Okay...a collector purchases a commission for $X. Two
years later the collector sells the commission for $Y.

In this case, depending on the market, there is either a
profit or a loss on the sale of the art. So Y=X+-Z where Z
is the difference.

So, as mentioned, the creator of the work would get 10% of
Z. So, if Z is negative, due to whatever unfortunate
circumstance in the market, the creator would chip in for
the loss?

Oh stop.

The idea is to give a small kick back to the artist as a tip of the hat to the one who did the work. If you take a loss, right it off at tax time if you want to.

So, as mentioned, the creator of the work would get 10% of
Z. So, if Z is negative, due to whatever unfortunate
circumstance in the market, the creator would chip in for
the loss?

*************

The current owner of the art always has the choice NOT to sell the work at a loss. If they choose to do so, that's their own stupidity.

It just doesn't stand up to reason.

One could argue an artist can have rights to a published image being reprinted or reused as a tshirt or other promotional item depending on what ever contract he signed creating the piece-

But with original art one is selling the physical piece. It is a collectiable.the owner of the art has no right to publish it without making finichal restitution to the owner of the art but has full rights to sell it as a physical collectible.

I can totally understand an artists apprehension at art he or she might have sold now being much more valuable than when they sold it, but that is life.

Take Byrne' xmen work- true it (almost unforeseen at the time) ended up being worth A LOT more than what he sold it for but even the buyer at that time took a chance at its value and I am sure most who bought it before it had a high perceived value did so for love of the piece not for a profit..

Often art can go down in price or up....And of course the artist always has the right not to sell the art in the first place.

They have the choice to not sell it at all or wait and see if it becomes a sought after collectible before selling it.

Selling it for the cheap at one point and then wanting money later as it goes up in price strikes me as having your cake and eating it too.

••

If the work continues to generate income, why shouldn't the original creator of the piece be entitled to a portion of that income? How is this any different from an actor receiving royalties from a movie? No further work is done, yet each time the movie makes money, the actor gets a piece of it. Peggy Lee famously sued Disney (and WON!!) for additional royalties based on "new media" that did not exist when she did the original work.*

Once a piece of artwork is sold, it becomes a commodity, just like a movie. And just like a movie, it can continue to generate income. Dave Cockrum died in near poverty, while pages and covers from his X-MEN run continued to rise to astronomical prices. You really, really, really, really feel Dave was not deserving of even a tiny portion of that? Not even scraps from the table?

________

* And this is why the Disney contract (which I have seen and signed) now included a line to the effect that the work is copyright "in all media known and yet to be invented".

It just doesn't stand up to reason."

In the movies, royalties are a usage-based payment for ongoing use of a property. If I had purchased artwork from Dave Cockrum, and I put that artwork on a t-shirt and sell the shirts, he would be entitled a share. That would certainly be part of his rights as a creator.

••

Isn't resale of the physical artwork "usage"? Indeed, for many collectors, isn't that in fact the whole point? To buy a piece of art and resell it, later, for a profit?

++

Let's reverse the idea for a moment of audacity. Say I purchase a piece of artwork for $1000 and then the artist invests that $1000 into the stock market. Now, the artist would not have had that $1000 if not for my purchase. I was his benefactor. Over the course of 30 years, the artist receives a realized 10% return on the money I gave him so when he cashes out, he receives $17,449.

••

That's not a reversal. That's absurdity. What the artists DOES with such money as s/he receives for his/her work has NOTHING to do with where that money came from.