10
« on: 29 April, 2022, 02:46:48 PM »
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.