| Author |
|
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 8:56pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
The idea that starving artists shoulda known better than to pursue art is
totally insulting and beside the point. Learning from the examples of
great artists whose work commands more now than they ever made in
their lives can take many forms. "Screw 'em, they shoulda known
better" is a weird choice of lessons to take.
In your opinion, they seem worse than laborers because they are not
allowed to want to make money at their art. That is just plain wrong.
*****
Please READ what I posted! I did not say that! I said artists went into
comics because they love drawing and creating comics. Many know you
won't make a lot of money drawing comic books. You can make a lot of
money but that is not the norm. When Jack Kirby, Bill Everett John Romita
and others started in comics back in the 40s and 50s they did not go into
it expecting to get rich or make a lot of money. The drew comics because
they loved to do it. Other professions like the Law people will make a lot
more money and many become lawyers just to make money. Artists do
not usually go into comic for the money.
Read my response to John Byrne I am not against artists being paid a
royalty for the reprint and sales of the comics they produce. I am against a
tax on reselling of their artwork. Once they sell the artwork they have no
right or claim to it beyond the reproduction rights which was not part of
the original sale.
|
| 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 9:07pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
When Jack Kirby, Bill Everett John Romita
and others started in comics back in the 40s and 50s they did not go into
it expecting to get rich or make a lot of money~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That's were we disagree Brian, The artist from the 40's and 50's treated it like a job. They did it to make money and feed their families. They lived at their drawing tables days at a time often not seeing their families or having personal lives just so they can produce the work to make money.
Believe me when I tell you as much as I love drawing the idea of spending a 12 hour day at my drawing table getting the work done. Because it has to be done. Isn't done for the love of drawing. I'd love drawing a few hours a day and able to have more time for other things.
But going back to the artist from the 40's and 50's many of those artists had to stop working in the industry for a short time because they couldn't make any money doing it. If it was just about the money they wouldn't have left.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 9:15pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Anthony
You are correct I am wrong about some of the artists from the 40 and 50s.
But many later who grew up reading comic books went into it for the love of
drawing since they knew their predecessors didn't make a lot of money in
the field. it was only later in the 80s and 90s that a small group of artists did
start to make a lot of money drawing comic books.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Doug Campbell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 March 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 367
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 9:29pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I think this boils down to a conflict between the right of the creator to benefit from profits from his or her creation on the one hand, and the right of the owner of a piece of property to dispose of that property and profit thereby as he or she sees fit. Both of those principles are quite defensible and indeed are entrenched in our culture.
It does seem to me that other ownable artistic works aren't treated in the way this law proposes to treat artwork. Composers aren't compensated for the resale of recordings or hand-written scores of their music. Neither do writers get a cut of books or manuscripts which are re-sold. As JB has pointed out, however, just because things have always been one way is not really a justification for the continuation of such a state.
So should all artists get a cut everytime the fruits of their creation turn a profit? My inclination is to say yes, just because artistic creation, of whatever sort, is simultaneously so intrinsically valuable and yet so rarely profitable for the creator. I do, however, certainly understand the point of view of those who disagree and I seriously doubt that anybody who visits this forum really thinks "screw the artist." I also have no idea how such rules could be enforced in such a way as to be reasonably practical.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 9:29pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
But many later who grew up reading comic books went into it for the love of
drawing since they knew their predecessors didn't make a lot of money in
the field. it was only later in the 80s and 90s that a small group of artists did
start to make a lot of money drawing comic books. ~~~~~~~~ Brian, I was one of those who grew up wanting to draw comics because I loved them. It wasn't until I began trying to get a job in comics did I even think about making money at it. Up to this point I haven't gotten my break as far as comics go. Hence I've had to do different kinds of art to make money when I can. But I still try to do some comic art for my portfolio in case the chance does come.
I can't say it doesn't matter to me what kind of art I do as long as I get to do art cause it does matter to me. Still thou If the chance came along to do it but I couldn't take care of my family doing comic work I wouldn't be able to do it.
When the guys at Image became wealthy off of doing comics.It gave young artist like myself false expectations of what kind of money could be made doing comics.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 9:40pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
I also have no idea how such rules could be enforced in such a way as to be reasonably practical. ~~~~~~~~~ An organization can be formed to keep track of the sale of art work. Each artist belonging to the organization can be issued a id number. This idea number is attached to every piece of artwork they wish to include. So all non private sales would gets tracked by the organization which then would collect a percentage that would go to the artist. So people buying art for themselves from the artist never have to pay anything. Nor would they have to pay anything if they sold in in private. If it went to a dealer or went to an auction or other wise became a taxable item. Than the artist gets paid some royalties. | |
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 9:44pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
But how to handle it when an penciler and inker is involved? split the 3%
between them both? Does the penciler get 2% and the inker 1%? Does it go
by the art per page? If you had Walt Simonson and Bob Wiacek X-Factor
pages? Walt never sells his pages but Bob sells all of his. Would both the
pencils and inker splits the 3% for all of Bob's pages that are later resold but
walt never sells his pages. Looks like a right mess to me.
Edited by Brian Peck on 30 December 2013 at 9:45pm
|
| 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 10:09pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
It looks like a mess because you are looking for a mess Brian. But to answer your question sure spilt the percentage of royalties if multiple people created the piece of art. Take a certain percentage out for the creative people. Out of that percentage split it up for all involved.
