the fact that millenials don't generally seem interested in buying "things" as compared to buying "experiences", and that 50 year time line is a perilous investment point.

Both have their demographic limits, but I don't know anything about mtg. If it doesn't have some sort of cross-cultural or cross-collectible link to a general market, it can't have a really long "hot" lifespan. I do know I'm not impressed with that artwork.

If I were you, I would go and first figure out what State he is in. Then, go to the website for the court system and figure out how to prepare a Complaint for a lawsuit (the courts in a lot of places give forms to use). Prepare one--but do not file it. Send him a copy telling him you will sue if he doesn't get a satisfactory product done in 30 (or 60) days. That might wake him up. By the way, a common statute of limitations in contract actions is only 6 years (it varies by state).