Latest on MJJC

Michael Jackson artwork to be donated to L.A. Children's Hospital - by Katherine and MJ's kids

If they were reproductions, it makes it even more a way to challenge the Estate. If BLS is not the owner of the art work, is he allowed to make reproductions? Or it is ok if it's not sold?
 
The long article on p19 of the main 'BLS/ MJ' art thread seems to say two different things at the same time: (indicating the ownership dispute is ongoing?)

The collection is currently owned by Brett-Livingstone Strong, the Australian monument builder and Jackson's art mentor through the years, in conjunction with the Jackson estate.

Though the entire art collection has been mired in disputes and battles for rights, Strong claims that he is working with everybody -- the family, the estate, as well as others -- to exhibit and publish as much of Jackson's work as possible.

According to Strong, he and Jackson formed an incorporated business partnership in 1989, known as the Jackson-Strong alliance. This gave each partner a fifty-percent stake in the other's art. In 2008, Strong says, Jackson requested that his attorney sign the rights to Jackson's portion of the art over to Strong.

I'm not sure what the copyright law is on giving things away, but I imagine that property law says you can't give away (even copies of) what doesn't belong to you......
 
myosotis said:
The long article on p19 of the main 'BLS/ MJ' art thread seems to say two different things at the same time: (indicating the ownership dispute is ongoing?)

The collection is currently owned by Brett-Livingstone Strong, the Australian monument builder and Jackson's art mentor through the years, in conjunction with the Jackson estate.

Though the entire art collection has been mired in disputes and battles for rights, Strong claims that he is working with everybody -- the family, the estate, as well as others -- to exhibit and publish as much of Jackson's work as possible.

According to Strong, he and Jackson formed an incorporated business partnership in 1989, known as the Jackson-Strong alliance. This gave each partner a fifty-percent stake in the other's art. In 2008, Strong says, Jackson requested that his attorney sign the rights to Jackson's portion of the art over to Strong.
Click to expand...



:wtf:



:nono:
 
myosotis said:
According to Strong, he and Jackson formed an incorporated business partnership in 1989, known as the Jackson-Strong alliance. This gave each partner a fifty-percent stake in the other's art. In 2008, Strong says, Jackson requested that his attorney sign the rights to Jackson's portion of the art over to Strong.
Click to expand...

So does he actually have proof of that? Or is it just a matter of him claiming it now because Michael is not here.. O_-
 
Am I understanding this right, he says Michael wanted to give his portion back to this Strong? I just don't see that for some reason. All the time and effort he put into his art he would just sign away his part? I see how protective he was about his music and work and unless there is actual documentation i don't believe that.
 
marebear said:
Am I understanding this right, he says Michael wanted to give his portion back to this Strong? I just don't see that for some reason. All the time and effort he put into his art he would just sign away his part? I see how protective he was about his music and work and unless there is actual documentation i don't believe that.
Click to expand...

I believed what Stong claimed is he had a letter from Thome saying MJ wanted him to keep those collection. However, Thome didn't want to say whether the letter is real or not. I also remembered reading in some blog or articles said that the letter is saying MJ willing to let Stong to use those painting and publish books or hold a gallery. Correct me if I am wrong because I am also quite confused about the situation now. Now Strong claimed that he is working with estate and those collections were co-owned (base on the LA times report)? Stong kept changing his statement made me really skeptical about him. I also don't think MJ would just give all his collection away. It's doesn't make any sense at all.
 
^I agree. Why would Michael give his entire collection to an artist he hardly kept in touch with, in the last decade of his life? . I hope the Estate is working behind the scenes as we speak, to recover Michael's art. I don't believe BLS has any claim over the entire collection. He is a fraud, and should be exposed along with Tohme.
 
myosotis;3460899 said:
UPDATE and EDIT: BUT these may not be originals which were donated:[/B]
http://blogs.laweekly.com/stylecouncil/2011/08/michael_jacksons_art_revealed.php

As for Jackson's art, the contents of the hangar barely scratched the surface of the collection, as Strong estimates Jackson's total output at 150 to 160 pieces. A few large pieces hanging on the walls had been donated as reproductions to the L.A. Children's Hospital last Monday, along with other sketches and poems.

Thank you to Aquarius for picking this up from the article..I had entirely missed reading this sentence!
Whole article is posted in this thread (with pictures):
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...covered-amp-Valued-At-900M-Update-pg10/page19


I wonder if the hospital knew that it was being given copies ( It was quite a big press conference for a gift of reproduction art). I guess we will know if the hospital ever sells any of these pieces on the open market...they will need to be clear whether they are selling originals or reproductions.
Click to expand...


