1015
1016

ChannelFireball Statement Regarding Amy Weber Artwork (self.magicTCG)

ChannelFireball_ が 投稿

In October of last year, ChannelFireball purchased the original artwork for Crystal Rod and Argothian Treefolk. To confirm their authenticity, we reached out to the artist, Amy Weber. At that time Amy claimed the artwork was stolen. Following that conversation, Amy’s attorney contacted us asking that we return the artwork. We replied that we were happy to return the artwork if Amy could provide reasonable proof that it was stolen (police report, insurance claim, registration of the art as stolen, etc.). To date, no such reasonable proof has been offered. As a sign of good faith, we declined to sell the artwork until the matter was resolved.

At this time, with our current knowledge of the situation, and our position within the Magic community, we feel the right thing to do is turn the artwork over to the proper authorities. We have already contacted the Spokane Police Department and are making arrangements to turn the artwork over to them early next week. We thank everyone for their understanding and patience as we work to resolve this matter.

評価の高い 200 件のコメント全て表示する 455
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順q&a

[–]Maxtortion 445 ポイント446 ポイント  (110子コメント)

Sounds reasonable. I hope this gets resolved in a way that no party feels ripped off.

[–]InfiniteVergil 570 ポイント571 ポイント  (105子コメント)

I don't know... if I was CFB, I'd feel a bit ripped off, because now they are returning the artworks (that they bought for real money) without any cooperation or proof to Amy Weber, just because she went public with it and a whole lot of people are screaming that CFB is evil or something.

Doesn't make sense at all.

[–]Japeth 164 ポイント165 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Well theoretically if Weber cannot prove the artwork was stolen from her, CFB could just get the artwork back from the police and then sell it off.

Basically they handed the artwork over to an objective third party who will in turn give it to the determined rightful owner, whether that be Weber or CFB.

[–]pablothe 35 ポイント36 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Plus once the police gives it back to CFB it's a done deal.

[–]ACurlyCube 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, I was thinking that surely without proof Weber won't get the art legally anyway? You can't claim stolen goods without proof.

[–]Nyxtf2 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh man, I can see it now.

"That art is stolen!"

"But you literally JUST sold it me, like 5 minutes ago. I have the receipt..."

"STOLEN! I'm calling the police. You're legally obliged to give it back!"

コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

    [–]runner5678 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    They're giving it to the police. Not Amy. Is that different? They might get it back of it's comes out that she has no proof.

    [–]vxicepickxv 31 ポイント32 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    If there's no proof, they would be the new rightful owners, and probably sell them for more money if they're found clear of wrongdoing.

    [–]anonytrees 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's all an elaborate plot to generate mad hype yo

    [–]snackies 212 ポイント213 ポイント  (27子コメント)

    They probably do. Original artwork (assuming these are not just prints) for magic can be ~3k a piece. I think it was incredibly rude of Amy Weber to do a "callout" on facebook. Especially since apparently nothing was reported or verified as stolen. Agreeing not to sell artwork that (with both pieces) would sell for $5k is really annoying as a shop owner because you ideally want all of your money that isn't liquid to actually be able to sell. So doing a call-out on facebook seems scummy honestly.

    [–]redarrow420 185 ポイント186 ポイント  (24子コメント)

    "Calling them out" on social media was, in my opinion highly unprofessional, assuming that what channel fireball have said was happening (told it's stolen, agreeing not to sell until this can be proven or not) was true, since it essentially says "I'm going to try and cause you to look terrible in the eyes of your customers unless you do what I want." It's borderline blackmail, and really this whole thing should be solvable by production of proof of the theft, which she has apparently failed to produce thus far.

    [–]Kozemp 90 ポイント91 ポイント  (15子コメント)

    It's borderline blackmail

    It's not borderline.

    [–]Morgeno 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    I'm pretty sure it's called slander? Out maybe libel

    [–]belacaz 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    In this case I believe it's libel as it's a "written" medium and not oral(Slander)

    [–]pyromosh 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    That's correct. The mnemonic device I learned in school was:

    Libel is when you write it in Letters.

    Slander is when you Say it.

    Apparently it's stuck with me for 25 years.

    [–]AyeGill 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I just remember that one scene in the first Spider-Man movie.

    [–]extralyfe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    JJJ with the real life lessons.

    [–]pyromosh 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    All I remember from that movie was the upside down kiss.

    [–]aWintergreen 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's not libel. Her statement was that Channel fireball is in possession of Artwork she claims was stolen. They are in possession of it. If she was suggesting they stole it or knowingly bought stolen pieces it would be different.

    [–]Umezete 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It toes the line but its not either, channelfireball DID have the stolen artwork and her original post only accused them of ownership and nothing more.

    Its extremely unprofessional, especially if channelfireball has asked her to provide proof before, but its nothing more than that.

    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

      [–]baked_bads 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (13子コメント)

      They can sue the people they bought it from for the loss, so it's not the worst outcome for them.

      [–]jassi007 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (12子コメント)

      How so? If it is not in fact stolen, or can't be proven so, how is the party that sold it to CFB liable for them giving the artwork away?

      [–]Spifffyy 54 ポイント55 ポイント  (11子コメント)

      If it is not in fact stolen, or can't be proven

      Then Amy Weber's claims are wrong and the artwork will be returned to the rightful owner. In this case, CFB

      [–]Glitch29 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (9子コメント)

      If there was ever a case of possession being 9/10ths of the law, this is it.

      If CFB held onto the artwork, it would be up to Amy Weber to prove it was stolen. Having given it up, CFB has no recourse unless they can definitively prove that it either was stolen or wasn't.

      Chances are it can't be proven either way, and CFB will be left holding the bag.

      [–]Humeon 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Possessio is 9/10ths of the word.

