Dr. Mengele Passport Found

[birdie]

Comments up

Interestingly, the San Diego paper that ran the story here:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...?#article-copy

appears to have disabled the "Comments" section on the story. Previously, there were at least half a dozen comments.

How could that have happened?

Comments are up when I go there....

[alexanderautogr]

Comments are up when I go there....

Then they must have logged my IP number and shut me out of comments. So much for freedom of expression.

[tanker]

It is not that we hate CG. What we HATE is the the seemingly unethical business practices he employs. I am sure he is not the only one of us that has ever bought an item and then found out later it was fake or altered.It is his arrogance and unwillingness to concede that is a turn off.When I was collectign, I collected for history and the fun of colelcting. Now it seems liekit has to be a full time job for collectors to weed out all the fakes and crooked dealers. I liked collecting and hate to see it be portrayed in the light is is being done at this time. Ron

I just can not believe the Craig Gottlieb haters on here. They all act like Craig Gottlieb knows the document is fake and was trying to sell it on WAF. I don't remember seeing it for sale.
mikeburch

[beufighter]

I just can not believe the Craig Gottlieb haters on here. They all act like Craig Gottlieb knows the document is fake and was trying to sell it on WAF. I don't remember seeing it for sale.
mikeburch

Ahh a craig crony the members here are fed up of being treated like crap but craig notice how he is hiding away not answering questions if it was any other person we would be saying the same things

[muzrub]

Hi,

I'll be clear, I have no dog in this fight--- none whatsoever. I wish everyone concerned the best, including Craig who I've had contact with through his auction. I have no complaints or grudges concerning Craig, in fact every dealing I've had with Craig has concluded to everybody's satisfaction.

That said, I saw that Craig's wiki page was mentioned several times, however I don't think a screen shot has been added to the thread. So, I decided to add a screen shot for future readers.

My only gripe about this thread concern the anti Jewish comments made earlier about the movie, The Boys from Brazil. Those type of comments degrade us all and lower our hobby.

Best wishes to all.

Cheers,

Jamie.

[11C]

Then they must have logged my IP number and shut me out of comments. So much for freedom of expression.

Someone should suggest that newspaper do an expose on the dealings of fake Third Reich material. Craig would get all the attention he deserves.

[Thorsten B.]

And still nothing about Vera´s fate...

[alexanderautogr]

Someone should suggest that newspaper do an expose on the dealings of fake Third Reich material. Craig would get all the attention he deserves.

There's an old expression: "You don't sh_t where you eat".

I know first hand that press doesn't mean a lot. Those in the business who do the right thing, even when they've done wrong (unintentionally), ultimately survive and often thrive. Those who feed on the gullible and naive ultimately get their just desserts. And I am insinuating nothing - only perhaps making a suggestion.

[Larry Davis]

I’ve been following one of the numerous threads on photograph copyright/ownership in the Photos and Paper Items Forum http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=714534 and have been wondering how copyright applies to documents such as the one under discussion.

It has been stated that once a passport has been cancelled it belongs to the person to whom it was originally issued, correct? What about the image on the passport--does copyright rest with the original person or institution that took the image? And if the cancelled passport is now the legal property of the person to whom it was issued, would it not upon the death of the original owner, become the property of the estate of that person and, if so, would not the estate and subsequent beneficiaries not be entitled to sue for possession of the document or at least a piece of the pie? Especially if the item has become so high profile and with a sizable monetary evaluation attached to it?

So who holds copyright on the item? The dealer who purchased it and hopes to realise a substantial return, the estate of the family of the original owner, the photographer or the person who originally created the document in the first place?

As popular thinking goes as to ownership of an original work, be it a photograph, magazine article, novel, artwork etc., the copyright rests with the original creator of the item or the original owner who commissioned it.

So who really owns it, and who should benifit? Exactly who is entitled to remuneration? Something to consider.

[kiwitedferny]

I make a comment, very early in the piece, saying that I hoped the passport was legit. I also commented that there was a lot of 'bitchiness' in the remarks about Mr Gotlieb. Seems I was very wrong about things!

I like to believe the best about folks, and thought that perhaps Mr G was simply a young pup, trying to break into the 'Big Boy's' league and that his exuberance and ambition had alienated him from the more conservative, established dealers.

