| Author |
|
Shaun Barry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 08 December 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6931
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 2:55pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
To go one step further with the Beatles analogy:
Wouldn't (or shouldn't) Paul, Ringo and the estates of John & George get some sort of percentage if the original master tapes were somehow sold to the highest bidder? Isn't that a more apt parallel to the original comic art argument?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12760
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 3:03pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Michael are there any resale royalty laws in the music business that bars outright ownership purchases?
***
With California's resale royalty law being held unconstitutional, there are no such laws in America right now. Can you clarify your question, Jodi?
The US Office Analysis mentions that
QUOTE:
| the latest draft of the revised Chinese copyright law included a droit de suite provision that would apply a resale royalty to original works of fine art, photography, and literary and musical transcripts. |
|
|
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6500
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 3:22pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
JB: 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?
**
Nice example.
And these rights are only protected for songwriters because of the way that industry developed-- where sheet music sales started as the main source of income. Imagine if the industry had started with record labels buying the work of hired songwriters-- there would be a hell of a time prying loose rights that songwriters have today. I'm not really versed on this history, but I'll bet there was a hell of a fight involved in getting things as "fair" as they are now.
The thing is that capitalism is amazing at finding new sources of income for old things. Sticking to old rules in this case for the sake of a buck and a tradition just ignores the way other artists have had to fight their fights. Every royalty has to be invented and quantified in its own way for the unique cases of each artist's industry.
We can invent new rights and royalties until the cows come home-- the real question is are they fair? Do they honestly reward value provided by the royalty recipient?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joel Biske
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 January 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 761
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 6:30pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Funny, when I posted this originally, I'd been talking about it a bit with some other artist friends... wondering about how they'd implement it, and what would actually be covered.Some of these questions have been touched upon, but this certainly wasn't what I expected. I'd been thinking about it from a logistical standpoint. I have a number of friends who are gallery artists.... their work is painted put in galleries and sold. Or sold directly by the artist. There is not and never has been a resale percentage. You price your work at a level basic on your experience and your "name brand." The more your name gets around, the more demand.... the more you can raise your prices.
I'm still unclear on whether old artwork sold through an auction house would (or should) be subject to the royalty fee. Seems that if they were, you'd see a lot more private transactions.
I still don't see that paying a small percentage towards an artist royalty should make a difference. Hell, the fees that get tacked on to the auction purchases are crazy, yet no one seems to complain about those.... if that additional fee were wrapped up in those, no one would even take note.
That said, the whole thing still sounds like an un-doable logistical nightmare to me.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Tim O Neill
Byrne Robotics Security
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10940
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 6:36pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Jodi: "I mean Tim's 'mere arts and crafts' comment was insulting."
***
I said "mere collectibles or arts and crafts" - my intent was for "mere" to refer to collectibles. I think bringing up collectibles in this conversation is completely inappropriate and denigrates the unique and special quality of original art in all of its forms.
While I acknowledge and appreciate arts and crafts, I was making a distinction that I didn't think they were a part of this topic, and I will get to that in a moment. The main point I am making -- the law that is being proposed is primarily aimed at fine arts. Painters seem to be the ones who get the most screwed over by the resale of their original work - collectors are most interested in owning the ORIGINAL, and artists really have no choice but to sell early work for much less than what it is later sold for. I know painters in Los Angeles, and it is a tough row to hoe. There is no question in my mind that a painter who struggles to get gallery shows together early in their career should benefit from later sales. The money involved is a lot, and it is unfair that dealers/ larger galleries benefit and artists don't when the artist becomes more established. Many painters only have original works to sell and reproductions/publications are not an option for a revenue stream.
Original comic book art is no different than an original painting. Comic book artists make money from publishing, but if their original work is of such a quality and cultural significance that it warrants an auction house sale, the artist who created the work should benefit from such a large sale. The comic book artist took a different road than a painter, but they both ended up at the same auction house. The artist is the reason the work is being collected. Why would they be excluded?
