| Author |
|
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 6:28pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I think you and Brian are really missing the point by a country mile. You
keep comparing original, one of a kind artwork with cultural significance
to pieces that are either mass produced collectibles or printed,
copywritten work.
The issue here is original artwork. The artist owns the work they create,
not the images when they are printed by a company. Think beyond comic
book pages and think of original paintings. Why do we go to a museum
to see the work of Vincent Van Gogh? Because the original piece that the
artist painted is THE ORIGINAL - one of a kind, with cultural significance.
Why do original pages of Jack Kirby art that were used for FANTASTIC
FOUR cost so much? Because for people like me, that art is more
significant than Van Gogh. When Kirby's art was featured in a museum
exhibit, I was there. There is something about the original art that
transcends mere collectibles or arts and crafts.
The world of fine art has a long history of artists not benefitting from the
sale of their paintings. This law would benefit the the few who break
through and start demanding high prices for their pieces. Original
artwork that sells through auction houses once a reputation has been built
should also benefit the artist. It's disgusting and unfair that the artist
does not share in this. If defies fairness and decency to exclude a painter
or sculptor from this.
Comic book artists who make royalties on published work are fortunate to
have revenue from the published work, but they should not be excluded
from making money from sales once their original art rises to the level of
auction houses in the same way a painter should benefit. If the comic
book community does not treat original art with the same reverence that
is afforded fine art, then we are contributing to the disrespect the form
receives from the general public.
I think the notion that original art is being compared to stocks that the
artist was not wise enough to hold onto is completely insulting to the
artist and denigrating to the art. Brian, I know you are active in
organizing comic book conventions - is that coloring your point of view?
Do your colleagues share your opinion that artists should be excluded
from large, auction house sales? How can you devote so much time to the
comic book form and yet advocate unfair practices against the artists who
create the work? It doesn't match up - it's the worst kind of greed on the
part of art dealers.
***********************
Tim,
You are completely wrong lumping the two things together, they are
totally separate. I love comic books and the artwork which created it. I
think comic art is a unique art form which combines the talents of many
different creative people from writer to penciler to inker and letterer
(when it was done by hand). I have been collecting comic art for over two
decades, I love the nostalgia and the skills the artists bring to the artwork.
I buy artwork because I love the images on it or the story it tells or the
skill of the artist.
I agree with what you say in regards to the comic art form, but what I
disagree with you is once the original art is sold the artist only controls
the reproduction rights of the artwork. I have paid them a fair market
value which they determine but beyond that I am the owner and custodian
of the artwork. I can do with the artwork as I please, frame it, trade it, sell
it and do not have to give anything to them.
I am sorry if original comic art has become a collectible and tarnishes your
image of it but fine art is also a collectible and a Van Gogh painting can
go for millions. They are both a commodity like the stocks. I rarely sell my
comic art as I am very attached to much of it many hold a strong nostalgia
or love the the art form. But do not piss on people who buy and sell art
for a living, they work hard just like other people who buy and sell
houses, stock, cars etc.
My opinion is not an unfair practice, having a tax put on artwork which
the artist had already sold is unfair to the current owner when he or she
resells it. The REAL unfair practice is the artist not being properly paid for
the reuse and reproduction of their artwork. Work to pass laws to
compensate artists for reprinting and reproduction of their work. But not
for the resale of the physical original art. No other creative group has this
kind of control on items they are produced. Once a person sells or trades
artwork, houses, furniture etc they have no say or right to the items.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 6:34pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Andrew,
A house a perfect analogy. Frank Loyd Wright and other architects put a lot
of creative work into making unique one of a buildings just like artwork
penciler, inkers and letterers create. Its the perfect comparison. Wright never
got a percentage if his house was resold.
Edited by Brian Peck on 30 December 2013 at 6:36pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133279
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 6:35pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
All right then, a question to those on the negative side of this discussion:Starting around 1983, Marvel and DC began paying royalties to the talent. As a writer and artist at Marvel I received my page rate -- one of the highest the Company then paid -- and a few months later, when sales had been tallied, I received a check for a percentage of those sales. Subsequently I received a royalty on reprints. I did no further work to "earn" this money. Do you think this is wrong?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 6:43pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
John,
No I think this is fair. The agreement you had with Marvel and DC with
payment for the percentage of sales and royalty on reprints is what should
be the norm for the whole industry. If this means a law being past I am all
for that.
