Rick2you2

It’s sort of cheating to list more than one. If you had to pick one, and only one, who would it be?

Not an argument at all. Neal Adams paved the way for Todd McFarlane, as well as Jim Lee. That “super-realistic” style and his panel layouts set him apart. Just like good (dead) Will Eisner.

I had missed it. Thanks. Does this site contain just your newer pieces, or the old stock as well?

Congratulations! It looks great. For future additions, you might want to add a word search function which identifies any superheroes or major characters who appear since that is another important search criterion for collectors (maybe as metadata?). Not to take away from this, which is really a professional looking site.

Is the artist tax for Sal Buscema positive or negative?

I saw a page on eBay for $200 by Perez that wasn’t bad, but not quite what I wanted.Three hours or so later, it was gone. Anthony’s is now looking for $450 for it.

Give it time. They have other things to do (like adding trade dress). I would NOT follow up or those eventual prices may go up even higher.

It’s not always that bad. There was an Aparo cover which Moye had for $8,000 that was not so hot, but when Aparo was zipping up in price, Coollines bought it and was trying to sell it for $11,000 at the Comic Art show this weekend. I figure the correct market price should probably closer to $6000 if someone really wanted it. But, X-men and Claremont are what they are, and I wouldn’t get my hopes up. What they have been trying to get for Ross Andru Phantom Stranger art is, in my opinion, ridiculous, but because it is Andru, they keep the price high. And admittedly off-topic, why is some of Andru’s art so costly? Does he belong in the same group as Sal Buscema?

I once bought something from them off eBay which was only, maybe, 15-20% over what I thought was market price (and a low demand item). If I were you, I would first check and see if was ever offered for sale by them on eBay, and if so, inquire on that basis. Otherwise, approach the inquiry as matter-of-factly as possible (maybe ask about generic X-men pages, that are inexpensive, for example). Then see what is offered.

As a follow-up, you could probably divide OA into two categories: highly stylized and over-realistic. Artists like Miller, Mignola and Bruce Timm would fall into the first category, while Adams, Lee and Byrne fall into the second category. Collectors love the first category (as well as the second), but if you go to the newsstands, I think the second predominates. On that basis, I think the answer to the single most influential artist has to come from the second. On a different note, I don’t think you can place Byrne at the top of the list as most influential—and I love his work. The strains of Neal Adams are too apparent in it.

As a variation on this topic, who is currently having the greatest impact on OA? Neal Adams, I think, has been responsible for the greatest impact over time, but right now is a little different. Perhaps Lee?

You clearly know more than I do. I stand corrected.

Next time up, remind me and maybe I can recommend some places in the area to eat (depending on what you want to spend or how far you want to travel). I always had a soft spot in my heart for the Mt. Fuji Japanese restaurant down the road, because my ex-wife once told me she got food poisoning there. She survived, but I haven't eaten there.

Honestly, I am paranoid about the damage which natural sunlight can do, and I am not technically trained to answer your question. I would simply not keep them anywhere near natural light, if only to avoid yellowing over time.

Keep them in an environment which is moisture-free and in the dark. I would not place them in any area where they could get any sunlight, and your covering may not be adequate.Artifical light (except for "artificial sunlight" bulbs) is not a potential source of harm.

A lot of people in the morning, not the afternoon. Didn't seem to be a lot of buying, however. Jets game.

About issue no. 46, I don't own the cover, but I do have an homage by Tom Mandrake which is supposed to be out by now as the cover for the Swamp Thing run of stories as part of DC's dollar comics line. It covers all the original characters, plus others from that run. Sadly, no Spectre.

I don't thnk they would want to for another reason: publicity for their product. After Andy Warhol painted his Campbell's Soup Can and made it into a famous painting, Campbells sent him a letter thanking him for the publicity. He helped make their mundane Tomato Soup into an icon. On the other hand, if someone copies a picture and incorporates it into another picture, it better have been transformative of the original which makes it different. Otherwise, one artist ends up suing another. As I recall, a rapper got sued, and lost, when he used someone's picture on a CD cover.

I have been reading the comments since my earlier post, and I wanted to add some more information. The most important "exception" mentioned is by ESeffinga about enforceability, not legal violation. Companies will generally not pursue a trivial violation (more likely to do so, however, if the copyright was registered) because it isn't worth the effort. Be really careful if it is also a trademark violation, however. Regarding the following comment by Bill (wno similarly noted the jaywalking exception) (But, I once got a ticket for standing off the curb in Washington DC, so, it could happen): Copying screenshots is a violation of copyright law, except by the auctioneers who have permission from the piece's owner, and with some rare exceptions under fair use. Whether anyone will bother you is a different question. And as to the Spanish hardcover book, Bill has a limited (derivative) copyright to what was borrowed, so permission was not needed from him. He just has ownership of a physical reproduction of those pages. The original copyright would be owned by either the artist, publisher, or some other transferee. Regarding "fair use", that is a defense to a claim of copyright infringement, not a standalone right. In other words, you reproduce without permission, it is a copyright violation, but, the person claiming fair use may establish something you might think of as an immunity to damages. More technically, the person asserting fair use has the legal "burden of proof", and if they don't meet it, they are liable. "Fair use" is not as flexible a term as you might think. There is a statute defining it with four factors for courts to consider: their application depends on the facts. For example, is the use "transformative" of the orginal work, like parody, does it involve criticism of the original work, is it copied for educational purpose (narrow interpretaton), and is it for commercial or non commercial purposes. You could probaby make a copy of a page you own for your own personal use if kept in the same form (not printed on a T shirt), but an argument could still be made that it is not fair use because of the strictures of the law. Sorry. On the other hand, if no one is around to challenge the use, it doesn't matter, now does it? Luckily, most of what we do is too small to attract the ire of large companies. Just don't distribute it to make a buck or essentially deprive a company or artist or the right to make one and you are probably okay.

You made a physical duplicate of it. It isn’t the act of looking, it is the reproduction which matters.

Great way to invite a lawsuit, if someone wanted to do so. And they would likely win. This is strict liability stuff. Like statutory rape in criminal law.

To answer your question: first, is the copyright registered or not? If registered, the owner gets statutory damages as well as actual damages as calculated under copyriht law. The penalties depend on variety of factors, including willfulness, and can range from $200 to $150,000 per violation. Second, here is an example of how actual damages would be calculated, using a T-shirt as an example. This is from a Nolo website: Federal law (17 U.S.C. § 504(b)) provides: "The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered ... as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer’s profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work." In the example above, your actual damages would be your lost revenue as a result of the infringer taking your painting and reproducing it on T-shirts. These calculations are imperfect, of course; you could argue that your sales decreased by a certain percentage during the period that the infringer was selling the T-shirts, though such causation is not always clear. Note that no one actually has to produce the T-shirt (or a poster). So, it would be the equivalent of the cost of a purchased poster. Finally, the copyright holders get the right of recovery. Hulk #180 was published in 1974, so it is probably governed by the pre-1975 law. In that case, Marvel probably owns the copyright.

He ought to see an intellectual property lawyer. He may be owed some money if his copyright was infringed.

You mean you were only getting $1.50, total for something like this, and not even royalties?

It is right off of NJ Route 46 and Interstate Route 80.