Dieter Wiesner-Channel on YouTube

[Tygger]

I don't know whether BLS / Weisner have said what they plan to do with the money raised from the sale of this book. I understood that BLS had acknowledged at some point that MJ intended income from these drawings to be used for childrens' health care?

I appreciate your comments about the legal issues and I agree the auction was most likely for reprints. It seems the legal issues have been resolved therefore; there is no legal dilemma for a fan in purchasing this book.

I am awaiting my copy and am looking forward to it.

I have no clue what BLS/Wiesner will do with the profits. I personally do not have a concern. I understand others may have however; monies from other projects utilizing Michael's name have not gone to charitable endeavors.

Joe is in it too.

Simply untrue and incorrect.

It is truly unfortunate that some fans would dismiss this book that includes Michael's artwork, his actual personal input. At least there is no fabrications here regarding Michael's life, Michael's character, and Michael's art.

 

[myosotis]

I appreciate your comments about the legal issues and I agree the auction was most likely for reprints. It seems the legal issues have been resolved therefore; there is no legal dilemma for a fan in purchasing this book.

I am awaiting my copy and am looking forward to it.

I have no clue what BLS/Wiesner will do with the profits. I personally do not have a concern. I understand others may have however; monies from other projects utilizing Michael's name have not gone to charitable endeavors.


Simply untrue and incorrect.

It is truly unfortunate that some fans would dismiss this book that includes Michael's artwork, his actual personal input. At least there is no fabrications here regarding Michael's life, Michael's character, and Michael's art.

But this book (as you rightly say) includes Michael's own work. If he created this art with the intention that the collection would be used for charitable fundraising purposes, then that intention should be honoured.

 

[Tygger]

But this book (as you rightly say) includes Michael's own work. If he created this art with the intention that the collection would be used for charitable fundraising purposes, then that intention should be honoured.

If we honored Michael's wishes, fans would not be allowed to enjoy the Michael CD or the Xscape CD because they would not exist.

I do not believe we can choose when to honor Michael's wishes. Therefore, I have no issue with how profits are disbursed by BLS/Wiesner. If this project was an Estate project, the profits would not have gone to charities either. Profits would have only gone to charity if Michael decided to release his art collection to the public in some manner.

 

[myosotis]

If we honored Michael's wishes, fans would not be allowed to enjoy the Michael CD or the Xscape CD because they would not exist.

I do not believe we can choose when to honor Michael's wishes. Therefore, I have no issue with how profits are disbursed by BLS/Wiesner. If this project was an Estate project, the profits would not have gone to charities either. Profits would have only gone to charity if Michael decided to release his art collection to the public in some manner.

I understood that Michael willed a proportion of his estate to be used for charitable purposes. I was under the impression that once the Estate (legacy) is out of probate, the Estate (executors) will be able to use the relevant proportion of legacy monies (and potentially profits from Michael's art?) for charitable purposes in accordance with Michael's wishes?

Michael's family / Katherine seem to have been honouring this at least to some extent, as the MJ drawings/ prints that I have previously seen online have been consigned to charity auctions or given to LA children's hospital.

From the Family Trust document:
The first 20% of Michael Jackson's estate is to be left to one or more children's charities selected by a committee consisting of Jackson's mother, Katherine Jackson, and Co-Trustees John Branca and John McClain. The committee can choose among existing charities or establish one or more charities in order to satisfy this bequest.

 

[Tygger]

Myosotis, I understand as well that Michael’s estate cannot be charitable until the estate is not under probate.

My point is: if the Estate released this book, the funds would not go to charity so, why place such a demand on BLS/Wiesner?

I understand some fans may have concerns regarding the proceeds of this book, however; some fans have dismissed the book outright when it is one of a handful that actually has Michael’s personal input only because of the author(s).

The message is the value for me, not the messenger and that is why I purchased the book after knowing legal issues have been resolved.

This is similar to some fans reactions to Boteach and his books with Michael, Honoring The Child’s Spirit as well as, The MJ Tapes. The former book in particular is not as highly regarded by some fans as say, Cascio’s book which includes fabricated tales. This despite the documentation of Michael's lengthy discussion on child-rearing, etc.

