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

[comicwiz]

]If finding out why the pages didn't get to the Kennedy Library is the goal then Heritage is 1000% the wrong party to ask.[/b] Sotheby's should be the subject being that they would have consignor information as to who sold the art through them all those years ago and would allow the parties to track it's movements from that point which gets them much closer to the point at which they didn't go to the Kennedy Library.

 

Maybe, but this isn't the first time Heritage got caught for selling something it shouldn't have sold (see Mongolian Fossil and Tarbosaurus skeleton). At what point does a venue where these items are appearing/sold need to own up to the fact they aren't always doing the necessary due diligence to ensure they aren't embroiled in such complicated, bad PR, type situations?

 

The story doesn't read as an artist with dollar signs in his eyes, but of a dying artist whose last wish is to recover the artwork which had not reached it's intended destination.

 

Regardless of who made the decision to donate the work, the artists wish is to have the work returned to the JFK Library & Museum. Anything less, and the bad press will only reinforce the law breaking trend palentelogists/historians have been up in arms about since the Tarbosaurus was sold in May of last year.

 

Who is to say that Heritage didn't do their due diligence? If DC did indeed sell the artwork to Sotheby's then it was a perfectly legal transaction, and any and all sales after that would also be in the clear. It may be the artist's wish for the artwork to go to the museum, but as was pointed out earlier, DC owned the rights to the art, not him.

 

Like Heritage cares about "bad press".

 

Are you saying DC consigned the sale to Sotheby's? If so, prove it.

[comix4fun]

For the "measly" sum of $20,000...DC should step up and buy it and donate it as it was intended. They have enough money to do that.

 

Sure would be some nice PR for a company that is sucking wind.

 

 

 

That's an interesting idea.

 

Imagine they did that and 5 years from now the museum sells off the pieces at auction all over again.

[comicwiz]

]If finding out why the pages didn't get to the Kennedy Library is the goal then Heritage is 1000% the wrong party to ask.[/b] Sotheby's should be the subject being that they would have consignor information as to who sold the art through them all those years ago and would allow the parties to track it's movements from that point which gets them much closer to the point at which they didn't go to the Kennedy Library.

 

Maybe, but this isn't the first time Heritage got caught for selling something it shouldn't have sold (see Mongolian Fossil and Tarbosaurus skeleton). At what point does a venue where these items are appearing/selling need to own up to the fact they don't seem to be doing the necessary due diligence to ensure they aren't embroiled in such complicated, bad PR, type situations?

 

The story doesn't read as an artist with dollar signs in his eyes, but of a dying artist whose last wish is to recover the artwork which had not reached it's intended destination.

 

Regardless of who made the decision to donate the work, the artists wish is to have the work returned to the JFK Library & Museum. Anything less, and the bad press will only reinforce the law breaking trend palentelogists/historians have been up in arms about since the Tarbosaurus was sold in May of last year.

 

 

Of course the story reads that way, it was intended to read that way. However, given the recent discoveries by Mr. Plastino about what someone was asking for his signature on Ebay and his response to that discovery it's not a stretch to connect the dots in a common sense way that isn't laid out in that horribly written article.

 

And Heritage was provided with proof that the artwork was obtained through public auction, without objection 2 decades ago. Legally, that's as good a title as you are going to find. Due diligence was more than satisfied in this instance. They aren't required to call every artist of every piece of art they sell and get their permission to sell and ask if there are any regrets on their part. They went well over and above what's legally required of them by pulling the pages from the sale.

 

So wouldn't the right thing to do now, seeing that the artists came forward and expressed his wishes, be to send the artwork to the JFK library?

[comix4fun]

]If finding out why the pages didn't get to the Kennedy Library is the goal then Heritage is 1000% the wrong party to ask.[/b] Sotheby's should be the subject being that they would have consignor information as to who sold the art through them all those years ago and would allow the parties to track it's movements from that point which gets them much closer to the point at which they didn't go to the Kennedy Library.

