| Author |
|
Ernest Degollado
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 674
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 1:53am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Brian Peck wrote:
| I have issue with this because the buyer takes all the risk. |
|
|
Although a valid point, that seems like an entirely different argument. The issue at hand is whether an artist should receive royalties from future sales of his/her art not whether an artist' royalties hinder the profit potential when investing in art. As far as the artist having zero impact after the initial sale, that might be true of a dead artist but if JB started cranking out X-MEN 137 covers like a caricature artist at a carnival I suspect it would diminish the asking price of the original somewhat.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 2:12am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Although a valid point, that seems like an entirely different argument. The
*****
No THIS is exactly the point. If the artist gets part of the profits on the
artwork sold then they should share in the risk if the art is sold for a lost.
PERIOD. I do not see how the artist would just make money when they art
increases but has nothing to do with it when the art drops in value. If they
want to share in the increase they should share in the lost.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Andrew W. Farago
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4079
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 2:16am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
I don't buy original art from dealers all that often, since I'll buy from the artist whenever possible, but I wouldn't be averse to kicking in an extra 10% on my purchases if I knew it were going directly to the artist.
My budget for original art is pretty small, so most of my purchases are in the $100 range, and I'd have no qualms about upping that to $110 (and that would be even easier if the seller kicks and I each kick in an extra five bucks to reach that 10% for the artist). I suppose that's a bigger issue if your $100k purchase suddenly goes up to $110k, but auction houses like Heritage already tack on comparable surcharges when they sell big-ticket items, don't they?
I think the same amounts would be spent on original art, altogether, the money would just be shake out a little differently. Instead of bidding a million dollars on a prime Spider-Man cover, the buyer will bid around $900k with the knowledge that there will be a $90k surcharge going to the artist. Buyer's still out a million bucks, can still claim he's got a million-dollar cover, auction house still makes a killing, artist gets to buy a new car or send his kid to college or spend a year drawing a new graphic novel.
A policy like this wouldn't affect the small-time market very much at all, the bigger market would adjust accordingly, and our favorite artists would get a little bit of cash (or a lot). Everybody wins.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 2:18am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
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.
*****
I do not buy art for profit I buy art because I like it. I know I have over
paid for a number of the pieces in my collection and could careless and I
rarely sell artwork. But for those who do sell the artwork for whatever
reason, the profit in the resale should all go to the owner they are the
ones who own it and make the decision when to sell it which can effect
the value.
Edited by Brian Peck on 30 December 2013 at 2:25am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 2:21am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
The whole idea is in the end completely unworkable. Who will pay to enforce
this? If the art is sold by the penciler then its resold two more times. How will
that person know if the page was originally sold by the penciler or inker. Or
would the 3% be split between the pencil and inker. What about the letterer?
or Writer? Do they get a part of the 3%? The writer did contribute to the
artwork indirectly.
Would the law effect trading original art pages? if not would the person who
trade for the art have to pay the 3% next time the sold it? What a fucking
mess a law like this will create.
Edited by Brian Peck on 30 December 2013 at 2:24am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Brian Peck
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1709
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 2:46am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
An artist can choose to hold onto their artwork hoping it goes up in value
and they will get all the profit. Nowhere does it say artist has to sell their art.
They choose to sell the artwork for whatever reason, they needed the money,
or didn't want to keep it for personal reasons. Its like selling stock it may go
up or down in value the new owner of the stock doesn't have to pay the
previous owner a percentage of their profits.
I do think artists should be paid more for the work especially when their art
is reprinted but this Speculator Tax is not the option.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3037
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 3:04am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
The idea is hardly unworkable. It's been the law in California for years, although recently declared unconstitutional (the state is appealing). As I understand it, the constitutional issue was over California claiming the royalty applied New York sales, which would be resolved if the law were enacted at the Federal level.
Here's a link to the California law: http://www.cac.ca.gov/artsinfo/resaleroyalty.php
To answer some of Brian's concerns: Most artwork is the creation of a single artist. Collaborators can work out the split between themselves. If the artists want to bring writer and letterers in on the royalty, nothing would stop them. Enforcement seems to fall under the existing California arts agency. Artists can sue to recover royalties and be entitled to attorney fees. The California law values trades at their fair market value. And it hasn't resulted in the apocalypse.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Andrew W. Farago
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4079
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 3:10am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Isn't this law in place already, maybe in Europe? It's unlikely that this would be enforced on small transactions, but it would be easy enough to track with professional art dealers and the big auction houses. A lot of transactions would go under the radar, and it's possible that more and more big deals would happen offline to avoid attention, but it would be nice to see artists directly benefit from those gigantic transactions.
Kick a few bucks toward Gene Colan's kids when a Daredevil cover goes for $30k, or to Paty Cockrum when a key X-Men splash (that may or may not have ever been returned to Dave) goes for $50k. And let JB buy a helicopter next time a double-page splash from The Dark Phoenix Saga goes on the auction block. The same amount will get spent on art no matter what, I'm sure, it will just be distributed a little differently.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Darren Taylor
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 April 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 6003
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 6:19am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
"If they want to share in the increase they should share in the lost."-Brian.
The twenty-Plus years of getting paid -nothing- while you nurture your meagre talent in order to land a job that may-or-may-not be well paid, to generate the pages that prospectors want to deprive the fans of? Can't we agree that those pennyless years are the artists "risk", what to do with your capatalist generated excess funds, that can be your "risk". When both investments are doing well, then both parties are rewarded.
When the investments are doing badly, don't sell! I'll point you at your version of the Terry Austin example...have some back bone and keep your investment.
Whether you agree or disagree with this proposal, You must -surely- be on the side of the fence that protects and nurtures the artist not the side that wants to dig their grave and profit from running tourist excursions to the site?
Can you really be proposing that artists who have provided such joy, like Dave Cockrum, who struggled financially near the end should be hit with a bill, from you, whom having sold a piece of his artwork for $10K was actually a loss (for a quick sale) of $2K?
Seriously?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Kip Lewis
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 March 2011
Posts: 2880
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 8:13am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Currently, the artist gets back their original artwork, but if this passes,
would companies try to change this? After all, would they pass up the
potential of future profits?
Edited by Kip Lewis on 30 December 2013 at 8:15am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brennan Voboril
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 January 2011
Posts: 1736
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 8:31am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
I also wondered if the inker (letterers/colorists too?) would get a share. Isn't the art split between the penciller and the inker so would the penciller get money from the inker and vice versa?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35800
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 8:45am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Kip Lewis wrote:
Currently, the artist gets back their original artwork, but if this passes,
would companies try to change this? After all, would they pass up the
potential of future profits? |
|
|
I don't see why it would. The vast majority of artwork sold isn't making the kind of money that would make warehousing and selling it worth it to a company like Marvel or DC. Paying storage fees and people to curate the collection for future sales seems cost prohibitive considering the cover to X-Men #137 only goes up for sale every once in a blue moon. Can't see them changing their art return policies at all for a majority of pieces that sell in the $100-1,000 range.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
