home

Theft of original art
Patrick Ford 23 June 2016 Two blog posts by Irene Vartanoff concerning the theft of original Silver Age comic book art. Irene Vartanoff: "I think it is important to reiterate that although Marvel insured the artwork as if Marvel owned it, that ownership was based on Marvel’s physical possession of the artwork implicitly defining the ownership as belonging to Marvel. This is a rich topic for discussion and no one has definitively tested such ownership in the courts. Even if they had, one decision could be reversed by a later decision, and the case for artists’ enduring rights in their work has gained some moral ground over the last few decades, although no legal ground that I know of. I have no idea if Marvel kept up the insurance policy, but originally the suggested value of the art was $100 per page, which at the time was the production cost of one page of comic book artwork, including pencils, inks, and lettering. " http://irenevartanoff.com/?p=505 http://irenevartanoff.com/?p=514 23 June 2016 Patrick Ford (on the "Lee could not spell" thread) J David Spurlock: Fantastic Four, Issue 39, Page 9. Matt Murdock inked by Wallace Wood. These pages were stolen by someone at Marvel — never returned to Kirby or Wood. (If any had been returned to Giacoia, some would have likewise been returned to Kirby.) Jim Van Heuklon: could it be one of the pages sent to Woody's ex? J David Spurlock: No. These pages were stolen by someone at Marvel — never returned to Kirby or Wood. If any had been returned to Giacoia, some would have likewise been returned to Kirby but were NOT which indicates it wasn't returned to Giacoia either. Jim Van Heuklon: So unless Comiclink can prove they weren't stolen, they should be seized and given to either the Kirby or Wood Estates Patrick Ford: Unless something was negotiated the art to individual issues went 2/3 to the penciler and 1/3 to the inker. Kirby received no pages from FF #39. This page is new to the market so it can be assumed the people who purchased stolen original art are beginning to sell it. Jim Van Heuklon: is the page being sold on Heritage and if so, can't they disclose the seller? J David Spurlock: they will NOT — without a court order. Patrick Ford: Comics Link. These sites almost never disclose the seller. Which is completely at odds with the way things work in the fine arts market. The excuse given is the seller wants privacy. Total B.S.. If that is the case then why don't the people who sell paintings worth millions of dollars want privacy. J David Spurlock: FF #39 was stolen by someone at Marvel — never returned to Kirby or Wood or Giacoia. Patrick Ford: The circumstances of the theft strongly suggest an inside job. I have seen (and been told) conflicting versions. What the versions have in common is Marvel staff being responsible for the large scale theft in 1982 and possibly continuing up until company authorized returns of the Silver Age art began in 1985. Aaron Noble: "Who, me? Why, I can't even SPELL charlatan!" Dave Rawlins: Carl Hubbell, most likely. BTW, Hubbell's wife is reported to have been Charles Biro's ghost writer. See The Ten Cent Plague. I'm really, really glad to see this, Patrick! Patrick Ford: I wonder if Hubbell's wife is still alive? Dave Rawlins: I've checked. They divorced and have both passed away. Patrick Ford: That's another thing with comics. Why is it after people have passed away that suddenly you see people expressing regret that they weren't interviewed? Jim Van Heuklon: I just fired off an email to Comiclink requesting that the sellers of original art be identified and if not, then the FBI should be contacted to investigate the possibility that they are selling stolen fine art. I doubt it will get their attention, but, what the hell, it can't hurt. Patrick Ford: Carl Hubbell i.e. "Some guy in the office." Patrick Ford: The unexplored resource when it comes to comics happens to be one of the primary resources for historical study in other fields. Personal letters, correspondence. It's almost as if "comics historians" are more interested in concealing facts than they are in finding them. I'm continuously amazed by the amount of energy people put into the obscure figures in comics history and bits of minutia, while giving a wide berth to areas which are far more significant. J David Spurlock: Despite all the HELL Marvel put Jack through, trying to strong-arm him into signing an agreement for a tiny fraction of his art to be returned; I believe they later conceded, out of court, that he (not Marvel or another — with the exception of collaborating artist/inkers) was the true owner of the physical art. Yet to others, they continue to maintain their old smoke-screen arguments designed solely to minimize their liability for all the art stolen while in their possession. STEVE DITKO said, In his 28-page essay titled "The Sore Spot" (Jan 1993 issue of Robin Snyder's The Comics publication), "In the thieves market how anyone came to possess it [the original art], has no meaning, makes no sense. (It just is. One has it or one doesn't. One wants it or one doesn't.) The means are irrelevant to the possessing. It's like asking a dog, a rat, or a cockroach of its right to its food. Its eyes saw it. It began to drool. It doesn't just 'drool,' it