Rick2you2

That has been part of the plan all along. I mentioned it earlier on this thread. I agree about the Deadman “sketch”, but I won’t spend that sort of money for OA (with 1 possible exception).

Don’t lose sight of the fact that in the absence of registration, the infringer is only liable for the actual damages caused. For the original artist, there is no loss since the art was sold. Same is true of the photo owner, but asking for attribution is not asking for “damages”. The original artist might have that same right if requested.

I think distribution methods will change.Clearly, the publishers have learned what reliance on Diamond has done. I think you will also see a continuing, increasing trend to placement in Walmarts and similar stores. I am also surprised that no effort has been made to sell at least graphic novels in movie theatres when a comic related movie is shown. Maybe even with a variant cover.

Instead of focusing on the image, focus on the deliberate omission of the watermark. That disclosed your ownership of the photo, and the omission of it was an unauthorized misuse of what you owned by altering the photo. As such, I think you have the right to insist your ownership of the photo be acknowledged. That won’t get you damages, but it should get you at least an apology and correction.

Change the subject from comics to baseball and you will get the same answer: yes.

I don’t know the Mercedes decision, but it may involve the different question of the right of privacy. Generally speaking, it is not the appropriation of someone’s image if the photo image is taken in public. Doing it through someone’s window is a different matter. But, copying someone else’s photo can be a copyright violation. Money aside, there is also a question of whether posting it on a public website was “fair use” under the circumstances.

I think you have 3 months from creation of the image to register it and still collect statutory damages, but the statutory damages are small for this sort of thing (at least IMO). You may want to instead tell them you own the image and want it removed. Personally, I would ignore the violation and claim bragging rights on CAF that it was used.

Note my comment below about one thing I bought. My other half likes Brenda Starr (what can I say?), and I thought a set of 3 strips sold on the low side. The world is not collapsing, but I think it is on a diet.

It is still early in the cycle. But, I did win something at a Heritage weekly last week which I thought was at least 25% less than market. Nice piece, too. I was waiting for it to arrive before posting.

Fear of low bids

Leave a note and sign it Jack Kirby.

I don’t think “justifiable homicide” would qualify as a defense, but in different times of less scarcity, you could probably get away with tp’ing their their house. Is that what you wanted to know?

You can find some really bad experiences on the Facebook page Comic Art Buyers Beware (and a few good ones). It can make for a juicy read, particularly by the bad actors who keep showing up.

Yes, but he erased them.

A lot of people have commented on it, and I agree, to some extent. The question will become whether the hobby can make the transition to graphic novels instead of floppies, or perhaps, digital. I won't spend serious money on this stuff (e.g., $10K, or even close) because I can get a perfectly good "fix" with new art and commissions if I want. Nostalgia is nice, but there is so much good modern art out there, it makes little sense to spend a wad on a single memory.

You are a little off about your point no. 1. Before 1975, copyright law gave ownership of the artist's work to the company as "work for hire". That changed with amendments to the Copyright Act of 1975. So, it is not necessarily the case that older art was stolen. It could have been given away casually by the company's employees with proper authority to do so (whoever they may be). Back then, it was perceived as having little or no value so records of transfer would be lacking. Adams changed the view in comic book land by insisting he wanted ownership of his own work (before the amendments to the Copyright Act). On this point, the companies began to change their views and allowed them to have it even before the change in the law. This was also part of a groundswell of other artists who had similar feeling in other fields and that was a major reason for the legal change. Be thankful that a different aspect of the issue never caught on (which I think is true in Europe, but I am not sure): every time a piece of art is sold, the original artist gets a piece of the sale price. Personally, I don't show most of my collection for the simple reason that people would be bored or think I am nuts ("You collect what?"). They may nod their heads and say how nice it is, but I doubt the average person gives a dam'n. Around here or at shows, it is different, or course.

I was hoping someone would do that. It's easier than looking up all the listing in eBay for completed transactions all the time.

I am sort of wondering, however, what sort of book/story would be produced to support each cover. Can you imagine what we would get if a high bidder asks for "Hoppy the Marvel Bunny", or Super-Turtle?

The value of those unpublished sketches, now to be published, just shot up several hundred percent, I expect.

Art Adams is now doing the same thing through Jim Lee’s auctions. His selections, however, will be based on the most likes. That was posted this evening on Facebook.

Look at all the stolen Nazi art which still sometimes come to light. This is why I would not buy the secret stuff. I refuse to be part of a scheme to aid and abet theft.

It’s also possible that DC knows the importance of its dealer network to its sales, and between mandatory store closings and Diamond Distributors shutting down, it realized it had to help them for the future. Since DC can’t really do much publishing right now, it’s also possible that Jim came up with the idea and DC grabbed it (I assume he is on salary). They might now be able to deduct his salary, or a portion of it, as a charitable contribution, along with any other paid support or materials they provide, earning a ton of goodwill, and keeping their characters in the public eye. What they are all doing is still great, but it is being done smartly.

From my perspective, the Signature auctions tend to be more expensive. Since I won’t spend big money on this stuff, I look at the Signature Auctions but buy at at the weeklies.

What you bought would be an exception to my views. Those are very good, on their own.

Because it was his personal work product. If you volunteer to work at a soup kitchen, you don't get to deduct your "typical" wages for it. Besides, he is presumably doing it while on the job during the slack periods at his home office (with DC's approval), so time spent is not his own.