Messages

Doggos beat (cool) cats.

Inevitable.

[Hersey]

Hersey.



















Okay then, Strange & Darke

Future Shocks for the constant joy of new b&w artists.


Insurrection was fucking great but FS is an institution. 

Arsegike

[Counterfeit Girl]

Really enjoyed Counterfeit Girl and we don't get enough Rufus in the prog!

[Lobster Random]

Lobster Random

Who needs to come back and finish The Vort....

[Megatropolis]

In all honesty I don't think I've read tribal memories since it's publication tho I see it's in an extreme edition I have so will. But a fond disposition and nostalgia can't dispose the huge fun and Dave Taylor beauty of Megatropolis

[Ant wars!]

It might be round 3 but it's Phase IV.... Ant wars!

[Metalzoic]

Unless you've operated on your own brain it's Metalzoic

If anyone else knows where to pick one up online I'd appreciate it - my local comic book store is now a £15 quid round trip petrol wise so it was looking quite an expensive comic book day for me so skipped it for the first time

[Sooner or Later.]

A dying stand for the energy and art of Sooner or Later. A back one-page strip was a particular joy and one I'd welcome back.

Not to knock Ampney which I'll likely vote for in round 3 as it was top stuff too.

[Return to Armageddon.]

Afraid I'm not a fan of the reboot at all so an easy win for the quality art of Return to Armageddon.

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.

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.

Think we all know this is going one way but I'm voting Demon Nic for being funny and Paul Grist.