Next HA Auction ! 4 4

[Unca Ben]

On the subject of companies returning, or not returning, art to the creators:

 

I've wondered if Simon and Kirby Studios made a habit of returning art to the creators who worked for them?

It's reported that Joe Simon had accumulated a rather large collection of OA, including quite a bit from artists like Bill Draut, who worked for Simon & Kirby Studio and S&K's publishing company, Mainline Comics.

 

Why wasn't all that artwork returned to Draut, or to other artists such as Mort Meskin and John Prentice, instead of ending up in Joe's collection?

 

Point being, it seems when Kirby himself was a publisher he didn't make a practice of returning all the artwork to creators that were working for him, yet some folks expect Marvel to return Kirby's art.

Seems inconsistent to me.

 

Now, If I'm wrong about Mainline Comics and S&K studios retaining possession of other artist's work, I apologize in advance.

[art4comics.com]

Can anyone send links to the Marvel original art inventory list circa 1980 and the return lists for the Kirbys. I have seen them before but can't find the reference now.

jeff

[drdroom]

Can anyone send links to the Marvel original art inventory list circa 1980 and the return lists for the Kirbys. I have seen them before but can't find the reference now.

jeff

 

Here's the 1980:

http://www.comicartfans.com/galleryroom.asp?gsub=38988

[drdroom]

Can anyone send links to the Marvel original art inventory list circa 1980 and the return lists for the Kirbys. I have seen them before but can't find the reference now.

jeff

 

And here's the 1987 returned to Kirby list:

http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/2011/04/marvel-worldwide-inc-et-al-v-kirby-et_04.html

[drdroom]

As to whether Jack was "fleeced" by Marvel, apart from the art return issue, I think there is a strong argument that he was. I can't cite sources, but I've read several accounts, first and second person, stating Jack was promised a percentage of licensing for, for example, animation projects, and general verbal commitments that Jack would share in the success of the properties, and these promises were reneged upon by Martin Goodman, to Ditko as well, leading to the departure of Ditko in '66 and Kirby in '70.

Moreover, Jack was from the beginning paid only for pencilling or layouts of the books he appears to have created from whole cloth, while Stan was paid the full scripting fee for books that Jack plotted (by Stan's own admission) and Stan wrote the finished copy for. By any rational definition, Jack did part of the writing of those books and was never paid for that work.

Finally, there is Marvel's culpability in the falsification of the historical record regarding the creation of the core characters and settings of the Marvel universe. The world regards Stan as the genius behind this achievement, despite the fact that all the evidence points to Jack for the lion's share of the work. This deception certainly cost Jack money, though no one can say how much.

 

 

[The Shoveler]

Good points, Doc. It seems to be generally held that Kirby (and Ditko, among others) were subject to unfair compensation practices, most of which were standard practices in a perpetually dying and denigrated industry.

 

I recall that Sean Howe's book "Marvel: The Untold Story" relates that Kirby and Ditko didn't receive compensation for their art used on t-shirts, posters and other licensing. Also for the Kirby original art that was sent to Marvelmania, given away by Marvel at conventions and to staff/clients, or handed-out for other promotional purposes. Same for the use of their stories adapted for animation, reprints and other formats.

 

The book later states that this same practice remained consistent up to the 90's and played a factor in Jim Lee's decision to bail with the rest of the Image crew: Jim Lee was similarly not being paid for the use of his art being re-purposed for lucrative t-shirts, posters and other licensed products.

Edited December 31, 2016 by The Shoveler

[Brian Peck]

Good points, Doc. It seems to be generally held that Kirby (and Ditko, among others) were subject to unfair compensation practices, most of which were standard practices in a perpetually dying and denigrated industry.

 

I recall that Sean Howe's book "Marvel: The Untold Story" relates that Kirby and Ditko didn't receive compensation for their art used on t-shirts, posters and other licensing. Also for the Kirby original art that was sent to Marvelmania, given away by Marvel at conventions and to staff/clients, or handed-out for other promotional purposes. Same for the use of their stories adapted for animation, reprints and other formats.