That is similar to a musician who writes songs and when they are played
on the radio or at events the musician is paid a certain amount for each
time it is used. All I am saying is the comic book industry should be the
same as other industries when it comes to compensating the creative end
of their business. Have comic books publishers treat artists and writers the
same as musicians, photographers etc.
I just think the artist tax on original art is the wrong way and paying the
artists/writers a percentage of sales and royalty on reprint is the right
way.
Edited by Brian Peck on 30 December 2013 at 6:53pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 6:52pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Here's a solution artist should begin doing what the comic companies did.. Every time an artist sells a piece of original art on the bill of sale under were the buyer signs his name have some fine print that says. Signee agrees upon any future sales of this piece the original artist is entitled to receive a royalty percentage of said resale.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 6:59pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Anthony,BWS tried this and it went over like a lead balloon. If artists do that,
they will see their sales decline. People buy artwork from artists for many
reasons nostalgia, love the artists or the images on the paper. Many times it
can be an impulse buy because they think the image/story is cool or its a
good price. If the agreement is added to pay the artist a tax when its resold.
Many won't want to deal with the headache of paying the tax in the future if
its resold and others just don't want to sign a contract just to buy a piece of
artwork they may not have a huge attachment to.
His is the BWS agreement when purchasing art from him:
http://www.barrywindsor-smith.com/galleria/tar.html
Edited by Brian Peck on 30 December 2013 at 7:10pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 7:18pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Anthony,BWS tried this and it went over like a lead balloon. If artists do that,
they will see their sales decline. People buy artwork from artists for many
reasons nostalgia, love the artists or the images on the paper. Many times it
can be an impulse buy because they think the image/story is cool or its a
good price. If the agreement is added to pay the artist a tax when its resold.
Many won't want to deal with the headache of paying the tax in the future if
its resold and others just don't want to sign a contract just to buy a piece of
artwork they may not have a huge attachment to.~~~~~~~~~~~~
If that happens the artist can deal with the decline in sales just like companies do when business gets slow. They increase the price to adjust for the slower business.
Edit to add Thanks for the link Brian that's exactly what i'm talking about. Doing something like that won't affect the average person who buys art for their own desire to own it. Royalties and contracts like that really only affect someone who sells art for profit on a regular basis.
Edited by Anthony J Lombardi on 30 December 2013 at 7:25pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 7:22pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Anthony,
That is easier said than done. I know a number of artists who have a tough
time selling art these days increasing the prices would make it just that much
harder.BWS has been using this contract for like 5 or 6 years. I have not seen
anyone else use something similar in their art sales. BWS has a small group of
collectors who really love his work even though it can be expensive. Newer
and lesser know artists do not have that kind of fan base to try the same
avenue.
Edited by Brian Peck on 30 December 2013 at 7:28pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 7:31pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Anthony,
That is easier said than done. I know a number of artists who have a tough
time selling art these days increasing the prices would make it just that much
harder.~~~~~~~ If we are dealing with someone like say a dealer. Whose business it is to sell art. It will matter very little since they will just figure into the price for the art. What it will cost to pay the artist his share. What this could end up doing is few people being able to buy art directly from the artist. Why deal with the headache of one person of one piece of art ? Instead the artist can make a deal with a dealer for multiple pieces of art and let the dealer worry about unloading them. This could lead inflated prices from dealers. Which gets passed onto buyers. This could also lead to not being able to get commissions from artist as well. Better to just do the art you want and go thru the dealer or agent.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 7:32pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Thanks for the link Brian that's exactly what i'm talking about.
Doing something like that won't affect the average person who buys art
for their own desire to own it. Royalties and contracts like that really only
affect someone who sells art for profit on a regular basis.
****
I disagree. For someone who sees a piece on a website, ebay or at the
artists table for sale, many may not have a big attachment to the piece
they just like it. But you throw in a contract many will think its too much
hassle and will move onto to the next piece on ebay or at the artist at the
next table who doesn't have the same requirements. I know many artists
who would agree with me on that.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 7:37pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
At comic cons ever sale makes a difference, many artists can not ignore a
single sale hoping for a dealer to buy a number of their pieces. Pricing art is
a skill, too much and it sits on a website or at the artists table for the whole
convention.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 7:45pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
At comic cons ever sale makes a difference, many artists can not ignore a
single sale hoping for a dealer to buy a number of their pieces. Pricing art is
a skill, too much and it sits on a website or at the artists table for the whole
convention.~~~~~~~~~ That's right and why is that? It's because they don't make that much money to begin with. So resale royalties would be great. No need for contracts.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
