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

[comix4fun]

New York Lawyer here. We don't believe in BFP if coming from a thief. There was a huge case here a few years ago dealing with a similar situation. A jewish man had his art collection stolen by the Nazis during WWII. It eventually ended up (at all places) at Sotheby's of London and auctioned off for about 5,000. The heirs of the jewish man (he had died in Dachau in 1941) sued the seller. Using New York Law the court found that he did not have good title because a thief cannot pass good title in New York. Bakalar appealed the decision and won, not because the New York law was wrong but rather because of the defense of Laches (the only time I have ever seen this work outside of law school) For you non-lawyers it is basically the defense of unreasonable delay. Basically the heirs should have brought their claim sometime before 2005 (they had 5-7 years to do so) or at least attempted to track down the missing pieces. My guess is that even if the art had been stolen from DC, DC would be precluded from bringing the case due to laches (at a minimum DC should have been trying to track down this pieces especially when it was posted for sale in 1993) If you wanna read the case here is a PDF http://www.commartrecovery.org/sites/default/files/bakar20110817.pdf

 

 

 

Thanks for that. I wonder if the court will apply it to someone less sinister than the Nazi's or if that was the magic word.

 

The issues of standing and passage of time were the biggest issues in my mind as well..

 

They kind of work hand in hand. If it was stolen from DC, and if DC had said something in '93 when it was sold at Sotheby's maybe they had a chance. Once it went through that very public and open sale and passed for full value without question or shadow the 20 years hence become the death knell of recovering from the innocent subsequent owner(s).

[jaybuck43]

Actually we were very surprised that Nazi's was not the magic word (the heirs lost) Figured the court would bend over backwards to restore ownership after the Nazi's took the art, the initial court did, the appellate court reversed. Yea I cannot see any way that DC can get the art back. And yes as you've said comix4fun Plastino does not have standing to bring a challenge. It is sad, don't get me wrong, but there is no cloud of title and HA should go ahead with the sale.

[jools&jim]

 

It is sad, don't get me wrong...

I know it's fashionable, and in some cases understandable, in situations like this to lament the plight of an aggrieved artist, and especially an aging one in ill health. But in this particular case, it's a stretch.

 

As much as I admire and enjoy his work, Al Plastino is not Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby, or Siegel and Shuster: he did not create, nor even help to create, Superman. Instead, he was paid by the page to draw stories featuring a preexisting popular character wholly owned by the company for which he worked.

 

Do the heirs of Antonio Stradivari have any legitimate claim--financial or otherwise--to the violins which were crafted for, and paid for by, their original owners, now that those same instruments are worth millions of dollars?

 

Hardly.

 

Sure, it's a bummer that something an artist originally created for a daily wage is now selling for many, many thousands of times the original going rate. And it would be nice to think that today's high-rolling buyers and sellers would find it in their hearts to kick a little $$ back to the guys who made it all possible (if they're still alive).

 

But if they don't...well, that's the way it goes.

 

And let's not delude ourselves -- it would be nice to think that money isn't the real issue here. And maybe it's not. But if these pages were only worth a few hundred bucks total, I sincerely doubt that we'd be having this discussion...

 

 

[Mark 1]

He can draw it again and donate it himself.

 

 

 

 

[jamorse99-migration]

It is sad, don't get me wrong...

I know it's fashionable, and in some cases understandable, in situations like this to lament the plight of an aggrieved artist, and especially an aging one in ill health. But in this particular case, it's a stretch.

 

As much as I admire and enjoy his work, Al Plastino is not Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby, or Siegel and Shuster: he did not create, nor even help to create, Superman. Instead, he was paid by the page to draw stories featuring a preexisting popular character wholly owned by the company for which he worked.

 

Do the heirs of Antonio Stradivari have any legitimate claim--financial or otherwise--to the violins which were crafted for, and paid for by, their original owners, now that those same instruments are worth millions of dollars?

 

Hardly.

 

Sure, it's a bummer that something an artist originally created for a daily wage is now selling for many, many thousands of times the original going rate. And it would be nice to think that today's high-rolling buyers and sellers would find it in their hearts to kick a little $$ back to the guys who made it all possible (if they're still alive).

 

But if they don't...well, that's the way it goes.

 

And let's not delude ourselves -- it would be nice to think that money isn't the real issue here. And maybe it's not. But if these pages were only worth a few hundred bucks total, I sincerely doubt that we'd be having this discussion...

 

 

 

There are two things you are attempting to say here which are just wrong.