 

[Anytime]

I got the artbook "Kunstwerke von Michael Jackson" a couple of days ago and it is, like myosotis already mentioned, a collection of the works Michael created with BLS.

The first round about 40 pages of the book contain background information about the "Jackson-Strong-Alliance", how it came about, what inspired them, the two collections they put together.
The next 120 pages depict Michael's artwork in a way, that on the right side of a double-page you can see the drawing while on the left side there is a bit of info, like the size, the year and what Michael wanted to express or why he did it.

To give you an impression: The book also contains some of the Drawings that had been sold at the Children's Hospital charity auction in LA in 2011:






(Sadly the book is not complete. Some drawings are missing, for example a really nice one of an airship, which was one of the 8 drawings that were put up for the auction in 2011 and now belongs to the Dittmar Collection. Dittmar did an exhibition last summer and among many other items that drawing was displayed.)

 

[ivy]

They don't need to be out of probate. They need to determine the Estate value - solve the dispute with IRS - and then they would donate 20% of it to charities before paying the estate taxes.

Perhaps the more important question is, if this was an alliance between MJ and BLS, why is the only ones profiting from this book sale is BLS and Wiesner? Where's MJ's share?

 

[LastTear]

They don't need to be out of probate. They need to determine the Estate value - solve the dispute with IRS - and then they would donate 20% of it to charities before paying the estate taxes.

Perhaps the more important question is, if this was an alliance between MJ and BLS, why is the only ones profiting from this book sale is BLS and Wiesner? Where's MJ's share?

Exactly! And personally for me there is a vast difference between Michaels estate profiting financially and the likes of Weisner.

 

[AliCat]

The book sounds like what was originally intended by Michael, in cooperation with working with BLS.

In 1993, everything blew up. At the time, Jackson and Strong were both on the board of Big Brothers of Los Angeles (now known as Big Brothers Big Sisters), a chapter of the national youth mentoring organization established in L.A. by Walt Disney and Meredith Willson. They had planned out a fundraising campaign involving Jackson's art. Strong explains, "We thought that if we would market [his art] in limited edition prints to his fans, he could support the charities that he wanted to, rather than have everybody think that he was so wealthy he could afford to finance everybody." When the pedophilia scandal erupted, Disney put a freeze on the project. The artwork stayed put, packed away from public eyes in storage crates.

As of 2011 "Strong and the Jackson estate will slowly reveal more works as time passes, and an exhibit is tentatively planned for L.A.'s City Hall. "

"We'll leave you with Strong's own description of Jackson at work, during the time where they shared a studio in a house in Pacific Palisades:


He was in a very light and happy mood most of the time. He would have the oldies on, and sometimes he'd hear some of his Jackson Five songs. He'd kind of move along to that, but most of the time he would change it and listen to a variety of songs. He liked classical music. His inspiration to create was that he loved life, and wanted to express his love of life in some of these simple compositions.
I came to the studio one day, and we had a Malamute. I came into the house, and I heard this dog barking and thought, Wow, I wonder what that is. I go into the kitchen, and I couldn't help but laugh when I see Michael up in the pots and pans in the middle of the center island. He's holding a pen and paper and the dog is running around the island and barking at him, and he says, "He wants to play! He wants to play!" He's laughing, and I'm laughing about it as I'm thinking to myself, "I'm wondering how long he's been up there."
Michael Jackson's dedication to art: so strong that he'll end up perched on a kitchen island.
http://www.laweekly.com/arts/michael-jacksons-art-and-studio-revealed-for-the-first-time-2372079

 

[Tygger]

They don't need to be out of probate. They need to determine the Estate value - solve the dispute with IRS - and then they would donate 20% of it to charities before paying the estate taxes.

Thus, the Estate cannot make charitable contributions due to the (poor) decisions of the estate planners.

Perhaps the more important question is, if this was an alliance between MJ and BLS, why is the only ones profiting from this book sale is BLS and Wiesner? Where's MJ's share?

What does the law say about Michael’s share? This book is being published legally, correct?

If so, in my view, the important and very simple question for fans would be if they want to own reproductions of Michael's art or not.

 

[ivy]

Thus, the Estate cannot make charitable contributions due to the (poor) decisions of the estate planners.

or due to over zealous IRS.

