| Author |
|
Joel Biske
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 January 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 761
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 1:07pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Obviously, this is not legislation which could be applied retroactively. All those X-MEN pages of mine, for instance, which routinely sell for tens of thousands of dollars, would net me nothing. This law could be applied only to future transactions. With this in mind, a structure could be established to answer all your questions.
___
Assuming that they could overcome all of the other issues with making something like this doable, it seems you WOULD net from any future transactions involving the artwork. Why wouldn't you? If they could, in fact, figure out legislation for it and a Heritage auction now had to include a fee to the artist, whoever created the art would then get royalties off of any future sales.
Or was I misunderstanding what you were saying.
I think its just another thing to keep a proposal like this from succeeding.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132622
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 1:46pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Assuming that they could overcome all of the other issues with making something like this doable, it seems you WOULD net from any future transactions involving the artwork. Why wouldn't you?•• The law was not in effect when I made the original sale. This would apply only going forward.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 3:57pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Your attitude is a big ol' FUCK YOU to artists everywhere. Nice.
No it isn't, I sold a bear for 75.00 when I first started, a woman held onto it for a year, I got really hot on ebay and she flipped it and sold it for 495.00. I deserve none of that money. She took a chance on a new artist and honestly I was shocked I got 75 when she bought it, (after all the materials cost me 15 dollars ) she is the reason my business grew and I eventually made 989.00 for a bear, that again, cost me around 15.00 in materials and 3 hours time to make. Because of collectors like her, I made more on each new bear I made.
A guy designs and builds a house, it sells for 100,000.00, in 10 years it climbs to 275,000.00 does that architect deserve money too? How about the designer of any new product, do they get financially tied to it for life? No and they should not.
Did companies force artists to work for the wages they did? Did they hold them at gun point to work under the terms of their contract?
My husband's hard work in accounting, in a large part, built the company he worked for. It was a brand new company, he was their CFO and he took a major pay cut when he started. He at one point even loaned the company money. He was the only accountant in the struggling years, which were many. It grew to be the largest magnesium recycling plant in the world. His long hours and financial knowledge helped build that plant. In fact, their logo is the Phoenix because they had a fire and it almost destroyed their business, I gave the owner a Chinese print of a phoenix and in the card told her the company would rise from the ashes like the phoenix. She loved that so much she now uses it as the company logo. When he died, they owed me nothing but the retirement my husband worked out. They paid him well as the company grew, he invested that money and I am now able to survive on those investments. He planned for his retirement.
Artwork is a business that has an emotional attachment, but it is still a business.
Edited by Jodi Moisan on 29 December 2013 at 4:13pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Marc M. Woolman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 April 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2096
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 4:12pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I like the idea, I don't see why artists couldn't collect a small percentage for sales and re-sales of their work. There's just too many artists out there that are living in poverty while their artwork sells for large sums of money.
I wonder if they couldn't administer the royalty fee like a sales tax, paid by the one making the purchase? ex: all artists are entitled to 2% of future sales of their work; that 2% is charged to the buyer at the time of the sale. The collector paid their 2% amount when they first bought, the value of the artwork increases, and the new buyer pays the 2% royalty of the current price, and on and on it goes.
Edited by Marc M. Woolman on 29 December 2013 at 4:13pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6269
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 4:25pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Jodi: Artwork is a business that has an emotional attachment, but it is still a business.
**
But does it follow that any inherited unfairness within the business of art must be preserved forever?
If there is a business in art, it exists because of the artist. The value of any house includes location, location and location-- inherent properties that no one created. Is that true with a page of comic book art? Is the value of a page determined by anything besides what is drawn upon it by some artist? Of course not. Paper is pennies a pound until someone draws on it.
Apples to apples, houses and comic pages just don't match up.
If this royalty were established going forward, I can see it doing a lot of good for the relationship between artists, art sales, buyers and the whole shooting match. I can't see the downside, other than it would be doing something that ain't been done before.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 4:37pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
The buyer takes the risk of holding onto it and the value may increase.
The artist could have done the same thing and not sold the art and wait to
see if the value increases. Terry Austin is a perfect example, he held onto
most of his X-Men artwork he did and that gamble has paid off. He took
the risk.
••
Terry did not sell his art because he likes to keep it, not because he saw it
as an "investment".
Your attitude is a big ol' FUCK YOU to artists everywhere. Nice.