      [–]Plausible_Lies 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (3子コメント)

      They relinquished it to the cops meaning that the cops will hold it providing proof of theft they will return it to Weber, and provided no proof it will be sent back to CFB. Easiest and cleanest way to resolve this. However the cops can hold it for a very long time while Weber appears to not want to provide any proof of theft currently.

      [–]jcmtg 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      OH NO, NOW THE COPS OWN IT. POSSESSION IS... ah never mind.

      [–]eightfantasticsides 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Would've been funnier if you'd gone through with the joke.
      9/11 for effort, though.

      [–]jvLin 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Yeah. This is unfortunate because Amy Weber appears to have forced CFB into that position by announcing the problems on social media. I think she has the mindset of "if I can't have it, nobody should."

      [–]Little_Gray 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Wrong. The cops will give Amy a reasonable amount of time to prove that the artwork is stolen. If she can not provide reasonable proof then it will be returned to CFB. Also if she did file a police report at the time the artwork was "stolen" then the police will find it fairly quickly.

      コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

        [–]katsudon-jpz 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        At this point, everything is in the open, I hope we get to hear all sides.

        [–]ablarga 67 ポイント68 ポイント  (9子コメント)

        Luckily, CFB is probably big enough to absorb the costs. And if they really wanted to, they could pursue a claim against the seller. I don't blame them for handing it over to the police, they probably don't want to deal with this, with GP Vegas on the horizon.

        [–]regalrecaller 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (8子コメント)

        GP Vegas is really the elephant in the room. I'm glad CFB is doing the right thing, and I hope they will continue to do so after the GP. My respect for them has gone up a bunch based on this response, and will go up even more with a respectful resolution to this.

        [–]shade404 51 ポイント52 ポイント  (12子コメント)

        Well, I think they actually are evil, but more because of their frequent human sacrifices, than because of this per se.

        [–]benandorf 108 ポイント109 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        If you know a better way to keep up with the meta, I'm sure everyone would be happy to hear it.

        Obligatory edit: Thanks for the gold, kind soul! It's my first ever, so I'm not entirely sure what it does, but I'm glad to have contributed to funding Reddit through human sacrifice.

        [–]Mekanimal 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Someone had to make sure Elesh Norn was reprinted... It was a worthy cause

        [–]InfiniteVergil 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (7子コメント)

        Would you like to expand on this matter? Are we talking like sacrifices to a god? On an altar with blood and all?

        [–]1ZL 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        What did you think made Darksteel Humphrey indestructible? Dirt?

        [–]jcmtg 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        She's a [[Blood Artist]] and CFB are in cahoots, them with their human sacs.

        [–]MTGCardFetcher 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Blood Artist - Gatherer, MC, ($)
        [[cardname]] to call - not on gatherer = not fetchable

        [–]suliscrew 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Or maybe an [[Altar of the Brood]]

        [–]MTGCardFetcher 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Altar of the Brood - Gatherer, MC, ($)
        [[cardname]] to call - not on gatherer = not fetchable

        [–]CapitanBanhammer 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Maybe [[altar's reap]]?

        コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

          [–]Plausible_Lies 109 ポイント110 ポイント  (17子コメント)

          Sucks that apparently Amy Weber is an asshole.

          Edit: She didn't file a police report, She didn't file an insurance claim, she didn't work with CFB when they asked for information regarding the theft (They need proof when they file an insurance claim/tax write off so that they can provide proof as well for their loss. The weren't being rude in asking for proof in any way). She then posted inflammatory comments on her facebook page about CFB when it was her who wasn't willing to cooperate in any way. She did nothing but create a situation of her own fuckery. Yes... people downvoting me please explain how she is not an asshole.

          [–]darcmosch 41 ポイント42 ポイント  (3子コメント)

          I kind of have to agree with you here. Burden of proof was on her, she didn't provide it and got mad at CFB for blindly handing it over? Then she publicly shamed them. Pretty far in the "not nice person" range.

          [–]Mr_Dove 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I agree with you.

          [–]matunos 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Actually, according to her, a police report was filed years ago.

          [–]hsahj 50 ポイント51 ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Then she can provide that police report and settle this whole mess. If she no longer has it she can call the police department she filed it with and they will provide her a copy.

          [–]Swarlolz 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

          they most definitely will my uncle had this issue a few years back with a stolen bike. He own a bodyshop and restored it in time to give it to the 72 year old original owner.

          コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

            [–]georg51 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (3子コメント)

            They were ripped off, but not by Amy Weber. They were ripped off by the person who (possibly knowingly) sold them stolen merchandise.

            [–]Gakimir 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

            Yes, but there has been zero proof of theft. No police report, insurance claim, etc... I'd love to see something to clear this up but so far she has done nothing but expect everyone to take her word without proof.

            [–]georg51 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            nothing that we know of. Of course we don't know the full story from either side right now, which is fine. We will find out soon enough.

            [–]eyemyor 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            A report WAS filed, actually. The sides seem to disagree on whether or not that report was given to CFB when Amy made the request to get the works back.

            [–]drgoats 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

            I am not too sure they feel that way. Being that they are in the collecting business, they probably accrue expenses anticipating loss for situations such as theft, counterfeits and the purchasing of stolen property.

            [–]Umezete 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            A hit is a hit, every single business worth a damn that can afford to prepares for it but it still sucks when it happens.

            Channelfireball has gotten big but you cant just eat several thousand dollar losses lightly least it becomes a habit. Even if they want to do the right thing that wouldn't be returning something with no proof of theft.

            [–]FrndlyMisanthrpe -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

            They're taking the high ground. Besides, regardless of whether or not it's her art and whether it's stolen or not, a few pieces of art aren't worth bad publicity like this.

            [–]bmemike 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            They're definitely not "taking the high ground" - they making the decision that's in their best interest as a highly visible community vendor and TO.

            I'm not saying they're wrong, but they're certainly not doing this to be Good Guy CFB. This just makes sense across every measurable metric.

            コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

              [–]asura8 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Entirely reasonable and safe way to handle this. Amy Weber has burden of proof with the police department, CFB doesn't have to seem like they have stolen goods.

              A lot is being said about Amy not proving her claim, but the artwork was stolen years ago and she claims that a police report was filed. That being said, it may very well not be a police department local to her, they might have the typical shoddy record keeping, and they might just be non-cooperative.

              It might honestly just be a legal hassle to get the police report personally, whereas the Spokane PD can probably handle that a bit faster, one would hope.

              [–]Mango_Punch 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Sounds reasonable. I hope this gets resolved in a way that no party feels ripped off.

              Yeah, but when treefolk are involved it's hard to see the forest for the trees.

              コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                [–]Aema 190 ポイント191 ポイント  (77子コメント)

                I don't get it. It sounds like Amy Weber claims she has made great efforts to recover the art, but to no avail. It sounds like CFB has made great efforts to return the art, but had no cooperation from Amy Weber.

                Who's lying here? I seriously doubt CFB would complete a transaction for art they were informed was stolen, even if the authenticity of these claims was unsubstantiated. So why would they attempt to verify authenticity AFTER they had already bought them? I'm inclined to think they didn't bother to check if the art was authentic until recently when the social media storm took off today. Of course, that also begs the questions of how Amy Weber found out in the first place.

                As to why turn it over to the authorities, that could be at the urging of CFB general counsel. They will get it back if it can't be proven to be stolen and they will be able to demonstrate they are making a good faith gesture to show they are not attempting to retain stolen property.

                [–]kkyqqp 148 ポイント149 ポイント  (61子コメント)

                There's always two sides to a story. But that doesn't mean one side is lying, usually what happens is that both sides see the same events in different ways and with different evaluations.

                Amy’s attorney contacted us asking that we return the artwork. We replied that we were happy to return the artwork if Amy could provide reasonable proof that it was stolen (police report, insurance claim, registration of the art as stolen, etc.). To date, no such reasonable proof has been offered.

                For example, what exactly "reasonable proof" here might be where the whole issue comes from. CFB might expect proof to be some kind of insurance claim or police report, and Amy Weber might think some other piece of evidence was enough. By the language of the posts it sounds like there may have been some inconsistencies involved with filing police reports and documenting the situation in a standard way with authorities.

                [–]ablarga 93 ポイント94 ポイント  (24子コメント)

                Well, I couldn't find the art on the FBI Stolen Art Database, even though I remember someone claiming she registered it.

                [–]northguard 71 ポイント72 ポイント  (17子コメント)

                People in the last thread were also claiming she had filed police reports. I think it's a pretty clear case of someone is lying here. Either CFB got police reports and didn't accept them or she did not submit police reports to CFB seeing as they explicitly name it as something they consider reasonable proof. There's not too much wiggle room here.

                Well, I guess there's the third option of the redditor was lying and she never made a police report, but that makes this whole thing super fishy. No police report, says that she has been talking to CFB for years now but only registers them as stolen art after she goes public, no insurance claim. Of course, it's very hard to judge based off the one short statement from Amy and one short statement by CFB.

                [–]regalrecaller 30 ポイント31 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                She edited her statement after it was posted to /r/magicTCG btw.

                [–]ILoveImgur 42 ポイント43 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                And now she has deleted all of those Facebook posts.

                [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

                [deleted]

                  [–]Volition85 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Cfb gave it to the police not her if I read correctly

                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                    [–]Idras_Hairline 31 ポイント32 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Everything on reddit should be treated as super fishy. If someones reaction to a private dispute is to go tell the whole world about it, they have a motive.

                    [–]Gakimir 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Yeah, registering then as stolen art now seems really fishy, after the fact

                    コメントをもっと表示する (10 返事)

                      [–]jassi007 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                      I believe if you read her statements, it said It was going to be or working on it. Something in the vein of it isn't now but will be soon.

                      [–]ablarga 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                      But that doesn't make sense, it was stolen ages ago, wasn't it?

                      [–]jassi007 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                      It is an inconsistency. If CFB'S statement is true then she also didn't file a police report or couldn't produce one.

                      [–]SIR_FURT_WIGGLEPANTS 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      To me it sounded like she filled a generic report and didn't include the artwork as an item of loss?

                      [–]anomie-p 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Or included that artwork was stolen, but not naming the pieces specifically.

                      If there is a police report and it says something like 'a number of original artwork pieces' or 'x pieces of artwork' where x is however many she had stolen from her, there wouldn't be an inconsistency - she could see that as proof, where CFB could see it as 'this report doesn't say it was this artwork'

                      The way I see it, all we really know is: They both agree that CFB has the art; She claims to have proof (but we've no idea what that proof actually is); CFB claims she hasn't given 'reasonable proof'.

                      There's probably a ton of ways that there's no inconsistency even with the claims of both sides being true, given just those three facts.

                      [–]Little_Gray 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Not quite. She said during one of her recent posts that she WAS going to register it with them. Meaning that even though she claims the artwork was stolen years ago she had still not bothered to register it with them as stolen.

                      [–]sigismond0 38 ポイント39 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      If the art was stolen and Amy never filed a police report, insurance claim, or registered the art as stolen...well...that's a little sketchy on her behalf. While "reasonable proof" is subjective, they did say exactly the kind of evidence they would accept. And it's a pretty down-to-earth expectation.

                      [–]Lereas 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                      Everyone should watch Rashomon at some point in their lives and apply the concept to their everyday lives.

                      [–]Zazcallabah 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Or the simpsons episode 'A trilogy of error'. Or the movie Hoodwinked. Or that one episode of Terminator SCC.

                      [–]thedoh 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Or at the very least read about the Rashomon Effect.