What does the law say about Michael’s share? This book is being published legally, correct?

I think it would depend on what you think about the situation. Do you think Michael formed an alliance, hold on to his rights for decades but shortly before his death he gave away his rights through someone with a power of attorney and not even his own signature?

If so, in my view, the important and very simple question for fans would be if they want to own reproductions of Michael's art or not.

I imagine everyone would want reproductions of Michael's art but depending on the above I posted it might not be that simple for some fans.

 

[Tygger]

or due to over zealous IRS.

The IRS is acting in response to the estate planners decisions.

I think it would depend on what you think about the situation. Do you think Michael formed an alliance, hold on to his rights for decades but shortly before his death he gave away his rights through someone with a power of attorney and not even his own signature?

Again, what does the law say about your question? This book is being published legally, correct?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

I guess some will buy anything with mjs name on it even if it comes from people like weisner and others. Hook line and sinker comes to mind ??

 

[LastTear]

or due to over zealous IRS.



I think it would depend on what you think about the situation. Do you think Michael formed an alliance, hold on to his rights for decades but shortly before his death he gave away his rights through someone with a power of attorney and not even his own signature?



I imagine everyone would want reproductions of Michael's art but depending on the above I posted it might not be that simple for some fans.

I find it curious that the conspiracists amongst the fan community have no issue with the bolded! Selective thinking at its finest.

 

[myosotis]

I got the artbook "Kunstwerke von Michael Jackson" a couple of days ago and it is, like myosotis already mentioned, a collection of the works Michael created with BLS.

The first round about 40 pages of the book contain background information about the "Jackson-Strong-Alliance", how it came about, what inspired them, the two collections they put together.
The next 120 pages depict Michael's artwork in a way, that on the right side of a double-page you can see the drawing while on the left side there is a bit of info, like the size, the year and what Michael wanted to express or why he did it.


(Sadly the book is not complete. Some drawings are missing, for example a really nice one of an airship, which was one of the 8 drawings that were put up for the auction in 2011 and now belongs to the Dittmar Collection. Dittmar did an exhibition last summer and among many other items that drawing was displayed.)

I had understood that the drawings that were auctioned for charity were actually prints? I would be very surprised and disappointed (if actual drawings were auctioned) if the copyrights were sold with the drawings at the charity auction, as this would mean that no prints would be able to be sold, as per Michael's wish.

Even if Mr Dittmar did buy both original drawing and its copyright, I would be surprised if Mr Dittmar refused to allow reproduction of his drawing in the book. I wonder if anyone knows whether he was asked? I'm thinking (hoping) that the lack of some of the drawings being reproduced in the book is solely / mainly for reasons of editorial decision perhaps to keep the book cost accessible to more fans?

 

[ivy]

Again, what does the law say about your question? This book is being published legally, correct?

I already answered this albeit not directly. You sure can read between the lines. It may or may not be published legally depending on people's take on the Tohme - BLS situation.

Also let me ask this : for the ones who have the book. Is there any mention of the Estate's name / approval on the book?

 

[Anytime]

I had understood that the drawings that were auctioned for charity were actually prints? I would be very surprised and disappointed (if actual drawings were auctioned) if the copyrights were sold with the drawings at the charity auction, as this would mean that no prints would be able to be sold, as per Michael's wish.

I always thought the same. But I saw it at the exhibition and it was framed, behind glass and , of course, no one was allowed to touch it, but you could get very close to it and it looked like it was the original and not a print.
But who knows? It sometimes is hard to tell.
Dittmar published a small book about his collection and the drawing is in there. The photo has a watermark and a copyright symbol next to it. The description of this item doesn't say it's a print. In fact it suggests that it's the real thing.

Even if Mr Dittmar did buy both original drawing and its copyright, I would be surprised if Mr Dittmar refused to allow reproduction of his drawing in the book. I wonder if anyone knows whether he was asked? I'm thinking (hoping) that the lack of some of the drawings being reproduced in the book is solely / mainly for reasons of editorial decision perhaps to keep the book cost accessible to more fans?

I guess that's the reason why. It's mentioned in the book that Michael did 25 drawings alone of presidents of the US. Not all of them are depicted in the book.
It's mentioned that some paintings were given away by Michael, some were in his house, some were destroyed by him because he wasn't satisfied and some just got lost. But many remained in the JSA-atelier.

