| Author |
|
Joel Biske
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 January 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 761
|
| Posted: 28 December 2013 at 9:39pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Just saw this.... thoughts?
http://http://artlawjournal.com/copyright-office-proposes-re sale-royalties-visual-artists/?fb_action_ids=102018135115932 73&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multilin e&action_object_map=%5B228284540628502%5D&action_typ e_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Matt Hawes
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 16469
|
| Posted: 28 December 2013 at 10:03pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Joel, the link is broken. Here is a direct link:
Copyright article.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132673
|
| Posted: 28 December 2013 at 10:14pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
There has been a great chorus of howls from some retailers and collectors whenever this has been proposed before. The "logic" runs something like this: "If I buy a piece of art for $100, and later sell it for $10,000, but have to give $1,000 to the original artist, I have LOST $1,000!"Anyone with a basic comprehension of arithmetic would say the seller had made an $8,900 PROFIT, yet the argument stated above remains.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 1:22am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
But if the artist sells his work for $100 then 5 years later its resold for $5000
and the original buyer has to pay the artist $500. if the art is then resold 5
years later for $2000 will the artist give the 1st owner money back? This is
something that can happen. There is a lot of art that is sold on speculation
and its value will then drop, a number of Image artist in the 90s art was sold
for a lot but goes for like 1/2 these days. Also people can over pay on art
and then later sell for less.
The whole idea just falls part like a house of cards.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Robbie Moubert
Byrne Robotics Member
Evertonian
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1486
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 5:54am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
In your scenario the drop in value is meaningless to the original owner; he made his money selling for $5k. Why should the artist have to refund him when he's not affected?
Edited by Robbie Moubert on 29 December 2013 at 6:01am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132673
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 6:01am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
But if the artist sells his work for $100 then 5 years later its resold for $5000 and the original buyer has to pay the artist $500. if the art is then resold 5 years later for $2000 will the artist give the 1st owner money back? ••• This is a non-issue. If the original artist is to receive a share of profit from future sales, there is nothing to be paid if there is no profit. The situation is no different than if an artist sold a piece for $100, and the buyer was later able to get only $50 in a resale. The artist would not be required to give back $50. But you're right. It's a bad idea. Much better that artists like Dave Cockrum die in poverty, while their art sells for tens of thousands of dollars.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Bob Simko
Byrne Robotics Security
Negative Mod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 5982
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 8:46am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
I see this the same as the stock market...if I take the $$
risk, I get the $$ reward.
Personally, this isn't an issue for me...what very little I
own...some character sketches, no pages or commissions...I
got because I wanted them for me...not to re-sell.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Darren Taylor
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 April 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 6003
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 8:58am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I see no harm in providing additional income for an artist, that clearly the buyer enjoys!
The seller may take issue, if the reason they are selling is they no longer favour said artist.
But then, as JB points out above, they are still quids in, so is there a flaw at all here?
-D
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Stephen Bergstrom
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 December 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 522
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 9:06am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Good heavens, the whole reason the seller is able to sell is because people are interested in obtaining the art. They didn't create the art, so why are they crabbing about giving a little something to person who did?
Some people just can't see past their own noses, IMO.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 9:35am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I say no, the artist does not have a right to a future percentage off of private sales. If artists would unionize and demand that the companies that make millions off of their artwork, provide a retirement package, then this would be a non issue. But would artists do that?
One additional benefit to unionizing, it would be a legal avenue to keep artists from being ripped off by big companies stealing artwork ideas off of individual artist like this
Cody Foster, a company that does a big game selling wholesale holiday baubles and other tschotskes to retailers nationwide, appears to be stealing artist Lisa Congdon's work and turning it into ornaments, which they're then selling for money. Money that they're not giving any of to Congdon.
Edited by Jodi Moisan on 29 December 2013 at 9:37am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132673
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 9:36am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Good heavens, the whole reason the seller is able to sell is because people are interested in obtaining the art. They didn't create the art, so why are they crabbing about giving a little something to person who did?•• Sadly, the analogy is exactly this: A: Hey, B, how's you're day going? B: Lousy! I'm out a hundred bucks! A: Bummer! What happened? B: I saw two hundred dollar bills blowing down the street, but I was only able to catch one of them.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Paul Gibney
Byrne Robotics Member.
Joined: 17 April 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1079
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 9:58am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I don't object to this in principle, but how will it work? Will artists have to register somewhere so they can collect their cut? How will it be enforced? I have a piece in front of me by Curt Swan and Murphy Anderson. Assuming I sell it, how do I get the cut to the artist? Curt is dead; Murphy is not someone I have an address for. Also, what portion of the cut goes to which? This is assuming I can remember how much I originally paid for the piece so I can calculate profit. (I can't.) Am I going to have to be audited so I can prove any of the above? And all this is based on me wanting to comply with the rules. Many won't. Still, I kind of hope it can work, but I think it's going to be tricky. My biggest fear is that the cost of the bureaucracy created to administer the process will eat up any profits to the artists.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
