Can anyone help Sandra Ezquerra get this piece of artwork back, as it is the first Judge Dredd story of his
ever printed in 2000AD it was stolen along time ago but they have found who has this but he is not interested in returning to her even though they have offered him a generous reward for it's return.
If anyone has any ideas or can help Sandra Ezquerra get this back please contact her via Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/King.Carlos.Ezquerra
She knows who has it, it's just that the person who has it, who is clearly some kind of horrible twat, will not give it back.
Quote from: Richmond Clements on 27 April, 2022, 03:53:26 PM
She knows who has it, it's just that the person who has it, who is clearly some kind of horrible twat, will not give it back.
Worse than that, won't even
sell it back having been offered money for something they know they have no legal right to own.
They might have a legal right to own it though. If they didn't know it was stolen, and paid a fair price for it, it is legally theirs (if they bought it in England and Wales anyway).
Morally, they should give or sell it back. But there's no way to make them.
Quote from: Richard on 27 April, 2022, 04:47:58 PM
They might have a legal right to own it though. If they didn't know it was stolen, and paid a fair price for it,
I don't see that at all.
As I understand it: The item remains stolen goods regardless of any good faith on the part of any eventual buyer(s). If this were a famous piece of art it would have been seized as soon as the truth became apparent.
I could be wrong and stand ready to be corrected.
Cheers
It's a rule of equity: a "bona fide purchaser for value without notice" has good title.
Quote from: Richard on 27 April, 2022, 04:47:58 PM
They might have a legal right to own it though. If they didn't know it was stolen, and paid a fair price for it, it is legally theirs (if they bought it in England and Wales anyway).
Obviously not a lawyer, but I'm slightly baffled by this. If you buy a car and the police turn up on your doorstep and tell you it's stolen, I'm slightly dubious that saying "Oh, sorry, officer, I had no idea it was stolen" would elicit a response of "OK, fair enough, you hang onto it, then."*
I mean, I'm fairly sure we have a couple of people on here with actual legal qualifications who can probably set us straight.** The moral position is absolutely clear... I'll be mildly astonished if the legal position turns out to be so
completely at odds with the moral one.***
*I know of a couple of occasions (not relating to me — I don't drive) where this has very much
not happened.
**With the usual caveats about anything said on here not being actual legal advice, obviously.
***Although, it wouldn't be the first time.
Also not a lawyer, but I'd guess that cars are complicated - in that there are registration issues that would perhaps serve as part of that "didn't know it was stolen" caveat.
Briefly, it would seem that if the current owner were considered legally bona fide, then recompense would need to be sought from the previous seller. You might then find yourself tracking back through several bona fides in order to get to someone who knew they were stealing it - and then you could launch a case against them. None of which would return the property, and it all sounds tricky and expensive.
Relying on comic art buyers being nice people? Oh dear. Minefield.
Quote from: Richard on 27 April, 2022, 04:47:58 PM
They might have a legal right to own it though. If they didn't know it was stolen, and paid a fair price for it, it is legally theirs (if they bought it in England and Wales anyway).
Morally, they should give or sell it back. But there's no way to make them.
I don't know where you've got this idea but it's not true. If the item is stolen legally it belongs to the person it was stolen from.
Quote from: robprosser on 27 April, 2022, 07:39:26 PM
... stolen legally...
I'm imagining real lawyers face-palming at our antics.
Quote from: robprosser on 27 April, 2022, 07:39:26 PM
Quote from: Richard on 27 April, 2022, 04:47:58 PM
They might have a legal right to own it though. If they didn't know it was stolen, and paid a fair price for it, it is legally theirs (if they bought it in England and Wales anyway).
Morally, they should give or sell it back. But there's no way to make them.
I don't know where you've got this idea but it's not true. If the item is stolen legally it belongs to the person it was stolen from.
This is horrible for Sandra and the person who owners it, however ignorant they were, has a piece that must bring a little shame to them and they couldn't comfortably show. If you buy something in good faith I would feel pretty sorry for you if you had to turn it over with no recourse, but at the same time a compromise could be sort and that seems to be the case.
