Who sold all of that Silver Age Original Artwork from Marvel? 3 3

[lordbyroncomics]

21 hours ago, kav said:

I have to agree.  for years he worked without any agreement to get his pages back.  He agreed to that.  Suddenly the value explodes and he wanted it all back.  Nope.
Between 'stolen' and 'destroyed' I have to choose stolen as the better option.

Kav, you've admitted before how much you didn't know about specifics and comics history. You shouldn't agree to something like this without spending considerable time researching and comparing and contrasting the facts. I don't think teaching someone a lesson because "they had their chance" logic is moral at all.

[lordbyroncomics]

19 hours ago, Taylor G said:

This is a bizarre thread, throwing out accusations about people still alive and not mentioning the (now deceased) Marvel artist who is well known for pilfering the Marvel art.

As far as the "work for hire" chimera, the word is that Marvel settled with the Kirby family because they (and the rest of the industry) were terrified the courts were going to rule on their "work for hire" claims.

That's not the word many of us heard which was that years of documented evidence often ignored by lazy "historians" and dozens of contradictory statements were going to poke massive and impossible to ignore flaws in the myth that Marvel's owners desperately need to continue.

And for all the disrespect shown to Kirby, again, not relying on hearsay from years of people saying things in passing would be helpful here: Kirby wanted benefits because his daughter had asthma. He felt- rightfully- he had contributed enough to get a health plan and be made an employee. The new owners didn't agree so Kirby went. Acting like he should be grateful to Martin Goodman is woefully warped.

[lordbyroncomics]

On 6/16/2021 at 3:02 PM, Prince Namor said:

As much as I have researched the history of Marvel Comics... I never really knew about THIS story that has apparently been told for many years that I recently read online: Bob Beerbohm* claims to have bought Original Art Silver Age Marvel pages from Marv Wolfman and Len Wein at the 1969 World Con in St. Louis. THEY claimed they were saving the art from being thrown away. Marvel didn't start returning art until 1974, and even then that was primarily work done from that point on, though Kirby was able to get back a small percentage of his earlier work. So what happened to all of that 60's artwork?

The thought process has always been: who had ACCESS to those 1000's of pages that went missing during that time period and who could have gotten them into the hands of Marv and Len to sell? Come to find out Roy Thomas was at the same convention... so there are those who are starting to wonder... 

It's all conjecture of course, but Beerbohm swears it went down the way he says it did and even adds:

"I have told truth for decades now who I bought all that comic book art at the 1969 St Louis World Con. In all these decades neither Marv or Len ever came up at me calling me a liar. An innocent man would say, "Beerbohm, shut the f##k up..." and go from there. Never once, Nada.

The NEW piece of data I never knew until this year 2021 was Roy Thomas was at the same World Con. And the three of them did a comics panel there together.

That surely is not a coincidence."

I know this may infuriate some people here who see anyone that wrote or drew a comic they read when they were 13 to be a saint beyond reproach, and I'm not making a definitive statement either way... I just found it interesting to hear and thought I'd share.

 

Note: Full disclosure - I'm NOT a fan of Roy, who has done more to push Stan's BS 'history' than anyone else alive. Still not saying he DID this, but it does make you wonder.

 

*Somewhat infamous on these boards, but certainly someone who has been around the business for a long time and seen and experienced a lot of the history of this hobby.

There is absolutely no way Marv and Len would have access to as many Marvel pages as they were selling without an inside person at Marvel. Simple as that.

[kav]

7 minutes ago, wisbyron said:

Kav, you've admitted before how much you didn't know about specifics and comics history. You shouldn't agree to something like this without spending considerable time researching and comparing and contrasting the facts. I don't think teaching someone a lesson because "they had their chance" logic is moral at all.

Did he work for years without getting his pages back?  yes
Did he stop working because they wouldnt give him his pages? no
So was that his choice to keep working without getting his pages?  yes

I might not know much but these facts are incontrovertible.

[kav]

I've done work for hire as an artist.  I dont get my art back.

[lordbyroncomics]

Just now, kav said:

Did he work for years without getting his pages back?  yes
Did he stop working because they wouldnt give him his pages? no
So was that his choice to keep working without getting his pages?  yes

I might not know much but these facts are incontrovertible.

Yes, and then... OTHER PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T HIRE HIM FOR THAT ART BEGAN *SELLING* THAT ART. That's the catalyst. I think most artists would be a little peeved.

[lordbyroncomics]

2 minutes ago, kav said:

I've done work for hire as an artist.  I dont get my art back.

You didn't generate most of the stuff in the MCU or the New God's concepts in DC's films, Kav. You weren't given false promises or had your writer and plotter's pay stolen from you. I'm sorry you think you're on the same level. And hey, I like your work Kav. But you being fine with being exploited doesn't justify it.

