Hulk213

On 4/13/2021 at 4:58 AM, Rick2you2 said:

He knows darn well that he is involved in a business, part of which includes long term plans and control of the characters he wants to write. What if he wants to take the characters where Marvel doesn’t want them to go? What if he decided to make, say, Cyclops, a crazy bigot? You don’t think Marvel should have the right to say no? Perhaps Marvel knows what he wants to do with the characters and doesn’t like it already? 
 

When Didio ran DC, he decided to have an origin for the Phantom Stranger making him Judas. The idea turned off a lot of readers, pissed off a lot of fans, and also damaged the air of mystique surrounding the character. Maybe Superman was Adolph Hitler in an earlier life, see what I mean? Some things are bad.
 

So no, he should not have full creative control.

The problem with this thinking is that work is already done. So if Marvel likes what they see, publish it. If they don’t, the relationship ends.
 

I really think this is John swan song. Whatever form it is, we are lucky to be able to see it, for free.

1 hour ago, vodou said:

 A significant portion of my collection falls into: you're going to enjoy appreciate it a lot more seeing the original. And yes, I'm talking paintings, some with heavy impasto, that will never come through in 2D.

Agree. I really appreciate what it takes to make comic art. What I love about the original art is seeing all of the little notes, pencils, white out, etc. As a kid I always thought that comic artist where so good that I would never be able to compete. (Always wanted to work for marvel). Seeing the original you see that you don’t have to be perfect.

9 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

For the most part, we don’t buy art for the privilege of looking at it. We buy it for the pleasure or profit of owning it. If we only acquired art to look at it, we’d be downloading photo’s, buying books or cheap prints. Same with NFT’s. We get to say, to ourselves or others, I own that and it’s an NFT. That means I had money to waste, or invest, which others don’t. And, there is nothing wrong with that. Whatever floats your boat, unless you get hit by a tidal wave.

I’m not following you here. You can make a profit by owning NFTs and reselling them. Also, isn’t part of the art collector mentality is being able to say, I own this original art, no one else has it?Even though you can get high res images or artist editions. To others, owning original art is wasting money. 
 

I’ve been think about this topic for awhile. Trying to understand why someone is willing to pay for digital art. I’m use to art being a physical thing. But that really isn’t true.
 

We pay for music, performances, etc. we don’t own those things yet we ‘pay’ for something we don’t true own physically. 
 

Is it the prices of NFTs that seem insane? To someone trying to pay rent can think original comic book art, at any price, is the same as NFTs.

How many in this group have art tucked away out of sight? art that is looked at only once and awhile? We know it’s in our possession but it just kind of there. Kind of like NFTs?
 

Any thoughts? I’m having a hard time articulating my perspective. 

An Open Letter To Comic Book Publishers About NFT From Mike Deodato

https://bleedingcool.com/comics/an-open-letter-to-comic-book-publishers-about-nft-from-mike-deodato/

6 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Then the top artists are likely to negotiate better terms, or leave the field, or publishers might have to pay a lot more for the work. Don’t forget that part of a price is based on rarity, and demand. All of this has to shake out in the next few years.
My guess is the publishers will offer to create NFT’s for artists in exchange for a part of the take, thereby freeing artists from figuring this stuff out or from going to an unreliable source, while also offering extra value to the artists who do so.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t it be the similar as the artist now that create limited quantity sketch books? They more than likely just give the artist a mini license for that particular product category?

2 hours ago, drotto said:

I think DC coming out so strong against NFT's while commissions have basically run unchecked for decades is simple, the amount of money involved. During conventions an artist getting a few hundred or even a few thousand dollars for a commission was considered an insignificant amount money, and attempting to collect fees for the IP or suing the artists was not worth it.  Instead, the companies benefitted from the goodwill from both the artists and the fans by allowing them to continue. Now when NFT's are crossing into the millions, that balance between goodwill and making money shifts dramatically, they want their cut.

It would be understandable if they wanted to control it and get their cut. I just think it is going to be impossible. Telling your artist not to participate is one way but what happens when those artist see their art being bought for millions because someone (legally or illegally) put up a commission piece for sale? 

35 minutes ago, adampasz said:

If Steve Rude made Nexus NFTs I'd buy them in a heartbeat. =)

I can understand your thinking. If I had the disposable income to hire an artist I would. Owning it is the collector in me, but just as powerful is seeing what that artist created with my favorite characters.

2 minutes ago, adampasz said:

It is only a matter of time before anonymous 3rd parties start creating lots of assets with DC and Marvel. 

This seems like a non-zero-sum game for publishers if they can partner with their artists to create "authorized" NFT collectibles.

I'm not expecting these huge corporations to think about it this way because they can only engage in short-term thinking.

But smaller publishers, like Image, could really benefit.

 

True. There are some extremely talented artist out there. 

