Collectibles with Questionable Ownership Transfers 0

[jimbo_7071]

This article is about hand-written song lyrics, but could the case be relevant for golden-age comic books with sordid histories? For instance, the old-hoard Crippen books were allegedly stolen. Could Crippen's heirs try to reclaim those books? And what about the D.C. ashcans; weren't there questions about how those entered the marketplace?

https://www.clickondetroit.com/entertainment/2024/02/21/an-unusual-criminal-case-over-handwritten-lyrics-to-hotel-california-goes-to-trial-wednesday/

[adamstrange]

It's uncommon to have civil litigation after that length of time and murky circumstances, much less escalating to a criminal prosecution.

[jimbo_7071]

On 2/21/2024 at 1:02 PM, adamstrange said:

It's uncommon to have civil litigation after that length of time and murky circumstances, much less escalating to a criminal prosecution.

One would think so, but then I'm reminded of the cases of people trying to recover works of art looted by the Nazis—works that have become far more valuable over time. At first litigation was limited to stolen works, but then it was extended to include works "sold under duress" (which seems somewhat ridiculous to me).

Was it ever established who stole the original "D Copies," now known as old-hoard Crippens?

[Robot Man]

On 2/25/2024 at 3:47 PM, jimbo_7071 said:

One would think so, but then I'm reminded of the cases of people trying to recover works of art looted by the Nazis—works that have become far more valuable over time. At first litigation was limited to stolen works, but then it was extended to include works "sold under duress" (which seems somewhat ridiculous to me).

Was it ever established who stole the original "D Copies," now known as old-hoard Crippens?

No, and we probably never will at this point. Supposedly, it was alleged that they were workmen in the house but that is just a guess.

I’m sure Crippen’s heirs were more than happy at what the rest of them sold for…

[sfcityduck]

On 2/25/2024 at 3:47 PM, jimbo_7071 said:

One would think so, but then I'm reminded of the cases of people trying to recover works of art looted by the Nazis—works that have become far more valuable over time. At first litigation was limited to stolen works, but then it was extended to include works "sold under duress" (which seems somewhat ridiculous to me).

Was it ever established who stole the original "D Copies," now known as old-hoard Crippens?

By "sold under duress" they are referring to the fact, for example, that the Nazis forced Jewish art dealers to auction their inventories below market and jews fleeing Nazi Germany had to sell their paintings to fund payment of the “Reich flight tax” imposed in 1931 to prevent capital leaving Germany that the Nazis exploited to seize the assets of Jews escaping persecution. Doesn't seem at all ridiculous to me. We're not talking about someone selling art because of their own self-imposed problems, but due to unjust external forces. A few years ago, the Houston Museum of Fine Arts is at the center of a storm since it was donated a painting in 1961 with a clouded title - the painting had been found by the famous "Monuments Men." It was one of three that had been sold by the same owner to the Germans and was to be put into a museum Hitler was creating. It ended up in the mines in which the "Monuments Men" found a huge stash of art.  Germany returned two of the paintings to the seller's heirs after the government’s Advisory Commission on Nazi-looted art determined that the the seller was a victim of the “systematic destruction of people’s economic livelihoods by the Third Reich as a tool of Nazi racial policy.” Strangely, the Houston Museum wanted to retain the painting. That's led to some misinformation on the internet as people debated the issues. In my book, the Houston Museum was way out of line.

I don't find the "sold under duress" standard, recognized by many countries, as ridiculous at all. But that standard has nothing to do with stolen comics in the US.

And as for stolen comics, you have to ask yourself this. If instead of being found in a locker and identified by Fishler, the "Cage copy" of Action 1 had been found in the locker and bought by someone at a locker auction, should Cage have been denied the return of his stolen comic?  Tough question but there is right answer.

I can think of several pedigrees that may have been stolen comics (but not the ashcans referenced above which came from an employee/manager's personal collection - DC had its own archive with its copies of the ashcans and I've never any accusation they were stolen). But I know of no attempts by heirs to recover stolen comics. So this appears to be a non-issue.

Sadly, when it comes to acquiring art and collectibles, economic motives can cause people to overlook the simple ethical answers due to their desire to obtain or retain the objects.