| Author |
|
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3117
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 7:09pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Interesting, I was just looking up California's resale royalty law, and found out it was struck down as unconstitutional in May.
From the New York Times:
QUOTE:
| The artists Chuck Close and Laddie John Dill and the estate of the artist Robert Graham brought a class-action suit in November against the auction giants Sotheby's and Christie's, and against eBay, arguing they had failed to pay them money owed under the California Resale Royalties Act. That act, which took effect in 1977, was the first of its kind passed in the United States. It required state residents who resold a work of art, even out of state, to pay the creating artist 5 percent of the price over $1,000; anyone selling art in California was also subject to the law. Artists in most of the United States have long complained that unlike composers, filmmakers or writers, they do not receive a share of any future sales -- known by the French expression droit de suite -- under copyright law. In her ruling on Thursday, Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen did more than simply find against Mr. Close and his colleagues: Because the law has the effect of controlling sales ''wholly outside the boundaries'' of California, she ruled that it violates the commerce clause of the Constitution and that therefore ''the entire statute must fall.'' |
|
|
Even more interesting, the article mentions an attempt last year to federalize a royalty: the Equity for Visual Artists Act of 2011:
QUOTE:
| (2) Whenever a work of visual art is sold as the result of auction of that work by someone other than the artist who is the author of the work, the entity that collects the money or other consideration paid for the sale of the work shall, within 90 days of collecting such money or other consideration, pay out of the proceeds of the sale a royalty equal to 7 percent of the price. Such royalty shall be paid to a visual artists' collecting society. The collecting society shall distribute, no fewer than 4 times per year, 50 percent of the net royalty to the artist or his or her successor as copyright owner. After payment to the artist or his or her successor as copyright owner, the remaining 50 percent of the net royalty shall be deposited into an escrow account established by the collecting society for the purposes of funding purchases by nonprofit art museums in the United States of works of visual art authored by living artists domiciled in the United States. The right to receive such royalty and the obligation to deposit the remaining share of sale proceeds into the escrow account provided in this subsection may not be waived by the artist or his successor as copyright owner. Failure of the entity collecting the money or other consideration resulting from the sale of the work to pay the royalty provided under this section shall constitute an infringement of copyright. Any such infringement shall be subject to the payment of statutory damages under section 504. |
|
|
The bill did not pass. To my non-lawyer eyes, it would have applied to work 1) created after January 1, 1978 2) that was sold at auction 3) for $10,000. or more. The 7% royalty would be split between the artist and a "collecting society."
There would be some legal grey area there for comic art pages, as comic book artists often don't own copyright for their pages.
Write your congressman!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Fred J Chamberlain
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 August 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4044
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 7:16pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Odd timing. Last night and into today I had another inquiry into the
Spider-man/Superman piece that John did for me a few years ago. I
had a few aggressive people trying to convince me to sell it at a loss,
which I had no interest in doing. I simply want to get my money back,
no more, no less; to hand back to John for another commission that
Ive wanted to get from him for a while now.... Talk about the money
going back to the artist!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 31287
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 8:03pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
I just received the artwork in today's mail, after having bought it from him for $809.00, plus $40 shipping. ************* And I'm sure he sees it as losing $150, too.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Fred J Chamberlain
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 August 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4044
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 8:15pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Possibly..... Despite the fact that Jose undervalues his artwork when
he sells original pieces. I've actually told him so very passionately to
no avail. My guess is that he bought it for around $200 tops. A shame
really. I'd rather give the money directly to Jose.... Who, believe it or
not, I have had to talk up prices I've paid for art from him.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133560
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 9:35pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Last night and into today I had another inquiry into the Spider-man/Superman piece that John did for me a few years ago. I had a few aggressive people trying to convince me to sell it at a loss, which I had no interest in doing. I simply want to get my money back, no more, no less; to hand back to John for another commission that Ive wanted to get from him for a while now.... Talk about the money going back to the artist!•• Or we could just work out a trade for that Garcia Lopez JONAH HEX page…
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Fred J Chamberlain
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 August 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4044
|
| Posted: 07 August 2012 at 9:43pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Nuh uh.... Have you checked out the other sequential pages in my caf gallery John? Though she is a beaut, there are several others that display his brilliance. One of Jonah, from behind, looming in the foreground blew me away again as I looked at it tonight.http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryDetailSearch.asp? Artist=Jose+Luis+Garcia%2DLopez&GCat=25158&GSub=68072Jim will be getting an email from me. The buyer has a money order in the mail to me for that Superman/Spider-Man piece. I haven't said it prior to this, but I realized where things went amiss for me with that.... I asked you to give me a Ross Andru vibe with Spidey when I should have let Ross' work be his and yours be yours. The MTU piece you did for me remains a fave and the new one, should you agree to do it, will be another. No doubt in my mind.
Edited by Fred J Chamberlain on 09 August 2012 at 8:35am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Brian Floyd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 July 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 8649
|
| Posted: 08 August 2012 at 8:35am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
I agree with paying the artists a percentage when artwork is resold. But....where does it stop?
Should you pay a percentage to the family or estate of a deceased artist? Or to an artist completely indifferent such as Steve Ditko, who apparently uses artwork that could be resold for thousands of dollars lying around and uses it as scratch paper?
I think I'd rather donate that percentage to the Hero Initiative or some other charity that helps out creators in need.
Edited by Brian Floyd on 08 August 2012 at 8:37am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Topic Closed)