 

The book later states that this same practice remained consistent up to the 90's and played a factor in Jim Lee's decision to bail with the rest of the Image crew: Jim Lee was similarly not being paid for the use of his art being re-purposed for lucrative t-shirts, posters and other licensed products.

 

Were the same thing being done at DC? If so I wonder why Jim Lee went to DC and became Co-Publisher.

 

[Eric Seffinga]

I'm an outsider with no skin in the Kirby game anymore, but remain a curious bystander because the case has all kinds of repercussions for the art world if it ever hits courts.

 

The court case of individual legal right or wrong here may be pressed hard up against the court of public opinion on this one. In reading the comments against Hans' points in that link posted, the general sense I get is that general fandom, and even some absent minded OA collectors are siding with the Kirby family on this one right out of the gate, in a knee-jerk way. This is just a few dozen responses. Just one being a dealer/collector, and the rest, the general sort of folks that make up comic fandom, and their unsurprising continued support of a venerated creator.

 

How many people at SDCC are actively buying Kirby art? A few hundred at best? Probably less these days, given it's prices. Now what is the average attendance of the show? 167,000 in 2015 according to Wikipedia.

 

So how big is the voice of the OA collecting world? And more specifically the world of Kirby art collectors? They're the front lines, and it's maybe a few thousand against potentially millions of comic fans, and even just folks that like the movies, who are always going to be sentimental for the family. At least right out of the gate. Like it or not we are a fraction of the comic world, and most folks don't even care to understand it or it's nuances and complicated history.

 

The narrative I see going forward is that Kirby was taken advantage of (facts for and against this aren't the point here), and now you have well heeled collectors with stolen art (again, facts aren't the point here) who are bucking at paying a mere small percentage tithe to the family, who is just trying to claw back a little bit of their father's legacy. Not unlike the case against Disney/Marvel.

 

That is the continued case that I think we'll see circulate in the media. If you've got someone described in this thread as an "ambulance chaser" lawyer with a multi-million dollar backing, I'd think they use the threat of being tied up in court, and it would chew up more than the shakedown, even for the more well heeled among the collectors. Again, not unlike Disney. And keep in mind some of these collectors' art wealth is not proportionate to their income. They've been sitting on the art since it was sold cheaply, and find themselves sitting on a treasure chest. They don't exactly have millions set aside for a court fight.

 

Paying a mere percentage of the piece in selling it has to be cheaper than the cost of fighting it legally....unless they can pool resources to fight as a group?

 

But as I see it, legal challenges aside, the court of public opinion will not be kind to the fighters. At least not the first few. Educating the masses would be a near impossible task in the short term.

 

We as art collectors, all, have to realize this isn't ultimately about the Kirby family or their greed/justice. It's about what happens if this ever does see the court, and what the outcome of such a property case would be. I'm thinking that at least in the short term we won't see such a case, and are going to see compliance and a staler market for that art, rather than getting any kind of decision that would setting things once and for all.

 

I'm not sure too many other comics creators have the money/legal fight in them to try and push for the same kind of leverage against the aftermarket. So at least near-term, I'd think this is going to be localized to Kirby art only.

 

But in the future, who knows... eventually a case is going to make it to a real court, right?

 

 

 

[Eric Seffinga]

Were the same thing being done at DC? If so I wonder why Jim Lee went to DC and became Co-Publisher.

 

I think Jim's motivations were a little more complicated. Scott or Jim would be best equipped to answer your question, re why he ended up at DC. I'm sure there are interviews out there that would help fill in some blanks. And I watched this documentary on Image a few weeks ago. It includes some info from that time period, via interviews with former and current Image folks that you might find informative. I'm not really a classic Image fan, but I'm a sucker for documentaries...

 

https://www.amazon.com/Image-Revolution-Robert-Kirkman/dp/B01AEKUFB4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483190034&sr=8-1&keywords=image+comics+documentary

[vodou]

But in the future, who knows... eventually a case is going to make it to a real court, right?

