Help Sandra Ezquerra get this piece of artwork back

[Link Prime]

Can anyone post a pic of the piece here for us non-Zuckers?

[CalHab]

Relying on comic art buyers being nice people? Oh dear. Minefield.

Its telling that I immediately could think of a couple of names about who the likely "owner" is who is unwilling to return the art.

Original comic art seems to attract some absolute bellends (and some some good people who are only interested in the art, of course).

[Colin YNWA]

According the Facebook its not actually someone form the normal original art community - for all the 'characters' there - so in this instance its likely someone we don't 'know'?

At least from what I've read.

[Jim_Campbell]

Its telling that I immediately could think of a couple of names about who the likely "owner" is who is unwilling to return the art.

FWIW, I'm told it's most definitely not the most obvious suspect.

[JOE SOAP]

Can anyone post a pic of the piece here for us non-Zuckers?

It's the final page of the very first Dredd story - Bank Raid - repurposed as a FutureGraph

[Dandontdare]

Its telling that I immediately could think of a couple of names about who the likely "owner" is who is unwilling to return the art.

FWIW, I'm told it's most definitely not the most obvious suspect.

cheap shot Jim.

[Jim_Campbell]

cheap shot Jim.

If you'd been threatened with physical violence and harrassed across multiple social media platforms by one individual with something of a…reputation for sharp practice in this field, you wouldn't think so.

However, I know that particular name will have popped into the minds of people other than me, and it isn't that person (in fact, as I understand, it's not any of the names likely to have popped into people's minds) and I actually thought it was helpful to make that clear, despite my low personal opinion of that specific individual.

[Max Headroom]

Slight aside - does anyone know if the original, uncensored art for 'Bank Raid' still exists?

[JOE SOAP]

Slight aside - does anyone know if the original, uncensored art for 'Bank Raid' still exists?

The original art still exists but one page remains missing. The censor edits would've been painted onto the original art like this





A photostat exists of the missing page before it was censored.

[Link Prime]

It's the final page of the very first Dredd story - Bank Raid - repurposed as a FutureGraph

Cheers Joe.
An important and historical piece.

I feel quite sorry for the current owner, but you would have to respect the wishes of the Ezquerra family in this case.

[IndigoPrime]

I assume he paid a lot of money for an investment. Even so, it’s stolen property. Given that Sandra Ezquerra has even offered payment to retrieve the art, I find it very sad her wishes aren’t being respected. (Another possibility would be to agree on, say, making a copy of the original art to retain.)

It’s such a shame so much classic comics art was hit by this kind of dodgy dealing. I know a lot of Bolland art is ‘missing’. And I use scare quotes there entirely intentionally.

Here’s hoping that in the end, Sandra gets the piece back.

[AlexF]

I'm interested in what possible incentives such a person might agree to to return the art - if money is not enough, perhaps John Wagner could offer to write him into a Dredd episode as a named Judge with a badge whi does something cool? That sort of thing might appeal to an apparent Judge Dredd fan..? Tharg could agree to publish some shit future Shock that he has written in a SciFi special (with some heavy editing, and a secret theme of people who are twats getting eaten by Kleggs...)

[robprosser]

Is the person currently in possession domiciled in the UK? If so, then Sandra has been more than reasonable and should call in the cops. Possession of stolen goods is a criminal offence regardless of how the buyer came across the piece. It's unfortunate for the buyer but the law is clearly and unequivocally on Sandra's side.

[BPP]

Formerly a lawyer but no longer and not a property law person at all but it strikes me that things aren’t clear cut - yes if you buy a piece that is stolen then you do not get title (the old exemptions to this were ended in the 90s)

However - given comics is work for hire property resides with the company who commissioned the work, the return of art to artists unless included in their employment contract is something that is - at worst - a indulgence or act of good will or - at best - a legitimate act conferring title to the art established by deed and intention (ie established precedence over time). However as the practise back then was not to return the art (I believe) then a reasonable stab could be made to say the Ezquerra estate has no title to the piece and any theft is from the original publisher (and thus whoever bought their assets when sold on). Proving the piece was stolen from them would be both tricky (time elapsed) and unhelpful to the Ezquerra estate (who wouldn’t get title simply due to the fact that later one practise changed. Of course if some artists were getting their art returned from day one then maybe they could testify that IPC was transferring title to them.

I realise that’s not a popular opinion but to me it indicates it’s a lot more complicated than simply say if the (returned) art was stolen from the Ezquerra household.

[Richard]

It's less complicated than you're making it. If the company returned the art to the artist then that's a gift, and they own it. In any case, it's not a defence to theft to say the person you stole it from didn't own it. You can steal something from someone who just has possession of it.

Also your first paragraph is wrong too.