However....my email inbox is FULL of warnings and horror stories from my dagger contacts about giving the guy a wide berth. ANd these are from guys who are reasonable, generous, and enthusiastic lifetime collectors. I already knew enough about his history not to consider purchasing from him...

My point is, that if the 'grapevine' opinion is so adamant that the man is in the 'crook', not merely 'creep' category of dealer, and that there is a substantial track record of dubious deals and erroneous judgement calls, then the WAF principals really do need to give serious consideration to putting some distance between the forum and Mr G. I didn't know the guy had an ownership stake in WAF. Have to say - that makes me uneasy.

Just my 2 cents. I'm now going to wander over to a few of the other forums to see if there's any commentary about collateral damage to WAF. I hope not. And if anyone who called 'BS' on this matter does get tossed, then it's probably time to consider migrating to another board.

Other than that, I hope everyone is having a nice day!

[11C]

I’ve been following one of the numerous threads on photograph copyright/ownership in the Photos and Paper Items Forum http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=714534 and have been wondering how copyright applies to documents such as the one under discussion.

It has been stated that once a passport has been cancelled it belongs to the person to whom it was originally issued, correct? What about the image on the passport--does copyright rest with the original person or institution that took the image? And if the cancelled passport is now the legal property of the person to whom it was issued, would it not upon the death of the original owner, become the property of the estate of that person and, if so, would not the estate and subsequent beneficiaries not be entitled to sue for possession of the document or at least a piece of the pie? Especially if the item has become so high profile and with a sizable monetary evaluation attached to it?

So who holds copyright on the item? The dealer who purchased it and hopes to realise a substantial return, the estate of the family of the original owner, the photographer or the person who originally created the document in the first place?

As popular thinking goes as to ownership of an original work, be it a photograph, magazine article, novel, artwork etc., the copyright rests with the original creator of the item or the original owner who commissioned it.

So who really owns it, and who should benifit? Exactly who is entitled to remuneration? Something to consider.

The IRS could answer that for you as passports fall under their control.....BINGO, maybe it time for the IRS to investigate the transfer of a certain phony passport. They will at least follow the money trail. I'm sure Craig would welcome an audit of his business.

[Belten]

Exactly who is entitled to remuneration?

Either Kinko's or Xerox.

[alexanderautogr]

I understand that the owner of this website may be viewing posts in this thread. I know that he will be fair-handed and do what is best for the collectors and professionals as a whole who support this informative site.





BTW - this place cleared out like Typhoid Mary was serving dinner!

[Larry Davis]

"The IRS could answer that for you as passports fall under their control.....BINGO, maybe it time for the IRS to investigate the transfer of a certain phony passport. They will at least follow the money trail. I'm sure Craig would welcome an audit of his business. "

No. As I understand once a passport has been canceled by the country of origin, it is no longer under the jurisdiction of the issuing body; it now belongs as personal property, to the person to whom it was originally issued.
And the IRS is an American ministry and the document in question is “purported” to be Italian. And no one has used the document to entre into the United State illegally. So I do not think that the IRS would have an interest, but then again I could be wrong in that assumption, I have little or no knowledge of the American legal system.


"BTW - this place cleared out like Typhoid Mary was serving dinner!"


What's on the menue?<O</O<!-- / message -->

[alexanderautogr]

"The IRS could answer that for you as passports fall under their control.....BINGO, maybe it time for the IRS to investigate the transfer of a certain phony passport. They will at least follow the money trail. I'm sure Craig would welcome an audit of his business. "

No. As I understand once a passport has been canceled by the country of origin, it is no longer under the jurisdiction of the issuing body; it now belongs as personal property, to the person to whom it was originally issued.
And the IRS is an American ministry and the document in question is “purported” to be Italian. And no one has used the document to entre into the United State illegally. So I do not think that the IRS would have an interest, but then again I could be wrong in that assumption, I have little or no knowledge of the American legal system. <O></O>
<!-- / message -->

Actually, it's INS, which is now ICE, part of Fatherland, I mean Homeland Security. They would have no involvement in a foreign passport.

The commercial use of the image would be controlled by the estate, if there is one. The possession and sale of AN image is perfectly legal, otherwide I'd never be able to sell signed photos of Marilyn Monroe, Mickey Mantle, John Lennon, etc.