 

Maybe, but this isn't the first time Heritage got caught for selling something it shouldn't have sold (see Mongolian Fossil and Tarbosaurus skeleton). At what point does a venue where these items are appearing/selling need to own up to the fact they don't seem to be doing the necessary due diligence to ensure they aren't embroiled in such complicated, bad PR, type situations?

 

The story doesn't read as an artist with dollar signs in his eyes, but of a dying artist whose last wish is to recover the artwork which had not reached it's intended destination.

 

Regardless of who made the decision to donate the work, the artists wish is to have the work returned to the JFK Library & Museum. Anything less, and the bad press will only reinforce the law breaking trend palentelogists/historians have been up in arms about since the Tarbosaurus was sold in May of last year.

 

 

Of course the story reads that way, it was intended to read that way. However, given the recent discoveries by Mr. Plastino about what someone was asking for his signature on Ebay and his response to that discovery it's not a stretch to connect the dots in a common sense way that isn't laid out in that horribly written article.

 

And Heritage was provided with proof that the artwork was obtained through public auction, without objection 2 decades ago. Legally, that's as good a title as you are going to find. Due diligence was more than satisfied in this instance. They aren't required to call every artist of every piece of art they sell and get their permission to sell and ask if there are any regrets on their part. They went well over and above what's legally required of them by pulling the pages from the sale.

 

So wouldn't the right thing to do now, seeing that the artists came forward and expressed his wishes, be to send the artwork to the JFK library?

 

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was, in fact, a bonafide purchaser for value he owns that artwork free and clear of all claims. That extends to all subsequent buyers. DC comics, if the artwork was stolen and if they pursued a claim at the time of theft, would have standing to receive damages from the person who stole the artwork but not from any innocent party subsequent.

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was a bonafide purchaser for value then he stands as an innocent party to what came before him and there is no reason he should be damaged any more than DC or Plastino, by extension, should have been damaged. The remedy is not to damage another innocent party. The claim is against, and only against, the party that stole the artwork, if it was actually stolen.

 

Innocent people who pay value for items in a public setting are protected from seizure of the property and losses being forced upon them. The claim is against the party that stole the artwork, if that's what happened, and no one else.

[comicwiz]

]If finding out why the pages didn't get to the Kennedy Library is the goal then Heritage is 1000% the wrong party to ask.[/b] Sotheby's should be the subject being that they would have consignor information as to who sold the art through them all those years ago and would allow the parties to track it's movements from that point which gets them much closer to the point at which they didn't go to the Kennedy Library.

 

Maybe, but this isn't the first time Heritage got caught for selling something it shouldn't have sold (see Mongolian Fossil and Tarbosaurus skeleton). At what point does a venue where these items are appearing/selling need to own up to the fact they don't seem to be doing the necessary due diligence to ensure they aren't embroiled in such complicated, bad PR, type situations?

 

The story doesn't read as an artist with dollar signs in his eyes, but of a dying artist whose last wish is to recover the artwork which had not reached it's intended destination.

 

Regardless of who made the decision to donate the work, the artists wish is to have the work returned to the JFK Library & Museum. Anything less, and the bad press will only reinforce the law breaking trend palentelogists/historians have been up in arms about since the Tarbosaurus was sold in May of last year.

 

 

Of course the story reads that way, it was intended to read that way. However, given the recent discoveries by Mr. Plastino about what someone was asking for his signature on Ebay and his response to that discovery it's not a stretch to connect the dots in a common sense way that isn't laid out in that horribly written article.

 

And Heritage was provided with proof that the artwork was obtained through public auction, without objection 2 decades ago. Legally, that's as good a title as you are going to find. Due diligence was more than satisfied in this instance. They aren't required to call every artist of every piece of art they sell and get their permission to sell and ask if there are any regrets on their part. They went well over and above what's legally required of them by pulling the pages from the sale.

 

So wouldn't the right thing to do now, seeing that the artists came forward and expressed his wishes, be to send the artwork to the JFK library?

 

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was, in fact, a bonafide purchaser for value he owns that artwork free and clear of all claims. That extends to all subsequent buyers. DC comics, if the artwork was stolen and if they pursued a claim at the time of theft, would have standing to receive damages from the person who stole the artwork but not from any innocent party subsequent.

