New book: Artworks of Michael Jackson

Unfortunatly the slimeballs such as weisner and co are relying on two sorts of fans.those that want to get one over on the estate because they dont like who they are or what they do for whatever reason regardless and the other fans who are so desperate to have anything mj that they dont think about the source of these books etc or dont know about the history or dont really care.

I for one certainly wont buy something that comes from scum like weisner and is clearly exploiting mj and making money off him. Its a total issue of morals and loyality to me.
 
When you die tomorrow your estate will take over your assets, debts, and business affairs. Thus, anyone that used to deal with you in life, will now have to deal with your estate. Essentially an estate is an entity acting on your behalf as a dead man. However, since your estate cannot do anything by itself as it is not a natural person, you will need to appoint executors to manage your estate. Think of it as setting up a company and appointing directors and executives. The difference though is that the estate will be for the benefit of the people you nominate through your will and testament as beneficiaries. whereas a company, while you are alive, is for your own benefit.

The exact same thing applies to MJ. No questions about that.

By supporting the unscrupulous exploitation of MJ copyrighted work i.e music, movies, artwork, and so on, you are harming him i.e his estate and beneficiaries since you are depriving him the opportunity to profit off his own work while he's dead. in order words, MJ is a slave working for free. NOBODY on this planet will ever agree to these conditions. NOBODY ever works for free. MJ has liabilities towards creditors, and responsibilities towards his children and beneficiaries. without money his can't attend to those from the grave.

you may have your beef against, the executors. that is your right. but it is WRONG and UNACCEPTABLE to promote or support the UNSCRUPULOUS exploitation of MJ work. That man for all his suffering, deserves at the very least to be compensated. you can't sing in one hand "Oh I'm a proud MJ fan" yet on the other hand deliberately promote the unscrupulous exploitation of his work. this is contradictory. I expect this sort of attitude from the haters. that's all they do. casing harm to MJ, his estate, and children. but why would a fan want to do that?

The people selling the book are keeping all the money in their pockets. Meanwhile MJ, nor his estate or children get NOTHING. Is that fair?

Well, Michael wasn't 'working for nothing' if the 'people selling the book are keeping all the money in their pockets'. The money has gone to the people selling the book. Katherine seems to agree with that. We don't know if members of Michael's family 'get nothing' from the book. We don't know if the publishers will continue to keep the money in their pockets, or spend it on something that Michael wanted the money spent on, like a gallery or museum. We all have our suspicions, but we don't know for sure. I thought MJ fans were not supposed to rush to judgement on other people....publishers of books or otherwise.
 
Well, Michael wasn't 'working for nothing' if the 'people selling the book are keeping all the money in their pockets'. The money has gone to the people selling the book. Katherine seems to agree with that. We don't know if members of Michael's family 'get nothing' from the book. We don't know if the publishers will continue to keep the money in their pockets, or spend it on something that Michael wanted the money spent on, like a gallery or museum. We all have our suspicions, but we don't know for sure. I thought MJ fans were not supposed to rush to judgement on other people....publishers of books or otherwise.

Why would they give money to KJ and MJ family if they own the rights to the artwork? This makes no sense.

The MJ estate is the legitimate and sole owner of his entire body of work. Therefore his estate should be compensated or at the very least consulted for this kind of project. As Ivy clearly explained, most just want to bypass the MJ estate as if it does not even exist, with the clear intention on cashing in all on MJ death.

These unscrupulous people who are coming to KJ such as BLS, Mann, Vaccaros, Dieter, Melissa Johnson (the heal the world foundation fraudster) are simply attempting to bribe an horribly confused woman, who knows nothing about MJ body of work and business affairs. in doing so, they are pitting her against the estate that is feeding her and taking care of her welfare, even as we speak.

I just don't understand why people here have such a huge problem with the MJ estate benefiting from MJ work. MJ left an estate behind so it can deal with his work and other matter while he's dead. plus, his estate belongs to his children. so if you are harming his estate, you are in fact harming his children.
 
