(cache) fadetoblack1004がChannel Fireball (allegedly) in possession of two pieces of artwork previously stolen from artist Amy Weberについて記入したコメント

Subject	Content
Related Subreddits	Judges & Judging * Tournament * Deckbuilding * Card Creation * Commander * Kitchen Table * Pauper * Competitive Magic (r/spikes) * Legacy Magic * Modern Magic * Cube Drafting * MTGPorn (sfw) * r/MTGAltered * Magic Pulls * Magic Finance * Duel of the Planeswalkers * Competitive EDH * MTG Gore * Limited Magic * Magic Online * ALL OF THEM
Third-Party News/Strategy Sites	ChannelFireball * GatheringMagic * Star City Games * TCGplayer.com * Quiet Speculation * Watch games on Twitch TV * ManaDeprived.com * PureMTGO * MTGOAcademy
Individual Card Info	Magiccards.info * Gatherer * MtG on Wikia * MTG Salvation Wiki * PureMTGO * MtGPrice * MtG.GG * MTGStocks * mtgGoldfish
Rules Info	For rules questions check the DCI Judge live rules chat or read the Yawgatog hyperlinked Magic rules * Want to be a judge? Check /r/mtgjudge! *
Play with Redditors	MTGO Clan * /r/PlayMagic

768

769

770

Channel Fireball (allegedly) in possession of two pieces of artwork previously stolen from artist Amy Weber (i.imgur.com)

defenestr8 が 8 日前投稿

トップ新着論争中古い順 q&a

あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]fadetoblack1004 16 ポイント17 ポイント18 ポイント 8 日前* (35子コメント)

EDIT: Obviously due diligence needs to be done before CFB returns the paintings and the claimant needs to provide proof, but I mean more in general, there is no point to holding onto stolen goods hoping things will work out well for you.

There is literally zero point to holding onto stolen goods, only bad things can come of it, especially when it's easily traceable material like original artwork.

If this is true, after due diligence is done, CFB needs to sack up and give it back... even if they paid for it, they paid for stolen merchandise and they have a legal responsibility to return it to the original owner. They can pursue damages against the individual who sold it to them if they want to be made whole again, and if that person bought it off somebody else, they can turn around and file suit against them, and etc.

[–]mr_noblet 44 ポイント45 ポイント46 ポイント 8 日前 (4子コメント)

[–]Nahhnope 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 8 日前 (0子コメント)

[–]fadetoblack1004 5 ポイント6 ポイント7 ポイント 8 日前 (2子コメント)

[+]FiveStarCards スコアが基準値未満のコメント-9 ポイント-8 ポイント-7 ポイント 8 日前 (1子コメント)

[–]VorpalAuroch 6 ポイント7 ポイント8 ポイント 8 日前 (0子コメント)

[+]Galt2112 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-24 ポイント-23 ポイント-22 ポイント 8 日前* (28子コメント)

actually they might not have a legal obligation to return it AFAIK. If they purchased it in good faith.

Edit:

Also, it's possible for Channel Fireball to take title through adverse possession, even if it might not apply in this case it's still possible.

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/property/property-law-keyed-to-dukeminier/subsequent-possession-acquisition-of-property-by-find-adverse-possession-and-gift/okeeffe-v-snyder/2/

The purchaser's claim to the painting, for which valuable consideration presumably has been paid, is determined in light of any number of factors; depending on the jurisdiction, the true owner's exercise of due diligence,4 the fulfillment of the requirements for adverse possession,5 or the owner's unsuccessful demand for return of possession may be relevant.6 The innocent purchaser may never actually achieve repose.

Emphasis added.

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3234&context=dlj

It is possible to take good title. Which is exactly what I said initially, CFB might not automatically have to return the painting. But keep downvoting me because I'm sure you're all lawyers who specialize in this kind of thing

[–]giggity_giggity 5 ポイント6 ポイント7 ポイント 8 日前 (4子コメント)

[–]Galt2112 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 8 日前 (3子コメント)

[–]giggity_giggity 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 8 日前 (2子コメント)

[–]Galt2112 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント-1 ポイント 8 日前 (1子コメント)

[–]giggity_giggity 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 8 日前 (0子コメント)

[–]RulesLawyer83 5 ポイント6 ポイント7 ポイント 8 日前 (10子コメント)

[–]Galt2112 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント0 ポイント 8 日前 (9子コメント)

[–]RulesLawyer83 5 ポイント6 ポイント7 ポイント 8 日前 (8子コメント)

[–]Galt2112 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント-1 ポイント 8 日前 (7子コメント)

[–]RulesLawyer83 3 ポイント4 ポイント5 ポイント 8 日前* (6子コメント)

Which clearly isn't the case here. Just because you might eventually get title to something because the artist chooses not pursue the issue doesn't mean you're not under a legal obligation at this minute to return the property.

