Real Stan Lee, but fake Kirby? 0

[Prince Namor]

Ghost Writing is not illegal. 

Misrepresentation CAN BE.  And that is, as I see it, what Stan Lee did.

The criteria:

1. a representation was made

2. the representation was false 

3. that when made, the defendant knew that the representation was false (or that the defendant made the statement recklessly without knowledge of its truth)

4. that the fraudulent misrepresentation was made with the intention that the plaintiff rely on it

5. that the plaintiff did rely on the fraudulent misrepresentation

6. that the plaintiff suffered harm as a result of the fraudulent misrepresentation

 

Many people buy those collections, with some notion that they'll be collectible, or that they're reading the 'modern Shakespeare' (they are, if they mean a shyster who didn't actually write his own material, but was a glory hound who took all the credit and became world famous*) and it is the Stan Lee name alone that makes it worthy.

Or what about people who buy the original art? Wouldn't a Stan Lee/John Romita piece fetch more in the market place, than a Roy Thomas/John Romita piece? Couldn't that be construed as misrepresentation? Possibly.

Either way. I was wrong in outright calling it illegal. I do fully believe it to be unethical. 

 

* In actuality I have no stand on the Shakespeare controversy - no clue at all. Not enough proof. 

[kav]

On 5/30/2022 at 9:30 PM, Prince Namor said:

Ghost Writing is not illegal. 

Misrepresentation CAN BE.  And that is, as I see it, what Stan Lee did.

The criteria:

1. a representation was made

2. the representation was false 

3. that when made, the defendant knew that the representation was false (or that the defendant made the statement recklessly without knowledge of its truth)

4. that the fraudulent misrepresentation was made with the intention that the plaintiff rely on it

5. that the plaintiff did rely on the fraudulent misrepresentation

6. that the plaintiff suffered harm as a result of the fraudulent misrepresentation

 

Many people buy those collections, with some notion that they'll be collectible, or that they're reading the 'modern Shakespeare' (they are, if they mean a shyster who didn't actually write his own material, but was a glory hound who took all the credit and became world famous*) and it is the Stan Lee name alone that makes it worthy.

Or what about people who buy the original art? Wouldn't a Stan Lee/John Romita piece fetch more in the market place, than a Roy Thomas/John Romita piece? Couldn't that be construed as misrepresentation? Possibly.

Either way. I was wrong in outright calling it illegal. I do fully believe it to be unethical. 

 

* In actuality I have no stand on the Shakespeare controversy - no clue at all. Not enough proof. 

just take that tiny extra step and say "I was wrong".  It wont kill you trust me.

[Larryw7]

On 5/30/2022 at 10:03 PM, kav said:

i'm only familiar with like his 70s avengers stuff

I liked his run with Marshall Rogers on Detective. Englehart and Rogers created the Laughing Fish storyline. But Englehardt does come off as insufferable in his interviews.

[Larryw7]

Here's one guy I think we can all agree on. Not one of those paintings are his work.

 

[Prince Namor]

On 5/31/2022 at 1:13 AM, kav said:

just take that tiny extra step and say "I was wrong".  It wont kill you trust me.

I did say I was wrong.

[Cat]

On 5/31/2022 at 7:20 PM, Larryw7 said:

I liked his run with Marshall Rogers on Detective. Englehart and Rogers created the Laughing Fish storyline. But Englehardt does come off as insufferable in his interviews.

I'd go with 'sounds like a bit of a wanker' for $500, whoever hosts Jeopardy now. He thinks he's a genius, but everything I've read of his has been mediocre with a terrible ending. He can't end a story well at all. 

[troydivision1]

So...to bring these discussions back to the signed comic...
In my research into this issue (again, I own one of the books featured in this thread) I discovered that the issues were sent to and allowed to be signed by 'Jack Kirby' at his home without a witness to verify Jack signed them himself.
Which is where Roz more than likely signed them then sent them to Dynamic Forces.