drools for something: the food, the art page. It went after it. And got it. The food now belongs to it. That is its true nature. How else is it expected to act? Any conceptual/moral level concepts (stolen, thief, dishonest, unearned, etc.) are not part of the mental content of any lower animal, any sensory perceptual mentality or creature or bug. Who would call a dog dishonest or a thief for snatching a bone from a table or off a plate? As to the story/art pages, there were plenty of them taken and/or stolen from Marvel. Yet Marvel doesn't seem to consider it a wrong, an offense, or a crime, a violation of its property rights. ...With real earned property, the rightful owner has a responsibility in protecting his valued material (via safeguards, insurance, etc.). Any property taken from a true owner without his consent is a violation of his rights: a crime. That act would not be tolerated. But it seems Marvel easily tolerated losing a portion of it's property'' BECAUSE IT REALLY BELONGED TO THE ARTISTS Patrick Ford: There is also the possibility that Marvel never contacted the police because the company was well aware that it's employees were stealing the art. And I have seen it suggested that the company may not have simply turned a blind eye to the theft, but actively encouraged or possibly ordered the theft. The theory there being that making Kirby aware that his pages were being stolen on a continuing basis would motivate him to sign an agreement with Marvel which contained language Kirby and his legal representatives were not willing to agree to. J David Spurlock: I doubt it was anything other that irresponsibly reckless mismanagement. It wasn't all one thing or well planned. Different people took different things over some years BUT, there is indication that, was the big one was planned a bit and went out in bigger batches -- like a shopping list... Patrick Ford: The failure on the part of Marvel to involve the police suggests to me the company was aware the trail would lead back to Marvel editors. Patrick Ford: Marvel has not publicly conceded that Kirby was always the rightful owner of the art, but that certainly may well have been one of the Kirby's demands which was part of the undisclosed terms of the settlement right before the case was going before the Supreme Court to determine if the court was going to take the case. J David Spurlock: I never said publicly. Had it been publicly, they could not continue their smoke-screen farce, which they continue to perpetrate against other creators. J David Spurlock: If any was connected to editors, I doubt it was much as they had the most to lose. I think it was people who felt they were not paid enough, or had friends outside they were getting it for. I'm pretty sure Shooter did call the police at least once, when recent art turned up mysteriously, for public sale. Patrick Ford: The names mentioned to me by dealers were all editors. Patrick Ford: Dave Rawlins mentions above that Carl Hubbell's wife wrote for Charles Biro. It's known that Stan Lee had some sort of connection to Biro. I'm not sure of the full extent, but apparently Biro spoke of Lee contacting him frequently. J David Spurlock: would be good to find out if she is alive Patrick Ford: She isn't. Dave Rawlins mentioned above she passed away. This is why personal correspondence is so important. It's possible she saved letters and after she passed away those letters may have been thrown out. If people took comics history more seriously those people with contacts would seek to contact professionals and the families and friends of professionals and make sure it was known those letters have value and should not be disposed of. For example imagine the letters and other written materials Marie Severin might have? However I suspect the people close to her would actually destroy anything that was found which was seen as damaging to Marvel. That's how comics "history" works. There is no interest in actual history. It's all about preserving what currently passes for history. J David Spurlock: children? Patrick Ford: Shaun Clancy may have the contact information. Patrick Ford: Jonathan and Craig Hubbell are still living. Craig lives in Woodstock N.Y.. Patrick Ford: Michael Vassallo might have some information on the children. Jim Van Heuklon: probably time to indoctrinate him into the page then huh? Tim Bateman: Indoctrinate? Induct? Jim Van Heuklon: like Patrick said, Doc V usually stays away from threads such as this. Patrick Ford: Michael Vassallo did provide some assistance for Michael Hill's articles on the Kirby/Lee issues. And he's also on record as saying that without Kirby the Marvel Silver Age could never have happened because the ideas are all "Kirby ideas." I think that's an accurate quote. Vassallo said that in reply to suggestions that Joe Maneely could have been the person illustrating Lee's ideas and that the Silver Age would have been different, but not all that different. There still would have been a Thor, an FF, a Spider-Man, an Iron Man, a Hulk. Patrick Ford: I doubt he would be interested. I suspect his opinions on the Kirby/Lee issues are more complicated than some people might imagine, but he has made a continuous effort to avoid the topic and concentrate on the pre-Silver Age period.

home