What will most likely happen is that the BIG art world (where 'art wealth' and income/other wealth tend to be more closely aligned, including artists/estate themselves) will decide the broad subject of "property rights for all parties, initially at and after point of sale" and the comic art world (realistically Heritage as they deal in both categories, the rest will follow along) will be dragged along as the only other option would be to pursue overturning precedent (at that point), and that in another art "category" no less!

 

If we've learned anything the last hundred+ years of property rights gradually sliding away from rugged individualism toward socialism/communism...the interests/wants/needs of the group/society tend to trump (no pun) those of the individual. Meaning: what you or I individually "want" here probably won't matter. Even if one of us is sitting on 500 pieces of prime Silver Kirby all acquired directly and with an unimpeachable signed receipt from Jack himself. Which group underdogs/downtrodden (artists/estates) or lucky/privileged/1% (art collectors) is viewed more favorably by the court/s and constituents -at that moment- probably will. Again probably not a matter to be decided re: "comic" art to begin with.

[otherworldsj33]

Posted by Eric Settings

"We as art collectors, all, have to realize this isn't ultimately about the Kirby family or their greed/justice. It's about what happens if this ever does see the court, and what the outcome of such a property case would be. I'm thinking that at least in the short term we won't see such a case, and are going to see compliance and a staler market for that art, rather than getting any kind of decision that would setting things once and for all."

 

It is true what your saying about the ultimate realization, practically speaking. And yes, outside of our little OA collector group, the knee jerk of the general public may initially be to take the side of Kirby's family. Not for sure, but maybe.

 

But I don't care much what the general public thinks about this. My focus lies among us collectors. We are in the know and have the art.

Thirty or more years after the fact? With no paper trails in many cases. Convoluted stories and evidence? A broad broom with no regard to the individuals claim of from whom they purchased the art?

 

Lets look at some of the negatives.

A black market is going to develop. Less taxes paid (although most of us, me included, don't really care about that). Less financial fluidity for many collectors who have Kirby art. Impaired enjoyment of our hobby. Loss of good will for the Kirby family.

You know, if the moral and legal grounds were something more concrete, I say the Kirby family should go for it. But they are almost abstract and seem to scream greed and bullying.

 

Who the lawyer is does matter to me. People often judge you by the company you keep, and more times then not, rightly so.

 

Also a tithe it is absolutely not. I know what tithing is, This is not it. And yes, it may sound logical and make good business sense because of the headaches involved to just simply give in to the extortionist demands. That is debatable by the way. Yet it may make better business sense to fight this due to precedence issues.

 

Still, even if it did make good business sense to just capitulate, and I am not sure it does, you can't always take the human element out f it. There are a lot of sharp guys in this hobby, with money, and who are competitive and who don't like being bullied around who will challenge this. I have no doubt of that in my mind a court case will come to be, if push comes to shove.

 

With all these circumstances, its a shakedown, plain and simple.

 

I am of a open mind, if someone can educate me why I am wrong to think that, tell me. I have heard no arguments that even come close at his time though.

 

 

[bluechip]

I've done well with the right borises and julies.

 

I prefer the term "Borii".

 

mmc (made me chuckle)

 

[bluechip]

Here's an article that deals with the Kirby art issue from over 3 months ago:

 

http://www.pipelinecomics.com/the-mystery-of-60s-marvel-jack-kirby-original-artwork/

 

Never talked to this writer before, beyond exchanging a couple of tweets where he commented on the podcast. He pieced together everything in the article on his own. (By his own admission, it's all speculation on his part.) Not bad, as far as guessing goes.

 

He sent me a link when the article went up. I had forgotten about it and didn't check back...and missed the spirited comment thread that developed. Of particular interest are the posts by long-time dealer Hans Kosenkranius (Tri-State Original Art). Worth a read!

 

Hans sounds very reasonable in that discussion, he makes a lot of sense.