9 minutes ago, adampasz said:

I wasn't paying attention to the NFT at all until this thread, and then my wife was talking about it based on some Podcast. 

Then I saw how Shatner sold 125K cards at a buck per card, and now some are going for many times that amount.

I think this is a potential game-changer for comics and other collectibles.

Comic creators absolutely should be getting in on this. If AT&T/DC won't support them, they should consider taking their talents elsewhere.

They should get in on this and this would be a great way for creators to truly get compensation for their talents. 
 

2 hours ago, GreatEscape said:

Really fascinating discussion. Even as I learn more about NFTs, I constantly feel naive as new issues and possibilities emerge.

I can't help but think AT&T (and DC Comics) are driven by IP lawyers that are (1) unsure how the future of digital art and NFTs will evolve and (2) protecting the unknown upside aka "fear of missing out" of lucrative future earnings.  They only have to look at Marvel signing away Spider-man and X-Men movie rights to Sony for a song, before the huge revenue potential for MCU films could be imagined, much less realized.  Granted, Marvel was in financial distress at the time but the advent of enabling technologies (Digital and sound FX, streaming, etc) had not been fully contemplated (and undervalued) at the time.

 

Agree. There are so many things to considered. Why wouldn’t an artist use the NFT system as a way to sell their pages? I think what people have to keep in mind is that we might not see the reasoning or desire to buy a digital copy of the original art, but people are buying gifs. Crazy. 
 

It is a slippery slope. And thank you for not going into legal territory, I barely kept up with your last reply. If you don’t mind me asking you questions, I have one more.
 

When a pen and ink commission is digitally scanned and someone buys the digital art. Isn’t that that pretty much the same implied concentration? Digital is just another medium to make art. 
 

Like digital artist selling their art prints as one offs now.
 

Just  because this is NFT art, and people are paying insane amounts of money, how can DC really tell artist they can’t do it? 
 

I get that prices some artist are getting are high, but price shouldn’t matter. 
 

Because NFT is new shouldn’t matter. At some point in time commissions were new. 

33 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Let's take this from the top. Slowly. 

1. Is the issue about a copyright violation or a trademark violation. They are very different. In general, copying a page of art is a copyright violation. Copying a character is a trademark violation (assuming it is trademarked).

2. If Stegman produces art in a commission, and uses a recognizable character like Spider-Man, it is probably a trademark violation (without permission) but not a copyright violation. If someone takes the commissioned piece and reproduces it (without permission), it is a violation of Marvel's trademark and Stegman's copyright (unless Stegman assigned or sold his copyright to Marvel, for example, or the piece was done before 1976 when the law on "work for hire" was changed).

3. If Stegman uses a trademarked character, without permission, it is not "fair use". There is no such defense for trademark violations. If someone took Stegman's piece and copied it even for his own use, it is also not "fair use". That also applies, by the way, to copying music. Fair use is a narrow category of defenses under copyright law, like critical commentary, or for educational purposes. Don't try to invoke it if you don't really know what you are doing.

4. A lot of copyright and trademark rights are not enforced because there isn't enough value in their enforcement or they are not noticed by the owners. With copyright, you either can recover statutory damages if the piece is registered (which is easy), or common law damages--but only if you can show the violator cost you money by denying you some gross income, or likely did so. That's a tough standard for this stuff and not a cheap one to fight (although, you might recover counsel fees back).

5. Trademarks can be lost if they are not enforced. Ever hear of cellophane? It used to be a product name until the owner didn't try to enforce its rights to the name. But, there is no need to do so if the user of the trademarked item has consent from the owner to use it, either expressly or impliedly. Since there seems to be a general understanding that pen and ink commissons may be done with trademarked characters, implied consent would be the theory to use. 

6. The letter from DC changes things. There is no implied consent for NFT or other digital art. The letter makes that very clear. So while there may still be consent for pen and ink commissions, it does not exist, if it every did, for digital work. Period.

 

Very informative. I think I hung with you. You’re making the distinction that pencil and pen have been an implied / accepted practice so it’s okay. Do I have that right?
 

I’m still not getting the difference between a pen and ink commission versus a digital commission. How you create the art matters? Serious question, do you think DC is actually giving consent to artist commissions? It seems they are turning a blind eye. As long as you are not mass producing the commission to make money they are okay with it.

Commissions keep fans and artist happy, but I can’t imagine DC would actual come out and say they give consent to commissions.

23 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Let's take this from the top. Slowly. 

1. Is the issue about a copyright violation or a trademark violation. They are very different. In general, copying a page of art is a copyright violation. Copying a character is a trademark violation (assuming it is trademarked).