 

1. You are saying this work isn't worth the attention. You state Plastino didn't invent Superman so it isn't worth it. You state it was created by a corporation for a daily wage and if its market value were a few hundred bucks it wouldn't be worth the trouble. But I disagree. The public seems to as well since this issue got attention. It's high market value also seems to state that yes, it is worth the attention. I consider it a cultural piece involving the death of a popular president and a comic book artist and corporation's involvement. It clearly is historical and belongs in a museum.

 

2. You are saying that Plastino is in this for the money. Obviously the original intent of both Plastino and DC was that the work were to be in a museum. Where do you read that he wants money? Everything I read says he wants it to be in a museum.

 

Personally, if it could be proved that the work was stolen, I think it should go to the museum even if it means the current owner is out the money. This has basically happened before. Yes, every case is different and the courts will decide. But since we are throwing around analogies:

 

If someone stole the portrait of Washington from the Smithsonian, sold it through an auction house, and then someone realized it was the same painting, surely everyone would expect the museum to get the piece back? You're not suggesting that anyone who buys it gets to keep it?

 

 

[comicwiz]

Personally, if it could be proved that the work was stolen, I think it should go to the museum even if it means the current owner is out the money.

 

I couldn't agree more.

[jools&jim]

 

We can agree to disagree about the rest. As for this...

 

You are saying this work isn't worth the attention. You state Plastino didn't invent Superman so it isn't worth it.

...I never said anything of the sort.

 

To repeat: I admire and enjoy Mr. Plastino's work. The point I was trying to make is that this case should not elicit our often reflexive sympathy for aggrieved artists in the same way that other high-profile cases involving creators' rights often do.

 

With Kirby & Ditko, it's much easier to make the argument that artists were treated badly (and therefore owed something) under the work-for-hire system--given their contributions to the actual creation of various marquee characters--than it is in this case, which has to do with piece-work which the artist never owned in the first place...

 

 

[comix4fun]

 

1. You are saying this work isn't worth the attention. You state Plastino didn't invent Superman so it isn't worth it. You state it was created by a corporation for a daily wage and if its market value were a few hundred bucks it wouldn't be worth the trouble. But I disagree. The public seems to as well since this issue got attention. It's high market value also seems to state that yes, it is worth the attention. I consider it a cultural piece involving the death of a popular president and a comic book artist and corporation's involvement. It clearly is historical and belongs in a museum.

 

 

 

The reason the public is being fed this story is because tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination and outlets are desperate for content tied to that event.

 

And if it was a few hundred buck we wouldn't be hearing about this.

 

When it was $5,000 we didn't hear about it.

 

Now it's $20,000 for the entire story, that someone completely misunderstood to be $20,000 per page, thus making it seem like it's a $200,000 issue.

 

Now it matters in 1993 it didn't matter. What's different? The price tag.

 

As for it being of "high market value", I've seen Liefeld covers sell for more. $20k is not "high market value" in OA these days.

 

No one has mentioned the original Swan artwork to this story, that may well have been donated to the President's widow, which necessitated Plastino having to redraw the story to have something to publish. Is it still so incredibly significant that we trample on the property rights of the innocent if it's a redo of something that may well have already been donated 50 years ago?

[jamorse99-migration]

 

1. You are saying this work isn't worth the attention. You state Plastino didn't invent Superman so it isn't worth it. You state it was created by a corporation for a daily wage and if its market value were a few hundred bucks it wouldn't be worth the trouble. But I disagree. The public seems to as well since this issue got attention. It's high market value also seems to state that yes, it is worth the attention. I consider it a cultural piece involving the death of a popular president and a comic book artist and corporation's involvement. It clearly is historical and belongs in a museum.

 

 

 

The reason the public is being fed this story is because tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination and outlets are desperate for content tied to that event.

 

And if it was a few hundred buck we wouldn't be hearing about this.

 

When it was $5,000 we didn't hear about it.

 

Now it's $20,000 for the entire story, that someone completely misunderstood to be $20,000 per page, thus making it seem like it's a $200,000 issue.

 

Now it matters in 1993 it didn't matter. What's different? The price tag.

 

As for it being of "high market value", I've seen Liefeld covers sell for more. $20k is not "high market value" in OA these days.

 

No one has mentioned the original Swan artwork to this story, that may well have been donated to the President's widow, which necessitated Plastino having to redraw the story to have something to publish. Is it still so incredibly significant that we trample on the property rights of the innocent if it's a redo of something that may well have already been donated 50 years ago?

