Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 24 Next >>
Topic: COPYRIGHT OFFICE PROPOSES RESALE ROYALTIES FOR VISUAL ARTISTS (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
Posted: 31 December 2013 at 1:09pm | IP Logged | 1  

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.


*******

That is true about most things people own which have been purchased. I
own a comic book but can not make copies for resale. I have songs by the
Rolling Stones, I can not make copies of them for resale. Most of my
personal and private property I have purchased, I do not have
reproduction rights for.



Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36063
Posted: 31 December 2013 at 1:11pm | IP Logged | 2  

 BIll Conway wrote:
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.

Gee, I wish there was some entity who sells things at auction to collect fees due both themselves, to the seller and as tax.  Color me stumped how a place like Sotheby's could ever keep record of their sales.  Wish there was some legal recourse for a member of the WGA to receive royalties not paid by a studio.  

Oh wait... 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
Posted: 31 December 2013 at 1:13pm | IP Logged | 3  

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.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes you can ask the same. Which I have no problem answering.

On principle I would want to do the right thing. Even if it meant changing my opinion.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
Posted: 31 December 2013 at 1:21pm | 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?

Yes, but no one on here has said anything to change my mind, you all are just rephrasing what the other person has already said and often in a really insulting way. I mean Tim's "mere arts and crafts" comment was insulting. Because to some in the fine art community, they look at comic book art as a mere manipulation of an established image. I had one friend that is a water colorist comment that it isn't "real art" because you can buy books to learn how to draw the same artwork on the comic book pages.  Her ignorance of the medium was insulting.

I wonder how many who are opposed to this concept also think returning work to the artists is a bad idea?

I see no issue with returning work to the artist to sell at some point, to give them additional income as a good will gesture. But they don't have to, because they legally had a contract making it the company's. Now it is different , artists include that in contracts with the company. But to tie that work in private sales by fans to the artist forever, no I don't think that is right. Have artists been stopped from charging what ever they want for commissions, have they been banned from working as an artist once their work with the comic book company is done? Have they been told "you can not do your own original work and make additional money to increases your income" No they have not.

If a person or business reproduces an artist work to massproduce it and makes it an ongoing job, then the artist and company that owns the rights to the characters,can stop all sales and demand the money from it. Hell I even think that products that are mass produced with a piece of art done originally for the sole purpose of a comic book page, that are now being hawked on pajamas and tin posters, the artist should get a cut of those proceeds. And as an artist, that is the deal I would work out before working with the company.


But to go after a private fan or collector IMO is wrong, they helped build the artists career and I see it as a big F-U to them. I, 100% believe, once a property is sold , it is theirs to either keep or sell. I valued my collectors, I would have been nothing if it were not for them. And if they are able to turn a profit for something they took a chance on, good for them and thanks for taking a chance on me and building my business.

As I stated somewhere in this thread as my resale prices increase, my original pieces I sell goes up. On ebay there is a thing called "shill bidding" it is against their rules now, and IMO always been stealing, but before it was enforced, I saw one artist that completely sucked, shill bid her way to big money. She created a false sense of value for her horrid work. Before ebay went all private auctions, you could see who was bidding up an auction. This lady had friends of hers, bid up her auctions to create an appearance of high value and demand. Teddy Bear magazines wrote stories about the high prices and called her the "hot new bear artist". After that article came out, her bears exploded and she no longer relied on shill bidding. People were clamoring to get her bears. It was sickening to watch. But the lesson behind it was, if "fans" pay tons for your work, they build your career. In this artist's case resale was not an issue because once the fever died, her bear prices dropped like a lead balloon.  But I have also seen honest to goodness, very talented artists careers explode, because real collectors liked their work and could resale it for a profit. Theirs and my career, was built due to my collectors. They invested in me and I will not begrudge their good fortune if they profit from a resale of an item that they took a chance on and helped me.

In Britain they have a law like this and famous artist David Hockney had this to say about it: “The arrival of this levy will do little or nothing for the vast majority of British artists. It will undoubtedly envelop the market, on which we as artists depend, in red tape, and it will discourage art dealers from buying particularly the work of emerging artists.”

If artists want a better financial deal , make it with the people that are in the industry.  Don't become an artist, if the money is not enough to make a living and have a nest egg in the future. After the economy tanked, my business bottomed out, I could bitch and moan about how unfair life is and demand people that bought my work, should now have to pay me again for that work if they decide to sell it. But I never would. I changed careers that provided a more stable income. It SUCKS not to do creative work. I have cried way too many nights over making the decision to close of my toy shop because I decided to take a gamble on doing my own thing.  I miss like hell, making huge amounts of money for 3 hours of work.   But that is not my collectors fault or their responsibility.

As I said before, I would love to know how many have and will from now on, volunteer to forward a percentage of a sale of their collection to the artist. Because as you all have stated , you feel it is the right thing. And I see no reason to need a law to do what you feel is the right thing.

Has anyone on here forwarded a percentage of a sale to the original artist?



Edited by Jodi Moisan on 31 December 2013 at 1:37pm
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6497
Posted: 31 December 2013 at 1:23pm | IP Logged | 5  

Brian: 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.

***

...in your conception.