On the subject of arts and crafts -- the reason I was saying they were not part of the discussion is because I felt it was moving the definition in the wrong direction. I do see that certain teddy bears are so rare, unique and sought after that they will get to an auction house, so I stand corrected. Thanks for helping me to see this. I don't want to denigrate teddy bears the way fine art snobs denigrate comic books. I hope that whoever created a bear that goes to auction benefits from a huge sale if this law goes through. I hope you;re work ends up at an auction house and, if this law goes through, will benefit you. But a lot of arts and crafts are privately sold and don't generate the revenue that this law is aimed at. I did not intend to denigrate arts and crafts or you - I was just trying to get back to the heart of the matter.
I don't agree with the track you are taking which is making this topic about your personal experience with arts and crafts. While I respect your artistry, I don't think it is the primary focus of the law that is proposed. Your work and comic book art that is privately sold from the artist will not be impacted. But if your work and the comic book work makes it to an auction house, then it will be impacted
Now this is the point where I would typically apologize if someone is offended or insulted by my comments, but I can't honestly do that in this case without being insincere. I beg of you to please put your umbrage in check for just a moment and let me explain:
This is the second time on this thread you are insulted, and you are frequently offended on this Forum when confronted with a challenging opinion. Your taking frequent offense is in stark contrast to your posts directed at other people - you do not hesitate to express your political and art opinions in the most frank and candid fashion. But you take great offense when other people express their opinions at you, usually when they are using much softer language.
If I may be as frank as you tend to be - your posts over the last months are some of the most negative, confrontational, and aggressive on the Forum. And worse, when you are challenged, you claim you are insulted, derailing the conversation.
I hope you are not offended by my honesty, but I feel you are the aggressor in this case. You are coming to the site of a comic book creator whose work is regularly sold for larger amounts and challenging him once again. You seem to come to this site primarily to argue, and it is getting tiresome. In my case, I gave you the slightest criticism (I didn't even see it as a criticism), and as a result you are "insulted" and even unfriended me on Facebook. On New Years Eve! How nice! Well, now I'm the one who is insulted at your disproportionate tactics. I have made every effort to show you nothing but respect for your presence here, even when you have taken shots at the Forum for this topic, the way we ran the charity auction, and the political opinions of Forum members. Your response is disproportionate, and because of how confrontational you are in your own posts, quite hypocritical.
I have shown nothing but respect for your opinions and artistry, but I am frankly appalled at your behavior over the last months. I hope in the new year you can find a way to treat JB and the members of this Forum with the same respect you keep demanding that we show you.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joel Biske
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 January 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 761
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 6:44pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Jodi wrote: One thing that will be interesting will be how Disney handles all of this. Because there are so many iconic Disney products that I have NO idea who the artist was. In comics it hasn't been that long ago, that the individual artist and writer take on rock start status in the world of comics. Disney seems like a whole different beast. It will be interesting to see how they handle the talent now under their brand.
----
I'm just catching up here, but I didn't see that this was commented on. Disney will handle this the same way they've always handled things. Disney, and their individual properties ARE the brand. Anyone who works on staff for the company is pretty much owned by them. Any artwork created while on staff, both intellectual and physical, is property of the company. While they have taken to marketing a select few of their artists in their galleries, its still under the blanket of their agreements with the company. Even our animation contracts were VERY explicit as to what was theirs. ANYTHING done on property, whether a production drawing or a sketch on a post it note was theirs. (To be fair, while the contracts were written that way, they were opening bags and car trunks every night to make sure nothing was leaving. Caricatures, doodles, etc... were pretty common and they didn't keep that stuff)
I imagine that Marvel and Lucas still work among whatever agreements they had in place pre-Disney.
Edited to fix my bad typing....