Why would they give money to KJ and MJ family if they own the rights to the artwork? This makes no sense.

The MJ estate is the legitimate and sole owner of his entire body of work. Therefore his estate should be compensated or at the very least consulted for this kind of project. As Ivy clearly explained, most just want to bypass the MJ estate as if it does not even exist, with the clear intention on cashing in all on MJ death.

These unscrupulous people who are coming to KJ such as BLS, Mann, Vaccaros, Dieter, Melissa Johnson (the heal the world foundation fraudster) are simply attempting to bribe an horribly confused woman, who knows nothing about MJ body of work and business affairs. in doing so, they are pitting her against the estate that is feeding her and taking care of her welfare, even as we speak.

I just don't understand why people here have such a huge problem with the MJ estate benefiting from MJ work. MJ left an estate behind so it can deal with his work and other matter while he's dead. plus, his estate belongs to his children. so if you are harming his estate, you are in fact harming his children.

Why give money to Katherine and MJ's family?...to keep them 'on-side' with whatever the plans are..exhibition, gallery, sculpture, whatever. If Brett feels he has 100% ownership of the art (now under another financial agreement with Dieter), I guess he felt that he could make agreements with who whoever he wished...it all comes back to the Tohme letter. (and also any partnership agreement MJ made when setting up the 'Alliance').

The Estate may not want to take over the art, if it is more expensive (in terms of death tax owed on it ) than the Estate can make in financial returns. If fans are not interested in the book, then the estate may not feel that the art is worth acquiring. Or if acquired by the Estate , the art may immediately be sold privately as with the spare 'Bush' costumes that the Estate did not want. whatever happens, Michael's art is inevitable just another 'financial' asset to the estate. Maybe Brett has a more emotional connection with the art, that he cannot (rightly or wrongly) let go. Or maybe as with most things Michael, it is only about the money whichever way you look at it, and whoever is concerned with it. Which actually is rather sad.
 
Why give money to Katherine and MJ's family?...to keep them 'on-side' with whatever the plans are..exhibition, gallery, sculpture, whatever. If Brett feels he has 100% ownership of the art (now under another financial agreement with Dieter), I guess he felt that he could make agreements with who whoever he wished...it all comes back to the Tohme letter. (and also any partnership agreement MJ made when setting up the 'Alliance').

.

'On-side' with what? They don't need KJ et al if they are the legitimate owners of the artwork. the sole reason they are running to KJ is to offer her bribe. That so called partnership does not give rights to BTS to take unilateral decisions on the artwork. BLS still has to deal with the Estate, which now represents MJ interests in the partnership.


The Estate may not want to take over the art, if it is more expensive (in terms of death tax owed on it ) than the Estate can make in financial returns.
If fans are not interested in the book, then the estate may not feel that the art is worth acquiring. Or if acquired by the Estate , the art may immediately be sold privately as with the spare 'Bush' costumes that the Estate did not want.

The MJ estate clearly wants those properties of MJ back.
 
Last edited:
As much as I would like to have a book with all of his art in it, this is for me not the way to go. When I first saw the scans from this thread I was so excited about it and I was considering to purchase it. However, not long after that I decided against it.

First things first, Dieter Wiesner has been conspiring against MJ in many ways for years now and we know for a fact he's the man behind a lot of MJ rumors. Do we really want to help this guy extort Michael? Second, I didn't have anything against Brett before but it seems to me the fact that these drawings are among HIS posession is somewhat illegal. I find it very unlikely that Michael or any other artist for that would just give away his art to someone else (unless he hired him to handle them but in that case it still belongs to Michael). To me it's stolen property (until proven otherwise) and I am not going to support this kind of things. It can wait.
 
As much as I would like to have a book with all of his art in it, this is for me not the way to go. When I first saw the scans from this thread I was so excited about it and I was considering to purchase it. However, not long after that I decided against it.

