Plastino seeking identity of owner of a piece of his original art

[jaybuck43]

As far as I know Kris is not an attorney, rather she is an advocate for artists rights.

[comicwiz]

does anyone know if Neal Adams is involved in this in some way?

 

 

From the same FB post where the JFK Library is mentioned, Neal Adam is also one of the artists Plastino thanks for his support.

[bronze johnny]

A more recent article that has the actual petition (scroll towards the bottom):

 

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2013/11/art-from-supermans-mission-for-president-kennedy-at-center-of-legal-dispute-involving-dallas-auction-house.html/

[comicwiz]

Thanks for the link. I wonder who peeled-off the overlay with the caption. Seems to me that it's removal is a pretty deliberate attempt by the previous owner(s) and/or seller to keep the provenance hidden and to ensure it wouldn't interfere with being able to sell the piece. But don't let this fact come in the way of the suggestions that Al's intentions and motivation are about the money:

 

 

[comicwiz]

AL PLASTINO v HERITAGE

 

[Sardo Numspar]

This will be interesting.

[comicwiz]

Away from the subject of the OA for a moment, and in the context of the story, I wonder if Plastino knew about JFK's illness when he drew this.

 

In the age of the Internet, with information sometimes travelling at breakneck speeds, we sometimes take for granted how long it took for the same information to reach audiences even when attempts were made to make things public (i.e. 1960 campaign opponents).

 

Which makes it especially hard to believe the Kennedy's family and advisors were able to keep his medical history virtually secret. These days, it's quite the opposite with many people defending themselves against genetic profiling and discrimination - in fact I believe laws just recently passed to protect citizens from being discriminated against in the workplace.

[jaybuck43]

I feel like he probably did. It wasn't really a secret. Rather it was just not known how bad it was, or how much meds he was taking. Reminds me of FDR. People knew about his issues and that he was basically a paraplegic but the issue was ignored (purposefully) by the press corps and others.

[comix4fun]

Thanks for the link. I wonder who peeled-off the overlay with the caption. Seems to me that it's removal is a pretty deliberate attempt by the previous owner(s) and/or seller to keep the provenance hidden and to ensure it wouldn't interfere with being able to sell the piece. But don't let this fact come in the way of the suggestions that Al's intentions and motivation are about the money:

 

 

 

 

I think that depends on the rest of the artwork and what paste ups are still there and which are missing. If this is the only paste up missing then it's possible you are right.

 

On these panels the rest of the lettering looks like it was actually on the art board and not pasted up. So this is the only thing that could have fallen off. It's not uncommon for paste ups to loosen and fall off. I have 25 year old art that have paste ups missing. This is twice that age.

 

I think it's possible might be reading too much into the missing paste up being that all a person has to do is look at the original published story to see that editor's note. It's not like it's really hiding anything.

[comix4fun]

This will be interesting.

 

Agreed.

 

That's petition has very interesting wording and a very interesting overall strategy.

[jools&jim]

 

If Mr. Plastino is able to "replevy" (recover) the artwork, does it follow then that ANY piece of original artwork from the pre-creators' rights era currently in the hands of a private owner would then be fair game for similar lawsuits from the artist or artists who created it? Or is this situation different because of the claim that it was stolen?

 

When you boil it all down, it still seems to me that the crux of the argument is that the art belonged and belongs to Mr. Plastino, and always has, and is thus his to do with as he pleases. It's possible theft, and whether or not it was donated to the Kennedy library, are somewhat secondary concerns in terms of the lawsuit, no? Or am I misreading the whole thing?

 

Btw...I do sympathize with the idea that the art belongs in a museum. But I don't see how treating the current owner unfairly is any sort of laudable solution, either.

 

 

[Doohickamabob]

I think it's possible might be reading too much into the missing paste up being that all a person has to do is look at the original published story to see that editor's note. It's not like it's really hiding anything.

It's not going to be easy for everybody browsing and potentially bidding on a Heritage auction to look at the original published story. Not everybody's going to have that comic handy to page through just to look at the panel.

[comix4fun]

I think it's possible might be reading too much into the missing paste up being that all a person has to do is look at the original published story to see that editor's note. It's not like it's really hiding anything.

It's not going to be easy for everybody browsing and potentially bidding on a Heritage auction to look at the original published story. Not everybody's going to have that comic handy to page through just to look at the panel.

 

 

The point is, with tens of thousands of copies still existing, along with reprints, a single missing paste up is not hiding anything.

[shadroch]

As an aside, is there any likely AND legitimate way for the art to have left the DC offices? Were they in the habit of handing out art to people? It basically had to have been "liberated" from DC, right?