Edited by Joel Biske on 31 December 2013 at 6:47pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Tim O Neill
Byrne Robotics Security
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10940
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 7:03pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Joel B: "I still don't see that paying a small percentage towards an artist royalty should make a difference. Hell, the fees that get tacked on to the auction purchases are crazy, yet no one seems to complain about those.... if that additional fee were wrapped up in those, no one would even take note.
That said, the whole thing still sounds like an un-doable logistical nightmare to me."
****
I think your last question is answerd in your previous paragraph - the percentage is included in the auction fees. This is what auction houses do. There will be a responsibility by both the artist and the auction house to be in communication, so I expect it may be a bumpy start at most. But I don't see it as undoable.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 31 December 2013 at 8:19pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
even when you have taken shots at the Forum for this topic, the way we ran the charity auction,
Before I answer any of your questions I have zero idea what you are talking about, what charity auction?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Glenn Brown
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3095
|
| Posted: 01 January 2014 at 7:23am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Unless I'm misunderstanding or misreading, I think JB's point is that from this point forward it would be fair for the creator of an original work of art to share in any profits from future sales of the original work in the form of an agreed-upon royalty. This agreement should not be retroactive to any past sales or arrangement. Thus, any arguments about, for example, Kirby's FF work or Byrne's X-Men work retroactively being affected are essentially moot.
However one feels about the issue...how does this hurt or affect anyone should this arrangement become law?
I don't know if this fits but...consider Ebay. Ebay provides a service for sellers and buyers to exchange goods in an open marketplace. Over the years they have enacted policies to protect both buyers and sellers from fraud and bad deals. They collect fees on sales for their service.
I buy an Uncanny X-Men page from Ebay for ten grand. Ebay collects a Final Value Fee from the seller, a percentage of the sale..
Same page gets flipped a few months down the line to fund another purchase. Ebay receives its Final Value Fee, even though the piece has been previously sold on the site.
Next owner sells the piece to someone else. Once again, Ebay collects its fee for its service.
How is it fair that Ebay collects a Final Value Fee for each sale of the same piece of artwork (in this example), no matter how many times it changes hands, yet the creator of the piece is not entitled to a percentage of the profit from each sale?
I dunno...if Ebay gets a piece, an auction house gets a piece, an agent or broker gets a piece...why deny the artist him/herself a piece of the profit from future re-sales?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133512
|
| Posted: 01 January 2014 at 7:56am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
However one feels about the issue...how does this hurt or affect anyone should this arrangement become law?•• As noted, it "hurts" those who think they have "lost" something, if they make a profit of $99 instead of $100. This is something, a mindset, I have seen creeping its way thru the comicbook industry for decades now, most particularly at the sales level. Retailers who jack up prices on new books, for instance, because if they don't they will "lose money." Somehow, not making as much as you thought you would (or wanted to) it deemed a "loss". Bizarro economics.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12760
|
| Posted: 01 January 2014 at 8:33am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Denying artists pennies on the dollar. What kind of comparative "windfall" to the person who created the art is so threatening to the collectors, dealers, galleries, and auction houses? The US Office of Copyright's Analysis proposes a threshold minimum of $10,000. A $300 slice of that to the artist is an unimaginably unfair threat to the very concept of property? The Analysis also proposes to limit the works of art to visual art already defined by federal law as either a single copy or a maximum of 200 limited edition copies.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Monte Gruhlke
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3303
|
| Posted: 01 January 2014 at 10:32am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
David Prowse, the actor who played (but didn’t voice) Darth Vader in the original Star Wars trilogy, claims that LucasFilm has yet to pay him any residual payments on Return of the Jedi. Because of creative accounting, Jedi has not generated any NET profits (as Prowse was promised a share of), but it has generated hundreds of million in GROSS profits of which he gets nothing. Prowse warns young actors to know exactly what kind of contracts they are signing.
This sort of dickering with contract language constantly screws people out of what they may be due — which is why copyright and royalty laws need to exist AND updated when gaps are found.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
