Al Plastino's Statement & Plea Re the Supes #170 Kennedy Splash

[comix4fun]

Only 14th!?! Fantastic! I'm practically not uncool!

 

 

I thought we'd at least crack the top 10.

 

This is good news.

[revat]

I'm also not an art crimes attorney, but I did a mock trial once in high school (I think I was convicted of war crimes).

 

So here's how I'm guessing it would go:

 

DC Lawyer: This item was stolen from us and we want it back.

 

Judge: When was this stolen? From where?

 

DC Lawyer: We're not sure where or when this was stolen, we think in the 70's, maybe the 80's? Maybe from New York, or maybe from Harvard.

 

Judge: How do you even know it was stolen then?

 

DC Lawyer: The contractor who created piece claims one of our employees in the 70's told him it would be donated to the Kennedy Library. It showed up at a major auction house this year.

 

Judge: Will that employee testify?

 

DC Lawyer: He doesn't remember/passed away.

 

Judge: Howabout the contractor?

 

DC Lawyer: Passed away.

 

Judge: HOw did the current owner get it?

 

DC Lawyer: he bought it from a major auction house 10-20 years ago.

 

Judge: Did you ever file a police report?

 

DC Lawyer: Yes sir, 2 months ago.

 

Judge: What was the fair market value of the piece when it was probably stolen?

 

DC Lawyer: $1000-$2000

 

Judge: And now?

 

DC Lawyer: $20,000+

 

Judge: SO this thing might have been sold 40 years ago or lost or given away or donated OR stolen. It was allegedly to be donated to a presidential library, but there's no proof of them taking possession, no one to testify that it was going to be, no police report filed when it was allegedly stolen and no one who noticed it was missing. But now that its up for auction at $20K (2000%more) for the SECOND TIME, you guys want it back.

 

Get out.

 

Get out of my courtroom.

[comix4fun]

"OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE!!!"

[revat]

On the other hand, this is how the negotiation goes between DC, Auctionhouse, and CUrrent owner

 

DC Lawyer: We know we don't have a case on the facts currently known, but we have a lot of lawyers (Time Warner y'heard) and we can make a big stink by suing for an injunction to stop this sale while we work it out in court. We're thinking that you the owner would rather have a decent amount of money now (you still certainly make a profit), than risk a lawsuit in victim friendly NY, while getting yourself tied up in legal fees.

 

And we're guessing that you, auction house do not want to be accused in the media of selling stolen goods and going to court in a very public trial. To prove we're wrong you'd actually have to dig into to the original seller, and you know there's a reasonable chance it was stolen. The discovery process alone would cause many buyers and sellers to lose faith in your processes and securities during pending litigation. Any ding to your reputation even if you ultimately win in court is not worth it to you.

 

 

We'll give owner this much, and auction house this much.

 

Thanks for coming.

[sfcityduck]

Newsday reported that DC paid for the art. It also states: "His family said they would probably never know for certain how the drawings left the possession of DC Comics and ended up in private hands (at one point it was in the collection of rock star Graham Nash)."

 

 

[revat]

Newsday reported that DC paid for the art. It also states: "His family said they would probably never know for certain how the drawings left the possession of DC Comics and ended up in private hands (at one point it was in the collection of rock star Graham Nash)."

 

 

Just like my kids will never know what happened to that the 200 mustangs I helped build when I worked at the ford factory (including at least 2 VERY VERY high end ones). THEY WEREN'T MINE. If they were stolen, they weren't stolen FROM ME. If I found out they never made it do the dealership or the racetrack or the museum or the auto show as I had been told they would, I would still have ZERO legal recourse or right to know ANYTHING about them above what I could find out from public records.

 

Does this qualify as reporting? That people may never know something that they never would have known anyways and don't have a right to know?

[sfcityduck]

 

Just like my kids will never know what happened to that the 200 mustangs I helped build when I worked at the ford factory (including at least 2 VERY VERY high end ones). THEY WEREN'T MINE. If they were stolen, they weren't stolen FROM ME. If I found out they never made it do the dealership or the racetrack or the museum or the auto show as I had been told they would, I would still have ZERO legal recourse or right to know ANYTHING about them above what I could find out from public records.