2. If Stegman produces art in a commission, and uses a recognizable character like Spider-Man, it is probably a trademark violation (without permission) but not a copyright violation. If someone takes the commissioned piece and reproduces it (without permission), it is a violation of Marvel's trademark and Stegman's copyright (unless Stegman assigned or sold his copyright to Marvel, for example, or the piece was done before 1976 when the law on "work for hire" was changed).

3. If Stegman uses a trademarked character, without permission, it is not "fair use". There is no such defense for trademark violations. If someone took Stegman's piece and copied it even for his own use, it is also not "fair use". That also applies, by the way, to copying music. Fair use is a narrow category of defenses under copyright law, like critical commentary, or for educational purposes. Don't try to invoke it if you don't really know what you are doing.

4. A lot of copyright and trademark rights are not enforced because there isn't enough value in their enforcement or they are not noticed by the owners. With copyright, you either can recover statutory damages if the piece is registered (which is easy), or common law damages--but only if you can show the violator cost you money by denying you some gross income, or likely did so. That's a tough standard for this stuff and not a cheap one to fight (although, you might recover counsel fees back).

5. Trademarks can be lost if they are not enforced. Ever hear of cellophane? It used to be a product name until the owner didn't try to enforce its rights to the name. But, there is no need to do so if the user of the trademarked item has consent from the owner to use it, either expressly or impliedly. Since there seems to be a general understanding that pen and ink commissons may be done with trademarked characters, implied consent would be the theory to use. 

6. The letter from DC changes things. There is no implied consent for NFT or other digital art. The letter makes that very clear. So while there may still be consent for pen and ink commissions, it does not exist, if it every did, for digital work. Period.

 

8 minutes ago, Bird said:

you are as accurate here as you were earlier

Your post was dismissive. This one too. So go ahead and act the victim but you won't get any traction from me.

Ok boomer. 

35 minutes ago, Bird said:

my take: you said that you didn't even read the reply...how can you have a discussion if you are not willing to even read the reply? How can you challenge your mindset and grow critical thinking skills if you will not even expose yourself to a contradicting opinion? And to state it as a badge of honor of some sort as if you know all that can be said on the subject comes off as arrogant and close-minded.

or

tree fiddy

So it was meant to offend.

Is the thread about pirating? No. Is pirating illegal, yes. No need to discuss. My mindset is very clear. No need to read through a page of nonsense from a wind bag. 

I wasn’t being arrogant. I have been very polite. And I have genuinely listened to those that are actually talking about this thread. 

Someone who openly says that they go to places on the web to steal is the one looking for the badge. 

But you know this. You seem like a guy that loves to hold court and give out the badges.
 

So, open your mind, stay on topic, and maybe, you might go real far in life.

37 minutes ago, vodou said:

Wow. You're gonna go real far in life  

Should I be offended by that comment? I don’t get what you’re saying

36 minutes ago, vodou said:

Wow. You're gonna go real far in life  

4 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Your reply vanished.

Thank you

Should I be offended by that comment? I don’t get what you’re saying. 

Didn’t even bother to read your reply. Pirating is wrong and illegal. 

Insightful. I don’t understand how a commission not perfectly reproducible and does that even matter? Ryan Stegmans commissions have turned into covers. Reproduced. So someone saw value in using a commissioned piece of art to sell their product.

Art is art. Who says it has to be perfectly reproduced to have value? I honestly don’t understand what you are saying here. How is art reproduction a big difference?

And, IP violations need to be addressed even if they are difficult. And there are viable options for people / companies who are infringed upon. Disney scares the out of people. Because they will send a cease desist or even take you to court. They have to. It weakens their mark.

Disney can do this because they have the resources. This goes back to my one question, how would DC stop this? Or even attempt to monitor this?

NFT is not an unknown. Regardless if someone sells an NFT for 60 million or not. What does the price matter? Honest question. Is it because that amounts gets noticed?

The NFT companies purposely put this out to attract attention. That way they can get more people looking to make money off their art. NFT companies charge a fee to mint the art. 
 

To me it sounds like a pyramid scheme.
 

I realize you are in a spot being a lawyer, and do respect that, and that you have to be careful what you say. 

I’m just trying to understand and make sense of all this. 

15 minutes ago, Randall Ries said:

Sucks! That's fairly typical. At one time they sure liked to extort money from people. In a case like that, the people who actually were sued in the same fashion who had a ton of money offered a retort, paid a lawyer well and made the RIAA look like insufficiently_thoughtful_persons. And so began their habit of suing people they were pretty sure would just settle so they could make headlines and be seen as a force to be reckoned with. I mean really? $600,000 for a Journey song? A college girl?

The other problem was the newbie who used say Napster or in your case Kazaa as a downloading platform. Really public and really easy to find. No offense intended. It was just easy and accessible. A lot of people got hosed. So, they shot Napster in the face, sued the owners and out of the ashes rose...NAPSTER! And they used their hardware, software and business model to REALLY screw people!

