| Author |
|
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6430
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 12:07pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I've collected pretty modestly over the years. I love my collection with work by Byrne, Cockrum, J. Buscema, Kirby, and Buckler. At 10%, the amount owed back to these artists wouldn't even top $100. I'd gladly pay that amount myself if I knew it was going back to these heroes of mine.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133334
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 12:53pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
What the owner of the artwork does with the art has nothing to do with where it came from. •• You are actually saying the original artist's creation of the piece has no continuing value. Incredible. ++ Could the artist sue for loss of income if a painting was appraised at a high value but the owner refused to sell? •• Again you lapse into absurdity. Any time you want to return to the real world, let me know, and I will be happy to continue this discussion.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dan Parker
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 1:14pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
David Plunkert wrote:
| Is there anyone here who has sold artwork for a profit and sent a percentage back to the artist? |
|
|
Close. One of the previous times this debate came up on the JBF, I wondered what (if anything) I might do for the artists of any pages I sold. I realized it can become complicated -- how much to send, how to split the amount between the penciller and inker, should there be a minimum threshold (I thought sending checks of $2.50 might be seen as insulting), etc.
I decided that for any sale over $500 I would send 10% of the final price (not profit) to the Hero Initiative. It's not perfect, but it's easy to apply and helps artists whose work meant so much to me growing up.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Barry Maine
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 06 June 2012
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 2:10pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Me - What the owner of the artwork does with the art has nothing to do with where it came from.
Mark, "Have you compared the resale price of Neal Adams original artwork with the resale price of Win Mortimer artwork?" & JB, "You are actually saying the original artist's creation of the piece has no continuing value. Incredible."
Actually, I wasn't saying such a thing as the artist is not of value, but I apologize if I wasn't quite clear on my point. Just like someone who has $1,000, it shouldn't matter where that money came from for the possessor to decide what they do. In the case of art, it could be aquired by many means, obviously. That the original artist is owed should the art be sold could possibly imply that the artist is owed should anything happen with or to the piece. Of course it would all come down to a judge's discretion.
JB, "Again you lapse into absurdity. Any time you want to return to the real world, let me know, and I will be happy to continue this discussion."
It was a hypothetical question implying absurdity designed to point out the possible effects of an entitlement based system. So, in other words, at what point does the artist claim on the created artwork stop?
Dave, "I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with that other than pure greed."
I equally can't imagine why anyone would want more money for something they already sold other than pure greed. I think that is why we fundamentally don't see eye to eye. The key part I have a problem with is the idea of "entitlement".
"I decided that for any sale over $500 I would send 10% of the final price (not profit) to the Hero Initiative."
And this is an awesome stance to take. And if someone wants to donate to a cause, or a person, that's great. If I came across found money in such a way, I will keep your act of kindness in mind and follow suit. But I still am not convinced of cause to make such a donation required.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Braun
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 July 2009
Posts: 1064
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 2:22pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
"I equally can't imagine why anyone would want more money for something they already sold other than pure greed. I think that is why we fundamentally don't see eye to eye."******* To you an artist selling a work of their art is the same as if they sold their rusty used car. That is why we don't see eye to eye. It is also why there would be no way to convince you otherwise. I could argue for years and there would be no point.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 31185
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 2:59pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
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! *************** Not at all. I was just illustrating the fact I made a choice to sell a possession of mine to raise some money to pay bills. If someone owns a page of original comic art and chooses to sell it, either for a profit or loss on the original investment, they still made the conscious choice to sell it. Now rereading Mr. Peck's original response to my earlier post, I can see he was probably referring to the original artist selling the page. If that's the case, then I was a bit off in my respose to him.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Barry Maine
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 06 June 2012
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 3:34pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
"To you an artist selling a work of their art is the same as if they sold their rusty used car. That is why we don't see eye to eye. It is also why there would be no way to convince you otherwise. I could argue for years and there would be no point."
Try me...I get we should give money to some poor, beat-up, artist because it is the right thing to do. My problem is making it a requirement for everyone. There are three points that are holding me back.
1. Where does the level of ownership stop in regard to the creator? 10% of every sale forever sounds a little out there, but so far it sounds like that is what is being discussed. If that is the case, what is to stop the artist from suing for something that infringed on potential earnings since such a suit is a reality in our country?