EDIT: That's correct, but that doesn't change the current legal obligation. Your original post said that CFB might not be under a legal obligation to return the property. That is false. The obligation may dissipate after a period of time, but that doesn't change the current obligation to return the property.

EDIT 2: No. She has been in contact with CFB and demanded return of her property. I'm sure they're going through their lawyers to figure everything out, but private demands/demand letters are made all the time without filing suit. If CFB chooses not to return the property, then suit can be filed. All a lawsuit does is force CFB to fulfill their legal duty to return the property and it gives the artist a judgment to enforce. None of that changes the fact that CFB is obligated to return the property, if it is indeed stolen, whether or not suit is filed.

[–]Galt2112 -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 8 日前 (5子コメント)

Can I press back on that?

If the artist hasn't made a formal legal claim, and a court hasn't ruled in her favor that the paintings are in fact stolen and CFB must return them, then is it really fair to say they have a legal obligation to return them?

If all she's done is complain on social media, or maybe just asked them to return them (I don't know any facts beyond this post here) then as far as they know they might still have good title. Maybe she's a disgruntled artist trying to get back paintings she let go for to little, or didn't care about before? If CFB purchased them in good faith, isn't it still well within their right to contest title? If that's the case then how is it inaccurate to say they don't or at least might not have a legal obligation to return them?

If you're an attorney for CFB, wouldn't the prudent course of action (assuming these paintings are valuable enough to warrant a suit in the first place) to 1. demand proof that they were stolen, and maybe provide a receipt of sale, and then 2. Advise CFB to hold on to them until the artist provides some proof of her claim, or maybe even files suit?

[–]RulesLawyer83 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 8 日前 (4子コメント)

[–]Galt2112 -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 8 日前 (3子コメント)

Okay I'm obviously with you on the first paragraph.

But with the second, isn't it possible for the SOL on replevin to have run out now or to run out eventually in which case CFB gets good title if they've purchased it in good faith? If she makes this demand but doesn't file suit, can't they achieve good title eventually, depending on jurisdiction? Isn't that what O'Keefe said and what the paragraph I quoted on the Duke article implies is possible? Just trying to understand. I realize that may not have happened yet, but at the time I made the OP I had no idea how old these paintings were or the history of this dispute. If CFB had them for X years, met the other requirements for adverse possession and she slept on her rights, would they not have good title?

I assume the O'Keefe holding is at least somewhat applicable outside of New Jersey and that's why it's taught, not just as an anomaly.

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]fadetoblack1004 12 ポイント13 ポイント14 ポイント 8 日前 (5子コメント)

[–]Galt2112 -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 8 日前* (2子コメント)

[–][削除されました] 8 日前 (1子コメント)

[deleted]

[–]Galt2112 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント0 ポイント 8 日前 (0子コメント)

[–]WardenV -5 ポイント-4 ポイント-3 ポイント 8 日前 (0子コメント)

[–]Magic29 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 8 日前 (1子コメント)

[–]Galt2112 -4 ポイント-3 ポイント-2 ポイント 8 日前 (0子コメント)

[–][削除されました] 8 日前 (1子コメント)

[deleted]

[–]Galt2112 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 8 日前 (0子コメント)

[–]FiveStarCards -3 ポイント-2 ポイント-1 ポイント 8 日前 (1子コメント)

[–]Galt2112 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 8 日前 (0子コメント)

π Rendered by PID 20796 on app-179 at 2015-05-14 15:46:50.520984+00:00 running 64dec50 country code: JP.

magicTCG

Subreddit Rules -- Read 'em.

FAQ for New/Returning Players

"This is where the ninjas are utsu’d"

調停者