                      [–]da_chicken 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      For example, what exactly "reasonable proof" here might be where the whole issue comes from.

                      Dude, what? The statement you just quoted says (emphasis mine):

                      We replied that we were happy to return the artwork if Amy could provide reasonable proof that it was stolen (police report, insurance claim, registration of the art as stolen, etc.). To date, no such reasonable proof has been offered.

                      The phrase "no such reasonable proof" clearly and unambiguously refers to the list of examples given in the immediately preceding sentence. Are you seriously expecting them to say:

                      We replied that we were happy to return the artwork if Amy could provide reasonable proof that it was stolen (police report, insurance claim, registration of the art as stolen, etc.). To date, no such reasonable proof (police report, insurance claim, registration of the art as stolen, etc.) has been offered.

                      [–]Mekanimal 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      The two sides thing I believe is called Attribution Bias, when apprasing ourselves we rationalise our behaviour with a string of preceding events, when we see others do the same we mark it down as being their character.

                      eg. From Amy's pov: she is justified in passively blackmailing CFB BECAUSE her artwork was stolen

                      From Amy's pov: CFB have her paintings which were stolen, THEREFORE they are bad people

                      From CFB: They are justified in keeping the paintings BECAUSE they purchased them legitmately

                      From CFB: Amy did not report her paintings stolen and proceeded to passively blackmail them, THEREFORE she is a bad person

                      It's not an amazing explanation, but they both see each other as the perpetrator and themselves as the victim

                      [–]joeshill 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                      From Amy Weber's facebook (last night):

                      Regarding the artwork that I created that was stolen a number of years ago. (By-I have no idea whom) At the time a police report was filed and a police incident report originating from the police department was provided to the company that was in possession of the art I created. No Provenance back to the creator/originator (me) on the companies part has been provided or exists. In spite of this proof of theft my plea for the work I created was unsolved until the situation was brought to light on the internet. I thank all of you who have been supportive of my hard work & dedication to create and make art for you to all enjoy and I will be pleased to see a closure on this matter.

                      I still really wish both parties would put out something actually concrete. Either Amy Weber could say: "We provided a copy of incident report xxxxx dated yyyyyy from z police department." Or CFB could say "Ms Weber provided an incident report number, but we were unable to confirm the contents of the report." Or something. As it is, it's a great big cloud of aerosolized shite that nobody can actually see through to get a good picture of the situation.

                      [–]Boxen_of_Moxen 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                      A police incidence report doesn't say anything. It would literally just say "she called the police at xx time. Reason: theft." Period. No one would accept that as reasonable proof of anything.

                      [–]joeshill 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                      That's probably part of the problem. I've had an occasion to go to the police after having had stuff stolen from my car. Just to get a report filed took three hours of sitting in the station. And all that was generated was probably an incident report.

                      (aside...prior to going to the police station, I went to a local pawnshop located less than 500 feet from the police station. The owner of the shop said that the someone had attempted to sell them the item just a couple of hours prior, and they had the individual on video. They stated that they would not show me the tape, but would gladly show the police the tape. When I filed my report, I told the police that the pawnshop "right there" had the person on tape trying to sell the item. All they had to do was walk over and the pawn shop would show them the video. I got a call from the police six months later saying that they had just gone the pawn shop, but unfortunately the owner had erased the tape in that time. It would have literally taken the officer less than five minutes to find out who had stolen the items if they had acted at the time I filed the report. The officer simply decided to put it on their back burner and then close it six months later when there was no possibility of recovering the stolen property.)

                      It may be that Amy Weber did indeed report the theft to the police, and that all that the police would generate was an incident report. Which might have been sufficient for her insurance company (if at the time it was a covered loss), or at the time, she might have thought that she had jumped through all of the hoops necessary. Or her local police department could simply not place any resources into property crimes, and an incident report would be all they would ever do.

                      We really don't have any clue what the real facts in this dispute are. Neither party is providing any, and both are being very careful not to say anything specific.

                      I'd almost say "a pox on both their houses" at this point. At least until someone says something definitive either way.

                      [–]Boxen_of_Moxen 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      An incident report is just a report that a call was made. If you go to the station and sit there for 3 hours you are filing a police report. That's what it looks like she did not do.

                      (Does anyone really blame her for this? It probably wasn't worth much back then.)

                      [–]joeshill 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      And in general, how many people actually know the difference between the two?

                      What do we really know, that appears to not be disputed.

                      1. Amy Weber painted two paintings.

                      2. Amy Weber maintains that these paintings were stolen by persons unknown.

                      3. Amy Weber maintains that she reported the thefts contemporaneously to the police.

                      4. Amy Weber maintains that she has been trying to recover the paintings since.

                      5. ChannelFireball acquired the two paintings at some point in the past.

                      6. Amy Weber learned of ChannelFireball's acquisition at some time in the past.

                      7. Amy Weber has been trying to get ChannelFireball to return the paintings to her.

                      8. Until this week, ChannelFireball had not returned the paintings.

                      9. ChannelFireball maintains that Amy Weber has not provided sufficient proof that the paintings are stolen.

                      I guess for me, the whole incident boils down to:

                      1. Do I believe the paintings were stolen from Amy Weber? (I believe they were).

                      2. Do I believe that ChannelFireball is obligated to return the paintings to Amy Weber? (Because I believe Amy's assertion that the paintings were stolen from her, it follows that I believe that she still owns them, and that ChannelFireball was in possession of stolen goods - knowingly or unknowingly. And that stolen property needs to be returned.)

                      All the rest is really just drama and posturing.

                      コメントをもっと表示する (24 返事)

                        [–]unstoppable-force 39 ポイント40 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        I'm inclined to think they didn't bother to check if the art was authentic until recently when the social media storm took off today.

                        Amy already admitted today that she never registered the art as stolen with the FBI. Not today, not any day prior, even though she said these were stolen years ago. There are multiple federal statutes creating a national registry and solid procedures specifically to stop problems like this.