 

Does this qualify as reporting? That people may never know something that they never would have known anyways and don't have a right to know?

 

So you think an artist on a comic book is analogous to being an assembly line worker? Hmmm.

 

The kid quoted in the article made a statement that seems pretty unassailable. Not sure why you are attempting to mock them when they just plainly stated a fact. DC, the probable owner of the art, will likely never know, but if they did, I'd bet the kids would have found out. Why? Because the relationship between DC and its creators is a little bit better than the relationship between Ford and its assembly line workers (perhaps sadly).

[Brian Peck]

Newsday reported that DC paid for the art. It also states: "His family said they would probably never know for certain how the drawings left the possession of DC Comics and ended up in private hands (at one point it was in the collection of rock star Graham Nash)."

 

 

Just like my kids will never know what happened to that the 200 mustangs I helped build when I worked at the ford factory (including at least 2 VERY VERY high end ones). THEY WEREN'T MINE. If they were stolen, they weren't stolen FROM ME. If I found out they never made it do the dealership or the racetrack or the museum or the auto show as I had been told they would, I would still have ZERO legal recourse or right to know ANYTHING about them above what I could find out from public records.

 

Does this qualify as reporting? That people may never know something that they never would have known anyways and don't have a right to know?

 

Wrong analogy. If you are comparing it to car production, it would be clay models used to create the mustang would be analogous to original comic art. Ford would own those models. 200 lost mustangs like losing the printed comic books produced from the original art

[revat]

 

Just like my kids will never know what happened to that the 200 mustangs I helped build when I worked at the ford factory (including at least 2 VERY VERY high end ones). THEY WEREN'T MINE. If they were stolen, they weren't stolen FROM ME. If I found out they never made it do the dealership or the racetrack or the museum or the auto show as I had been told they would, I would still have ZERO legal recourse or right to know ANYTHING about them above what I could find out from public records.

 

Does this qualify as reporting? That people may never know something that they never would have known anyways and don't have a right to know?

 

So you think an artist on a comic book is analogous to being an assembly line worker? Hmmm.

 

The kid quoted in the article made a statement that seems pretty unassailable. Not sure why you are attempting to mock them when they just plainly stated a fact. DC, the probable owner of the art, will likely never know, but if they did, I'd bet the kids would have found out. Why? Because the relationship between DC and its creators is a little bit better than the relationship between Ford and its assembly line workers (perhaps sadly).

 

SOrry I actually did not mean to be harsh on the family, more on the state of reporting 'news'. I'm sure they were asked a question, and answered it, much the same way I would have in their place.

[revat]

Newsday reported that DC paid for the art. It also states: "His family said they would probably never know for certain how the drawings left the possession of DC Comics and ended up in private hands (at one point it was in the collection of rock star Graham Nash)."

 

 

Just like my kids will never know what happened to that the 200 mustangs I helped build when I worked at the ford factory (including at least 2 VERY VERY high end ones). THEY WEREN'T MINE. If they were stolen, they weren't stolen FROM ME. If I found out they never made it do the dealership or the racetrack or the museum or the auto show as I had been told they would, I would still have ZERO legal recourse or right to know ANYTHING about them above what I could find out from public records.

 

Does this qualify as reporting? That people may never know something that they never would have known anyways and don't have a right to know?

 

Wrong analogy. If you are comparing it to car production, it would be clay models used to create the mustang would be analogous to original comic art. Ford would own those models. 200 lost mustangs like losing the printed comic books produced from the original art

 

I think your analogy is better, but I don't think mine is too far off. I helped put something together (maybe not as much in idea, but physically) for a company which I worked for (as an employee no less [and an extremely extremely minor shareholder]) not an independent contractor. And building a high performance special edition mustang (or any car) can take a team of people much longer than it takes to draw a comic book, and any of the builders (though probably not as much as the designer) can get very very attached to the car over the process.