OH Oh, what is the law about reproductions? Is it that you need permission from the owner to make reproductions, or does that apply only if you are selling the art. As said before, Brett changed it to the kids and katherine donating the art so if it comes out later that he did not own the art, he could say he did not donate, it was the kids. There is something behind that change in the wording!!!!

Now Brett is changing his story again. First, Thome had a letter saying Michael signed over the art. There was an issue with the buyer seeking authentication of ownership because Thome did not produce the letter. Now, Michael and Brett had a company and owned each other's work. Did Michael get any money from Brett, then, when Brett sold his own work?

I am getting tired of people claiming Michael gave them something, including Bush with the Jacket. Everyone who knows where Michael kept his belongings are going for it and claiming he gave it to them!!!
 
Last edited:
Rhilo said:
^I agree. Why would Michael give his entire collection to an artist he hardly kept in touch with, in the last decade of his life? . I hope the Estate is working behind the scenes as we speak, to recover Michael's art. I don't believe BLS has any claim over the entire collection. He is a fraud, and should be exposed along with Tohme.
Click to expand...


Good question.
 
This estate has so much work to do. Every few months a new thief rears his ugly head. Now remember the hospital was going to sell one of the paintings to raise funds. I wonder which one they intended to sell. I hope it is not a reproduction.
 
Re: Partial quote from the LA times (Edit: correction LAweekly) article
'According to Strong, he and Jackson formed an incorporated business partnership in 1989, known as the Jackson-Strong alliance. This gave each partner a fifty-percent stake in the other's art'.

Actually, from the description in the article, if they gave each other a 50% stake in each other's art, that would not mean each would own 100% of the other's, but only half! (so that the Estate should own half of the BLS portion). But this is not what BLS is claiming at all! From Tohme's letter he is saying that Michael gave the whole collection (bar 10) to him 'for you to keep, sell, copy, exhibit or use as you wish'.


The Tohme letter text includes: let me know when you have the art prints ready to sign' 'you have his blessing to market his art' 'Reproduction rights are owned by BLS and the Jackson-Strong Alliance' .
(So I think the hospital pictures could be prints with original MJ signatures...I wonder how many MJ signed?)


I expect that whatever the final legal interpretation by the Estate, BLS will claim that all of the public statements made about the ownership of these drawings (as a complete collection) and of the 'originality' of the selection given to the hospital are down to 'press misunderstandings'. eg In the 'KTLA' (?) TV/video clip the reporter clearly states that the drawings given to the hospital are originals, but the LAweekly article clearly states they are reproductions. I have not however heard what BLS himself says...which is why I was interested to see if anything was said by him in the planned TV/ radio interview the other night.

If the hospital drawings are prints with original signatures, then I guess both descriptions are partially correct (repro and original). I would think that an original MJ signature would comprise the major part of the value of any signed print, whether of BLS art (eg The Book) or of MJ art. Signed copies of 'The Book' are for sale from ebay (not sold by BLS but by a purchaser following the bank 'asset takeover') and the price differential between signed and unsigned copies is about 10Kgbp, I think.

Footnote: I'm not sure if the Jackson-Strong Alliance was ever dissolved...even after BLS' insolvency in appx 2005? You would have thought that the creditors then would go after everything they could, including assets in the partnership.
 
Last edited:
This whole thing stinks so much.estate needs to go after this fool
 
^^That is the point he keeps shifting the percentage of his ownership: as you said first 50%, and next 100%. This makes everyone see that there is something dishonest in this deal. He knew where Michael kept his art. Not even the press knew, and he used that knowledge to steal his work. Let's see if he starts to make reproductions to sell. Maybe the Estate is dealing with him behind the scenes because they must know by now about all his different claims.

Guys this estate has so much work to do; we must help them as much as we can by not buying dishonest products.
 
myosotis said:
Re: Partial quote from the LA times article
'According to Strong, he and Jackson formed an incorporated business partnership in 1989, known as the Jackson-Strong alliance. This gave each partner a fifty-percent stake in the other's art'.

Actually, from the description in the article, if they gave each other a 50% stake in each other's art, that would not mean each would own 100% of the other's, but only half! (so that the Estate should own half of the BLS portion). But this is not what BLS is claiming at all! From Tohme's letter he is saying that Michael gave the whole collection (bar 10) to him 'for you to keep, sell, copy, exhibit or use as you wish'.


The Tohme letter text includes: let me know when you have the art prints ready to sign' 'you have his blessing to market his art' 'Reproduction rights are owned by BLS and the Jackson-Strong Alliance' .
(So I think the hospital pictures could be prints with original MJ signatures...I wonder how many MJ signed?)