 

Yes and his Comment detractors much less so.

+1. After reading the linked article, its comments, this article https://itsartlaw.com/tag/nazi-looted-art/, and this article https://itsartlaw.com/2012/10/18/seven-year-saga-of-bakalar-v-vavra-ends-in-victory-for-current-owner-of-schiele-drawing-and-settles-concerns-over-application-of-the-laches-defense/, I am firmly on the side that the Mr. Kirby's heirs have a difficult path. The referenced Bakalar case on Nazi stolen art shows us that the

 

"case ultimately turned on the defense of “laches,” an equitable doctrine asserted by Bakalar that bars title actions in which there has been a lengthy delay in filing a claim. Ultimately, the district court ruled in favor of Bakalar. It stated that to prevail in asserting the laches defense, a defending party must show that (1) the claimant was aware of the claim (or had reason to know of the claim), (2) the claimant inexcusably delayed in taking action, and (3) the defending party was prejudiced as a result. The district court held that Vavra and Fischer’s “ancestors were aware of–or should have been aware of–their potential intestate rights to Grunbaum property,” and that the ancestors “were not diligent in pursuing their claims to the drawing.”

 

This thread is full of reasons why a laches defense would apply to Kirby art. Here's another reason, the mid 90's I purchased 6 pages from a 1962 kirby pencilled Marvel from a purchaser who had bought them at a Christy's auction in the early 90's. I would argue that the fact that a highly visible public auction was held without any claims of stolen artwork being made effectively scrubs the provenance clean. The same could be argued for pieces having sold on Ebay and Heritage in the past. Obviously, without knowing all the facts this must be determined on a case by case basis. All original art, not just Kirby's, faces the same issue and prices will most likely chill as a result.

 

Hate to pile on when it comes to the Kirbys because of how Jack was abused, but these points are valid.

 

And another thought that occurs: since the suit disregards the inkers' share, it begs a response regarding pages whose pencils were inked over and then erased. Could it be argued by lawyers who want to play just as much hardball that Kirby's "art" was destroyed in the production process with Kirby's full awareness and that all which remains are finished works by other people based on Kirby's designs?

Edited December 31, 2016 by bluechip

[Brian Peck]

Here's an article that deals with the Kirby art issue from over 3 months ago:

 

http://www.pipelinecomics.com/the-mystery-of-60s-marvel-jack-kirby-original-artwork/

 

Never talked to this writer before, beyond exchanging a couple of tweets where he commented on the podcast. He pieced together everything in the article on his own. (By his own admission, it's all speculation on his part.) Not bad, as far as guessing goes.

 

He sent me a link when the article went up. I had forgotten about it and didn't check back...and missed the spirited comment thread that developed. Of particular interest are the posts by long-time dealer Hans Kosenkranius (Tri-State Original Art). Worth a read!

 

Hans sounds very reasonable in that discussion, he makes a lot of sense.

 

Yes and his Comment detractors much less so.

+1. After reading the linked article, its comments, this article https://itsartlaw.com/tag/nazi-looted-art/, and this article https://itsartlaw.com/2012/10/18/seven-year-saga-of-bakalar-v-vavra-ends-in-victory-for-current-owner-of-schiele-drawing-and-settles-concerns-over-application-of-the-laches-defense/, I am firmly on the side that the Mr. Kirby's heirs have a difficult path. The referenced Bakalar case on Nazi stolen art shows us that the

 

"case ultimately turned on the defense of “laches,” an equitable doctrine asserted by Bakalar that bars title actions in which there has been a lengthy delay in filing a claim. Ultimately, the district court ruled in favor of Bakalar. It stated that to prevail in asserting the laches defense, a defending party must show that (1) the claimant was aware of the claim (or had reason to know of the claim), (2) the claimant inexcusably delayed in taking action, and (3) the defending party was prejudiced as a result. The district court held that Vavra and Fischer’s “ancestors were aware of–or should have been aware of–their potential intestate rights to Grunbaum property,” and that the ancestors “were not diligent in pursuing their claims to the drawing.”