 

Just one more reason to miss Jerry Weist.

 

I have read that DC would occasionally hand out pages to visitors.

[rob_react]

If Mr. Plastino is able to "replevy" (recover) the artwork, does it follow then that ANY piece of original artwork from the pre-creators' rights era currently in the hands of a private owner would then be fair game for similar lawsuits from the artist or artists who created it? Or is this situation different because of the claim that it was stolen?

 

Stolen silver age Marvel art is basically the rule, not the exception, so this case isn't really "different."

 

Considering the well known and unsavory provenance of so much key early Marvel art this would open up a huge, multi-million dollar can of worms.

[shadroch]

Can any of our legal experts please comment on this passage from the earlier NYP story?

 

But advocates for comic book artists say that since the art was never given to the museum, Plastino remains the rightful owner. Comic book publishers, they claim, only buy the publishing rights to an artist’s work, not the work itself. Publishers generally dispute this, and it’s an issue that’s been debated for decades.

 

“He never gave up ownership of the art because DC never purchased it from him or paid sales tax,” asserted Kris Adams Stone, daughter of comic book legend Neal Adams. She added that legal papers are being prepared to halt the auction for good.

Is there a precedent for this kind of retroactive right of ownership? And does anyone know if Neal Adams is involved in this in some way?

 

 

Say what? Hey, all you graphic designers who work for evil corporations! Even though you signed paperwork saying that anything you create for the company is the property of the company, the company didn't pay sales tax for the artwork so its yours!

 

 

 

That is one of the stupidest legal theories I have ever read.

 

That stupid legal theory was the main reason Marvel agreed to return most of the artwork it had in the mid 1980s. Under NY State law, the comic companies were required to pay sales tax on art that they purchased.

When confronted with the potential tax and possibly criminal liabilities of fifty years of unpaid taxes, Marvel and DC chose to begin returning artwork it still had.

[dgarthwaite-migration]

Under the original agreement in which he drew it, he would not be the owner. I understand his frustration, but it bothers me that artists feel like they are entitled to control the destiny of something the publisher owned.

 

DG

 

(I'm sure the publisher would gladly pay sales tax to get it back.)

[Badger]

Can any of our legal experts please comment on this passage from the earlier NYP story?

 

But advocates for comic book artists say that since the art was never given to the museum, Plastino remains the rightful owner. Comic book publishers, they claim, only buy the publishing rights to an artist’s work, not the work itself. Publishers generally dispute this, and it’s an issue that’s been debated for decades.

 

“He never gave up ownership of the art because DC never purchased it from him or paid sales tax,” asserted Kris Adams Stone, daughter of comic book legend Neal Adams. She added that legal papers are being prepared to halt the auction for good.

Is there a precedent for this kind of retroactive right of ownership? And does anyone know if Neal Adams is involved in this in some way?

 

 

Say what? Hey, all you graphic designers who work for evil corporations! Even though you signed paperwork saying that anything you create for the company is the property of the company, the company didn't pay sales tax for the artwork so its yours!

 

 

 

That is one of the stupidest legal theories I have ever read.

 

That stupid legal theory was the main reason Marvel agreed to return most of the artwork it had in the mid 1980s. Under NY State law, the comic companies were required to pay sales tax on art that they purchased.

When confronted with the potential tax and possibly criminal liabilities of fifty years of unpaid taxes, Marvel and DC chose to begin returning artwork it still had.

 

Ok, it was the revision of Copyright laws in 1978 that caused the change in Marvel and DC's work for hire contracts and the mass return of artwork to the creators from 1978 through the mid-80s, as the artwork was found during searches of DC's and Marvel's archives.

 

Both DC and Marvel had made it a habit to return most artwork even before the new copyright law; in DC's case as early as 1973 and Marvel was returning artwork routinely by 1976.

 

http://www.tcj.com/kirby-and-goliath-the-fight-for-jack-kirbys-marvel-artwork/

 

For those wanting to bang their head against a pretty readable explanation of when graphic design work is taxable try:

 

http://chapters.aiga.org/resources/content/3/5/9/6/documents/aiga_5tax_07.pdf

 

You do not pay sales tax on items you only purchase for reproduction rights; that is why the artwork must be returned.

 

It was not as straight forward as my comment above makes it seem. (thumbs u

 

 

 

 

[comix4fun]

It looks like DC has stepped in.

 

I hope they get a receipt this time.

[Mark 1]

It looks like DC has stepped in.

 

I hope they get a receipt this time.

 

Thanks for the link. I posted earlier that I thought DC should step in and buy the art and donate it.

 

I'm glad they did they right thing for Al and the art.