You say you've read nothing to change your opinion. Your posts, like this one above, show no evidence that you even grasp the notion of expanding artists' rights or what that has meant historically.

Certainly nothing you've said has had the slightest impact toward swaying my opinion. You seem to have a mighty grip on the status quo without anything but tradition to motivate it.

History has shown that such intrenched unfairness can be overturned -- we'll have to see what happens here.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
Posted: 31 December 2013 at 1:28pm | IP Logged | 6  

Does any former Beatles make any royalties from the use of the music the Michael Jackson estate own? NO they don't, Michael Jackson's estate is the sole beneficiary of the money made from that property.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Bill Conway
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 23 October 2010
Posts: 294
Posted: 31 December 2013 at 1:29pm | IP Logged | 7  

Gee, I wish there was some entity who sells things at auction to collect fees due both themselves, to the seller and as tax.  Color me stumped how a place like Sotheby's could ever keep record of their sales.  Wish there was some legal recourse for a member of the WGA to receive royalties not paid by a studio.  

***
Ok, so this is now a law that would require anyone who sells original art (not just big auction houses, but also John Q Citizen who is selling a $200 page on eBay) to register and dillegently log all sales and resales with some government entity (local, state, federal?).
 
This entity could also have agents staked out at comic cons so that the next time Adam Hughes does a sketch of a stick figure, it can be registered. Now we can be assured  AH gets his cut when the fanboy resells it online that later that evening (ah, but I digress).
 
It would also require this entity to register all the artists and their estates to ensure that an invoice goes out to the reseller with the proper amount owed. What if there are multiple beneficiaries (all those Kirby grandkids), how does that get split up?
 
Will the artist have to pay capital gains tax on those royalties as well?
Absurd...


Edited by Bill Conway on 31 December 2013 at 1:33pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
Posted: 31 December 2013 at 1:33pm | IP Logged | 8  

There are no rights to expand, once something is sold the previous owner
has no rights to the item. As for being unfair, its more unfair to tell someone
what they can and can not do with their personal property which they have
legally purchased.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Andrew W. Farago
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 July 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4079
Posted: 31 December 2013 at 1:35pm | IP Logged | 9  

I've been going with the 10% figure in all of my posts here, but it looks like the proposed figure is only in the 3-5% range.  That's a lot less than sales tax, which doesn't always get charged in these transactions.  For 90% or more of art sales, that's going to be a very negligible amount, and those remaining 10% of transactions would be affecting the kinds of people who have the spare cash to drop tens of thousands of dollars on comic book artwork, and that surcharge would likely be split between the buyer and seller anyway. 

Art dealers are still moving one of a kind items, and demand for those items isn't going away.  For buyers, this really isn't any different than going to the newsstand and finding out that Marvel raised their prices by a nickel this month, and you've got to adjust your buying habits a bit if you still want to buy a Clark bar with your weekly comic book purchases.

The "seller beware"/"artists had the option to hang onto their art" attitude bugs me, since a lot of great artwork never got returned to the creators in the first place, and artists in the 1970s and 1980s sold and traded art so that they could maybe go to Red Lobster instead of McDonald's on the way home from a convention, and certainly weren't thinking "I could buy a house with this someday" or "Marvel might blacklist me five years from now, so I'd better start saving for a rainy day" or "I wonder how expensive my medical bills will be 30 years from now."  The world's a different place than it was 30 years ago, and we need to change our practices to reflect that.


Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36063
Posted: 31 December 2013 at 1:36pm | IP Logged | 10  

You're right, Bill.  How silly of me.  There's absolutely no way any of this could be figured out at all, on any level.  It's not like there is precedent in the United States or in other countries to follow nor a roadmap on how to implement this new procedure.  If you, Bill Conway, can conceive of no way for it to practically work out, far be it from me to suggest ways that it actually has worked.  I now see the error of my ways.  Can't figure it out?  SCREW THE ARTIST!

Whew.  Feel so much better now.  Thanks, Bill!
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36063
Posted: 31 December 2013 at 1:43pm | IP Logged | 11  

 Jodi Moisan wrote:
Has anyone on here forwarded a percentage of a sale to the original artist?

For the record, I've only ever bought directly from Jim Warden and only pieces by John.  That money goes directly to him.  I have no intention of selling what I've bought but should I some day have to, John will see a check in the mail for 3-5% of the sale should I make a profit. He can do with the money as he sees fit and I feel like I have met an obligation that I think is only fair considering the enjoyment I've gotten out of the pieces is directly tied to owning his original work.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
Posted: 31 December 2013 at 1:43pm | IP Logged | 12  


You're right, Bill.  How silly of me.  There's absolutely no way any of this could be figured out at all, on any level.  It's not like there is precedent in the United States or in other countries to follow nor a roadmap on how to implement this new procedure.  If you, Bill Conway, can conceive of no way for it to practically work out, far be it from me to suggest ways that it actually has worked.  I now see the error of my ways.  Can't figure it out?  SCREW THE ARTIST!

Whew.  Feel so much better now.  Thanks, Bill!


I love to see the very same people that pass judgement on us mere mortals stoop to the same hyperbole that has gotten others, posts removed. LOL


Edited by Jodi Moisan on 31 December 2013 at 1:44pm
Back to Top profile | search | www
 

<< Prev Page of 24 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login