 

This thread is full of reasons why a laches defense would apply to Kirby art. Here's another reason, the mid 90's I purchased 6 pages from a 1962 kirby pencilled Marvel from a purchaser who had bought them at a Christy's auction in the early 90's. I would argue that the fact that a highly visible public auction was held without any claims of stolen artwork being made effectively scrubs the provenance clean. The same could be argued for pieces having sold on Ebay and Heritage in the past. Obviously, without knowing all the facts this must be determined on a case by case basis. All original art, not just Kirby's, faces the same issue and prices will most likely chill as a result.

 

Hate to pile on when it comes to the Kirbys because of how Jack was abused, but these points are valid.

 

And another thought that occurs: since the suit disregards the inkers' share, it begs a response regarding pages whose pencils were inked over and then erased. Could it be argued by lawyers who want to play just as much hardball that Kirby's "art" was destroyed in the production process with Kirby's full awareness and that all which remains are finished works by other people based on Kirby's designs?

 

Kirby's art still exists under the inks so it wasn't completely destroyed.

[bluechip]

But in the future, who knows... eventually a case is going to make it to a real court, right?

What will most likely happen is that the BIG art world (where 'art wealth' and income/other wealth tend to be more closely aligned, including artists/estate themselves) will decide the broad subject of "property rights for all parties, initially at and after point of sale" and the comic art world (realistically Heritage as they deal in both categories, the rest will follow along) will be dragged along as the only other option would be to pursue overturning precedent (at that point), and that in another art "category" no less!

 

If we've learned anything the last hundred+ years of property rights gradually sliding away from rugged individualism toward socialism/communism...the interests/wants/needs of the group/society tend to trump (no pun) those of the individual. Meaning: what you or I individually "want" here probably won't matter. Even if one of us is sitting on 500 pieces of prime Silver Kirby all acquired directly and with an unimpeachable signed receipt from Jack himself. Which group underdogs/downtrodden (artists/estates) or lucky/privileged/1% (art collectors) is viewed more favorably by the court/s and constituents -at that moment- probably will. Again probably not a matter to be decided re: "comic" art to begin with.

 

I thought there was to be no politics on this board.

 

How do you take an example which illustrates (pun intended) how property rights can be taken from a "rugged individual" by a large corporation and somehow conflate that to be proof of creeping "socialism/communism"? Actually, I know the answer and it involves starting with an ill-informed agenda and injecting into discussions about other things. Which then leaves other people with the choice of leaving a silly ill-informed idea floating out there, or responding with more talk of politics.

 

All of which the board has sought to avoid by saying --

 

NO POLITICS ON THIS BOARD.

 

Edited December 31, 2016 by bluechip

[bluechip]

Posted by Eric Settings

"We as art collectors, all, have to realize this isn't ultimately about the Kirby family or their greed/justice. It's about what happens if this ever does see the court, and what the outcome of such a property case would be. I'm thinking that at least in the short term we won't see such a case, and are going to see compliance and a staler market for that art, rather than getting any kind of decision that would setting things once and for all."

 

It is true what your saying about the ultimate realization, practically speaking. And yes, outside of our little OA collector group, the knee jerk of the general public may initially be to take the side of Kirby's family. Not for sure, but maybe.

 

But I don't care much what the general public thinks about this. My focus lies among us collectors. We are in the know and have the art.

Thirty or more years after the fact? With no paper trails in many cases. Convoluted stories and evidence? A broad broom with no regard to the individuals claim of from whom they purchased the art?

 

Lets look at some of the negatives.

A black market is going to develop. Less taxes paid (although most of us, me included, don't really care about that). Less financial fluidity for many collectors who have Kirby art. Impaired enjoyment of our hobby. Loss of good will for the Kirby family.

You know, if the moral and legal grounds were something more concrete, I say the Kirby family should go for it. But they are almost abstract and seem to scream greed and bullying.