"NOICE! LOOK at all THIS! Let's jail the creators and we will just step in and charge people insane money for a lousy mp3 folder! We'll make a killin', SAY? MMmmyaaahh!"

Rhino Records used to be called "The Rhino" or just plain "Rhino" back in the bootlegging days and they were one of the biggies. They got noticed, got threatened, rolled over and went legit and now charge people stupid money for their wares and are REALLY inept in the digital download universe. Not much fun at all, really. Or interesting.

Tommy Lee wasn't the only person who got boinked that day, I guess. I'm sorry that happened to you. I knew that video was flying around but I'm not a Motley fan and although PA is an animal rights activist, (Very cool) I am not a big fan otherwise. So, never sought it out. If I want to see pictures of people getting screwed, I'll go through the newspaper black and white photo archives of commoners like me standing front of a judge getting yelled at for downloading a Blind Faith song.

"HEY MAN! IZZAT 'FREEDOM ROCK?'"

"YEAH, MAN!"

"Well, TURN IT UP, MAN! JUST not too LOUD, MAN! IS THAT 'FREEDOM ROCK' COPYRIGHTED, MAN?"

"YEAH, MAN!"

"GOOD, MAN! WE SURE DON'T WANT 'THE MAN' COMIN' DOWN ON US, MAN!"

LAAAAYLAA! YA GOT ME ON MUH KNEES! LAAAYLA! DARLIN' WON'T YUH EASE MUH WURRIED MINE!"

These days, I do all my pirating in well protected groups (as well as can BE protected) and FB pages. It IS possible to share info as long as people aren't so LOUD about it. That was one of the allures of bootlegging back in the day. The stealth. And it wasn't something everyone was blabbing about. Having an unreleased Bob Dylan show from 1963 Manchester, UK was a bragging right among friends. And a cool thing to have.

Yeah and THANKS, Comcast. THANKS, AT&T. THANKS, Verizon for protecting my account information and giving us up like a common squealer/informant. And now? A strongly worded registered letter to my provider and CUT THE CABLE! Or send them a copy of the judgment along with a picture of this months provider payment due. I'll send another picture/payment next month as well. LOL!

You see no problem with pirating someone else’s hard work? That is wrong. Please do not post your ramblings about pirating, for your own sake. It’s illegal and you can get your self into trouble. It’s wrong. 

2 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Allowing an artist to do a simple sketch or commission of a character has non-monetary value to comics companies. By raising interest and awareness in characters, it increases sales in comics, and possibly, movies and TV. It also allows artists to supplement their income instead of publishers paying more for the art. Don’t forget that artists are allowed to keep their finished work after it is published. That wouldn’t be of much value if the company’s secondary copyright weren’t given away with it (or limited trademark rights with it, if any). No one could buy it. 

But, digital art is fundamentally different. The art is a one-off that can be perfectly duplicated by the owner for a potentially sizable profit. That’s could be a serious pot of money. Perhaps an analogy would be the publisher who decides to put a copy of Amazing Fantasy #15 in a book and sell it. Furthermore, if the book involves a trademarked item, like Spider-man, the failure of the owner to protect it can result in the loss of trademark protection, like the word “zipper” which was originally trademarked.

The letter also raises an interesting question: is this the death of “monoprints”?

There is a lot of what you say here that I don’t believe is true or makes sense. I’m not being an .

A commission has monetary value. I’ve spent enough to know.

The artist getting paid a lot of money for his NFT art certainly raises more brand awareness then a commission posted to CAF.

The artist can keep the original art, digitize it and sell it as NFT art. 

I didn’t understand how digital art is fundamentally different. 

I agree that not litigating infringement weakens the mark. But the president has been set with the looking away of physical art all these years.

I’m not a lawyer. I just play one on the internet. 

Say Steve Rude charges 5k for you to commission him. That’s a lot of money, to some. DC looks away. 

Steve sells an NFT commission. DC will be all over him? 

One group believes in the value of the dollar. Another group believes in the value of Bitcoin. 

Bitcoin is not recognized as currency. So when Steve gets paid in Bitcoin where is the harm? Bitcoin is not real. 

Steve cashes out his Bitcoin. Really money is now a factor.
 

But Steve didn’t get money for a DCs character commission. He got money from exchanging his Bitcoin. 

Am I not understanding this the right way? 
 

https://io9.gizmodo.com/dc-comics-tells-artists-to-stay-out-of-nft-business-or-1846466427
 

This raises so many issues and questions.

1. It’s ok for artist to sell art for money but not NFT? Why? 
 

2. How does this work for dealers or artist reps? Are you worried?

3. Does DC have the man power or capability to monitor this?

Thoughts?

I’m not buying it. I was wondering about the grade for that particular book. It’s off center, and just doesn’t look like a 9.8 worth grade.