I already answered this albeit not directly. You sure can read between the lines. It may or may not be published legally depending on people's take on the Tohme - BLS situation.

Also let me ask this : for the ones who have the book. Is there any mention of the Estate's name / approval on the book?

No, the Estate's name is not mentioned.
The book has Katherine's approval.

Just on page 30 it says something in the regard of: " Together with Brett-Livingstone, his (Michael's) mother, his children and other family members
enthusiastically promote the legacy of Jackson's artwork and support the creation of a memorial place for Michael Jackson.
The family and the trustees of his estate had visited the JSA-atelier in the past to see the paintings and to render an opinion about the plans for an offical memorial place...."

 

[myosotis]

I always thought the same. But I saw it at the exhibition and it was framed, behind glass and , of course, no one was allowed to touch it, but you could get very close to it and it looked like it was the original and not a print.
But who knows? It sometimes is hard to tell.
Dittmar published a small book about his collection and the drawing is in there. The photo has a watermark and a copyright symbol next to it. The description of this item doesn't say it's a print. In fact it suggests that it's the real thing.

I guess that's the reason why. It's mentioned in the book that Michael did 25 drawings alone of presidents of the US. Not all of them are depicted in the book.
It's mentioned that some paintings were given away by Michael, some were in his house, some were destroyed by him because he wasn't satisfied and some just got lost. But many remained in the JSA-atelier.

No, the Estate's name is not mentioned.
The book has Katherine's approval.

Just on page 30 it says something in the regard of: " Together with Brett-Livingstone, his (Michael's) mother, his children and other family members
enthusiastically promote the legacy of Jackson's artwork and support the creation of a memorial place for Michael Jackson.
The family and the trustees of his estate had visited the JSA-atelier in the past to see the paintings and to render an opinion about the plans for an official memorial place...."

Thank you; the further information about the 'Dittmar' drawing is very helpful, and I agree that it can be very difficult with modern printing technology to know if a piece of art is original or printed, especially once it is behind glass.

I hope that profits from the book will not be used to create 'a memorial to Michael' if that was not his wish for the use of the income from the drawings. Also, I understand that the 'memorial' design we saw with Michael's art in the 'storage hangar' was created by BLS, and so he may have a financial interest in creating it. A large full-size sculpture like that would be likely to cost many tens of thousands of dollars. There are much better uses for the money in charitable projects.

 

[Tygger]

ElusiveMoonwalker, I do hope you are aware why Michael’s name is on this particular book.

Last Tear, are you aware this book has been published legally? Would you consider those in the legal system to contain persons who you prefer to label as conspiracists and selective thinkers??? Those people clearly do not have an issue with the bolded statements you requoted.

Ivy, it was a simple yes or no question that you are clearly uncomfortable answering directly. Others do not have to agree or accept that this book is being published legally however; it IS being published legally.

Because it is being published legally, Wiesner is not legally obligated to make mention of the Estate or seek approval of the Estate.

I hope that profits from the book will not be used to create 'a memorial to Michael' if that was not his wish for the use of the income from the drawings. Also, I understand that the 'memorial' design we saw with Michael's art in the 'storage hangar' was created by BLS, and so he may have a financial interest in creating it. A large full-size sculpture like that would be likely to cost many tens of thousands of dollars. There are much better uses for the money in charitable projects.

I remember a large statue of Michael being shown by BLS and I cannot search for it at this time. Please correct me if I am incorrect, however; I do not remember that being a memorial but, more of a theme park or such.

 

[ivy]

It IS being published legally.

only if you believe MJ gave away all of his rights on a venture called "alliance" decades later through a power of attorney.

Plus other stuff Tohme did with his power of attorney was challenged and overturned even during MJ's lifetime (2009 Julien's auction that Michael got cancelled)

seek approval of the Estate.

how many times have we seen people do stuff claiming they don't need the approval of Estate only to find themselves in a lawsuit lasting several years?