 

Who the lawyer is does matter to me. People often judge you by the company you keep, and more times then not, rightly so.

 

Also a tithe it is absolutely not. I know what tithing is, This is not it. And yes, it may sound logical and make good business sense because of the headaches involved to just simply give in to the extortionist demands. That is debatable by the way. Yet it may make better business sense to fight this due to precedence issues.

 

Still, even if it did make good business sense to just capitulate, and I am not sure it does, you can't always take the human element out f it. There are a lot of sharp guys in this hobby, with money, and who are competitive and who don't like being bullied around who will challenge this. I have no doubt of that in my mind a court case will come to be, if push comes to shove.

 

With all these circumstances, its a shakedown, plain and simple.

 

I am of a open mind, if someone can educate me why I am wrong to think that, tell me. I have heard no arguments that even come close at his time though.

 

 

It does not make good business to capitulate.

 

Imagine how things would be if a precedent in this case meant that all art and similar intellectual property previously created were to be treated the same way. Chaos, at best.

 

Going forward, if artists want to sell pieces with perpetual rights clearly defined in the sale, then the market will determine whether people want that or not.

Edited December 31, 2016 by bluechip

[Twanj]

someone threw out some numbers that the Kirbys would take 10% of the vig from an auction house.

 

Heritage takes 18% so if they sold $100 million worth of Kirby art that would be $18 million.

 

the 'Kirby cut' would be $1.8 million. the lawyer would take most likely 1/3?

 

so the Kirbys might take home $1.2 million on sales of $100 million.

 

even if they already got $30-50 million from Disney, another 1.2 is nice but I'm not sure it's worth all the ill will...

Edited December 31, 2016 by Twanj

[The Shoveler]

Good points, Doc. It seems to be generally held that Kirby (and Ditko, among others) were subject to unfair compensation practices, most of which were standard practices in a perpetually dying and denigrated industry.

 

I recall that Sean Howe's book "Marvel: The Untold Story" relates that Kirby and Ditko didn't receive compensation for their art used on t-shirts, posters and other licensing. Also for the Kirby original art that was sent to Marvelmania, given away by Marvel at conventions and to staff/clients, or handed-out for other promotional purposes. Same for the use of their stories adapted for animation, reprints and other formats.

 

The book later states that this same practice remained consistent up to the 90's and played a factor in Jim Lee's decision to bail with the rest of the Image crew: Jim Lee was similarly not being paid for the use of his art being re-purposed for lucrative t-shirts, posters and other licensed products.

 

Were the same thing being done at DC? If so I wonder why Jim Lee went to DC and became Co-Publisher.

 

I'd expect that Jim had a little more bargaining leverage for his moving Wildstorm into DC than he had during his first tenure at Marvel, and even more leverage for accepting the co-pub position.

 

Heck, I'd expect that his Heroes Reborn contract had some upgrades in protective terms compared with his earlier Marvel period.

[vodou]

But in the future, who knows... eventually a case is going to make it to a real court, right?

What will most likely happen is that the BIG art world (where 'art wealth' and income/other wealth tend to be more closely aligned, including artists/estate themselves) will decide the broad subject of "property rights for all parties, initially at and after point of sale" and the comic art world (realistically Heritage as they deal in both categories, the rest will follow along) will be dragged along as the only other option would be to pursue overturning precedent (at that point), and that in another art "category" no less!

 

If we've learned anything the last hundred+ years of property rights gradually sliding away from rugged individualism toward socialism/communism...the interests/wants/needs of the group/society tend to trump (no pun) those of the individual. Meaning: what you or I individually "want" here probably won't matter. Even if one of us is sitting on 500 pieces of prime Silver Kirby all acquired directly and with an unimpeachable signed receipt from Jack himself. Which group underdogs/downtrodden (artists/estates) or lucky/privileged/1% (art collectors) is viewed more favorably by the court/s and constituents -at that moment- probably will. Again probably not a matter to be decided re: "comic" art to begin with.

 

I thought there was to be no politics on this board.