I expect that whatever the final legal interpretation by the Estate, BLS will claim that all of the public statements made about the ownership of these drawings (as a complete collection) and of the 'originality' of the selection given to the hospital are down to 'press misunderstandings'. eg In the 'KTLA' (?) TV/video clip the reporter clearly states that the drawings given to the hospital are originals, but the LAweekly article clearly states they are reproductions. I have not however heard what BLS himself says...which is why I was interested to see if anything was said by him in the planned TV/ radio interview the other night.

If the hospital drawings are prints with original signatures, then I guess both descriptions are partially correct (repro and original). I would think that an original MJ signature would comprise the major part of the value of any signed print, whether of BLS art (eg The Book) or of MJ art. Signed copies of 'The Book' are for sale from ebay (not sold by BLS but by a purchaser following the bank 'asset takeover') and the price differential between signed and unsigned copies is about 10Kgbp, I think.

Footnote: I'm not sure if the Jackson-Strong Alliance was ever dissolved...even after BLS' insolvency in appx 2005? You would have thought that the creditors then would go after everything they could, including assets in the partnership.
Click to expand...


Hmmmmmmmmm This was published where? Link? Tohme :puke: .... I would love to see this letter.
 
No where. Thome refuses to say or show any letter.in other words one doesnt excist
 
This is what was published; Tohme's letter is on the left.


LetterfromTohme.jpg
 
Rhilo said:
Probably is. This is the result when two crooks come together.
Click to expand...

I agree (that the veracity of the wording is in dispute) ....but I didn't mean the content, I meant the actual physical letter....as seemingly Tohme has refused to validate it.
 
I may be mistaken, but I think if Tohme had no knowledge of this letter, he would have been more vocal about it. Just refusing to validate it seems a bit "light" as a reaction, to me.

It would mean that the paper was stolen, and the signature was forged.

On the other hand, it was possible for Tohme to write this, even after june 09. Part of a deal between the 2. But then why refuse to validate it now then? Maybe they had a falling out? I believe there's a lot we don't know.
 
Yes, something is fishy. Either this is your letter or not. Why can't you say? Maybe because this letter was forged after Michael's death. Notice it took us 2 years to hear about this million dollar collection. Why did it take so long? Because Brett was thinking up a scheme, that is why. How come when the estate was looking for all assets, he did not say look Michael owns 50% of this artwork. Let us have it evaluated and put on the books? He never did, but now says he owns 100% and then later 50%. How come you do not know what percent you own, if there was a clear written agreement? Thome is doing the right thing. He knows that his actions could find him in a prison cell, so he is keeping a low profile. He is saying "hey, look at what is happening to Murray. I better keep a low profile here."
 
I thought there wasnt a letter.guess i havnt been keeping up whats the date on the letter.considering thome refuses to comfirm the letters legitmacy thats a warning sign on its own. Very similiar to thome and the auction mess.
 
**The Tohme letter text includes: let me know when you have the art prints ready to sign' **

If the originals were already signed, why would Michael sign the prints? Does this make sense?
 
No. It does not make sense. Unless they sign the back all over again. Now I understand why Brett had legal problems before--too much shams.
 
Maybe the reason why tohme isnt "validating" this letter is he is saving his butt and doesnt wanna be involved
 
^^That's what I think to, and if that is the case, then, there is something shady about the letter. If the letter was genuine, he would come forward willingly. The people who dealt with Michal that was not crooks, you can count on one hand!!!!
 
**The Tohme letter text includes: let me know when you have the art prints ready to sign' **

If the originals were already signed, why would Michael sign the prints? Does this make sense?[/QUOTE]

Yes, it does make sense, because an original signature is worth much more than a copy of a signature ie the one which would appear on a print of the artwork. So you can sell a print with an original signature for much more than a print with a copy signature (Maybe up to 10K gbp more each).

I wondered why some (Edit: at least one) of the 'hospital' prints ( I assume they are all repros of the drawings) have 2 signatures...one would be an original which MJ wrote on the print, and the other would be the copy signature reproduced with the drawing. The '6 million dollar' question is how many reproductions were printed before we lost MJ, and how many did he sign again.

This photo shows two signatures - bottom left and right-, presumably one a repro on the drawing and the other an original. The one on the left is just 'Michael', so I'm guessing this is the copy signature ...the one on the right is full....ie as you would sign if you were going to sell the art.

http://[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/202/lakidshosp27.jpg/][/URL]



and re-posting the link to the letter, as this version seems to open up to a larger, more readable size, clicking the + function. (at least on my computer!)
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/8323/unled55.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top