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was a bonafide purchaser for value then he stands as an innocent party to what came before him and there is no reason he should be damaged any more than DC or Plastino, by extension, should have been damaged. The remedy is not to damage another innocent party. The claim is against, and only against, the party that stole the artwork, if it was actually stolen.

 

Innocent people who pay value for items in a public setting are protected from seizure of the property and losses being forced upon them. The claim is against the party that stole the artwork, if that's what happened, and no one else.

 

Maybe Heritage and the consigner have enough wiggle-room to proceed with the sale, but it would be heartless to proceed against the dying artists wishes.

[miraclemet]

So wouldn't the right thing to do now, seeing that the artists came forward and expressed his wishes, be to send the artwork to the JFK library?

 

But the artist is expressing his wishes about something he never had ownership of right? It was DC Comics property. He thought it was then donated to the Kennedy Library, but apparently it did not ever make it there (either by intent or accident).

 

Still doesnt matter what Plastino wants. It was never his page to start with, unless I misunderstand the state of artist work ownership in the 60s.

[comix4fun]

]If finding out why the pages didn't get to the Kennedy Library is the goal then Heritage is 1000% the wrong party to ask.[/b] Sotheby's should be the subject being that they would have consignor information as to who sold the art through them all those years ago and would allow the parties to track it's movements from that point which gets them much closer to the point at which they didn't go to the Kennedy Library.

 

Maybe, but this isn't the first time Heritage got caught for selling something it shouldn't have sold (see Mongolian Fossil and Tarbosaurus skeleton). At what point does a venue where these items are appearing/selling need to own up to the fact they don't seem to be doing the necessary due diligence to ensure they aren't embroiled in such complicated, bad PR, type situations?

 

The story doesn't read as an artist with dollar signs in his eyes, but of a dying artist whose last wish is to recover the artwork which had not reached it's intended destination.

 

Regardless of who made the decision to donate the work, the artists wish is to have the work returned to the JFK Library & Museum. Anything less, and the bad press will only reinforce the law breaking trend palentelogists/historians have been up in arms about since the Tarbosaurus was sold in May of last year.

 

 

Of course the story reads that way, it was intended to read that way. However, given the recent discoveries by Mr. Plastino about what someone was asking for his signature on Ebay and his response to that discovery it's not a stretch to connect the dots in a common sense way that isn't laid out in that horribly written article.

 

And Heritage was provided with proof that the artwork was obtained through public auction, without objection 2 decades ago. Legally, that's as good a title as you are going to find. Due diligence was more than satisfied in this instance. They aren't required to call every artist of every piece of art they sell and get their permission to sell and ask if there are any regrets on their part. They went well over and above what's legally required of them by pulling the pages from the sale.

 

So wouldn't the right thing to do now, seeing that the artists came forward and expressed his wishes, be to send the artwork to the JFK library?

 

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was, in fact, a bonafide purchaser for value he owns that artwork free and clear of all claims. That extends to all subsequent buyers. DC comics, if the artwork was stolen and if they pursued a claim at the time of theft, would have standing to receive damages from the person who stole the artwork but not from any innocent party subsequent.

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was a bonafide purchaser for value then he stands as an innocent party to what came before him and there is no reason he should be damaged any more than DC or Plastino, by extension, should have been damaged. The remedy is not to damage another innocent party. The claim is against, and only against, the party that stole the artwork, if it was actually stolen.

 

Innocent people who pay value for items in a public setting are protected from seizure of the property and losses being forced upon them. The claim is against the party that stole the artwork, if that's what happened, and no one else.

 

Maybe Heritage and the consigner have enough wiggle-room to proceed with the sale, but it would be heartless to proceed against the dying artists wishes.

 

 

They aren't proceeding. They pulled it from the sale about a month ago.

 

 

[rob_react]

So wouldn't the right thing to do now, seeing that the artists came forward and expressed his wishes, be to send the artwork to the JFK library?

