| Author |
|
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 12:19pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
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.~~~~
Brian perhaps it's just that we have a difference in opinions. I tend to think that the song is being reused.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36060
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 12:22pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Bill Conway wrote:
| Let's say that I destroy the artwork (by accident or maybe I just don't like it)...Could the artist now sue me for potential future royalties that could have been generated had I not destroyed it? |
|
|
Absurd. They could no more sue you for destruction of art than they could sue you for not selling it during their lifetime thus missing out on the monies generated by its repeated sale.
Far too many people in this thread are looking for far too many things to take issue with, some of them so absurd as to be laughable. The music industry, the film & television industry, the publishing industry, they've all figured out a way to pay people for their work and creations over and above it's first use and/or sale and those are just for reproductions of their work. Even at that, as Mark Haslett has pointed out, it took a concerted effort by those creators to obtain rights to those monies that the owners of the material didn't want to give up. That people can't see the vastly more superior original as being more valuable and thus needing a modicum of protection for an artist who has no idea of it's future worth is astounding to me. If you want to treat absolutely everything in life as a commodity with risk/reward always factoring into the equation, enjoy.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 12:25pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
For all that opposed to doing this. Are you determined to not change your opinions no matter what you read or hear? Is it just on principle that you won't? If someone tells you something that would convince you to change your mind would you?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Bill Conway
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 23 October 2010
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 12:46pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
For all that opposed to doing this. Are you determined to not change your opinions no matter what you read or hear? Is it just on principle that you won't? If someone tells you something that would convince you to change your mind would you? *** Its a case of private ownership. If I own something its mine and mine alone. I dont see why another party should have a vested interest in something I own. If the creator was paid a fair market value for their art and sold it, thats it, they are done. All ties with the original artist should be cut. This whole discussion is absurd as this concept can never be implemented. Who would keep track of all sales and re-sales? Who would enforce the payment to the artist - state or local government? Oh boy. If someone wants to give a % of the resale amount to the artist or the artists family, God bless them. That's fine. But let them do it because they want to, dont make it a law that says they have to do it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6497
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 12:49pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Brian: "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. "
***
Except for all the exceptions you have already acknowledged-- reprinting, reproducing, etc. You refuse to imagine a previously unrecognized creator's right, but that has been the case for every single creator's right since the inception of professional art.
Your opinion makes exceptions for some rights, but not this new one which you don't like. Historically speaking, you're in good company-- but it's on the side of the table opposed to the artists. And in this case it's not even because you have reasons which express fairness to everyone involved, but just because you don't like the idea of changing rules to send back some money to the artist whose work generates the value. THAT is what I find odd-- your opinion seems designed to make sure this notion cannot happen. What is the cost of recognizing a new perpetual financial connection between an artist and his art? It would recognize the artists increasing value and allow the artist to benefit from it no matter what. Why is THAT bad?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 12:49pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Bill,
I agree with you 100%!
|
| 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 12:53pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
I make no exceptions when it comes to purchasing something that becomes
my personal property then reselling it. Reprinting, reproducing is entirely
different from resale so there are not exceptions.
Edited by Brian Peck on 31 December 2013 at 12:53pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 12:57pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
For all that opposed to doing this. Are you determined to not change your opinions no matter what you read or hear? Is it just on principle that you won't? If someone tells you something that would convince you to change your mind would you? *** Its a case of private ownership. If I own something its mine and mine alone. I dont see why another party should have a vested interest in something I own. If the creator was paid a fair market value for their art and sold it, thats it, they are done. All ties with the original artist should be cut. This whole discussion is absurd as this concept can never be implemented. Who would keep track of all sales and re-sales? Who would enforce the payment to the artist - state or local government? Oh boy. If someone wants to give a % of the resale amount to the artist or the artists family, God bless them. That's fine. But let them do it because they want to, dont make it a law that says they have to do it. ~~~~~ I'm wondering why you copied what I posted Bill? It certainly didn't answer the question I asked. Nor did you answer my question Brian.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14861
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 12:59pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
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.
-----
When it comes to original art, isn't this already true in many cases? Unless the artist specifically assigns those rights to me or is considered a work-for-hire, just because I own a piece of original art, it does not mean I have publication or reproduction rights to the piece. Those rights stay with the artist. So it's never truly mine alone.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 1:04pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I could ask the same questions of you, Matt, John Byrne, Mark.
Its my opinion but opinions can change. I have not read anything that would
make me change that opinion.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Monte Gruhlke
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3303
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 1:07pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
What this discussion is largely about is how best to update the archaic COPYRIGHT and ROYALTY laws where artists aren't nickled and dimed out of their fair share.
Stephen Foster died penniless because of the lack of copyright laws or a structure of royalty payments (at the time) for his classic works. His popular works were usurped and reused indiscriminately (for their own profits) because everyone knew they didn't have to pay him a cent.
Likewise, that abusive mentality persists today.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14861
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 1:08pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
This whole discussion is absurd as this concept can never be implemented. Who would keep track of all sales and re-sales? Who would enforce the payment to the artist - state or local government? Oh boy. -----
The current discussion is about applying resale royalties to public auctions, and possibly commercial galleries and private dealers. It seems to me that if those groups can authenticate the pieces and pay their sales taxes, then they should be able to pay out royalties.
Other countries have had resale royalties for years. Why would the U.S. be unable to handle it?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
