| Posted: 20 February 2008 at 9:06am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
JB said:
If you think this is a "gray area", remind me never to do business with you!
>>Not to worry; I don't buy commissions.
If, for instance, Joe Rubinstein does a recreation of a cover I penciled and he inked, that's a clearly defined area, and not uncommon.
>>How is that clearly defined? Neither of you holds the rights to the original image, if it was created work-for-hire.
In fact, I have often wondered why those who seek out specific recreations don't go first to the inker, since that would more likely guarantee the line work being the same.
>>They should, perhaps. But is it illegal not to do so?
If a "recreation" is done by someone of a piece of work with which they had no original involvement -- didn't pencil it, didn't ink it -- then this is more of a swipe. But this happens, too, and maybe that area is a little bit gray.
>>Swipe, "homage." people call it by many names.
But, at least, the penciler and inker of the original got paid for their work.
>>I'm not sure I see how this is relevant. Again, neither artist is the copyright holder to the original.
In this case, a piece was commissioned. As is usually the case, I took no money in advance, so, when the piece was declined, I was not paid and, unless the piece is sold at a later date, I am out that much money.
>>So is your issue that the commissioner reneged on a contract? Your stated policy is that the buyer has a right to refuse a piece, yes?
This is work done without recompense, so money lost.
>>You still have the physical artwork, which can be resold -- possibly at a higher rate than originally asked. Again, this would go back to the contract you had with the buyer. If he is not under any obligation to purchase the piece, it might be harder to prove he "reneged" on said agreement.
>>Here’s an interesting question: What would your feelings be if the customer had accepted the work, paid for it, and then had a new version commissioned by another artist?
Now, the individual who has declined the work and not paid me for it, has used the work to get another piece done by a different artist. A cold swipe, save for a few minor details.
>> I agree 100%. But is this not what many artists -- professionals -- do? They "recreate" work that they didn't work on? If that practice is legal -- and that question can only be answered if someone takes the case to court -- is this situation not legal too? It's certainly unsavory, but is it illegal?
This is the equivalent of hiring an architect to design a house for you, refusing to pay for his design, then giving a copy of that design to another architect, who adds a few flourishes of his own and calls it "V.2". I'm pretty sure out in the real world that would probably be illegal.
>>Depends on the contract between the architect and the home buyer. Also, to use your analogy, you'd still have the house you built and could sell it to someone else. (And I hope an architect wouldn’t build a house without getting SOME money up front)
>>To relate this to comics specifically, many pieces are created as "homages" to a particular artist or after a particular piece. How many versions of Kirby's FF #1 have been done? Are these not swipes, too, regardless of whether they say “After Kirby”?
Most certainly it would not be a "gray area".
>>Inking another artist's work for a private collector and not compensating the original artist? That's basically the same situation as this and it happens all the time. Again, illegal or just unsavory?
>>My personal thoughts on this: the buyer’s actions were unethical. But some would argue that making money from other people’s intellectual property without compensating them is unethical too.
|
Topic Closed)
