| Author |
|
Bill Conway
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 23 October 2010
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 10:39am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
So far this concept sounds like a win-win for the artist. Tell me, if the art work is resold for less than the previous amount, does the artist still get a 10% royalty on the resale -- or would the artist have to reimburse the seller for the decline in value? If the artist can partake in the profit of a resale, then he should have a stake in a loss. That would seem fair, no...?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6495
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 10:46am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Brian: A book author can sell the original manuscript they used when they wrote
a book. No difference there.
******************
This is a thoughtless response to the least important part of my post. No difference?
A writer's medium is not words on paper-- it's ideas, choices, which are not specific to paper or MS Word files or recorded audio or any other actual thing. Writers' rights are to the ideas -- and the paper manuscript is more than likely a print-out from his computer. Selling the "manuscript" is NOTHING like selling a page of comic art-- which is the actual medium of the comic artist-- the sum total of their work on a one-to-one basis.
Can anything be accurately compared to the case of comic art? You can't even compare it to an architect unless his blue-prints are one and a half times bigger than his finished building and are more clear and beautiful to look at. Comic art is not like everything else. The case of comic art is more or less unique to artists who draw.
You refuse to imagine that perhaps not all possible rights have been accounted for. If you did, you'd have to see there are more ways to potentially lay them out. Looking at the saddest cases, it is obvious that not all rights are properly addressed in the current treatment of artists in the after-market of their art. Their work is being used to power a new industry. Did anyone know it would come to this? If they had, would they have possibly rethought the assignment of their rights?
Your refusal to even acknowledge the concept as a "royalty" shows the extent of your stubbornness, and the extent of your reasoning. You like it the way it is and that's all you have to say. Bully for you.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 11:42am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
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.
************************
A number of times you have pointed out people attributing the wrong
meaning to some of your posts on this forum. I feel the same is being
done to me. I have never said the original art is worth less than the same
piece reproduced a thousand times and never said a bad word about a
creator's work.
************************
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.
************************
Matt,
That is the wrong interpretation "it's never been done before, so it
shouldn't be done now". The reason is once something is sold by anyone
they have given up all rights to future resale. I apply this to everything, I
do not think there should be any exception. This applies to comic books
which publishers have sold and some can increase 100x fold. The
publisher is not entitled to any of the profit.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 11:55am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
So far this concept sounds like a win-win for the artist.
Tell me, if the art work is resold for less than the previous amount, does the
artist still get a 10% royalty on the resale -- or would the artist have to
reimburse the seller for the decline in value? If the artist can partake in the
profit of a resale, then he should have a stake in a loss. That would seem fair,
no...?
****************
Most of the people responding do not think the artist should share in the risk
if the artwork sell for less.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12759
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 11:56am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
The reason is once something is sold by anyone they have given up all rights to future resale.
***
Brian, I don't understand what the reason is vis-a-vis a unique original piece of art, which is the subject of the discussion and not just any "something," and with a right to resale inuring not to the benefit of just "anyone" but specifically to the artist who created the piece of art.
Once a unique original piece of art is sold by the artist, he should not have rights to royalties from a resale because...?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36060
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 11:58am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Brian Peck addressing JB wrote:
A number of times you have pointed out people attributing the wrong meaning to some of your posts on this forum. I feel the same is being
done to me. I have never said the original art is worth less than the same
piece reproduced a thousand times and never said a bad word about a
creator's work. |
|
|
Comparing the sale of a comic book which has been reproduced thousands of times to the sale of a one-of-a-kind piece of original art is a fallacious argument at best. You've said that many times, yet I can't for the life of me see where you don't understand that very huge, very important difference. You seem to want every single thing ever created to be on the same continuum, which is where I believe the notion that you give no more regard to an original piece of art than to the comic book in which it was used comes from. Rightly or wrongly, that's the impression you're giving, Brian.
You can certainly agree that there are differences, no? That I can pick up a beat up copy of ASM 1 for far, far less than I can a pristine one whereas I can only buy the original art for that cover once. The original Ditko cover would command far more than the reproduction, yet you wish to say that it's all the same and that if Marvel doesn't get a piece of the action for the reproduction, the artist shouldn't get a piece of the action for the original.
Finally, you say you're not arguing from the point of "never done before, shouldn't be done now" but that's simply not what you're saying. And yes, I'm reading what you're writing. You just wrote "the reason is once something is sold by anyone, they have given up all rights to future resale". That is the way it is now. That is "never been done before". What is being proposed is a change to that procedure, yet you stand on "shouldn't be done now". I can't interpret what you wrote any other way.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Doug Campbell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 March 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 367
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 12:02pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Thinking about some of the implications of this law and the principles which inspire it, it occurs to me: should Steve Ditko get a royalty for the sale or resale of original art which features Spider-Man? Or the Cockrum estate for the sale of drawings of Nightcrawler? After all, it's not just the artist whose skill gives value to an illustration, but also the distinctive characters featured. Perhaps the original creators also ought to get a slice of the cheddar for their contributions.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5819
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 12:02pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
The reason is once something is sold by anyone
they have given up all rights to future resale. I apply this to everything, I
do not think there should be any exception. This applies to comic books
which publishers have sold and some can increase 100x fold. The
publisher is not entitled to any of the profit.
---
If you don't understand the different between a publisher putting out a comic and the value of that comic increasing, and the original work done by the artist on paper going up in value, then I can see why this discussion is going the way it is.
I can make a movie tomorrow in which a character talks about Led Zeppelin and shows off his collection of Zeppelin albums on vinyl and owe no money to anyone. If I play a Zeppelin song in the movie... then I owe royalties to whoever owns their music.
Do the same thing with original art. If I buy a comic, that's a commodity I own that I can sell for profit at any time. If I buy original art, that's a commodity I own that I can sell for a profit at any time... as long as I pay a royalty to the original artist or their living representatives.
Edited to add - Apparently Matt was in the middle of his response when I typed mine, so don't think I'm piling up on you with the same point, Brian. I wouldn't have responded had Matt's posted before I started typing.
Edited by Brad Krawchuk on 31 December 2013 at 12:05pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36060
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 12:06pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Michael Penn's quote above from the Office of Copyright's Resale Royalties Analysis puts to bed the difference between copies and originals. I personally never had a question about the difference, but those arguing for not paying any royalties to the artist upon resale are either being stubbornly obtuse in their defense or simply haven't read the analysis.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Bill Conway
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 23 October 2010
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 12:10pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Once a unique original piece of art is sold by the artist, he should not have rights to royalties from a resale because...? **** Because it goes against the entire concept of "private property". If I have to pay a % of my resale profit to another party, then that property is not truly mine alone. Another party always has a vested interest in it. Let's say that I destroy the artwork (by accident or maybe I just don't like it anymore)...Could the artist now sue me for potential future royalties that could have been generated had I not destroyed it? There are too many gray areas and slippery slopes for this to ever pass as a law in the US.
Edited by Bill Conway on 31 December 2013 at 12:17pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 12:14pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
I can make a movie tomorrow in which a character talks about Led Zeppelin
and shows off his collection of Zeppelin albums on vinyl and owe no money
to anyone. If I play a Zeppelin song in the movie... then I owe royalties to
whoever owns their music.
********
Brad,
You are reproducing the song in the movie, that is why you pay a royalty.
Reselling original art does not reproduce anything.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 12:17pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Michael Penn's quote above from the Office of Copyright's Resale Royalties
Analysis puts to bed the difference between copies and originals. I
personally never had a question about the difference, but those arguing for
not paying any royalties to the artist upon resale are either being stubbornly
obtuse in their defense or simply haven't read the analysis.
******
Or just do not agree with that analysis. This is my opinion, I do not have to
change it because I read something
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Topic Closed)