                        Based on that alone, I think CFB's response is perfectly reasonable and respectable.

                        [–]Aema 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        That's new to me. I'm giving both sides the benefit of the doubt, but it seems like a lot of things don't line up yet. I think it's pretty clear we're getting two different sides of the story that need to be reconciled to understand the truth.

                        [–]SohNata 45 ポイント46 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        It could just be that nobody is lying. The fact that CFB mention 'As a sign of good faith, we declined to sell the artwork until the matter was resolved.' makes it sound to me like CFB bought it without checking too much, someone offered to buy it off CFB (hence the declining to sell it part) and requested documentation of authenticity, CFB go to Amy Weber and they then hit the impasse we're currently at.

                        [–]d3animator 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Sounds like a reasonable assessment of what may have taken place.

                        [–]snackies 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        I don't know if i'd call either side "great effort." CFB probably didn't buy the art from the individual that stole it, it was probably sold through several people, they picked it up possibly even knowing the seller. Then out of the blue they get a message saying "this was stolen from me, can I have it back."

                        They pretty much just said "sure as long as you can give us a police report or anything verifying it was stolen then we'll send it back", they also agreed to not sell it which is fantastic of them. But still not quite "great effort". Then Amy apparently doesn't send anything and now posts to facebook trying to call them out. Not a very classy move at all. If she didn't file a report then CFB will give them to the PD, and they will probably just give them back to CFB after a brief investigation. Realistically that's the #1 reason why you file a police report when stuff gets stolen from you. I'm imagining Amy has no such verification because otherwise it would seem extremely silly to post something like this to facebook. It's unreasonable to expect CFB to return it if she can't prove anything. At that point any card dealer could claim that they had a lotus stolen and it's in CFB's inventory

                        [–]lordsparklehooves 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        CFB doesn't need to make "great effort" though. They did everything legally required of them and more.

                        [–]dolpherx 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                        Reading prior posts about this matter, someone "close" to Amy claims that she has made reports and claims, but I never saw that it was mentioned that she provided any of these reports to CFB. If she is not providing any of these documents, then she has not made any great efforts to recover the art. Typing in a facebook status or tweet does not really seem very much effort.

                        [–]Little_Gray 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        The problem is that she is constantly editing and deleting her posts.

                        [–]dolpherx 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        She probably knows that she legally can't get it back so she is frustrated and lashed out hoping that the internet would really behind her.

                        コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

                          [–]WardenV 93 ポイント94 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                          This is why we don't jump to conclusions and rabble behind people who are backseat google-lawyering when issues like this originally come up.

                          [–]jsquareddddd 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          Rabble isn't performing that well lately, you're right.

                          [–]Probable84 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          This Rabble has no Master!

                          [–]diabloblanco 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          That's the worse idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom.

                          [–]lordsparklehooves 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          Generally it's easiest to judge by how much you trust the groups involved. CFB has earned my respect as I've never heard of anyone trustworthy having a problem with them, they have good customer service and everything about their brand says they are trying to a valuable part of the magic community. It takes more than one person on a reddit account to change my view on that, and it should be the same way for everyone who has done business with CFB.

                          [–]WardenV 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          Completely agree, which is why I was a bit concerned with the whole situation potentially altering anyone's perceptions of their business model.

                          コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                            [–]Thenoahbradley 75 ポイント76 ポイント  (7子コメント)

                            This is the best possible response. Good on you for doing the right thing.

                            [–]tcm487 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                            Has your opinion of the situation changed since your statement in the prior thread? Does CFB's story line up with Amy's version or is there some disagreement over facts?

                            It would be nice if someone like yourself who appears to have sources close to amy weber or has spoken with amy weber, or even better yet amy herself, could come on here and substantiate her claim of proof so we can see why CFB says they haven't seen reasonable proof.

                            [–]Thenoahbradley 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            I'd love to share all I know, but I don't feel I'm in the right position to do so. I think someone a bit closer to the situation and with Ms. Weber's consent should be the one to answer questions like those.

                            [–]thedoh 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            Classy. You're a stand-up guy!

                            コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                              [–]hairball1188 47 ポイント48 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Thank you for explaining the other side of this story. This seems like a very logical and appropriate response. CFB definitely has my respect. It was unfortunate to see your name dragged through the mud earlier today.

                              [–]-Mallet- 58 ポイント59 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                              I'll probaly get downvoted for this, but i think CFB are completly in their right. I see a lot op people claiming knowing a lot in these threads. But if Amy had proof etc, this matter would not have been solved through the social media. There are a lot more effecient ways to get stolen stuff back, but throwing mut through the internet isn't one. Is asking for proof that strange? There should be police reports etc.

                              [–]Immorttalis 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                              With the rise of the social media, people seem to have become quicker to judge and lay blame without ANY evidence.

                              Asking for evidence is seen as "apologism" or "downplaying" an issue.

                              [–]Folderpirate 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                              It's a symptom of a much bigger issue facing us in the future. Anti-intellectualism.

                              "Evidence based claims? fuck that when I've got emotions on my side! Also college is the debbil".

                              [–]Immorttalis 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                              Is that issue not facing us already?

                              I've been seeing increasing amounts of "safe spaces" in universities, universities going to ridiculous lengths to give everyone "the right not to be offended" and rallies by students to stop ideological opponents from expressing themselves at university events.

                              [–]TheRecovery 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                              Although I agree that evidence based things are necessary. Your examples don't really help me to get to what the previous poster was saying, and they may not be the best.

                              Would you consider that "safe spaces" are fine and totally legit?

                              We're come to a place in the world where we realized that while young white males and those that identify as such, feel "safe" in all spaces (or have the capability to leave) not everyone is afforded the same ability.