 

But the artist is expressing his wishes about something he never had ownership of right? It was DC Comics property. He thought it was then donated to the Kennedy Library, but apparently it did not ever make it there (either by intent or accident).

 

Still doesnt matter what Plastino wants. It was never his page to start with, unless I misunderstand the state of artist work ownership in the 60s.

 

That's exactly the state of it. Plastino signed away his rights to DC as part of his job and in those days they kept not only the copyright (as they still do for work for hire books), but the artwork itself. It was never Plastino's property.

 

Which is terrible. But that's the way things were back then.

[joecgcmaniac]

]If finding out why the pages didn't get to the Kennedy Library is the goal then Heritage is 1000% the wrong party to ask.[/b] Sotheby's should be the subject being that they would have consignor information as to who sold the art through them all those years ago and would allow the parties to track it's movements from that point which gets them much closer to the point at which they didn't go to the Kennedy Library.

 

Maybe, but this isn't the first time Heritage got caught for selling something it shouldn't have sold (see Mongolian Fossil and Tarbosaurus skeleton). At what point does a venue where these items are appearing/selling need to own up to the fact they don't seem to be doing the necessary due diligence to ensure they aren't embroiled in such complicated, bad PR, type situations?

 

The story doesn't read as an artist with dollar signs in his eyes, but of a dying artist whose last wish is to recover the artwork which had not reached it's intended destination.

 

Regardless of who made the decision to donate the work, the artists wish is to have the work returned to the JFK Library & Museum. Anything less, and the bad press will only reinforce the law breaking trend palentelogists/historians have been up in arms about since the Tarbosaurus was sold in May of last year.

 

 

Of course the story reads that way, it was intended to read that way. However, given the recent discoveries by Mr. Plastino about what someone was asking for his signature on Ebay and his response to that discovery it's not a stretch to connect the dots in a common sense way that isn't laid out in that horribly written article.

 

And Heritage was provided with proof that the artwork was obtained through public auction, without objection 2 decades ago. Legally, that's as good a title as you are going to find. Due diligence was more than satisfied in this instance. They aren't required to call every artist of every piece of art they sell and get their permission to sell and ask if there are any regrets on their part. They went well over and above what's legally required of them by pulling the pages from the sale.

 

So wouldn't the right thing to do now, seeing that the artists came forward and expressed his wishes, be to send the artwork to the JFK library?

 

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was, in fact, a bonafide purchaser for value he owns that artwork free and clear of all claims. That extends to all subsequent buyers. DC comics, if the artwork was stolen and if they pursued a claim at the time of theft, would have standing to receive damages from the person who stole the artwork but not from any innocent party subsequent.

 

If the purchaser from Sotheby's was a bonafide purchaser for value then he stands as an innocent party to what came before him and there is no reason he should be damaged any more than DC or Plastino, by extension, should have been damaged. The remedy is not to damage another innocent party. The claim is against, and only against, the party that stole the artwork, if it was actually stolen.

 

Innocent people who pay value for items in a public setting are protected from seizure of the property and losses being forced upon them. The claim is against the party that stole the artwork, if that's what happened, and no one else.

 

Maybe Heritage and the consigner have enough wiggle-room to proceed with the sale, but it would be heartless to proceed against the dying artists wishes.

 

 

They aren't proceeding. They pulled it from the sale about a month ago.

 

 

What, you expected him to read the whole article?

 

 

Nothing like half-cocked righteousness.

[comix4fun]

I also wanted to mention:

 

Steve Borock came on this forum and spoke to this specifically, stated that they would pull the item to allow answers to be found and this matter to be cleared up.

 

Given the firm ground the consignor and the auction house stand upon in this matter, that was one hell of a standup position to take.

[comicwiz]

I also wanted to mention:

 

Steve Borock came on this forum and spoke to this specifically, stated that they would pull the item to allow answers to be found and this matter to be cleared up.

 

Given the firm ground the consignor and the auction house stand upon in this matter, that was one hell of a standup position to take.

 

That's good to hear.

