| Author |
|
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 1:27pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Childish and insulting to whom? All of those who think it's unfair that the actual people involved in creating the art should share in the continue profit?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andrew W. Farago
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4079
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 1:49pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Again, my understanding is that these scenarios would not be in play. The legislation cannot -- SHOULD NOT -- be passed retroactively.
Agreed, since there's no way to enforce anything like that, and it would be a logistical nightmare tracking past sales, trades, etc.
Regardless of how the law pays out, I'd personally like to see this become standard practice for art sales. If you drop $50k on an Art Adams cover, send Art a check for $5,000, or drop him a line and ask him to designate a charity that can receive a $5k donation in his name. Pick up a Sal Buscema splash page for $2,000? Why not send "Our Pal" a check for $200 so he can take his wife out on the town? If you've got $75 grand to spend on a Byrne/Austin double-page spread, you can probably give JB and Terry each a few bucks of that, or make an arrangement with the seller to split the difference.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6383
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 1:52pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
I guess they are happy that the millions that gets made after the artist is dead. They get to keep all for themselves.
**
There's something wrong about millions being made after the artist dies?
...and does being against this royalty idea automatically cut you in on all that money? I may have to rethink my position...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133119
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 1:55pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Regardless of how the law pays out, I'd personally like to see this become standard practice for art sales. If you drop $50k on an Art Adams cover, send Art a check for $5,000, or drop him a line and ask him to designate a charity that can receive a $5k donation in his name. Pick up a Sal Buscema splash page for $2,000? Why not send "Our Pal" a check for $200 so he can take his wife out on the town? If you've got $75 grand to spend on a Byrne/Austin double-page spread, you can probably give JB and Terry each a few bucks of that, or make an arrangement with the seller to split the difference.•• If that kind of thinking prevailed, we would not even be having this discussion. Alas, there are too many people who look upon sharing their profit as "losing" money -- tho none have yet been able to explain to me how a profit of, say, $5,400 rather than $6,000 represents a "loss".
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 1:59pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Childish and insulting to whom? All of those who think it's unfair that the actual people involved in creating the art should share in the continue profit?
To paint those that don't see the way you do, as some heartless cruel person, that are happy to see people they admire die penniless, is insulting and wrong. I believe every one of us on this site, buys items with artists and writers name on it, because they want to support that artist or writer.
No creative person, continues to get money from PRIVATE individual sales. As I gave an example of the Beatles catalog. Do football players get a cut of their trading cards that increase in value? How about those Star War figures that have increased in value, should Lucas get a cut from every resale on ebay? How about that first addition book you sell , does the author get a cut?
Edited by Jodi Moisan on 30 December 2013 at 2:00pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 2:04pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
There's something wrong about millions being made after the artist dies?
...and does being against this royalty idea automatically cut you in on all that money? I may have to rethink my position... ~~~~~~~~~~~
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'm not against people selling or reselling art for a profit. But why shouldn't the artist when they are alive be able to enjoy in those profits? Why should they labor to create these sometimes highly valuable works of art and not be able to share in it?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 2:06pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Andrew aren't you involved in a program that collects money for retired artists and writers?
Aren't you the one that promoted this organization on facebook?
Hero Initiative
Is this charity recognized by ebay? Maybe comic book collectors could start a trend by listing a percentage of each sale to go to the Hero Initiative. We did this when I sold bears during the breast cancer awareness month for Susan G Komen.
Edited by Jodi Moisan on 30 December 2013 at 2:11pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 2:15pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
No creative person, continues to get money from PRIVATE individual sales. As I gave an example of the Beatles catalog. Do football players get a cut of their trading cards that increase in value? How about those Star War figures that have increased in value, should Lucas get a cut from every resale on ebay? How about that first addition book you sell , does the author get a cut? ~~~~~~~~
My understanding of this proposal is that it doesn't concern individual private sales.
But if you are asking me do I think they should than my answer is yes.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 2:17pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Oh and bye the way Jodi, I do hope you appreciate that I removed my avatar because you were offended. I certainly would have acknowledge you had you done it for me.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 2:38pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Anthony if I ever post an avatar with a naked guy with his wiener flopping about and you make a snide comment about it after being offended by an insulting comment I just made, towards you. I will excuse you for not thanking me for doing the right thing.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 2:49pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Anthony if I ever post an avatar with a naked guy with his wiener flopping about and you make a snide comment about it after being offended by an insulting comment I just made, towards you. I will excuse you for not thanking me for doing the right thing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well first off I'm glad you acknowledge that your comment was snide. Secondly she wasn't naked and I didn't do it because it was the "right thing". I personally didn't think there was anything wrong with it. I changed it because it bothered you. However you apparently are incapable of showing gratitude. So I'll have to be satisfied in knowing I would show that gratitude. But than again I'm not heartless and cruel either.
Oh I'd like to add I could give a rat's ass if your avatar was that of a naked man clubbing a baby seal to death.
Edited by Anthony J Lombardi on 30 December 2013 at 2:51pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tim O Neill
Byrne Robotics Security
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10935
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 2:52pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Jodi: "No creative person, continues to get money from PRIVATE individual sales. As I gave an example of the Beatles catalog. Do football players get a cut of their trading cards that increase in value? How about those Star War figures that have increased in value, should Lucas get a cut from every resale on ebay? How about that first addition book you sell , does the author get a cut?"
****
I think you and Brian are really missing the point by a country mile. You keep comparing original, one of a kind artwork with cultural significance to pieces that are either mass produced collectibles or printed, copywritten work.
The issue here is original artwork. The artist owns the work they create, not the images when they are printed by a company. Think beyond comic book pages and think of original paintings. Why do we go to a museum to see the work of Vincent Van Gogh? Because the original piece that the artist painted is THE ORIGINAL - one of a kind, with cultural significance.
Why do original pages of Jack Kirby art that were used for FANTASTIC FOUR cost so much? Because for people like me, that art is more significant than Van Gogh. When Kirby's art was featured in a museum exhibit, I was there. There is something about the original art that transcends mere collectibles or arts and crafts.
The world of fine art has a long history of artists not benefitting from the sale of their paintings. This law would benefit the the few who break through and start demanding high prices for their pieces. Original artwork that sells through auction houses once a reputation has been built should also benefit the artist. It's disgusting and unfair that the artist does not share in this. If defies fairness and decency to exclude a painter or sculptor from this.
Comic book artists who make royalties on published work are fortunate to have revenue from the published work, but they should not be excluded from making money from sales once their original art rises to the level of auction houses in the same way a painter should benefit. If the comic book community does not treat original art with the same reverence that is afforded fine art, then we are contributing to the disrespect the form receives from the general public.
I think the notion that original art is being compared to stocks that the artist was not wise enough to hold onto is completely insulting to the artist and denigrating to the art. Brian, I know you are active in organizing comic book conventions - is that coloring your point of view? Do your colleagues share your opinion that artists should be excluded from large, auction house sales? How can you devote so much time to the comic book form and yet advocate unfair practices against the artists who create the work? It doesn't match up - it's the worst kind of greed on the part of art dealers.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
