Mark Lubeker says it better than I could: The message posted back on August 11 by the museum in response to Gregs request for the return of his photocopies – Archive Donor Matter – clearly refers to those materials as his property. So lets begin with the understanding that the museum acknowledges the photocopies in question are Gregs. So one would think that means their disposition would be his choice. But then they begin trying to muddy the waters, conflating what clearly were two separate transactions – something they admit in their message – into a single donation, and claiming the initial gift acknowledgment letter they provided to Greg covered both. They also say Greg declined a gift acknowledgment letter that would specifically have covered the photocopies. So which is it? Why would the museum offer a separate gift acknowledgment letter if, in fact, it was understood that the property in question was covered by the earlier letter? If I may be blunt: Greg isnt one of the 1%. Hes not a guy whos going to pass up the opportunity to take a significant write-off on his taxes. So what possible reason could he have for declining a letter that would acknowledge his generous donation? The obvious answer is that he didnt consider it a donation. Throughout the museums message, they refer to the evidence and to written correspondence they claim supports their position. But to date, they have not provided Greg with copies, nor have they published any of this alleged proof. They say theyd like to put the matter to rest, and it seems that would be the best way to do it. So why havent they? Their final gambit is to suggest that Greg somehow surrendered his rights to the photocopies by not objecting when the museum apparently referred to those materials in various publications as donations, rather than as Gregs property. Thats a new and unique standard – probably not legal one – expecting a person to monitor everything an entity like the museum publishes, and holding that a failure to correct erroneous descriptions of ones property in those publications somehow means youve surrendered that property. The message says the authors are confident the Museum has done no wrong. But not so confident that they are willing to give just one version of why they now claim Gregs property as their own. Instead we get three: he donated the photocopies along with his other materials, even though they admit there were two separate transactions; he donated the photocopies, but chose not to accept a gift acknowledgment letter (apparently because hes so wealthy he doesnt need the tax write-off); or he failed to correct the museums misunderstanding of his intentions and erroneous published descriptions of the photocopies, and has therefore surrendered any claim to his property. Again, which is it? The message writers say they dont feel that it is fair play for Greg to ask for his property back at this point. Apparently theyve established five years as some sort of statute of limitations on a loan, after which theyve decided they can unilaterally convert someone elses property to their own. Its an odd point-of-view for an organization to take that purports to be a charity, and that claims to honor Jack Kirby – a guy whose well-documented difficulties in establishing ownership of properties he created are part of an as-yet-unresolved dispute. Kinda like this one.
Posted on: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:53:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015