| Author |
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133245
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 10:16am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
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?•• The profit doesn't even have to be huge! If the original artist is paid a percentage of whatever profit, large or small, accrued to the seller, the seller still comes out ahead. In any reasonable interpretation, this is a win/win. But, apparently, there are some who think it should be a win (for the seller), and a drop dead for the artist.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 10:20am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
I would like those who are opposed to artists getting royalties on resale of their work to consider this.
As an artist I will sell my work for what the market deems it is worth at the time. I will expect to lose any rights to it's future sale. If I do not like that arrangement I will get a job at a bank that has defined retirement plans and paid insurance, because it is the best thing for my family. Even though it is not my passion and at times soul sucking for a creative person. Which is exactly what I have done.
I will have to agree to disagree with some of you and call it a day on this debate.
Darren you are a pretty cool dude and while we didn't agree I enjoyed our exchange and admire your willingness to see Brian in a better light.
|
| 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 10:36am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
As an artist I will sell my work for what the market deems it is worth at the time. I will expect to lose any rights to it's future sale.~~~~~ I suppose you are entitled to that Jodi and I respect that's how you feel.
But I'd like the option not to have to except that those circumstances.
I'd like to use as an example Bob Kane and Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
Kane worked out a great deal that he profited from for the rest of his life but Siegel and Shuster didn't.
Is it fair that fortunes are made on the back of others and those men and women who put the work in don't get to share in that?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6403
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 11:37am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Jodi: As an artist I will sell my work for what the market deems it is worth at the time. I will expect to lose any rights to it's future sale. If I do not like that arrangement I will get a job at a bank that has defined retirement plans and paid insurance, because it is the best thing for my family. Even though it is not my passion and at times soul sucking for a creative person. Which is exactly what I have done.
**
And the reason that this is the BEST arrangement is...?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6403
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 11:42am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Brian: 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.
**
Just as you argue that an artist does not "need" to sell his work, neither does an art-owner. The "loss" is completely in relation to the owner's purchase. If there is a loss, the owner over-paid for the piece and created a false "value" in doing so.
This whole art-market is based on a supposed love of these artists. Why does the idea of sending some percent of the future sales back to those beloved artists seem repugnant to anyone?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kip Lewis
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 March 2011
Posts: 2880
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 11:54am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Because people hate change.
As long as it was not retroactively applied, then everyone knows what
they are getting into when dealing in art.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Monte Gruhlke
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3303
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 12:01pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
We currently live in a culture where there is unabashed profiteering on those who actually do the work. It isn't fair or even clever.
How about artists set one-time outrageous prices for their work, then perhaps offering the percentage of re-sells/re-prints as an alternative. In today's digital culture it wouldn't be hard at all for a percentage to follow a work. There's probably an app for that.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 12:03pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Just as you argue that an artist does not "need" to sell his work~~~~~~~~~~ I don't know of any professional artist that doesn't need to sell his work. I'd love to just do my art and not have to worry about where the money is going to come from. I'd also love to be able to support my family on only doing art. The reality is as an artist you always have to be looking for that next job. The reality is that there are more artist that have to hold down a "regular" job just to be able to afford doing their art.
I don't know what people may think but there aren't very many rich artists in the world.
I guess those who are against this are happy that so many artist die penniless and not knowing the success that evaded them. I guess they are happy that the millions that gets made after the artist is dead. They get to keep all for themselves.
Edited by Anthony J Lombardi on 30 December 2013 at 12:14pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133245
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 12:05pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
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. •• Again, my understanding is that these scenarios would not be in play. The legislation cannot -- SHOULD NOT -- be passed retroactively.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 1:10pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I guess those who are against this are happy that so many artist die penniless and not knowing the success that evaded them. I guess they are happy that the millions that gets made after the artist is dead. They get to keep all for themselves.
Coming from a guy with a sexually demeaning sophomoric avatar of a naked woman dancing, I will give your opinion of me, the same weight I give your avatar choice.
Edited by Jodi Moisan on 30 December 2013 at 1:25pm
|
| 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 1:18pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Coming from a guy with a sexually demeaning sophomoric avatar of a naked woman dancing, I will give your opinion of me, the same weight I give your avatar choice. ~~~~~~~~
That's such a childish response Jodi. Seriously if it bothered you I had it how about mentioning it before now? I wouldn't have minded removing it. In fact now that I know now that you are bothered by it I shall remove it.
Edited to add. Well now that I've shown respect for you by removing it does that change your opinion of me?
You might want to keep this in mind. Nothing I say or do is with the intent of offending you or anyone for that matter. I never have nor will I ever stop to think about how you feel about something I say or do. I can only be true to myself. If I offend people by this I make attempts to rectify matters when it's called for.
Edited by Anthony J Lombardi on 30 December 2013 at 1:25pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 30 December 2013 at 1:23pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I guess those who are against this are happy that so many artist die penniless and not knowing the success that evaded them. I guess they are happy that the millions that gets made after the artist is dead. They get to keep all for themselves.
No, that post was childish and completely insulting.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Topic Closed)