Edited June 17, 2021 by wisbyron
Misspelling

[kav]

1 minute ago, wisbyron said:

Yes, and then... OTHER PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T HIRE HIM FOR THAT ART BEGAN *SELLING* THAT ART. That's the catalyst. I think most artists would be a little peeved.

It wasnt his art.  what happened later is no business of his.

[Aman619]

of course the artists were peeved.  but unfortunately that doesn't change the circumstances under which they were hired and paid for their work at the time.  And no one would have cared about the art -- even the artists - - if the characters hadn't become a gold mine of unforeseen value.  Which led to the hard feelings and anger and frustration.

 

[kav]

They only got peeved when suddenly the art was worth something.  You cant work for years under one agreement then suddenly say hey wait a minute when you see dollar signs.

[lordbyroncomics]

If I was hired to draw a political cartoon for a paper.. and the publisher literally didn't care about the art.. and I found out a kid proofreader took it to sell it... I'd be completely justified in being upset. 

[Aman619]

yes, upset but with no legal recourse.

[kav]

1 minute ago, wisbyron said:

If I was hired to draw a political cartoon for a paper.. and the publisher literally didn't care about the art.. and I found out a kid proofreader took it to sell it... I'd be completely justified in being upset. 

If you agreed to work and the art was nolonger yours after you were paid you would be wrong to be upset.  The kid proofreader was smarter than you is all.

[lordbyroncomics]

Just now, kav said:

They only got peeved when suddenly the art was worth something.  You cant work for years under one agreement then suddenly say hey wait a minute when you see dollar signs.

How do you know this? Why are you assuming? So the 1966 request is "when suddenly the art was worth something"? The memo in 1967 was suddenly then, too? The talks for a guild in 1968 and 1970 for artwork return was that too? BWS's comments in 1971?? You guys don't even KNOW about these things and you're making these moral statements, it's laughable! You guys grew up reading Wizard and checking the price guide only or what??

[Aman619]

7 minutes ago, wisbyron said:

Yes, and then... OTHER PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T HIRE HIM FOR THAT ART BEGAN *SELLING* THAT ART. That's the catalyst. I think most artists would be a little peeved.

but according to work for hire, that theft is between the rightful owners of the art (publishers) and the thief.  

[lordbyroncomics]

1 minute ago, Aman619 said:

yes, upset but with no legal recourse.

If the art was *stolen* from the publisher from an editor- that violates work for hire law. This post was about artwork stolen from Marvel.

[lordbyroncomics]

Just now, Aman619 said:

but according to work for hire, that theft is between the rightful owners of the art (publishers) and the thief.  

You are correct there. But thieves are smarter than me because I don't steal from artists. I guess my friend Kav is just flattered if people steal his work.

[Aman619]

3 minutes ago, wisbyron said:

How do you know this? Why are you assuming? So the 1966 request is "when suddenly the art was worth something"? The memo in 1967 was suddenly then, too? The talks for a guild in 1968 and 1970 for artwork return was that too? BWS's comments in 1971?? You guys don't even KNOW about these things and you're making these moral statements, it's laughable! You guys grew up reading Wizard and checking the price guide only or what??

its not that we are not agreeing that the artists like Kirby got screwed out of what TURNED OUT to be a windfall....  Just that legally, when you acquiesce for YEARS to a business arrangement, no court will look back and get you the rights you failed to ask for or demand decades earlier.

 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Aman619

[kav]

1 minute ago, Aman619 said:

but according to work for hire, that theft is between the rightful owners of the art (publishers) and the thief.  

yes.  the artist is out of the loop.  I havent seen any evidence that anything was stolen as opposed to Marvel just didnt care and let people take it if so Jack could have done so but wasnt smart enough.

2 minutes ago, wisbyron said:

How do you know this? Why are you assuming?

Because he worked for years wihout getting his art back.  That was his choice.  He only wanted it when it became worth something.

[Aman619]

2 minutes ago, kav said:

yes.  the artist is out of the loop.  I havent seen any evidence that anything was stolen as opposed to Marvel just didnt care and let people take it if so Jack could have done so but wasnt smart enough.

Because he worked for years wihout getting his art back.  That was his choice.  He only wanted it when it became worth something.

yeah.. Artists would have to first prove that they in fact owned the art created as work for hire, or probably that work for hire was merely "implied" but never officially there status....  Only then would they have a say or stake in the stolen artwork... and probably end up settling with Marvel for negligence at a fraction of the value, or seek to repossess the art from whoever owns it today as with Nazi stolen artworks.