| Author |
|
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12760
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 2:11pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Lennon-McCartney were ignorant of the laws that could have greatly benefited them. Artists currently have no resale royalty law of which to be ignorant or from which to benefit.
|
| 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 2:17pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
How are fans being gone after? We are discussing art sales from auction houses, galleries, and art dealers.
A Beatles song was used for a NIKE ad a few years back, money was NOT sent to the original living Beatles. It ALL went to the person that bought the songs and now owns them. Why should art be any different?~~~~~~~~ So your argument is they didn't get paid before. Why should they be paid now?
My response to that is this. We must learn from the past and use what we've learned to better the future.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 2:17pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Michael are there any resale royalty laws in the music business that bars outright ownership purchases?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 2:21pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I just don't understand why people have no issue with a 10-30% fee for an
art broker or auction house (which is the kind of sales we are discussing, not
private sales between individuals), yet find a 3-5% fee for the artist (who
arguably is the ultimate reason for the sale of the piece) offensive.
***************
Auction houses perform a service on the particular sale or resale that is why
the fee in justified. I do not always agree with the amount but they are the
ones which are selling it for the owner.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Andrew W. Farago
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4079
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 2:23pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
How are fans being gone after? We are discussing art sales from auction houses, galleries, and art dealers.
Exactly. Those would be the venues that would have to go absolutely above board on this, and would be easiest to regulate (the prospect of an IRS audit makes compliance likely). And those are the sales that would be of the greatest benefit to artists, who may have sold these pieces for a tiny fraction of their current asking price or may have never had these pieces in their possession in the first place. And it's pennies on the dollar, too.
It's all hypothetical and rhetorical at this point, but this barely takes any money out of anyone's pockets, and could be a godsend to the artists who created the works that we've enjoyed for years. Gene Colan and Dave Cockrum both racked up considerable medical expenses later in life, and hardly a month goes by where I don't hear about some other incredible talent who's facing some considerable medical expense for himself or his family.
For every Stan Lee who could probably literally earn money at the drop of a hat (make a YouTube video of Stan dropping his hat and shouting "Excelsior!" and put a tip jar with it, and you'd get some cash in there immediately), you've got a Jack Kirby, Gene Colan, Wally Wood, John Severin, Carmine Infantino, Nick Cardy, etc. who wouldn't have objected to a little extra cash for medical expenses, house payments, or even just the ability to buy something cool for the grandkids during the holidays. Everybody wins here.
|
| 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 2:31pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Okay I have something that might be a counter balance to those opposed to this proposal.
What if the royalties paid to the artist on each resale can be counted as a deduction on your taxes.
Would that be a fair trade to you all in order for the visual artists get paid royalties on resales?
Edited by Anthony J Lombardi on 31 December 2013 at 2:32pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5819
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 2:35pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
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.
...and also...
A Beatles song was used for a NIKE ad a few years back, money was NOT sent to the original living Beatles. It ALL went to the person that bought the songs and now owns them. Why should art be any different?
---
I think the overwhelming majority of people I know think Michael Jackson is an asshole for buying the Beatles library out from under Paul McCartney, and also most people would think, reasonably, that the Beatles should get the money when their songs are used.
Fairness doesn't mean everyone is treated unfairly. Basically the Beatles arguments above amount to "person X is being treated unfairly, why should person Y be treated fairly? That's unfair to person X!"
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 2:35pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
No, not all of us itemize our deductions and there are the collectors who do
not live in the US
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133512
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 2:38pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
The reference to Lennon/McCartney suggests an analogy here. For ease of discussion, let's use some fictional names.Songwriters Smith & Jones write a piece, which is duly copyrighted so anyone who performs it for payment has to kick back some of that money to S&J. S&J are not doing any new work, relative to this particular piece, but they still get their share. If someone performs the piece at home, or at a party, and no money is exchanged, nothing goes to S&J. Meanwhile, visual artist Brown creates a drawing, which he sells to Green. Green frames it, and hangs it on his wall at home. Every time he looks at it, he has a pleasant experience, but there's no money changing hands. This is like that private performance of Smith & Jones' song. But eventually, for any of a number of reasons, Green decides to sell the piece at auction. This is a "public performance" and money changes hands. Why shouldn't artist Brown be entitled to a share of that money, if S&J get paid whenever their song is performed for cash? HOW IS IT DIFFERENT?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133512
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 2:42pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
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.•• Thanks for the thought, Matt, but again I must play by what I perceive as the "rules". There was no agreement between us, when you bought the piece, that you would pay me a percentage of any future sale. Therefore, I don't think you should. If, on the other hand, you buy another piece, and we agree at that time that I will receive a percentage of future sales, then the arrangement it different. This is why I would not want to see any new legislation in this matter passed retroactively. As I said, I don't think that would even be legal, but if it somehow were, I don't think it would be RIGHT. Kind of like what I've said before around here -- if tomorrow Congress passes a law making it illegal to wear blue shirts, no one can be arrested for wearing a blue shirt yesterday.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14861
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 2:42pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
A Beatles song was used for a NIKE ad a few years back, money was NOT sent to the original living Beatles. It ALL went to the person that bought the songs and now owns them. Why should art be any different?
-----
As I said above, McCartney and the Lennon estate still have and never lost the songwriting royalty rights to the Lennon-McCartney Beatles songs. What they do not have is the publishing rights, and McCartney is poised to regain some of those starting in 2018. If you are trying to use the Beatles as a case of an artist losing all rights once they sell something, you are completely failing.
|
| 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 2:47pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
No, not all of us itemize our deductions and there are the collectors who do
not live in the US~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This strikes me as a response that says. I'm not going to budge in my opinion no matter what.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