                              You may think you're just offending someone when in fact you're inflicting a lot of mental harm. This is 2015, we're far enough along to realize that mental health is a real thing and affects everyone.

                              Also, this is America. You can say dumb things, people can do dumb protests, it's all allowed. Doesn't matter if everyone (or no one) is right. Rallies that you disagree with are allowed just like Fox News that I disagree with is allowed.

                              [–]Immorttalis 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              "Safe spaces" seem to have a tendency of just becoming places where any dissent is discouraged, if not outright banned. Very, very small places should be like that, if any.

                              Universities are institutions for discussing ideas, not protecting students from them.

                              I find the idea of having a room with images of puppies and playdough - like in a kindergarten - is just insane, but that might just be me. That isn't common, surely, but those kinds of "stress rooms" apparently exist at some universities (at least that one that was in the news).

                              A lot of the people demanding for these and trying to stop people from giving dissenting opinions keep throwing words like "trigger" or "offense" around, even though they don't obviously have that.

                              Also, as an example, I don't, for a second, believe that someone gets PTSD from Twitter.

                              "This is America" doesn't really work, when you're talking about an issue that is happening in more places than just America, but I do agree; dumb people are allowed to do whatever they want. But that is not what I have a problem with.

                              What I have a problem with is the spread of these kinds of insane ideologies. People can spread whatever crazy ideology they want, but I am just worried about the damage that it will cause in the end.

                              [–]Folderpirate 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              True we're seeing it now. And it has been going on for years too. But I foresee it getting much much worse in the near future.

                              [–]Dumpy_Creatures 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                              How much is art like this worth?

                              [–]x1a4 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Crystal Rod would be extremely valuable due to it being from Alpha. Would not be surprised if it were > $10k, assuming it's in good condition.

                              [–]WhyChoseAName 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Up to a few thousand dollar a piece..

                              [–]cyberstrider 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (12子コメント)

                              Why would CFB confirm their authenticity AFTER purchasing the artwork?

                              [–]JoeyFNK 64 ポイント65 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              To sell them.

                              [–]foldingcouch 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Up until today I didn't know the difference between Authenticity and Provenance, and unless you regularly deal in the art trade it's not unreasonable to think you don't either. Someone at CFB may have just been overzealous and picked them up knowing they were authentic without realizing the other issues.

                              [–]FalconHunter 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              They probably (complete speculation based on experience) obtained the artwork at a price that was way below market value - probably because the seller was in a rush to unload the artwork.

                              I think it was a snap-buy for CFB that they later learned was an unintentional dirty buy. In order to protect the investment that they made, they wanted legal proof that the buy was indeed dirty.

                              I had some rare merch stolen from me once that was later sold to a dealer. I filed a police report for the merch, but had to visit the dealers around town myself to monitor if those goods had been unloaded. They were and I was able to provide undeniable proof of authenticity and ownership of those goods. The dealer who unknowingly bought those goods (at a price way below market value, I later learned via receipts) refused to return those goods to me and would only surrender them to the authorities. I was very angry about that, but it later turned out to be the right call as it allowed the police to continue their investigation. Because of that evidence, they were able to request the surveillance video from the dealer which then put a face to the thief which they may not have been able to do otherwise.

                              Bottom line - CFB shouldn't be stonewalling, but Ms. Weber should have also ensured that she crossed her t's and dotted her i's if the artwork was "stolen."

                              [–]rcinmd 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                              Authenticity and knowing the artist created something are two different things. When you confirm authenticity it is usually associated with a signed document or certificate by either the artist or someone considered a subject matter expert in the field. It's fairly unlikely that someone would fake art like this, it would not be cost effective at all to reproduce someone's work that isn't selling for millions, but having a certificate of authenticity increases the value because there are no questions that the art was produced by the artist.

                              [–]mikelinnemann 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                              Well, no. Most art that is faked is not worth millions-that art is harder to prove that it's real. It's art with shaky provenance that gets forged. This is especially true in emerging markets. This is especially troublesome because Imaginative Realism, which comic art and Magic art is located within, is more or less pre-museum accepted art. (Lower case art, compared to Art, in a nutshell.) There aren't curators, catalogue raissones or scholarship, so it could, in time, struggle with forgery. And COAs are far from silver bullets because they are also faked, all the time.

                              [–]AgentTamerlane 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              You are one of my art heroes. :D Your articles on GatheringMagic are seriously one of my favorite things to read.

                              [–]prof_shine 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Honest mistake? They primarily deal in cards, and until recently probably weren't accustomed to the nuances and best practices that exist in the world of art dealing?

                              [–]completefarside 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                              That does seem odd. The only thing that would make sense here is if they bought them at a red-hot, well below market price (so it wasn't worth checking or easy to check) but needed to confirm the authenticity to sell, especially at full value.

                              [–]greenearrow 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                              Which is about what you expect to happen when someone is selling something not obtained legally - they need to move it as soon as possible and they had low up front costs, so they don't lose much from a cheap sale.

                              I'm curious as to who is accused of stealing the work. Given the situation, my guess is it is someone close to the artist that she didn't want to drag through the mud, but now that she sees someone who could absorb the loss with the art, she feels it's time to make noise.

                              [–]matunos 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                              Or, the more plausible explanation is they have no idea who stole the artwork.

                              [–]UnderYourBed 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (17子コメント)

                              Do we know if this reddit account is official? It doesn't have any mod given flair marking it as such.

                              [–]LSV__ 107 ポイント108 ポイント  (10子コメント)

                              This is from Channelfireball, just not the CFB Events account (which is what has been posting Vegas stuff).

                              [–]UnderYourBed 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (8子コメント)

                              Thanks for the confirmation. May want to see if you can get the mods to mark it official.