 

I just don't get the vibe I picked up from your posts which were alluding to the artists intentions being motivated by the value of the piece.

 

It's misplaced frankly, and seems to invalidate the artists reasoning as something that was disingenuous and made-up.

[comix4fun]

I also wanted to mention:

 

Steve Borock came on this forum and spoke to this specifically, stated that they would pull the item to allow answers to be found and this matter to be cleared up.

 

Given the firm ground the consignor and the auction house stand upon in this matter, that was one hell of a standup position to take.

 

That's good to hear.

 

I just don't get the vibe I picked up from your posts which were alluding to the artists intentions being motivated by the value of the piece.

 

It's misplaced frankly, and seems to invalidate the artists reasoning as something that was disingenuous and made-up.

 

 

If you search the posts that discuss where Al was upset that some of his signatures were SS'd with crazy high asking prices (not selling prices, asking prices) on Ebay and immediately started asking hundreds for his signature.

 

His reaction when asked to take a picture with that artwork wasn't one of shock that the artwork wasn't in a museum. It seems after then fact when the $20k estimate was extrapolated out to a per piece value of $20k and an aggregate estimate of $200k for the story (which is wildly incorrect) that his problem with the art not being donated seems to have popped up.

 

This isn't the first time an artist had little or no issue with a signature being given or artwork not being returned to them or in someone else's hands until the numbers got large enough. Then it mattered. Nothing's changed other than the dollar amounts, thus the dollar amounts provided the impetus for the outrage.

[Pirate]

and poof goes the posts

[rob_react]

and poof goes the posts

 

I forget what comics general can be like.

[Mark 1]

What happened?

[comicwiz]

I also wanted to mention:

 

Steve Borock came on this forum and spoke to this specifically, stated that they would pull the item to allow answers to be found and this matter to be cleared up.

 

Given the firm ground the consignor and the auction house stand upon in this matter, that was one hell of a standup position to take.

 

That's good to hear.

 

I just don't get the vibe I picked up from your posts which were alluding to the artists intentions being motivated by the value of the piece.

 

It's misplaced frankly, and seems to invalidate the artists reasoning as something that was disingenuous and made-up.

 

 

If you search the posts that discuss where Al was upset that some of his signatures were SS'd with crazy high asking prices (not selling prices, asking prices) on Ebay and immediately started asking hundreds for his signature.

 

His reaction when asked to take a picture with that artwork wasn't one of shock that the artwork wasn't in a museum. It seems after then fact when the $20k estimate was extrapolated out to a per piece value of $20k and an aggregate estimate of $200k for the story (which is wildly incorrect) that his problem with the art not being donated seems to have popped up.

 

This isn't the first time an artist had little or no issue with a signature being given or artwork not being returned to them or in someone else's hands until the numbers got large enough. Then it mattered. Nothing's changed other than the dollar amounts, thus the dollar amounts provided the impetus for the outrage.

 

This is unlike a lot of the typical regret gripes artists express over commissions, sigs, and the general disdain toward a secondary collector market monetizing their work. While the incidents about Al you mention seem too coincidental, it is circumstantial, and I don't see there being any direct connection to his dying wish to have the work displayed where it was intended. You either believe his story or you don't. I don't see any need to spring on the situation or the artists intent that its contrived or it's motivated by sour grapes over the OA's appraised value.

[joecgcmaniac]

What happened?

 

Ignorance on full display.

[comicwiz]

 

Keep humping that button you ignoramus

[seanfingh]

 

So the bona fide purchaser from Sotheby's is supposed to give up property that he paid for because the guy who drew it, and never owned it nor made any claim toward owning it, is sick and wants to have it displayed for whatever reason? Do I have that right?

 

If Frank Miller gets sick, and decides that he wants that Batman splash that went at auction for hundreds of thousands of dollars to be displayed at MOMA, is the person that bought it just supposed to acquiesce?

[comicwiz]

The stories swirling around claim the work may have been stolen. Which is very different from a scenario of a dying artist making an unreasonable request.

 

The final caption even seems to reveal the original intentions Plastino has been claiming: