| Author |
|
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1681
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 6:12am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
The fundamental "problem" with copyright is that most people
consume, and do not create. Copyright is intended to protect the rights
of creators, so the average consumer will not even try to understand
the concepts behind intellectual property, as it is not in their interest to
do so. I've been through this debate a hundred times with regards to
software piracy, enough to know it's not really worth expending too
much effort over JB.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133496
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 6:39am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
I've been through this debate a hundred times with regards to software piracy, enough to know it's not really worth expending too much effort over JB.•• If I thought that, Koroush, my career would have taken a very different road!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Philippe Negrin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 August 2007
Location: France
Posts: 2644
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 7:22am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
I'm all in favour of this but the tracing back is going to be tough to put up.
There is a "similar" regulation in European football. Club A brings up and trains a young player, club B "buys" him then makes a lot of money selling him to club C, a portion of the sale HAS TO go to the original formative club. But we're talking million euros for each case here.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133496
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 8:48am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I'm all in favour of this but the tracing back is going to be tough to put up.•• "Tracing back" would not be an issue. Only future sales would be affected.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steve Gumm
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1473
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 9:15am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
There are some threads where it just amazes me that there are any discussions to the contrary... paying 3-5% royalty to the artist, surely everyone will think this is a good thing...right?
We all love comic art and we love our art heroes; John Byrne, George Perez, Jack Kirby, Walt Simonson, Steve Ditko the list goes on an on.... It's seems so right and oblivious to me that when their hard work pays off and people start seeing these pieces as art and not just work byproduct that they SHOULD continue to be cut in on the profits. I've read all the pages of point vs counterpoint and after all the back and forth and it really just boils down to this- In my heart I just KNOW that THEY SHOULD get a little of the profit off of these massive sales. For the life of me, I just can't see how people who love the medium and these artists can feel otherwise!
I really don't begrudge people for having differing opinions, but this is one of those times where I just can't seem to wrap my brain around how they can be against helping those who enrich our lives with their art!
Let's add "paying artist royalties" to religion and politics as topics that shouldn't discussed unless you want polarizing debates... who knew?!?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Matthew Hansel
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3469
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 9:16am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
If artists are not entitled to proceeds of the profits going forward, as some have opined here, (and I think they SHOULD be entitled to a cut of the future resale of their art), then maybe a solution is that artists start charging a helluva lot more for the pieces upfront so that the purchase might be considered a "total buyout". So, a piece that an artist might normally charge $100 for, might now charge $1,000. Does that make any sense? MPH
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Thom Price
Byrne Robotics Member
L’Homme Diabolique
Joined: 29 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7593
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 9:19am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
My initial thought on this was finding the concept that someone could sell something and still expect future profits from it to be very dubious. But that's based on my current expectations and mindset, and there's no reason for things not to change.
Ultimately though it seemed petty to argue against something that benefits others while costing me nothing.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133496
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 9:54am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
So, a piece that an artist might normally charge $100 for, might now charge $1,000.Does that make any sense? ••• Some years back, when I was still doing sketches at Cons, a guy ask what I would charge for a piece he wanted drawn. "Twenty-five " said I. He agreed to the price, and returned an hour or so later. I handed him the artwork. He reached into his pocket and pulled out a quarter. And he was OUTRAGED when I informed him I meant DOLLARS. Subsequently, the Con was abuzz with tales of how I was charging outrageous prices. I went home with only a fraction of the money I usually made.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133496
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 9:56am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
My initial thought on this was finding the concept that someone could sell something and still expect future profits from it to be very dubious. But that's based on my current expectations and mindset, and there's no reason for things not to change. ••• Are you opposed to the concept of royalties in general? The argument that seems to be dominating the negative side, here, is that the buyer purchases the art WITH AN EXPECTATION THAT IT WILL INCREASE IN VALUE, but the artist is not to be permitted any share of that increase. An absurd argument, when we consider the royalties paid on published work. As, say "The Dark Phoenix Sage" gets reprinted for the hundredth time, Marvel sends me a check. Are they wrong to do so?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36052
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 10:13am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
As dumbfounded as I was three pages back, I've got to say I'm more so now. Didn't think that was possible! I'm just flabberghasted at the resistance to paying a mere 3-5% of a sale to the artist whose work you enjoy and which you may profit handsomely from it's sale. The debate against boils down to "it's never been done before, so it shouldn't be done now". You apply that to any of a number of things in life and we'd still be living in the Stone Age.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 10:21am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
MATT:
As dumbfounded as I was three pages back, I've got to say I'm more so now. Didn't think that was possible! I'm just flabberghasted at the resistance to paying a mere 3-5% of a sale to the artist whose work you enjoy and which you may profit handsomely from it's sale. The debate against boils down to "it's never been done before, so it shouldn't be done now". You apply that to any of a number of things in life and we'd still be living in the Stone Age.
SER: And as I've mentioned before, the original art increases in value primarily *because* of the later actions of the artist. Would a Todd McFarlane INFINITY INC. get someone more than a nickel if he hadn't exploded in popularity with HULK and SPIDER-MAN?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133496
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 10:21am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I wonder how many who are opposed to this concept also think returning work to the artists is a bad idea? After all, as the industry was originally structured, the page rate was considered a buy-out. Artists who had work returned to them which was done before the charge, were taking back work the Companies had bought with the understanding it was theirs to dispose of as they saw fit. (Marvel warehoused theirs, while DC destroyed it -- what they didn't give away!)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