First things first, Dieter Wiesner has been conspiring against MJ in many ways for years now and we know for a fact he's the man behind a lot of MJ rumors. Do we really want to help this guy extort Michael? Second, I didn't have anything against Brett before but it seems to me the fact that these drawings are among HIS posession is somewhat illegal. I find it very unlikely that Michael or any other artist for that would just give away his art to someone else (unless he hired him to handle them but in that case it still belongs to Michael). To me it's stolen property (until proven otherwise) and I am not going to support this kind of things. It can wait.

Interesting post and food for thought. Perhaps I will hold off and look further into this situation.

@ others, although I expected to be read the riot act, lectured and moralised to, let it be known that I've been an MJ fan for 30 years and ALWAYS supported Michael Jackson, first and foremost. I don't want to get one over on the estate or anyone, but I don't blindly agree with or support everything they do either and in quite a few instances they've been questionable, starting with the signing of the will.

If you want to build a case against this and educate people then don't jump down their throats in attack mode. All a big wall of words is going to do is intimidate people.Also, If morals and ethics come into it, then I think it's a little bit rich when speaking about the estate, but anyhow, I'll hold off on this book awhile.
 
The Estate may not want to take over the art, if it is more expensive (in terms of death tax owed on it ) than the Estate can make in financial returns.

We know that's not the case.

In Mann case Estate made copyright claims about the MJ-BLS art pieces used in Katherine's book. As Estate won the summary judgment and the case settled, they didn't decide on the art issue. However Estate made it's own copyright registration on the 5 pieces used in Katherine's book.

Several years later in Tohme lawsuit Estate again mentioned the art and claimed MJ's copyright couldn't be "gifted".

It's very clear that Estate is claiming copyright ownership on the art. If they weren't interested with the art, they wouldn't bring it up in lawsuits.

The only thing they didn't do is go directly after the art and BLS. We will see if this book release and/or Tohme case outcome will change that.
 
Originally, Michael and Brett Livingstone Strong, were going to sell Michael's art in limited edition prints to Michael's fan's, to raise money for a children's charity.

"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."

http://www.laweekly.com/arts/michael-jacksons-art-and-studio-revealed-for-the-first-time-2372079


Then the allegations of 1993, brought on by Evan "the dentist" Chandler. False allegations. Now, once again, Michael's' sketches has come to fruition. Originally, Brett Livingstone Strong, painted a portrait of Michael, to raise money for charity. Here is how one fan put it about Michael's painting:

This painting IS in the realm of crystal unicorns and dragon sculptures, but the point is not that it is worth 2.1 million on an open art market, but that a rich private person was willing to give $2.1 million for it, and Michael Jackson was willing to sit for it to earn that $2.1 million for charity. Not for "great art", not for personal gain. But for charity.

I wish that we heard from and saw a bit more of these charities, the sick children helped, the hospital wings opened, the burn units helped, with his incredibly unselfish donations from him: his Pepsi burn settlement, this painting, the various songs like Beat It that he gave over the profits to.

Now wouldn't that make a good NYTimes article or ten? A tiny photo of this rather schlocky painting, next to a large photo of the recipients of the $2.1 million, and an interview about the good it did?

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/in-michael-jackson-painting-he-wore-red-velvet/?_r=0

The Estate would like Brett Livingstone Strong to understand they have the copyright of Michael's artwork. That it wasn't exactly "gifted" to Brett Livingstone Strong by Thome Thome.


Michael-Jackson-The-Book1-220x161.jpg
 
Although some prefer not to accept this fact - and quite rudely so - the Estate does not have the copyright legally at this time. The Estate is currently in a legal dispute with Tohme. Depending on how a judge rules in that lawsuit, it will be decided if the Estate legally has a 50% copyright.

Therefore, Michael does not own his artwork at this time; not even 50%. BLS has 100%. Nothing will change that fact until the law decides.
 
They're are in dispute because the way those rights were "given" are highly questionable and more likely without Michael's consent and knowledge and HIS artwork was freaking stolen!
 