2. What constitutes art? I know its a more philosophical question. But consider, if I have a mural painted on the side of my home, common sense we would agree its art. When I sold my home, it could be argued that the mural added to the value. So how wouldthat work? Because of this, could a painter who did an outstanding job painting my house, claim it as art and go after a percentage of the sale in our court system? For that matter, could the architechtual design of the house constitute art and could regular resale demand that the architect receive a continuous cut? I get that those are not the intents, but with our court systems, would anyone be surprised?
2.1 What constitutes art? I know, its a repeated question, but I do mean it slightly different. Is the art just the canvas, or is it what is on the canvas? To rephrase, does the model/source make a difference? With my dashing, chisled, soft, doughy good looks, lets say an artist wants to paint me, because I am unique. He paid me for my time. As the source of the image, should I get a cut too whenever the painting is sold? I wouldn't think so, but couldn't a case be made that the picture couldn't be made without me if I wanted to take the artist to court now that they are getting continuous pay?
2.2 What constitutes art? Again, slightly different meaning. I know it includes fine art, obviously. But what about commercial art? How would that be treated differently? Should it be?
3. Finally, who is the artist? Look at comic pages for this one. An original page has been touched by the pencils, inks, and letters. Even the writer had a hand in that. Is there a distinction as to who gets the money? Does the owner of the character get anything now that we are talking continuous income? What about the original creator of the character?
I admit, I am of the mind that the artist sells all rights to their art at the time of the sale. The relationship is severed. The artist chooses to sell something that they didn't have to, that they could have chose to keep. Any change to that seems to me as thought it could open a huge can of worms, if that's fair.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133334
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 4:05pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
10% of every sale forever sounds a little out there, but so far it sounds like that is what is being discussed.•• Most of the artists whose work I collect are dead, sadly, but imagine they were not. The last Kirby page I bought, I paid $5000 for. Would it have been a terrible hardship to the seller to give $500 to Jack? If he, the seller, bought the page for $4999, maybe. But that seems unlikely. ++++ What constitutes art? I know, its a repeated question, but I do mean it slightly different. Is the art just the canvas, or is it what is on the canvas? •• This discussion relates only to comicbook art. Why are you insisting on muddying the waters with your "hypotheticals" and other such crap. You don't think artists should get a piece of subsequent sales. We're all clear on that. Let 'em starve in the gutter. Fuck 'em. They got their pittance up front and that's all they deserve. Now go away.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3093
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 5:08pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
If this ever became common practice, I bet the expense would be borne by buyers, added to the cost along with sales tax, shipping and buyer premiums.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133334
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 5:25pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
If this ever became common practice, I bet the expense would be borne by buyers, added to the cost along with sales tax, shipping and buyer premiums.•• Thus is it in all things -- but I cannot really see it becoming common practice. At the first whiff, original art sales would dive "underground", and artists would have no idea where their stuff was, or what it was selling for.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Fred J Chamberlain
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 August 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4037
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 6:02pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Interesting story that is relevant to this thread involves a piece of Garcia Lopez art from Batman/Hulk that I am about to post to the new art thread.
A few months back, I stumbled on this page at ebay. It had a starting bid of $1,999, plus either $50 or $80 for shipping. It also had a buy-it-now price of $2,100, if I recall correctly.
I contacted the seller, asking if he would accept $2,000 for the piece with shipping included. He quickly replied, stating that this piece was very reasonably priced and he would not consider selling it for less than what it was listed at, since there were scores of views for the auction as well as many people watching it. He seemed truely surprised that I would not go above the price I had offered, saying it was only a small amount more than I had offered. I told him that I had come up with a number that I was not going above for it. *I had contacted a handful of art collecting buddies, who were mixed in their reactions at $2,00, but most of whem said they believed it was a fair market price.*
The message exchange between the seller and I went on for a bit, since he truely seemed shocked that I wouldn't meet his price. I held fast and the auction ended with no buyer.....
Over the course of the next 2 or so months, I saw the piece listed multiple times, each time with a price slightly lower than the price previously, except for when he attempted to sell it off at an even higher price, bundled with other art. He contacted me with a note, informing me that the piece was back up a few times with his final note stating that it was "listed at half of what you originally offered me". I withheld, partly due to the fact that I was curious and partly due to my being somewhat soured by his initial responses to me.
I just received the artwork in today's mail, after having bought it from him for $809.00, plus $40 shipping.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Ben Mcvay
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 June 2006
Posts: 1414
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 6:46pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
My favorite art dealers are the ones that buy a piece of art off of another art dealer's website to put it on their website with a 20% markup that same day.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