 

People are so money oriented on this. You said yourself we are hearing about this because of the Kennedy anniversary. We didn't hear about it in 1993 because Plastino didn't tell us because he didn't know. To say that I only care about this because the art is now worth 200k is silly. If in 1993 I had heard about this and it were worth 50cents a page I'd still want it to go to a museum. Do you people look at comic art and only see dollar signs?

 

[Mark 1]

Personally, if it could be proved that the work was stolen, I think it should go to the museum even if it means the current owner is out the money.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

If it is proven to be stolen then Sotheby's should reimburse the owner what they originally paid.

[comix4fun]

 

1. You are saying this work isn't worth the attention. You state Plastino didn't invent Superman so it isn't worth it. You state it was created by a corporation for a daily wage and if its market value were a few hundred bucks it wouldn't be worth the trouble. But I disagree. The public seems to as well since this issue got attention. It's high market value also seems to state that yes, it is worth the attention. I consider it a cultural piece involving the death of a popular president and a comic book artist and corporation's involvement. It clearly is historical and belongs in a museum.

 

 

 

The reason the public is being fed this story is because tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination and outlets are desperate for content tied to that event.

 

And if it was a few hundred buck we wouldn't be hearing about this.

 

When it was $5,000 we didn't hear about it.

 

Now it's $20,000 for the entire story, that someone completely misunderstood to be $20,000 per page, thus making it seem like it's a $200,000 issue.

 

Now it matters in 1993 it didn't matter. What's different? The price tag.

 

As for it being of "high market value", I've seen Liefeld covers sell for more. $20k is not "high market value" in OA these days.

 

No one has mentioned the original Swan artwork to this story, that may well have been donated to the President's widow, which necessitated Plastino having to redraw the story to have something to publish. Is it still so incredibly significant that we trample on the property rights of the innocent if it's a redo of something that may well have already been donated 50 years ago?

 

People are so money oriented on this. You said yourself we are hearing about this because of the Kennedy anniversary and not the money. We didn't hear about it in 1993 because Plastino didn't tell us because he didn't know. To say that I only care about this because the art is now worth 200k is silly. If in 1993 I had heard about this and it were worth 50cents a page I'd still want it to go to a museum. Do you people look at comic art and only see dollar signs?

 

You aren't getting it so I will break it down smaller:

 

1) The public is hearing about this story now because of the timing with the anniversary.

 

2) The case was brought because of money.

 

3) I didn't say that you care now because of money I said the person suing does.

 

4) Yes, some people look at comic art and see dollar signs. Sometimes they go to court because of it.

 

 

[comicwiz]

 

1. You are saying this work isn't worth the attention. You state Plastino didn't invent Superman so it isn't worth it. You state it was created by a corporation for a daily wage and if its market value were a few hundred bucks it wouldn't be worth the trouble. But I disagree. The public seems to as well since this issue got attention. It's high market value also seems to state that yes, it is worth the attention. I consider it a cultural piece involving the death of a popular president and a comic book artist and corporation's involvement. It clearly is historical and belongs in a museum.

 

 

 

The reason the public is being fed this story is because tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination and outlets are desperate for content tied to that event.

 

And if it was a few hundred buck we wouldn't be hearing about this.

 

When it was $5,000 we didn't hear about it.

 

Now it's $20,000 for the entire story, that someone completely misunderstood to be $20,000 per page, thus making it seem like it's a $200,000 issue.

 

Now it matters in 1993 it didn't matter. What's different? The price tag.

 

As for it being of "high market value", I've seen Liefeld covers sell for more. $20k is not "high market value" in OA these days.

 

No one has mentioned the original Swan artwork to this story, that may well have been donated to the President's widow, which necessitated Plastino having to redraw the story to have something to publish. Is it still so incredibly significant that we trample on the property rights of the innocent if it's a redo of something that may well have already been donated 50 years ago?

 

People are so money oriented on this. You said yourself we are hearing about this because of the Kennedy anniversary. We didn't hear about it in 1993 because Plastino didn't tell us because he didn't know. To say that I only care about this because the art is now worth 200k is silly. If in 1993 I had heard about this and it were worth 50cents a page I'd still want it to go to a museum. Do you people look at comic art and only see dollar signs?

 

The other side that's absent from the comment is the timing of it appearing at auction. Personally, I see there being more of happenstance scenario with Plastino making the discovery, and that if we are touting the angle of "money" as the motivator, lets not forget the timing of this piece hitting the market (both in terms of the consignor and the venue).

