| Author |
|
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 10:47pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
You analogy is completely wrong. The suit was over the REPRODUCTION of
his fathers image~~~~~~~~~~~~ The reproduction of his father's image which was licensed by Universal. Which Universal was entitled to do as long as it was in regards to the film. Once it was put on items that wasn't that's where the problem came up. My point for mentioning has to do with at the time the contract was written. Merchandizing wouldn't have been a consideration. So why would they think to put something like transferring the image to another source into the contract. So just because it didn't happen than doesn't meant the rules can't be changed. Lugosi jr may have lost that lawsuit but it was instrumental in getting some laws into effect that protected actors after the fact. Which is what this resale proposal would do for artists.It would change how things would be done. There for my analogy isn't wrong. I just went the long way around in getting there.
Edited by Anthony J Lombardi on 30 December 2013 at 10:48pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 10:51pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Its just the wrong law to change. I would change the law to have the artist
paid for any reuse of their artwork, reprints, merchandising promotional etc.
That I think is a much better law.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6414
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 11:15pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
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.
**
Royalty is additional money from the resale of a work that is handed back down through the chain to people who created the work. Taxes are collected by the government for the government.
The case you want to make is that because comic art is a unique item, almost a by-product of the commercial product, the artist should not remain attached to its unique expression throughout its existence. This is an arbitrary line to draw which would not stand if such a by-product existed in other more lucrative arts (like screenwriting).
I keep reiterating the rights that exist for writers because those were all hard-fought for against the whim of the industry. This case is so similar, it's sad to see the resistance being put up against it.
|
| 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 11:18pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Its just the wrong law to change. I would change the law to have the artist
paid for any reuse of their artwork, reprints, merchandising promotional etc.
That I think is a much better law.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It seems to me you are painting a broader stroke. Which is fine with me. I would think that reselling would fall under reuse.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 11:40pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
The case you want to make is that because comic art is a unique item,
almost a by-product of the commercial product, the artist should not
remain attached to its unique expression throughout its existence. This is
an arbitrary line to draw which would not stand if such a by-product
existed in other more lucrative arts (like screenwriting).
I keep reiterating the rights that exist for writers because those were all
hard-fought for against the whim of the industry. This case is so similar,
it's sad to see the resistance being put up against it.
*************
Its still Apple and Oranges. This is not an arbitrary line, once an item is
sold the original owner has no claim to the item. This applies to any sale.
Since you mention screenwriting, its the same if the screenwriter or book
author sells their original handwritten manuscript. When handwritten
manuscripts of books are sold there is no similar fee attached to the re-
sell.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6414
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 12:24am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Brian: Its still Apple and Oranges. This is not an arbitrary line, once an item is
sold the original owner has no claim to the item. This applies to any sale.
Since you mention screenwriting, its the same if the screenwriter or book
author sells their original handwritten manuscript. When handwritten
manuscripts of books are sold there is no similar fee attached to the re-
sell.
**
You are stubbornly refusing to imagine an expanded definition of rights as would be described by this proposed change.
The line is arbitrary since it does not, as you say, apply to ANY sale. A screenwriter does not sell his handwritten manuscript, but he does sell his writing. He owns quite a bit still after the sale. His rights are defined currently much differently than they once were.
Copy Rights are not handed down from God and are not unchangeable-- you may not want them to change and, God knows, it looks like these particular ones under discussion never will -- but that doesn't make it right and it doesn't make your resistance to it generous or good hearted. It feels very stubborn and odd to me.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 12:40am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
You are stubbornly refusing to imagine an expanded definition of rights
as would be described by this proposed change. The line is arbitrary since
it does not, as you say, apply to ANY sale. A screenwriter does not sell his
handwritten manuscript, but he does sell his writing. He owns quite a bit
still after the sale. His rights are defined currently much differently than
they once were.
******************
A book author can sell the original manuscript they used when they wrote
a book. No difference there.
******************
Copy Rights are not handed down from God and are not unchangeable--
you may not want them to change and, God knows, it looks like these
particular ones under discussion never will -- but that doesn't make it
right and it doesn't make your resistance to it generous or good hearted.
It feels very stubborn and odd to me.
******************
Too bad I am an atheist and that doesn't mean anything. Didn't know God
was in congress. Not odd, I pay for the artwork then I am the owner of the
artwork and can do with it what I want except reprint it. This doesn't apply
to anything else I buy, I don't think it should start now.
Edited by Brian Peck on 31 December 2013 at 1:01am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 1:21am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I pay for the artwork then I am the owner of the
artwork and can do with it what I want except reprint it. This doesn't apply
to anything else I buy, I don't think it should start now.
~~~~~~~~~~ Brian you wrote the following up thread...
Its just the wrong law to change. I would change the law to have the artist
paid for any reuse of their artwork, reprints, merchandising promotional etc.
That I think is a much better law. ~~~~~ Under this new law you would be okay with an artist getting paid when artwork was resold. A resale is indeed a reuse of the artwork. It's being reused to make a profit for someone else.
How is that different than the resale royalties?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 2:58am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
What BS. Reuse is not the same as resale.
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.
Original art is one of a kind not a copy. So Royalties does not apply.
I think we have beaten this dead horse enough. I do not agree with the fee or
tax being added to the resale of original comic art and many of you do.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 3:26am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
What BS. Reuse is not the same as resale.~~~~~~~~~~ I don't think it's BS If I sell you a piece of art work in order to make money. I'm using that artwork to make money. If you sell that artwork to someone else you are reusing the same artwork I used to make money.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12703
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 4:28am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Original art is one of a kind not a copy. So Royalties does not apply.
***
Since a work of visual art is unique, why isn't that reason enough to change the concept of royalties specifically regarding visual art?
This is discussed in the Office of Copyright's Resale Royalties Analysis:
QUOTE:
| ...if a publisher sells five thousand books on behalf of an author, five thousand purchasers will own five thousand identical copies of the original work. The author (and publisher) will have a financial interest in all five thousand copies, and all five thousand purchasers will then be free to retain or resell their copies under the first sale doctrine without any separate financial obligation to the author or publisher. But in the case of many visual artists, there is but one painting, drawing, print, or sculpture, and one purchaser, and therefore the visual artist has but one financial interest, or, at best, a financial interest in a few limited editions of the work, as in a series of numbered prints or sculptures. While some artists may successfully exploit their works in other ways, such as through reproductions, for many others, the very nature of their visual art may limit the ability to create such markets, and the income realized from the sales of these items is not likely to approach the income that the original artwork will bring if it increases in value and is sold and later resold. |
|
|
Why should the rewards of the increased value of unique original visual art go to the art market, to collectors, dealers, galleries, and auction houses, but not in any even minimal percentage to the artist(s)?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133279
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 4:40am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
This thread is starting to read like some very small minded and, frankly, mean spirited people have backed themselves into a corner and are tearing at the wallpaper rather than allowing even the smallest consideration that their position might be wrong. The notion that a piece of original art is worth LESS than the same piece reproduced a thousand times is close to the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. There is no way to view it other than as a display of utter contempt for the creator of the work.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
