• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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

Started by markseifert,

170 posts in this topic

Mark 1

Mark 1

Posted
Posted
DC does the right thing…and all ends well for everyone.

 

Pleasant surprise!

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/12/16/dc-entertainment-fulfills-al-plastinos-wish-for-the-jfk-superman-pages/

 

That's awesome and I said DC should step up when this mess occurred before Al's passing. I'm glad they did they right thing.

 

I bet they bought it for a fair price from the owner and now they are donating it.

 

Win win for everyone....DC gets good press also

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
I don't think it is as easy to launder stolen art as you suggest. And didn't Al Plastino think the art was stolen?

 

Well that's all it takes, doesn't it? One guy who never owned the art making a claim 50 years later with nothing to corroborate the claim. lol

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sfcityduck

sfcityduck

Posted
Posted

Al did not need to corraborate his claim, he just needed to evidence it. And to evidence that art was stolen before it got to its intended recipient at the JFK library he had the testimony of a witness that it was intended to go to the JFK library (himself) as well as the statement in the art itself that it was to be donated, plus other published statements by DC to that effect, and the JFK library's statement that it never got the art.

 

That is good enough to make out a case for theft.

 

So, what is the evidence it was not stolen?

 

As for the BFP notion: You might have difficulty estabishing BFP when the art itself says it was to go to the JFK library and there is no provenance or evidence of deacession. Especially when everyone in the silver age OA market knows stolen art is an issue. I don't have my Sotheby's catalog handy, so I don't know what they said at the time.

 

I wouldn't be shocked if the possessor was paid an amount closer to what he paid Sotheby's if he was paid off by DC.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sfcityduck

sfcityduck

Posted
Posted

I am an attorney who collects fine art. I understand the concept. I also know that the government has been very successful recovering stolen wpa art that has come to auction in circumstances very similar to that here given the art was supposed to be in the JFK library.

 

These include pieces that came up for auction at Sotheby's and other auction houses.

 

And private parties have long been recovering art stolen by the nazis. NY law, which would likely govern, favors theft victims. This is an area where Wikipedia is not the best source.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sfcityduck

sfcityduck

Posted
Posted

Read this article if you are truly interested in the subject:

 

http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/spencer/spencers-art-law-journal7-26-10.asp

 

Key quote:

 

While Swiss law may perhaps be the most favorable law for good faith purchasers, New York law is on the opposite end of the spectrum. New York has a policy of fiercely protecting the right of original owners from whom property had been stolen to recover that property, even if it is in the possession of a good-faith purchaser. The rule in New York is that the original owner may seek to reclaim stolen property until three years after he makes a demand for its return and the good faith purchaser refuses. This rule relieves the original owner of the burden to track down the whereabouts of his stolen property and sue for its recovery within a limited window of time, but strips the good faith purchaser of any protection for having purchased and held the property innocent of any knowledge that the property had been stolen. Hence, in contrast to Swiss law, New York law would have afforded Schoeps wide latitude to pursue his claims against MoMA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
malvin

malvin

Posted
Posted

That's good to know. Thanks for the link.

 

Either way, and I don't want to debate this anymore since we are all just guessing at this point, many people believe that there was no theft in the first place.

 

The art is at the Library, why rehash all this?

 

Malvin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rsonenthal

rsonenthal

Posted
Posted

I'm not an attorney, and not really sure why I'm jumping in at this point, but at that time art was not routinely returned to the artist. In fact, it wasn't clear that the artist had any claim to the art at all (at that time the publishers kept, gave away, destroyed, or did what they wanted with the art). Since then, practices have changed.

 

I think it would help you to read the string from the beginning. Thanks for posting. It's always interesting to hear different people's perspectives.

 

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing