| Author |
|
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 8:50am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
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?
Really? Brian, as far as I have seen on this site, is not some high powered underhanded art dealer, and to serve up "poor Dave Cockrum" as his victim and if he doesn't agree with you, he is some kind of grave site tourist guide is really far fetched. To me Brian has always seemed like a pretty great guy and to paint him in this light is pretty ridiculous.
But we are not talking about dealing with kids or people with special needs, we are talking about business, with grown up men and women with all their mental faculties. They were not forced into this situation and I would bet any struggling new artist would trade places with them in a heart beat. No one took their artistic talent away from them. Every industry has talented people working to make their company a success and yes it sucks when good people do not handle their financial lives in a way that prepares them for retirement. But in every industry that happens on a daily basis.
Now do I think, we as lovers of these people's art, need to pay something to protect people like Dave Cockrum, yes I do. I think the big 2 need to provide artists and writers with financial planners and stock options and 401K's. I would be willing to pay an extra 10% on any comic related item to do that. But the individual collector owes that artist no continued living off of purchases they made either for the love of it or as an investment. And to be honest I would LOVE to have someone buy my work as an investment. Because if someone does, it helps my career. Hell Rob Liefeld made a pretty damn good living doing that and his talent is very questionable. But no one is forcing people to buy or not buy, we live in a free market and I like that. Because for every bad story, there are some pretty great success stories that encourages new talent to believe, if you have an artistic ability you can make a good living.
One of the things that I thought about is the different natures of the mediums talked about... musicians or songwriters mat get royalties on the albums, CDs, mp3's etc... and then again from subsequent printings of said, but not from say.... a resale from a used record shop. They get additional (potentially) from a reuse in a commercial or a video... but there is no tangible piece of art like there is with comics or illustration.
To expand on Joel's comment. Taking all the emotion out of a business dealing, because that is what it is. I know of no other industry that ties an artist to an item after the artist has sold the rights to it. Michael Jackson's estate owns a huge Beatles catalog, out right. Paul McCarthy and Ringo Starr get NOTHING when the music is being used or sold. As it should be, because THEY sold the rights to that product and they had every opportunity to buy back those rights, as did Michael Jackson.
Edited by Jodi Moisan on 30 December 2013 at 8:55am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133334
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 8:59am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Seems like an awful lot of mental energy is being expended by some people in this thread, just to deny artists a few extra dollars.Classy.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35948
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 9:01am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Brian, it seems to me that since you have a big collection (we've all seen it) and have no real intention of selling much of it at all, that this comes down to an issue of principle to you. It's the overall risk/reward argument and not an issue of hitting your personal pocketbook that drives you. Why should the speculative nature of the market dictate that the artist shares in the risk of their work being devalued by the consumer? I assume people pay for an item because they have the means to do so. Like Andrew, my personal original art budget is very small. I buy what I like when I have the means to purchase it, but it's never going to be for a piece that's above a grand. I have a mortgage to pay, so a grand is far too much for me spend. I'm going to assume, perhaps wrongly, that most buyers are this way. They have their threshold, a point at which they are uncomfortable with the price, so they step away. Why? Because they're not looking to flip the item down the road. Oh, I'm sure there are speculators. You get them in every field and comic books are no different. But I can hardly be concerned, on principle, with people who have discretionary income far above mine when they make the decision to sell at a lower price than they paid for a piece. That's their risk, if you want to go down that path, and not the risk an artist should assume because they have no say in when a piece goes on sale past the point of the original offering.
I still don't understand the risk/reward argument. Makes absolutely no sense to me on any level and I certainly don't get debating the point on principle. Perhaps this is because I work in entertainment and, as such, am in the business of paying these kinds of fees to any of a number of different entities. Be that as it may, the argument feels like it comes down to screwing the artist at the expense of a few bucks and that feels all sorts of wrong to me.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 9:02am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
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.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Darren Taylor
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 April 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 6024
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 9:15am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Really? Brian, as far as I have seen on this site, is not some high powered underhanded art dealer, and to serve up "poor Dave Cockrum" as his victim and if he doesn't agree with you, he is some kind of grave site tourist guide is really far fetched. To me Brian has always seemed like a pretty great guy and to paint him in this light is pretty ridiculous.- Jodi
You are right Jodi, I don't know Brian from Adam and if he feels unfairly slighted, I apologise, for what worth that might be.
The comment though was less about Brian and more about those who would 'speculate' rather than 'cherish'.
Brian's repeated use of the term 'risk' is the bridge between this.
I own and 'cherish' a number of pieces of original art. I have no intentions of selling them (Let us insert a caveat here, for all those out there who have unforseen circumstances that lead them to part with much loved treasures.)
There are those, however who buy comic art for no purpose other than to make a profit. If there is love there, then it is simply directed at the coinage and not any artistsic merit.
It is these people whom I look to and point my finger at. Why -shouldn't- these people factor in a percentage of the purchase/resale of the art in order to recompense the source of the product?
I recall Adam Hughes selling an original convention sketch (back in the day when a regular Joe could afford such) and then him finding out that these were no sooner obtained as listed on Ebay and sold for three times the amount!
So, what can the artist do? raise the price, right! But then all they are doing is effectively squeezing the regular fan out and making their work even more specialist/appealing to those self same speculators.
I get, that in other areas, such as those you cite above, that rights are sold. And the comic artist sells the right to the reproduction of the artwork. The original art is, in the most case, returned to the artist so that they might profit from it.
You could argue, and you have, that some kid that finds a rare roman coin and knows not it's true worth, well s/he'd be happy with a couple of dollars for sweets but does that excuse the archaelogist who then sells it on to the museum for a few thousand dollars and his name attached to the find from any further obligation beyond the $2?
But the individual collector owes that artist no continued living off of purchases they made either for the love of it or as an investment.-Jodi
Well, I guess we disagree here. As above, someone whose job it is to draw comics, isn't best placed to know it's value ten years down the line.
Someone whose income is based on speculating such futures is. Back to the experienced player using their experience against the ignorant! This is why such protections need to be in place, imo.
-D
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Monte Gruhlke
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3303
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 9:47am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
How about some sort of "Not for re-sale" caveat be implemented, under penalty of lawsuit.
Yaay, I weighed in and I know nothing about copyright/royalty issues. Clearly.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 9:48am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Darren I can understand getting emotional, hell in the politics threads I get very emotional and sometimes show a much uglier side of myself than you did in this thread, you were not even close. I appreciate (after some cooling off time), when people call me out on it.
You could argue, and you have, that some kid that finds a rare roman coin and knows not it's true worth, well s/he'd be happy with a couple of dollars for sweets but does that excuse the archaelogist who then sells it on to the museum for a few thousand dollars and his name attached to the find from any further obligation beyond the $2?
The person that knowingly takes advantage is wrong. My son got every upset one time with me when he was a little guy. He collected vintage Star War figures. We put an ad in the paper asking to buy anyone's collection. An older lady called us and we went to her house, she took us to her garage and there were a treasure trove of Star War toys, ALL still with their original boxes. She explained they were her sons and she had no idea what they were worth, but wanted at least 200.00 for the whole collection.
Jon's eyes lit up because there was a 12 inch Boba Fett in perfect condition with the box. It was the one thing he wanted. But I knew that, that figure alone, in that condition, was going for around 300. I brought 250 with me. But never expected to to find such a collection. I explained to the lady what she had and she should inform her son that she was selling his collection. We walked out of there with nothing. Jon's 12 year old little heart was in a thousand pieces.
If I had bought that collection knowing the real value I would have been wrong. But buying artwork at a fair market value and one day selling it for more is not wrong, it is the marketplace. But maybe living so long with an accountant has made me less emotional when it comes to business.
Edited by Jodi Moisan on 30 December 2013 at 10:51am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 10:03am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I would like those who are opposed to artists getting royalties on resale of their work to consider this.
You work 10 to 12 hours a day 7 days a week for a pay that isn't always equal to the amount of time you put into the work. After doing that you sometimes don't even get paid. Sometimes weeks, months can go bye without getting any work at all. Not to mention the disrespect you can sometimes get from people who seem to think what you do can just be whipped out on a whim. Of course there is toll it takes on your family. The uncertainty of the where the next payday will come from. The degrading yourself just to get bye.
That's what it's like for artists. Most artist are freelance. Most of them have to work multiple non art related jobs to try and stay a float.
What if it were you going thru this? You don't think these artist aren't deserving of knowing the fruits of their labor ? If you are making a profit on the work that they do why shouldn't they also be able to share in that profit? If you think they already made it upon their initial payment. Well what did you contribute to the production of that work that would warrant you profiting?
If you buy art for your own personal enjoyment you aren't affected. If you buy art with the intention of reselling it. What's the big deal? Just take into account the artist's percent when setting a price. If you know you want 10,000 for the sale set the price higher to account for the artist. Is it really that difficult a concept?
Edited by Anthony J Lombardi on 30 December 2013 at 10:06am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Darren Taylor
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 April 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 6024
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 10:04am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I appreciate your understanding Jodi. I have no desire to change your opinion, or Brians'. You are both entitled to them.
I guess my ignorance, is the root of my confusion.
I can't seem to understand why some might take the stance that paying a little percentage out of a -huge- profit might be abhorent?
I can't see a 'victim', when one party gets a huge profit and another gets an unexpected boon.
I suppose it goes back to Johns $200 bills flying down the street and I guess, greed!.
-D
edited to note, I have five "i's" there, in a neat row...do I win a prize?
Edited by Darren Taylor on 30 December 2013 at 10:07am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5819
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 10:09am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Marvel asks JB to write and draw a new Spider-Man miniseries. JB does so for an agreed upon page rate, and gets his original art pages back. The mini runs 6 issues, and is then collected in a trade.
Marvel, above and beyond JB's initial page rate and the returning of his artwork, then proceeds to pay JB royalties for the trade paperback reprinting his work.
Five years later, they do a second printing. They send another royalty check to JB. Later that year, they include two of the issues from the mini in a compendium about Spider-Man timed for the release of the next Spider-Man movie. They send JB an additional royalty check for that use of his work.
Everyone agrees that's fair, right?
So JB draws a commission for me in 2014 (if only it could be true!) and I pay him his standard fee for the work. Later, I sell the work at a profit because I need the cash for some calamity or other.
Why wouldn't I kick back some of those profits I'm making off his work, the way Marvel does when they reprint and resell his work later down the road? And the person I sell it to, if they make a profit five years later... why don't they kick back a percentage to JB because they've earned money off of his work?
Why can't everyone agree that's fair?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133334
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 10:11am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
I'm assuming anyone opposed to this turns down all bonuses at work. After all, they already got paid, right?And, of course, these would be no reason for their salaries ever to be increased. They signed up for a specific amount, and it should stay that amount forever. Nothing should ever change.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133334
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 10:14am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
So JB draws a commission for me in 2014 (if only it could be true!) and I pay him his standard fee for the work. Later, I sell the work at a profit because I need the cash for some calamity or other. Why wouldn't I kick back some of those profits I'm making off his work, the way Marvel does when they reprint and resell his work later down the road? And the person I sell it to, if they make a profit five years later... why don't they kick back a percentage to JB because they've earned money off of his work? Why can't everyone agree that's fair? •• My understanding of this proposed legislation -- and someone, please correct me if I am wrong on this -- is that it would not cover private transactions such as commissions. Only work sold on the open market. (So, I suppose if you sold that commission at Sotheby's, I might be entitled to something, but I am not sure.)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