No errors in my statement. The ideal that Michael owns his artwork is incorrect.
 
Michael was the creator of these pieces of art but him and his heirs "somehow" managed to not being the legitimate owners of such collection despite being stolen. :doh: You must be proud every thread you post gets ruined.
 
Stating facts that are not acceptable to some clearly has a negative effect.
 
Michael does not own his artwork at this time; not even 50%. BLS has 100%.

This really isn't a selling point for this book.

Furthermore many people do differentiate between legal versus ethical, legit versus questionable and make up their minds without the need for what law decides.

Finally yes Estate has a recovery of property claim against Tohme and this artwork mentioned in lawsuit but it is hard to say if it be recoverable under that lawsuit or if that lawsuit would be limited to items allegedly in Tohme's possession. In other words any determination about these artwork might need beyond Tohme lawsuit.
 
If the fact is not acceptable, it may eventually be acknowledged; even if it is begrudgingly so.

Ah! Quite a number of guests in this thread. Should prove to be very interesting reading.
 
Should prove to be very interesting reading.

I agree.

Reading hell-bent attempts to justify Michael's art being owned by others or trying to portray it as something fans should accept with no questions has indeed been interesting.
 
Michael didn´t gift the art to Brett, that´s fact. Therefore it´s Michael´s (now his estate and children) art, but since it´s said that it´s gifted to one person they claim it´s theirs of course. But it´s not.
 
While it might be legally correct that BLS owns 100% of Michael's art work, and subsequently the book is sold legally, and that's fact, still doesn't make it morally or ethically right.
I'm quite dubious about this whole gifting scenario in the first place. I can think of no good reason for gifting the art work unless it was to protect it from a possible bankruptcy.
I hope the Estate continues the battle to get the rights back.
 
It is a bit sketchy. Dieter Wiesner's hand is involved in this book.

Following a battle covering three years in the German courts, finally that country’s highest court has ruled in Wiesner’s favor, giving him full rights to publish his book, not only in German, but in any language worldwide.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1849453/ne...llions-spent-to-block-it/#2tfJffEW8DjRVvFw.99

Dieter Wiesner is fighting the Estate of Michael Jackson and he did win, after 3 year's, one battle. Thome Thome handed over the legal right of Michael's artwork.
Brett Livingstone Strong was in financial trouble during that time period. As charitable as Michael was, one wonder's about Thome's "gifting" Michael's art to Brett Livingstone Strong. These sketches were boxed up after the 1993 allegations.

We do know that Michael was not pleased with Thome paying Julienne's Auction House $2 million for packing up his possession's at "Neverland," after Tom Barrack bought the note preventing "Neverland" from going to the auction block. That's why it is questionable about Thome's business decision concerning the artwork that had been boxed up. It is murky at best. I'm glad the Estate is working through the Court's to settle these dispute's. I hope they do get the copyright.
 
AliCat;4124928 said:
It is a bit sketchy. Dieter Wiesner's hand is involved in this book.

Following a battle covering three years in the German courts, finally that country’s highest court has ruled in Wiesner’s favor, giving him full rights to publish his book, not only in German, but in any language worldwide.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1849453/ne...llions-spent-to-block-it/#2tfJffEW8DjRVvFw.99

.

This is only a quote from Wiesner you take as a truth. It`s refering to his book "Die ganze Wahrheit". So far we are only seeing a German release and the announced sensational udates in his rerelease are not existing and again only a German version is existing.
 
This is only a quote from Wiesner you take as a truth. It`s refering to his book "Die ganze Wahrheit". So far we are only seeing a German release and the announced sensational udates in his rerelease are not existing and again only a German version is existing.

It's an example of a court battle that Wiesner won against the Estate of Michael Jackson. It's why the art book is probably being sold in Germany with the help of Dieter Wiesner, because of this particular court battle.
 
If its allowed and somebody needs help to get it: i am located in Germany and would help.
 
Back
Top