| Author |
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133556
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 7:28am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
In California and other parts of the world, it's the law. The California Resale Royalty Act "entitles artists to a royalty payment upon the resale of their works of art under certain circumstances. •• If I recall, however, California law also treats UNSOLD art as "stock", and requires artists to pay TAXES on it! The law is very often stacked most unfairly against artists. I wonder how many people realize, for instance, that if you buy a piece of art and then donate it to charity, you can write off the entire market value of the art as your gift. But if the artist him/herself donates the same piece to the same charity, s/he is allowed to write off only the cost of the materials! Donate one of my X-MEN pages you bought for $16,000, and you write off $16,000. I donate the same page (if I still had it!) and write off about 85¢!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Chuck Wells
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1244
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 7:33am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Engaging In Barry's responses here seems utterly like a battle of wits against an unarmed man.
I personally have no problem with chipping in a percentage of the proceeds from a resale of original art for the artist, but I don't resell art that I purchase. There's a major art dealer that I've seen in the last couple of years who is in possession of a few of JB's bigger-sized commission pieces on display here. While it was nice to see them in person, and I get that personal finances can put you in a bind and force you to part with stuff, it sort of sucks to see someone hock items like those.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 31287
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 7:44am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Brian Peck wrote:
| Not everyone has a choice when they have to sell their artwork. |
|
|
Sure they do. Even under financial hardships, if you sell something to raise cash, that is a choice you made. A few years back, I sold some of my comic collection to help pay the bills. A few lucky eBay users got REALLY great deals on some stuff. I wish they had gone for more. Hell, I wish I didn't need to raise some extra money, but I CHOSE to sell them. However, "stupidity" may have been a poor choice of words.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133556
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 9:58am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I really hope you're not actually putting the selling of old comics on anything like the same level as an artist selling his work?That's like working the popcorn machine at a movie theater and telling people you're a movie star!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Braun
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 July 2009
Posts: 1064
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 10:12am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
"I have always thought it a silly notion that an artist has a right to any percentage of money received from a collectors sale.
It just doesn't stand up to reason."
"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." ********* It does stand up to reason. The reason the work is more valuable is due solely to the artist. If the artist does not deserve the credit for the value of their work, who does? It is "just life". It is just life that when an artist becomes well known prices for their work can go through the roof. For new works and older works. But who is responsible for this success? The artist. And they deserve the rewards. Why should a collector alone benefit from their success? Collectors should benefit, but so should the artist. It is only because of the artists success that the collector is benefiting.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Plunkert
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 July 2012
Posts: 536
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 10:25am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Is there anyone here who has sold artwork for a profit and sent a percentage back to the artist?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Braun
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 July 2009
Posts: 1064
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 10:40am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
I have never re-sold an artists work for a profit, but if I did I would definitely give them a percentage if they wanted it.JB, and those of us who think the artist should get a cut of a resale, what percentage do you think is fair?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133556
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 11:03am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
10%
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Barry Maine
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 06 June 2012
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 11:15am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
"Isn't resale of the physical artwork "usage"?"
No. It is simply the resale of an asset.
"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."
That was exactly my point. But I believe that point to be
true both ways. What the owner of the artwork does with
the art has nothing to do with where it came from. Could
the artist sue for loss of income if a painting was
appraised at a high value but the owner refused to sell?
No. If the house that the painting is in burns to the
ground, should the artist be entitled to some of the
insurance payout? No.
"Donate one of my X-MEN pages you bought for $16,000, and
you write off $16,000. I donate the same page (if I still
had it!) and write off about 85¢!"
This is incorrect. By IRS rules, anyone (including the
artist) must own the art for over 12 months. The amount
deducted is the appraised fair market value. If the value
is over $5k, an appraisal is required in support of the
deduction. The actual cost of the artwork is irrelevant
to the amount anyone can deduct.
"Engaging In Barry's responses here seems utterly like a
battle of wits against an unarmed man."
That is very sweet of you to say, whoever you are.
"The reason the work is more valuable is due solely to
the artist."
I disagree only with the word "solely". There are
numerous factors that can impact the value, both
positively and negatively. The artist also takes on no
expense or risk regarding the piece once it is sold. I am
not convinced of any entitlement upon sale.
Now could be on the other side in regard to gifting, if
something was specified in advance. In 2008, the
University of Iowa (go Hawkeyes!) considered selling a
Jackson Pollock mural they received as a gift back in the
60s. The sale was to help offset recovery costs from
devastating floods. The reasoning was sound, though sad.
Peggy Guggenheim has stated in 1963, "... it is extremely
unpleasant for me that you should sell my gift... If you
no longer wish to have this mural in your university I
must ask you to return it to me..." In 2008, it was
valued at $140 million.
In 2011, the State tried to pass a bill forcing the
University to sell it for scholarship funding. It was
thought that a $5 million annual endowment based on the
sale could create the opportunity for 750 to 1000
students to receive full-ride scholarships every year.
Still, this was not the intent of Guggenheim. And, has
the state tried to go through with it, I would hope her
heirs would fight to get the work returned because the
purpose of the gift was expressed up front.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6509
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 11:30am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Barry: What the owner of the artwork does withthe art has nothing to do with where it came from.
**
Have you compared the resale price of Neal Adams original artwork with the resale price of Win Mortimer artwork? What the owner of the artwork does with the art (especially if he sells it) has everything to do with where it came from.
edit: not a slam on Mortimer in any way. An equally valid example is comparing published work from a popular comic book with unpublished fan made artwork -- how can "where it came from" not be considered primary to the whole idea of buying artwork?
Edited by Mark Haslett on 07 August 2012 at 11:32am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Braun
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 July 2009
Posts: 1064
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 11:36am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
"I disagree only with the word "solely". There are
numerous factors that can impact the value, both
positively and negatively. The artist also takes on no
expense or risk regarding the piece once it is sold. I am
not convinced of any entitlement upon sale."****** I did not say the value is solely due to the artist, I said the reason it is "more valuable". There is a big difference. I could have more accurately said "the great majority of the significant raise in value is due solely to the artist."
The fact that the artist takes no expense or risk once a piece is sold is why no one is saying the artist should get all the profit from a resale.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Braun
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 July 2009
Posts: 1064
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 11:42am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
10% sounds reasonable to me, JB. I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with that other than pure greed. Wouldn't they want to support and encourage the artists they love. In some cases people obtain artwork incidentally, inherited, found or gifted, and have no attachment to it. I can see in those cases where someone might resist giving the artist a chunk, but I still think they should.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