 

How do you take an example which illustrates (pun intended) how property rights can be taken from a "rugged individual" by a large corporation and somehow conflate that to be proof of creeping "socialism/communism"? Actually, I know the answer and it involves starting with an ill-informed agenda and injecting into discussions about other things. Which then leaves other people with the choice of leaving a silly ill-informed idea floating out there, or responding with more talk of politics.

 

All of which the board has sought to avoid by saying --

 

NO POLITICS ON THIS BOARD.

You're a mess here. I intentionally posted quite apolitical. But to keep it on point and simple for you, for everyone - where do you stand on property rights: absolutist or shades of grey? Your answer would inform (or should) how you feel about all aspects of: property/wealth tax, altering/destroying art (accidental or otherwise), displaying it, selling it and what, if any, obligation you have back to the creator on all these points. There are the moral positions one could take but then also the legals. The legals to date are muddy at best and vary widely across minutiae and jurisdictions. Because the political atmosphere of the past, present and future bears on this...should we not discuss it because it's (if not ever so gently posted) potentially "political"? And really if I wasn't gentle enough in my posting, I'll try to be more so go-fo, it's a distraction from the serious subject of property rights.

[bluechip]

But in the future, who knows... eventually a case is going to make it to a real court, right?

What will most likely happen is that the BIG art world (where 'art wealth' and income/other wealth tend to be more closely aligned, including artists/estate themselves) will decide the broad subject of "property rights for all parties, initially at and after point of sale" and the comic art world (realistically Heritage as they deal in both categories, the rest will follow along) will be dragged along as the only other option would be to pursue overturning precedent (at that point), and that in another art "category" no less!

 

If we've learned anything the last hundred+ years of property rights gradually sliding away from rugged individualism toward socialism/communism...the interests/wants/needs of the group/society tend to trump (no pun) those of the individual. Meaning: what you or I individually "want" here probably won't matter. Even if one of us is sitting on 500 pieces of prime Silver Kirby all acquired directly and with an unimpeachable signed receipt from Jack himself. Which group underdogs/downtrodden (artists/estates) or lucky/privileged/1% (art collectors) is viewed more favorably by the court/s and constituents -at that moment- probably will. Again probably not a matter to be decided re: "comic" art to begin with.

 

I thought there was to be no politics on this board.

 

How do you take an example which illustrates (pun intended) how property rights can be taken from a "rugged individual" by a large corporation and somehow conflate that to be proof of creeping "socialism/communism"? Actually, I know the answer and it involves starting with an ill-informed agenda and injecting into discussions about other things. Which then leaves other people with the choice of leaving a silly ill-informed idea floating out there, or responding with more talk of politics.

 

All of which the board has sought to avoid by saying --

 

NO POLITICS ON THIS BOARD.

You're a mess here. I intentionally posted quite apolitical. But to keep it on point and simple for you, for everyone - where do you stand on property rights: absolutist or shades of grey? Your answer would inform (or should) how you feel about all aspects of: property/wealth tax, altering/destroying art (accidental or otherwise), displaying it, selling it and what, if any, obligation you have back to the creator on all these points. There are the moral positions one could take but then also the legals. The legals to date are muddy at best and vary widely across minutiae and jurisdictions. Because the political atmosphere of the past, present and future bears on this...should we not discuss it because it's (if not ever so gently posted) potentially "political"? And really if I wasn't gentle enough in my posting, I'll try to be more so go-fo, it's a distraction from the serious subject of property rights.

 

You can insult me if you like. It doesn't matter to me.

 

But for the sake of others I will point out again there is supposed to be NO POLITICS ON THIS BOARD.

 

It speaks volumes about your views that in discussing this area which touches on intellectual property, royalty rights and transactions between individuals, and between individuals and corporations, you inject "socialiam/communism". I don't care to know any more about your politics or to engage you in a discussion about politics.

 

So,, please, just honor the rules of this board, which is also between individuals -- AND STOP INJECTING POLITICS INTO THIS BOARD.