Plus as far as Wiesner and German courts goes, I personally wouldn't make such definitive statements. Foreign courts aren't as public as the US courts. We weren't aware that Estate sued Wiesner in regards to his first book. We only learned about it after the lawsuit ended and only because Artlima mentioned it. This book also could have been resulted in a lawsuit challenging the legality of the release and/or ownership/copyright of the drawings. We can't be sure.

That being said, I get it. You want the book and it's all fine. What I find interesting is that for a person who cares about Michael's assets, you have no problem with all of his rights on his art being given to an unrelated person. But that's fine too.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, if the Estate has already attempted to prevent this book’s release through a non-U.S. legal system, would you agree the Estate was not successful as the book has been released?

That being said, I get it. You want the book and it's all fine. What I find interesting is that for a person who cares about Michael's assets, you have no problem with all of his rights on his art being given to an unrelated person. But that's fine too.

What is true purpose of these comments? I am not only member in this thread who has purchased the book. Are you willing to suggest the others who have already purchased the book are as you are attempting to label me, solely above?

From my view, this book has been legally published and there is no reason why any fan should harbor guilt or have other fans attempt to place guilt on them because they want to own reproductions of Michael's art in a quality format.

If the Estate would like to pursue legal action then, we can discuss. Until then, I would suggest not attempting to prevent other fans from purchasing this book only because the Estate does not have control of Michael's artistic output in this situation and has no legal right to the book's proceeds.

Adding: what is your meaning unrelated person? Are suggesting you would prefer these rights to be awarded to a Jackson?

 

[myosotis]

ElusiveMoonwalker, I do hope you are aware why Michael’s name is on this particular book.

Last Tear, are you aware this book has been published legally? Would you consider those in the legal system to contain persons who you prefer to label as conspiracists and selective thinkers??? Those people clearly do not have an issue with the bolded statements you requoted.

Ivy, it was a simple yes or no question that you are clearly uncomfortable answering directly. Others do not have to agree or accept that this book is being published legally however; it IS being published legally.

Because it is being published legally, Wiesner is not legally obligated to make mention of the Estate or seek approval of the Estate.


I remember a large statue of Michael being shown by BLS and I cannot search for it at this time. Please correct me if I am incorrect, however; I do not remember that being a memorial but, more of a theme park or such.

Here are some photos from the original MJ drawings discussion thread. Firstly a photo that shows that MJ worked with BLS in some capacity over very many years, starting at least with the creation of the Brotman Hospital memorial plaque.

The following photos show BLS's planned MJ memorial statue, and next there is a link to a BLS page of designs for a 'Crystal city' in Dubai, which includes both a design for a very similar memorial to a Sheikh (reminiscent of the Albert memorial in London), and also a design for 'Gates of Paradise'.

http://[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/p3HavLPmj][/URL]

http://[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/p787g0CYj][/URL]


http://[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/hlItqjLZj][/URL]

http://[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/paJtoTXZj][/URL]

http://www.blsart.com/dubai/city_of_unity_buildings.pdf


http://[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/p7wUElzfj][/URL]

http://[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/padBdn95j][/URL]
John Lennon Statue by BLS, which appears to have been created in the same hangar...or maybe one next door...?

http://[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/pa8ie5wIj][/URL]

http://[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/p86oJHETj][/URL]
Tribute to Marilyn 1985 by BLS
https://www.artbrokerage.com/Brett-Livingstone-Strong/Tribute-to-Marilyn-Monroe-Cast-Paper-31421

http://[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/pbx6iZiWj][/URL]

 

[ivy]

Ivy, if the Estate has already attempted to prevent this book’s release through a non-U.S. legal system, would you agree the Estate was not successful as the book has been released?

No, as you know almost all copyright lawsuits filed after the item gets released. And it takes a long time to resolve. Success or not is determined by the outcome of the lawsuit and not by release of an item.

Example: Lawsuits against Mann, Vaccaro and even Wiesner was filed after they infringed copyrights and their items were out on the market during the legal process. Only years later it was determined if the legal attempts were successful or not.

If the Estate would like to pursue legal action then, we can discuss.

As I said before, how do you know they didn't?

Personally every time these books don't get released in USA, only gets released in Germany and even then have limited availability, I get suspicious - suspicious that either a legal dispute going on or avoiding US to avoid a legal dispute.

Adding: what is your meaning unrelated person?