*************
No it is not a " ol' FUCK YOU to artists everywhere". This whole thing is a
Speculator Law. They want the artist who has sold his art to then be
entitled to a percentage of the resale only if it increases in value, says
nothing about if the resale price is less. It speculates that the art will
increase in value, that is not always true. The buyer is assuming all the risk
if he or she decides to resell it down the road for whatever reason, trying
to make a profit, selling to pay for bills or other expenses. An artist work
dose not always go up and mostly only after they are dead.
An artist will sell a piece of artwork when he or she is hot or on a hot
comic book series. A few years later that series could have been a flash in
the pan. Rob Liefeld and his X-Force #1 sold for like $30K-40K I do not
think it commands that price today.
If the artist thinks their art will be worth more later than keep it. It should
be like anything else people create. Hasbro created GI Joe dolls in the 60s
and sold them for under $10 but now some are worth 4 figures or more,
does Hasbro deserve a percentage of the resale? Aston Martin built and
sold the DB-5 for $12K now they go for $4M. Do they get $80K-100K
when its resold?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Shaun Barry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 08 December 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6854
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 4:50pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Brian, surely you can't equate one page of comic art produced by one artist (maybe two) and sold to a single buyer, to an action figure or car produced by any number of artists, molders and designers and sold for mass consumption?
Edited by Shaun Barry on 29 December 2013 at 4:51pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 5:06pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Brian, surely you can't equate one page of comic art produced by one
artist (maybe two) and sold to a single buyer, to an action figure or car
produced by any number of artists, molders and designers and sold for
mass consumption?
***************
Both are making money off of speculating prices will increase. I think a
much better law would be for the artist to paid every time their art is
reused, for promotions, reprints, merchandise (t-shits cups). I know some
artists are paid when its reused but not all. Its like musicians and
photographers, musician get paid whenever their song (written by the
musician) is played on the radio, used at a sporting event or in
advertisements. Photographer gets paid when the image they took is
reprinted.Neither of them get a percentage when the original master disc,
paper the song was originally written or photographers original negative
is resold. All part of the creative process.
Edited by Brian Peck on 30 December 2013 at 2:30am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132622
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 5:11pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
But does it follow that any inherited unfairness within the business of art must be preserved forever?••• Clinging to that kind of thinking -- "This is how it's always been done!" -- is part of what made it take so long for the Companies to start paying royalties the the creative staff.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 5:55pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Brian, surely you can't equate one page of comic art produced by one artist (maybe two) and sold to a single buyer, to an action figure or car produced by any number of artists, molders and designers and sold for mass consumption?
Comic book art was done for mass consumption was it not? And why marginalize the talent of those working to produce that action figure or car?
But does it follow that any inherited unfairness within the business of art must be preserved forever?
Where is the unfairness? They got paid for a job that contributed to a mass produced product. If an artist wants to make money for their fame and talent, paint a painting of a landscape and sell it or do commissions. I believe companies should provide stock to their employees. As the company succeeds so does the money the artist makes from their creative contribution.
If there is a business in art, it exists because of the artist. The value of any house includes location, location and location-- inherent properties that no one created. Is that true with a page of comic book art?
Tell that to Frank Lloyd Wrights family or Frank Gehry or Sou Fujimoto. And yes the fact Marvel is the location does add to the value of the comic book page.
Let me throw this out there, with this kind of issue, will the big 2 ever be compelled to bring in new characters?
Edited by Jodi Moisan on 29 December 2013 at 5:56pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35786
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 5:55pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
To those arguing on the side of not paying a portion of the sale of art to the original artist, is your position made on principle, one made because you don't want to have to pay out any money of any kind to the artist, or something else entirely? Forget how it would be done as that feels like a smoke screen to me ("I don't have the artist's address so how could I possibly get their share to them!" Please.). Personally, I don't see a downside and don't understand the argument against it. The risk/reward argument against what feels like a very small amount paid out to the artist doesn't hold much water to me either.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35786
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 5:59pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Jodi Moisan wrote:
| Let me throw this out there, with this kind of issue, will the big 2 ever be compelled to bring in new characters? |
|
|
This issue has nothing to do with Marvel or DC. They don't own the original art, so I don't see how it's sale would impact their creation of new characters at all. They certainly don't care about how much money anyone makes off of it nor whether the artist gets a portion of future sales.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