Now I'm not certain what you mean concerning the Simonson and Wiacek pages. If you are meaning Wiacek's are his inks only. In that case no Walt Simonson doesn't get a percentage. In the case of Walt Simonson if his are only pencils than Wiacek gets nothing. But if the artwork in question contains but artists work they should both get something. Which if that were the case it isn't to hard to have a predetermined percentage already established for all sales.
I don't think it has to be any different than the way royalties would be handled in comics. Everyone involved should get a piece of the pie. Penciler , inker and colorist as well if they were involved with the piece being sold.
Edited by Anthony J Lombardi on 30 December 2013 at 10:10pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6414
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 10:09pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Brian: Please READ what I posted! I did not say that! I said artists went into
comics because they love drawing and creating comics. Many know you
won't make a lot of money drawing comic books. You can make a lot of
money but that is not the norm.
***
But what if an artist does become an artist to make a lot of money doing his art? Why should policies be kept that make that as hard as possible?
You say you want the same as other industries-- but as I point out (and as you claim to agree with) writers are protected for their stories-- resold in other MARKETS. If my TV show is sold again to a new medium that doesn't exist yet, I'll get a royalty. If someone takes my movie script STORY and copies it, then I can sue them because my unique expression of an idea is protected. These are some of the arcane ways that artists rights are protected and they were hard won in battles exactly like this one. No one in the "industry" of art wants to find new ways to share the money with the artists-- the artists have always had to fight for themselves.
Now you position yourself as one who would stand with the status quo against any effort to use royalties to reward comic artists. Why? Because it isn't the norm in any other industry. Your use of the term "tax" is inappropriate, isn't it? I get royalties, but they aren't "tax". They are part of the industry I am in. Why is the original art industry to be kept forever free of this? Because of tradition? That is the bottom line of your line of thought. What is really being protected by this status quo?
...and before you answer, remember it is only being discussed for art that is created after this new system would be implemented.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 10:20pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I'm remind of something I read years ago. Bela Lugosi Jr is a lawyer. He began seeing his father's image of Dracula everywhere. Universal was licensing it out to be put on all kinds of products. Bela Jr as Universal to see his father's contract. After seeing the contract he discovered they were in breach of contract by continuing to profit off his likeness on items other than what it was originally intended for. Namely the film. He sued and initially won a suit against them. Eventually it was over turned but as a result. A law was passed in California protecting artist against that sort of thing. So now every time someone wants to use Bela Lugosi's image his estate has to be paid and has the right to refuse to allow it to happen.
So why shouldn't there be laws giving artist the right to determine what happens with their art? They should be allowed to profit from it as much as possible.
I mean hey how about this artist don't sell original art anymore. They can keep it for themselves and just mass reproduce them and sell them at a much lower price.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 10:29pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Mark,
Again Please READ what I posted! I did not say that!
I said I agree paying royalties for sales of a book or reprinting the comic
or reusing the artwork for other purposes, promotion or merchandising I
think the artists should be paid percentage of those sale and royalties on
reprinting. That is in line with a writer getting getting royalties for their
show appearing in a new medium. The artists is also covered now if
someone tries to reprint the art since sales of original artwork doesn't
include reproduction rights. Just like someone taking a scripts story and
copying it.
My issue and I repeat it again is getting money when the original art is
resold. Once the artist sells the original art they give up any right to it,
beyond the reproduction rights. They should get no tax on its resale.
You keep using the work Royalty for this resale but that is not the proper
use of the term:
Royalty: an amount of money that is paid to the original creator of a
product, book, or piece of music based on how many copies have been
sold
There are no copies being reproduced. The artwork does not change it is
just being resold. And when something is resold and since the
government wants to add a fee when reselling the artwork its a tax.
Edited by Brian Peck on 30 December 2013 at 10:47pm
|
| 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 10:36pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I'm remind of something I read years ago. Bela Lugosi Jr is a lawyer. He
began seeing his father's image of Dracula everywhere. Universal was
licensing it out to be put on all kinds of products. Bela Jr as Universal to
see his father's contract. After seeing the contract he discovered they were
in breach of contract by continuing to profit off his likeness on items
other than what it was originally intended for. Namely the film. He sued
and initially won a suit against them. Eventually it was over turned but as
a result. A law was passed in California protecting artist against that sort
of thing. So now every time someone wants to use Bela Lugosi's image his
estate has to be paid and has the right to refuse to allow it to happen. So
why shouldn't there be laws giving artist the right to determine what
happens with their art? They should be allowed to profit from it as much
as possible. I mean hey how about this artist don't sell original art
anymore. They can keep it for themselves and just mass reproduce them
and sell them at a much lower price.
*********
You analogy is completely wrong. The suit was over the REPRODUCTION of
his fathers image. Which I agree with and have mentioned again and again
I agree artists should get royalties on reprints.
As to the artists keeping the artwork and mass reproducing it. Unless they
own the characters they could not reproduce the artwork as the publishers
own the reproduction rights. That is what the artists agree to unless its a
creator owned character/comic.
A number of you are reading my post with blinders on or blindfolds. I am
ONLY against the tax, fee, what every you want to call it on reselling of
the original art. I am for the other ideas for artists to make money. Please
learn to read.
Edited by Brian Peck on 30 December 2013 at 10:39pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Topic Closed)