Do you feel it was illegal or misleading to advertise / sell these comics as 'signed by' Jack Kirby?
If so - Would Jack, Roz, QVC, or Dynamic Forces responsible?

Edited May 31, 2022 by Troy Division

[lordbyroncomics]

On 5/31/2022 at 5:27 AM, Larryw7 said:

Here's one guy I think we can all agree on. Not one of those paintings are his work.

 

Careful, Shadroch and Bird may launch into another dozen posts of bemused "did you REALLY think the same guy wrote all those 'The Three Investigators' books throughout the 60s and 70s?! Ha ha ha haaa" ad nauseum  

[Bird]

On 5/31/2022 at 7:54 AM, Troy Division said:

Do you feel it was illegal or misleading to advertise / sell these comics as 'signed by' Jack Kirby?

Kirby and the artist friends who ghosted for him were actively engaging in deception, the Sotheby's commissions are fewer in number but far worse than the DF comics IMO.

[lordbyroncomics]

On 5/31/2022 at 9:17 AM, Bird said:

Kirby and the artist friends who ghosted for him were actively engaging in deception, the Sotheby's commissions are fewer in number but far worse than the DF comics IMO.

What "artist friends" were ghosting for Kirby? What did I miss?

 

[lordbyroncomics]

On 5/31/2022 at 7:54 AM, Troy Division said:

So...to bring these discussions back to the signed comic...
In my research into this issue (again, I own one of the books featured in this thread) I discovered that the issues were sent to and allowed to be signed by 'Jack Kirby' at his home without a witness to verify Jack signed them himself.
Which is where Roz more than likely signed them then sent them to Dynamic Forces.

Do you feel it was illegal or misleading to advertise / sell these comics as 'signed by' Jack Kirby?
If so - Would Jack, Roz, QVC, or Dynamic Forces responsible?

Again, this is an accusation. Evanier spoke about Kirby signing things with a shaky hand, sometimes having his hand guided, but it was always his hand on the pencil (or pen)- he stated this years ago before this topic came up, so what is his incentive to make that up as he was referring to signed comics for QVC?

But I will answer your question: it would be both illegal in some capacity (false advertising) as well as misleading for the same reasons. We can assume QVC and Dynamic Forces were unaware, if the accusation against Kirby is correct. But this then implies Jack was so hard up for money he would willingly submit to a scheme (which would then invalidate shadroch's dismissive and contempt-dripping remarks about Jack being a multi millionaire), wouldn't it? 

Ayers stated that he went out to Jack's place in California a few months before Jack died and he lamented that they didn't take any photos together. He also said Jack and he signed some stuff that day as they were planning on doing some recreations together before Jack passed. Is Ayers lying?

[MyNameIsLegion]

Roy Thomas was ghost writing The Spidey Strip for years that had Stan's name on it. this is well documented. Frazetta's wife signed for Frank on many portfolios and prints., Frank drew years of Li'l Abner Sunday's for Capp. That is well known. Roz signed for Jack, also well known. Royer and Theakston heavily finished art jack might have laid out, or they light-boxed it. Also well known.  Unless your under the age of 40 I don't get all the mock outrage.   None of this is news.  Art collectors have known this stuff for over 30 years.

[Bird]

On 5/31/2022 at 9:43 AM, MyNameIsLegion said:

Art collectors have known this stuff for over 30 years.

 

[lordbyroncomics]

"Roy Thomas was ghost writing The Spidey Strip for years that had Stan's name on it. this is well documented."

- especially all the times we already documented it in this very thread

 "Roz signed for Jack, also well known. Royer and Theakston heavily finished art jack might have laid out, or they light-boxed it. Also well known."

- define 'well known'- Royer disputes light boxing, etc. It's well known by whom? I know it's well disputed and it's well rejected.

  "Art collectors have known this stuff for over 30 years."