I guess the sticking point is who does have ownership? I have no idea where it was stolen from, one could guess (and its just that) that it was taken from IPC offices, in the way a load Bolland art was taken? If so would Sandra have any evidence of theft to reclaim it?
Have no idea and hope this doesn't get as complex as it might and the current 'owner' finds it in themselves to get to a solution.
Quote from: Colin YNWA on 27 April, 2022, 08:01:22 PM
I guess the sticking point is who does have ownership? I have no idea where it was stolen from, one could guess (and its just that) that it was taken from IPC offices, in the way a load Bolland art was taken? If so would Sandra have any evidence of theft to reclaim it?
Sorry just re-read the Facebook post and it does say stolen from the Carlos Ezquerra collection so sounds like that won't be an issue at least and hopefully makes it a little more clear cut.
Would it have to have been reported stolen at the time though...?
She should perhaps contact the Metropolitan Police and ask for the Art and Antiques Unit.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 27 April, 2022, 06:43:57 PM
I'll be mildly astonished if the legal position turns out to be so completely at odds with the moral one.***
***Although, it wouldn't be the first time.
I was going to suggest that possibly some of the recent legal 'reforms' introduced by the present government might be considered as strong evidence that this is actually not just vaguely possible. Glad you added the caveat there.
Can anyone post a pic of the piece here for us non-Zuckers?
Quote from: Funt Solo on 27 April, 2022, 07:04:58 PM
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).
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.
Quote from: CalHab on 28 April, 2022, 09:06:47 AM
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.
Quote from: Link Prime on 28 April, 2022, 08:19:26 AM
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
(https://scontent-dub4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/278777262_644970630027433_8885520503321045072_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=xF50300YvjQAX_PPemL&_nc_ht=scontent-dub4-1.xx&oh=00_AT8Pc1APcbfB6OqD7fYcqHHwFXPIKemEr8RN4Yi0BxOGDw&oe=626F8BB8)
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 28 April, 2022, 09:34:18 AM
Quote from: CalHab on 28 April, 2022, 09:06:47 AM
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.
Quote from: Dandontdare on 28 April, 2022, 07:24:34 PM
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.
Slight aside - does anyone know if the original, uncensored art for 'Bank Raid' still exists?
Quote from: Max Headroom on 28 April, 2022, 11:24:11 PM
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
(https://scontent.fdub5-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.18169-9/1517728_795083407239128_352531370724875302_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=9267fe&_nc_ohc=DaxFtfh-96AAX9Nv61o&_nc_ht=scontent.fdub5-1.fna&oh=00_AT8PL9jOQPuBxtdJB02J0jMJqr1BQglePTsBX5v7yl40Jg&oe=628F3614)
A photostat exists of the missing page before it was censored.
(https://scontent.fdub5-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.18169-9/1385948_524070887673716_1214430560_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=9267fe&_nc_ohc=LaTzWwM-ABsAX_udsmA&_nc_ht=scontent.fdub5-1.fna&oh=00_AT9iuoYeBVvvAg31DDAkSM_eR88DBvBHP3KL64fa7JNpHA&oe=6290581D)
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 28 April, 2022, 02:54:47 PM
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.
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.
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...)
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.
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.
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.
QuoteAlso your first paragraph is wrong too.
Actually I'm being unfair: you may be thinking of the abolition of the "sale in market overt" rule by the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1994, which depending on how the art was sold could indeed be relevant. We don't know enough about how he got it.
1) nothing in your hypothesis of a gift clashes with what I have said, if they gifted the piece back to the Ezquerra there is no question as to title. But that is not what is widely considered to have happened here where people are assuming it's like the Bolland.
2) my first paragraph is correct.
Chitty on Contracts says different.
Its like Crown Court in here, where's that Nicholas Ball?*
*Oldies cultural ref
Quote from: Dandontdare on 28 April, 2022, 07:24:34 PM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 28 April, 2022, 09:34:18 AM
Quote from: CalHab on 28 April, 2022, 09:06:47 AM
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.
He didn't mean you DDD! relax
cheap shot Jim.
what a horrible person, just give it back stop being a c**t!