| Author |
|
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 6:07pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
To those arguing on the side of not paying a portion of the sale of art to the original artist, is your position made on principle, one made because you don't want to have to pay out any money of any kind to the artist, or something else entirely?
No not at all. That is why I bought a commission off of JB, I think he is extremely talented and worth the price I paid. In fact I think artists charge way too little for commissions. Dan Parent was charging 25 dollars for a sketch, that is crazy in my view and worth far more.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 6:28pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
To those arguing on the side of not paying a portion of the sale of art to
the original artist, is your position made on principle, one made because
you don't want to have to pay out any money of any kind to the artist, or
something else entirely? Forget how it would be done as that feels like a
smoke screen to me ("I don't have the artist's address so how could I
possibly get their share to them!" Please.). Personally, I don't see a
downside and don't understand the argument against it. The risk/reward
argument against what feels like a very small amount paid out to the artist
doesn't hold much water to me either.
******
I have issue with this because the buyer takes all the risk. They buy the art
and if they resell it they may or may not make a profit. In fact they could
lose money. The artist once he or she sell the artwork takes no risk and
will make money when its resold for a profit but will NEVER lose any more
if its sold for a lose.
That is my issue. And this will continue on and on when the art is resold.
The buyers and sellers are the ones who risk losing money or being able
to maximize the profit when resold. The artist after its sold has zero
impact.
Collecting anything art, toys cars is a fickle business who knows what will
go up in value and by how much. Its all a gamble. Many will say the artists
work past and present contributes to the value of art, which I agree. But
they have no control over their work effecting artwork they create in a
positive or negative way in terms of value. There are a lot of comic book
artists out there that have worked for years in the industry but the value
of their art has not changed little over their career.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Sean Mulligan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 272
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 6:31pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Matt Reed wrote:
| To those arguing on the side of not paying a portion of the sale of art to the original artist, is your position made on principle, one made because you don't want to have to pay out any money of any kind to the artist, or something else entirely? |
|
|
For me, it's an issue of ownership. If an artist sells a piece of their art, they're selling all of it, not 80% or 90% of it. If they want a cut of the profits off of a future sale, then they should negotiate that as part of the terms of the sale. Then the buyer has the option of agreeing (or not) to that condition.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6277
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 6:39pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Jodi: Where is the unfairness? They got paid for a job that contributed to a mass produced product. If an artist wants to make money for their fame and talent, paint a painting of a landscape and sell it or do commissions. I believe companies should provide stock to their employees. As the company succeeds so does the money the artist makes from their creative contribution.
**
If you cling to the idea that a deal is a deal and that's all folks, then you will never recognize unfairness.
But if you look at how Dave Cockrum created the New X-Men, drew the artwork and sold it long before anyone could know what it was really "worth", then died unable to capitalize on it because his new work was no longer in demand... where is the fairness? Sure Cockrum entered a crappy deal-- partly because he was an ARTIST and not a lawyer or accountant. And thank god for that!
The only fairness is that he went into the deal as a free man-- free to do as he chose, but also free from any way of knowing what a bad deal it would ultimately be.
A royalty would work to everyone's advantage -- costing no one, yet providing something for the creator whose unrecognized value is discovered later.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6277
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 6:44pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Brian: I have issue with this because the buyer takes all the risk.
**
What risk? You like the art. You pay what it's worth to you. You enjoy it. If it goes down in market value, is that really a "risk"? Only if you were planning to flip it. Why should the rules be written to protect the "investment" of those who buy art to flip it instead of buying it for it's inherent qualities as art? Especially if that set of rules is written specifically to exclude the artists?
This is such an 'apples and oranges' thread, though. I don't expect much communication to actually happen.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6277
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 7:17pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Jodi: Tell that to Frank Lloyd Wrights family or Frank Gehry or Sou Fujimoto. And yes the fact Marvel is the location does add to the value of the comic book page.
***
The famous architect cannot create a lot of land out of thin air. Nor is Marvel a "location" which exists on the page without the artist. Location in real estate is an actual thing. Not so in art.
++
Jodi: Let me throw this out there, with this kind of issue, will the big 2 ever be compelled to bring in new characters?
**
Why would it have any impact whatsoever on the big 2 creating new characters?
One could easily see artists being more inclined to create new characters for teh big 2 if they knew in the long run that if they accidentally "give away the next spider-man" they will at least receive a royalty on the pages if they ever become wildly expensive.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1663
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 7:22pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
I'm a strong supporter of copyright. I can see the concerns this proposed law raises, but it's important to note two things, as pointed out in the original article:
1. This measure brings visual art into line with the royalties enjoyed by authors and musicians.
2. It will only apply to major transactions, like public auctions.
I don't see why, as long as the average person isn't nickeled and dimed to death each time they enjoy visual art (which they won't be under this new law), there is anything unfair about visual artists receiving a share of the windfall through art speculation.
In terms of the "buyer taking all the risk", then so much the better. Perhaps it will encourage people to buy artwork primarily based on what they enjoy, rather than scooping up cheap work in the hopes that they'll hit the jackpot someday.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132643
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 7:24pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I have issue with this because the buyer takes all the risk.••• To borrow a line from Michael Palin, "Ooo, what a giveaway!" Buying art is not for pleasure, not for the enjoyment of the piece, the sheer thrill of making that physical connection to something of personal importance. It's strictly an investment, and so one must hedge against "risk." Oh -- but the artists themselves should not be allowed to do such a thing. They are low man on the totem, after all, and should be grateful for whatever crumbs fall from the table. The "risk" of selling a piece of their work, only to see it vastly increase in value -- no, that is not something against which they should be allowed to protect themselves. Profit is purely the property of the purchaser. feh!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132643
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 7:26pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
For me, it's an issue of ownership. If an artist sells a piece of their art, they're selling all of it, not 80% or 90% of it. If they want a cut of the profits off of a future sale, then they should negotiate that as part of the terms of the sale. Then the buyer has the option of agreeing (or not) to that condition.••• Which is exactly what this would do.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35786
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 7:31pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Personally, I never considered my purchase of two pages from Bat/Cap a "risk" in any way. I bought them because I loved them, because they meant something to me, because I could own an original piece of that story. I never foresee selling them at all but if I had to, I wouldn't consider having to pay a portion of that sale to JB as me assuming a "risk" that John never had to take. That wouldn't even cross my mind. I simply don't understand that opinion.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132643
|
| Posted: 29 December 2013 at 7:52pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
What fascinates me, whenever this topic swings around, is how many people who will loudly decry how "badly" Jack Kirby was treated by Marvel, will leap quickly over the fence when it is suggested that artists get a share of resale of their work. A definite case of NOOMW -- Not Out of MY Wallet!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Marc M. Woolman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 April 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2096
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 1:39am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I still think something like a 2% artist royalty tax would be the way to go. Every time a piece is sold the buyer pays the royalty, not the seller.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