- which generation of art collectors? I ask because the art collectors going back to the 70s' and such were buying stolen art so, you know, I'm less inclined to respect their views

As for "mock outrage" this is again putting words in people's mouths. I guess Shadroch could be argued to have been outraged but I don't want to speak for Shadroch either 

[MyNameIsLegion]

On 5/31/2022 at 8:52 AM, Bird said:

 

correction, everyone but Bird. The Cabal specifically did not tell him.

[Bird]

On 5/31/2022 at 10:04 AM, MyNameIsLegion said:

correction, everyone but Bird. The Cabal specifically did not tell him.

Sorry my emoji was meant to say what can I tell you some people don’t know?

 

I’m not worried about a bunch of jerks in a circle though, whatever important name they give themselves

Edited May 31, 2022 by Bird

[MyNameIsLegion]

On 5/31/2022 at 9:33 AM, Bird said:

Sorry my emoji was meant to say what can I tell you some people don’t know?

 

I’m not worried about a bunch of jerks in a circle though Despite what they call themselves

ah ok, I was a little surprised by that myself.  These kinds of discussions about Stan/Jack fraud, misrepresentation, taking credit, faking credit, ghosting are all rather exhausting and tedious because they've been going on for 30 years in forums, mailing lists, chat rooms, FB, etc- some have an agenda, some don't and many just don't understand the business or the time, context during which it happened when they apply a modern lens to it.  Art collectors and dealers are generally better educated about the nuance of it all than just pure comic collectors, especially the younger crowd. Not that certain dealers like the Donnely's don't misrepresent art they sell to overstate a tiny correction to a face as being penciled by Romita.  Or calling full pencils by Kirby when they were layouts finished and inked by Royer.

Edited May 31, 2022 by MyNameIsLegion

[troydivision1]

On 5/31/2022 at 9:24 AM, wisbyron said:

Again, this is an accusation. Evanier spoke about Kirby signing things with a shaky hand, sometimes having his hand guided, but it was always his hand on the pencil (or pen)- he stated this years ago before this topic came up, so what is his incentive to make that up as he was referring to signed comics for QVC?

But I will answer your question: it would be both illegal in some capacity (false advertising) as well as misleading for the same reasons. We can assume QVC and Dynamic Forces were unaware, if the accusation against Kirby is correct.

But this then implies Jack was so hard up for money he would willingly submit to a scheme (which would then invalidate shadroch's dismissive and contempt-dripping remarks about Jack being a multi millionaire), wouldn't it? 

Ayers stated that he went out to Jack's place in California a few months before Jack died and he lamented that they didn't take any photos together. He also said Jack and he signed some stuff that day as they were planning on doing some recreations together before Jack passed. Is Ayers lying?

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Conjecture on my part, but I don't believe Jack was rolling in the dough.
(as someone stated earlier those wealth sites are flawed)
Might have had a nice house, but may have been 'house rich, cash poor'.

I don't think Ayers would lie about the situation.
I'd like to believe that these are authentic signatures.
It would make it easier for me to sell mine when my end of life approaches...

[shadroch]

D.F. sold some three thousand books signed by Jack Kirby, at a time when Jack's friends have said he could hardly hold a pencil

Three possible explanations,

1) Jack was healthier than anyone knew, and signed them in a style very similar to the way his wife signs them

2) Jack was so out of it that he didn't know his wife was signing 3,000 books

3) Jack and his wife defrauded their fans and the public.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't the first explanation, and no one ever mentions the second so that pretty much leaves us the third. 

[shadroch]

On 5/31/2022 at 7:53 AM, Troy Division said:

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Conjecture on my part, but I don't believe Jack was rolling in the dough.
(as someone stated earlier those wealth sites are flawed)
Might have had a nice house, but may have been 'house rich, cash poor'.

I don't think Ayers would lie about the situation.
I'd like to believe that these are authentic signatures.
It would make it easier for me to sell mine when my end of life approaches...

  Kirby worked in Hollywood doing animation for about a decade. Animation paid much better than comics. I'd think Kirby made more money doing animation than he did at Marvel.  Why would you think he was cash poor?