[comix4fun]

Personally, if it could be proved that the work was stolen, I think it should go to the museum even if it means the current owner is out the money.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

If it is proven to be stolen then Sotheby's should reimburse the owner what they originally paid.

 

In a perfect world, if stolen, the chain is followed back to the original party who stole it, the artwork is purchased from the current innocent owner at FMV, and the party that stole it (if it was stolen) and they are forced to pay the current out of pocket cost (the FMV paid to the innocent owner) back as restitution.

 

The problem is, Heritage is being sued when it was Sotheby's who took in the consignment, sold the pieces and passed them on to the subsequent owner. That would seem the best place to start to get answers.

[comix4fun]

 

1. You are saying this work isn't worth the attention. You state Plastino didn't invent Superman so it isn't worth it. You state it was created by a corporation for a daily wage and if its market value were a few hundred bucks it wouldn't be worth the trouble. But I disagree. The public seems to as well since this issue got attention. It's high market value also seems to state that yes, it is worth the attention. I consider it a cultural piece involving the death of a popular president and a comic book artist and corporation's involvement. It clearly is historical and belongs in a museum.

 

 

 

The reason the public is being fed this story is because tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination and outlets are desperate for content tied to that event.

 

And if it was a few hundred buck we wouldn't be hearing about this.

 

When it was $5,000 we didn't hear about it.

 

Now it's $20,000 for the entire story, that someone completely misunderstood to be $20,000 per page, thus making it seem like it's a $200,000 issue.

 

Now it matters in 1993 it didn't matter. What's different? The price tag.

 

As for it being of "high market value", I've seen Liefeld covers sell for more. $20k is not "high market value" in OA these days.

 

No one has mentioned the original Swan artwork to this story, that may well have been donated to the President's widow, which necessitated Plastino having to redraw the story to have something to publish. Is it still so incredibly significant that we trample on the property rights of the innocent if it's a redo of something that may well have already been donated 50 years ago?

 

People are so money oriented on this. You said yourself we are hearing about this because of the Kennedy anniversary. We didn't hear about it in 1993 because Plastino didn't tell us because he didn't know. To say that I only care about this because the art is now worth 200k is silly. If in 1993 I had heard about this and it were worth 50cents a page I'd still want it to go to a museum. Do you people look at comic art and only see dollar signs?

 

The other side that's absent from the comment is the timing of it appearing at auction. Personally, I see there being more of happenstance scenario with Plastino making the discovery, and that if we are touting the angle of "money" as the motivator, let's not forget the timing of this piece hitting the market (both in terms of the consignor and the venue).

 

 

There's little doubt that the auction was timed for the anniversary. It was mentioned in the auction materials. I don't think the consignor or the auction house ever tried to couch their intentions as anything but a monetary arrangement. They aren't trying to do anything altruistic. They are trying to conduct a transaction. That's always been clear.

 

The fact that it was pulled from auction a month ago and the suit was filed the same week as the anniversary seems more than a coincidence, however.

[jaybuck43]

And comix4fun, that is of course assuming that the person who consigned to Sotheby's was the thief (if there was one). It is of course possible that the consigner had purchased it from someone else (who god only knows who they purchased it from) Tracing the art back is going to be very difficult (current consignor bought in 1993, but that still leaves almost 30 years with a high chance that those previous owners are deceased

[comix4fun]

And comix4fun, that is of course assuming that the person who consigned to Sotheby's was the thief (if there was one). It is of course possible that the consigner had purchased it from someone else (who god only knows who they purchased it from) Tracing the art back is going to be very difficult (current consignor bought in 1993, but that still leaves almost 30 years with a high chance that those previous owners are deceased

 

 

Yep, it's almost impossible. All of that is assuming it's stolen which is possibly not what happened.

 

It's the only equitable way to handle this. Any other tack, like stripping an innocent of their property without compensation, is a horrendously short sighted precedent to set given the facts and that the party asking was never an entity that owned the artwork at all or was privy to the purported donation.

 

For all we know, Al's claim that it was donated came from him reading that editor's note on the last page of the story. I'd be shocked if this motion survives a challenge to standing.

[rob_react]

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.

[jools&jim]

 

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?

 

 

[jools&jim]

 

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?

I've read that letter writers and fans who visited the DC offices back in the day were sometimes given pages of original art as souvenirs...

[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.