Simple, I meant BLS

Are suggesting you would prefer these rights to be awarded to a Jackson?

I prefer Michael's rights on his invaluable art stays at Michael.

and

I would suggest not attempting to prevent other fans from purchasing this book

Let's not be dramatic. Nothing I write here can prevent anyone from doing whatever they want. If anyone wants to buy the book, they will. I would suggest not attempting to prevent others freedom of speech.

 

[ChrisC]

In my view, this book is beautiful, and would be a must -have for all MJ fans, subject to their views on the 'ownership' of the drawings.

I only disagree with the review above in one respect. I believe that this book is intended to be a collection of the works that Michael created with Brett Livingstone Strong, and not a comprehensive overview of every sketch and doodle ever made by Michael ( and many seen on the internet are faked sketches). I don't think this book loses anything at all by not including Michael's doodles or works in other styles / created at other times. If there are other drawings created with Brett, they may have been personal gifts to other people, and it may not have been possible to include them here. (Edit: I've counted 72 full page full-colour reproductions, and there are several more drawings and sketches reproduced in smaller sizes). Altogether, I think this book would be very hard to improve upon, in its current content and format, except that it would be good to have versions in other major languages including English, French, Italian, Japanese, etc etc.

I really hope that the ownership of these drawings will soon be legally determined - I appreciate that the book may be controversial for this reason. It is hard to separate appreciation for the book with 'discomfort' at the underlying legal process.

(The book I am referring to is 'Kunstwerke von Michael Jackson')

I appreciate this tip. I too purchased this book and I am thrilled with it. It's a beautiful book and I'm so happy to finally have a collection of Michael's art to look through.

I'm sorry to hear about this legal wrangling but to me the material covered in the book is too precious not to snap up. I, of course, fully understand and respect the stance other fans may take on this too. It is incredibly unfortunate that the art has become caught in the crossfire.

 

[Annita]

This is from a new Wiesner-interview:

He has made mistakes in his life, such as his transformation from a black to a white. He wanted to show that this is all just paint that you can change. And he said that he would have been nothing as a black artist. But he wouldn`t have done it a second time. Nevertheless, he was pleased with himself and at peace. He wanted to live.

http://www.bzbasel.ch/basel/basel-s...songs-hoere-ich-immer-noch-taeglich-129744494

 

[Dianne]

Michael would have been nothing as a black artist? That is so true.
I remember him breaking records left and right all while he was already being pale as alabaster.

Oh wait...



Seriously though, I gotta give MJ credit where credit is due. Apparently he was soooo awesome at hiding vitiligo, that people who worked with him, lived with him, shared the same restrooms as him never got a clue. Wiesner is not the first. Kudos Mike, not their fault they can't face evidence when you got them fooled so good. :smilerolleyes: LMAO

 

[barbee0715]

^Funny. no sadly, Weisner is not the first and only. It seems impossible that people can really be that stupid.

 

[terrell]

Michael would have been nothing as a black artist? That is so true.
I remember him breaking records left and right all while he was already being pale as alabaster.

Oh wait...



Seriously though, I gotta give MJ credit where credit is due. Apparently he was soooo awesome at hiding vitiligo, that people who worked with him, lived with him, shared the same restrooms as him never got a clue. Wiesner is not the first. Kudos Mike, not their fault they can't face evidence when you got them fooled so good. :smilerolleyes: LMAO

Who said MJ would be nothing as a black artist? That is so stupid. MJ was black. And what shade do anyone think MJ was when he broke record with OFF THE WALL and THRILLER? He was darker. It was when he started turning light when some things went haywire. So whoever made that statment is silly.

 

[Dianne]

Who said MJ would be nothing as a black artist? That is so stupid. MJ was black. And what shade do anyone think MJ was when he broke record with OFF THE WALL and THRILLER? He was darker. It was when he started turning light when some things went haywire. So whoever made that statment is silly.

According to Wiesner, Michael himself did. LOL! See Annita's post.
I read the linked interview myself to see if it was taken out of context or whatever. Annita translated it just the way it was printed.

 

[barbee0715]

Yes, Weisner is not just silly. If he legitimately thought that way, can you imagine what he was like as manager? Moron.
Although sometimes I think other people are no better-Quincy among others have been deluded.