                              [–]hamulog 49 ポイント50 ポイント  (7子コメント)

                              They're too busy banning each other

                              [–]tom_rorow 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                              Mods are literally Nicol Bolas

                              [–]RaggedAngel 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              That makes them sound really cool. Don't give them that.

                              [–]WillBlaze 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                              huh?

                              story behind this?

                              [–]hamulog 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                              Mods were banning people for starting spoiler threads, even when there was no mega-thread up for the day yet. Someone made a thread to raise awareness and start a discussion about it and questionable moderator tactics at large. A mod showed up, said a bunch of really antagonistic things and deleted the entire thread, then a /r/spikes mod showed up and called them out. The original mod was either woken up or humiliated so they apologized and basically made a "We're listening now" open letter to the sub about the future of rules and moderation here. Which is sweet, and admirable. But so far, a prevalent pattern in the thread is "you should try combatting offense x by deleting with an explanation, not banning" to which one of two mods replies "that's cute, but we don't feel like recruiting more mods and we really like banning."

                              Buttery popcorn update: mod ubernostrum was unhappy with how the mod-tactics thread was resolved, so he went back in to ruffle feathers "just for fun" and accuse a dissenter of being a puca trade sockpuppet.

                              [–]WillBlaze 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                              Wow, I read a bit about the threads getting deleted but that was as far as I heard about this... didn't think it got this bad.

                              [–]hamulog 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              I picked a hell of a day to spend sick in bed on the internet. It's been a real rollercoaster.

                              [–]GarrukApexRedditor 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Mods love banning people. Why else would you do a job like that for free?

                              [–]Npf6 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              LSV to save the day!

                              [–]98smithg 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                              Yes, obviously it is.

                              コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                [–]GMDev 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                Any ideas on the value of those two pieces?

                                [–]Xerlic 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                Early magic artwork, especially from alpha, sells for several thousands. Here are the closing prices for the last few alphas that went up for auction on the Facebook group within the past months:

                                • Regeneration: $18,200
                                • Wooden Sphere: $8,050
                                • Gloom: $7,600
                                • Thoughtlace: $7,300

                                These 2 Weber pieces are probably in that neighborhood.

                                [–]glbrown4 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                Eww Spokane

                                [–]dolpherx 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                If Amy did not file a police report nor an insurance claim, etc, then I guess the artwork should belong to CFB. It is already like 8 months since October, I think that is pretty ample time to come up with one of these reports if she had completed one long time ago.

                                Or did she not complete one thinking that it was not going to be worth very much when it was stolen, then realizes that its worth a lot at a later date?

                                [–]NickF227 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                Stealing art has no statute of limitation, so it doesn't really matter when she files the police report.

                                [–]Tantaburs 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                She has to prove it was stolen which is hard to do after a significant amount of time has passed.

                                [–]dolpherx 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                I didn't mean there was a time limit. I meant it seems that she didn't file one cuz if she did, she would have been able to find it as she had 8 months to find it.

                                [–]wildwalrusaur 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                6 months seems like far more than adequate time to allow for verification of her claim. I see no wrongdoing on the part of CFB here. Quite the contrary if anyone's in the wrong here it's the artist

                                [–]Beardfantastic 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                Here's a business practices question for Channel Fireball: When buying original pieces of art, some of which (like Alpha art) that can be very expensive, what steps do you take before the purchase to ensure you are buying authentic artwork? Obviously we're all human and make mistakes, such as letting opportunity take the reigns over caution, but i'd like to know if you have a standard operating procedure for such transactions and if such procedure was violated in this case. Seems to me a whole lot of grief would have been avoided if someone could have done some checking before making the purchase.

                                [–]unstoppable-force 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                well, you might check the FBI's national stolen art file... which she admittedly did not register them with.

                                [–]pyromosh 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                I'm also curious where this was picked up? Did someone walk into a physical retail store? Was it transacted over the internet? Or was it some random at a CFB vendor stall at a GP?

                                If it was something like the latter, does CFB have an art expert or someone at least well trained on duty at all times? Would it even be worth it for them to do that? How often does art walk up to them in the first place?

                                This is totally the kind of mistake that I can see happening for a zillion reasons even if she had filed everything properly.

                                [–]unstoppable-force 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                oh, i would love to have more details. all we really know is that (1) she posted a bunch of things on facebook. (2) the first post was ripping on CFB for not returning it even when she said it was stolen. (3) she claimed it was stolen years ago. (4) she said she would register it with the FBI'S NSAF "today", meaning she clearly didn't register it yet.

                                based off of this alone, i'm not yet willing to condemn anyone. it doesn't matter if it's CFB or the crappiest LGS. the entire purpose of the NSAF is to create a central repository for stolen art that literally anyone can check before buying high end art.

                                [–]Beardfantastic 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                That's a fine point. I'd still love to know what CFB does in these instances. If they had some amount of process to show they did look into these PRIOR to purchase (which is when it should have happened), and yet that investigation yielded no result, it'd be hard to hold them at fault.

                                コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                                  [–]meatwhisper 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                  Thanks for posting this CFB, it's so easy for witch hunts to capture the passions of this forum and I'm happy to see the proper steps were taken.

                                  [–]MagicMagicMagicMagic 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Why would Channel Fireball fight to keep stolen artwork anyway? It has no market value at that point and would probably only net them legal issues.

                                  I'm inclined to believe CFB on this one.

                                  [–]das1330 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  it seems highly odd that an artist wasn't able to provide reasonable proof of 2 of her 61 paintings she did for MTG being stolen. I would be hesitant to deal with the artist in the future.

                                  [–]RetroViruses 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Are we sure she didn't sell then and then claim they were stolen? Why would Amy not present CFB with evidence, if they've been in contact for 7 months? Unless she's hiding something?

                                  I just don't like all these people jumping to the defence of the "innocent artist" when we have no reason to trust her word; especially if she's the type to go on social media to get what she wants rather than the legal channels.

                                  [–]Volition85 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Plot twist: the FBI stolen art database sold the stolen artwork to CFB to increase web hits and obtain increased funding.

                                  [–]c20_h25_n3_O 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Thanks for responding. It's nice to have both sides of the story. I hope everything gets sorted out without further issues!

                                  [–]Skooter_McGaven 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                  Reasons why you don't jump to conclusions. Good on CF, I imagine they are taking a hit on this. I don't know the value of them though.

                                  [–]DetaxMRA 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  As I expected. I am and will remain a paying customer of CFB.

                                  [–]cheatonus 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  I can't even tell you the number of times in my life I've seen friends and family get robbed, burglarized, or otherwise criminally wronged and then not involve the authorities. This is so stupid. A police report is an incredibly important document to have when dealing with these types of situations. You can't do anything without it. Personally, if I'm CFB, I'm telling her tough luck and hanging them on the wall in my office until such time she can prove they're stolen. Otherwise I'm going to assume (which isn't far fetched) she gave them to someone to borrow, or with a verbal commitment to pay and never received payment then the person disappeared. If she didn't report the situation, documented nothing, and basically just waited for these works to show up and then attempt to shame the owner into handing them over, it's her own damn fault. If I'm CFB I'm telling her to get stuffed and show me documentation. I wouldn't turn them over, they own them legally at this point... at least as far as anyone can prove.

                                  [–]Monkeibusiness 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                  You played control there, it seems. Good thing you are being reasonable and think things through, rushing the issue is helping noone.

                                  Nice statement, too. I wonder why it is on reddit, though.

                                  [–]Volition85 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  As stated above:

                                  reddit Court of popular opinion.

                                  You gotta try to keep one step ahead of those underground dojo keyboard cagefighters :)

                                  [–]MMSTINGRAY 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  You did the right thing. It sounds like she might be lying though otherwise she would have just had her lawyer send your proof, no problem. So good chance you will get it back hopefully.

                                  Did you speak to a lawyer first though? I would be hesistant to hand it over to the police who might be more likely to side with the "victim". Whereas if you had held it until you recieved proof it was stolen (completely reasonable claim, what an insurance company would do for example) then you are taking no risk and still being reasonable.

                                  [–]Xelnastoss 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                  Wow CFB taking a HUGE loss here, Amy on the other hand Gets a huge huge Win as she can now sell(resell maybe.....) the paintings.

                                  [–]Tantaburs 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Only if she can prove they were stolen. They didnt retirn the painting they gave them to the police. If they are proven to be stolen they will be returned to the artist if not they will be returned to CFB

                                  [–]notaballoon 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                  ITT: the entire subreddit siding with CFB and thinking they're speaking truth to power while doing it

                                  [–]theothersamb 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Sure, because CFB is turning over the paintings to the police. If they said "There's no proof so we're gonna sell them" then I think it'd be a different story.

                                  [–]AwkwardTurtle 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                  As opposed to the previous thread which was the entire subreddit siding with Amy.

                                  Reddit is just extremely credulous.

                                  [–]tumescentpie 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                  Beause the sub is made up of [[Ghazban Ogre]]s

                                  [–]MTGCardFetcher 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Ghazban Ogre - Gatherer, MC, ($)
                                  [[cardname]] to call - not on gatherer = not fetchable

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                    [–]chp129 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    I would like to hear the Original Art's point of view on all this. Particularly where he's been all this time.

                                    [–]TheMike1979 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    She claims to have filed a report with them. The Police Department will have it on file if she did. This will resolve quickly.

                                    [–]ErasmusFenris 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                    Wouldn't they have a proof of sale? Like you know, a receipt...

                                    [–]Little_Gray 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Thats not really relevant. If somebody stole the art eight years ago and it has since gone through four people it does not matter if CFB has a receipt.

                                    [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

                                    [deleted]

                                      [–]FblthpLives 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      Was it too difficult to comment on just the merits of the case instead of going into misogynistic ballistic orbit?

                                      [–]eyemyor 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                      They are simply at odds on the part about the report having been given to them - she says it was given to CFB, but CFB says it was not. There are several possibilities of why this could be the case, but in the end, what will be happening is that the artwork will go to the Spokane PD, then it will be returned to Amy, as it should be. After that, CFB should do their best to pursue the person that sold the two pieces to them.

                                      [–]absolutezero132 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                      If amy can't provide proof that the artwork was stolen, the artwork will actually be given back to cfb.

                                      [–]Sceptilesolar -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                      Good. A fair outcome.

                                      [–]AFM420 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                      A fair outcome only if they have the money returned. Which isn't fair to them if they are telling the truth.

                                      [–]Parryandrepost 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      For that to happen the art first needs to be proven stolen. After that then CBF can try to go through legal channels to hold the seller accountable.

                                      This is likely not worth it, but if it is then this is probably step one.

                                      [–]poesraven8628 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      What I don't understand is why CFB would be the first to apparently bring the police into the proceedings. I've never had to file a police report, but if her art was stolen, couldn't she have gone to the police and informed them that a company had her stolen goods? I mean, having stolen property is a crime. Since she's apparently been communicating openly with them for months on the subject, it seems like it would be an easy open and shut case for a police detective to deal with. Since that didn't happen, I have doubts about her side of the story.

                                      [–]Matthewbove -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                      I'm impressed with how they handled this. Of course it means basically eating the loss themselves, but sometimes that's just the cost of doing business. Hopefully this earns them enough goodwill and positive press that it offsets their monetary loss.

                                      [–]lordsparklehooves 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      I'm kinda irritated by this, honestly. CFB did nothing wrong and has to bend to some lady because she tried circulating rumors on Reddit? That's not how the world should work.

                                      No reasonable proof has been offered.

                                      Why the hell should they have to do anything but sell the artwork?

                                      コメントをもっと表示する (167 返事)