Rick2you2

Good point.

The Copyright office recently rejected a copyright claim where the art was purely generated by AI, even while allowing it for the same work where portions were created by humans. This is going to get really ugly in the coming years: where to draw the line?

1. Copyrights don’t have to be registered to have value. They could have defended their ownership based on common law copyright. Proof of damages is just harder. 2. Fair use is a valid exception, one version of which is parody. I can’t imagine a snippet of a song qualifying as parody, but blowing up a panel of art, while modifying its flatness and absurd dialog, certainly is. And don’t forget to consider how the new art would be used. Lichtenstein was not duplicating it to sell in a comic book, so, it could not be claimed to have stolen sales from the original. Key factor. 3. Transforming an image, like a photograph of Marilyn Monroe, into something different also qualifies; the debatable issue is where to draw the line (no pun intended). Don’t forget that pop art is like cotton candy in the fine art world. It’s designed to make you smile, and quickly. Most fine art is designed to be enjoyed, but also, studied. No one looks at the Mona Lisa, grins, and walks away.

As a kid, I came from a different direction. For me, the plot and storyline were way more important than the art; the art, for the most part, just expanded on the storyline. There were exceptions, like Swamp Thing, where art by Wrightson, Redondo and Tottleben, all struck a chord, as did Adams. But if the storyline wasn’t good, the art didn’t matter. Interesting how you mentioned Kane because I didn’t care for his work. While I am aware (and was only dimly aware as a child) the draftsmanship was excellent, there is a coldness to it. That’s okay for Green Lantern while in outer space but I like heat in the artistry. I have bought art where a single panel gets my attention. Nothing irrational about that. In fact, you may well find that it is reflected in the value of the piece. I still like warmth in the page, however, both via words and art. But, I favor a diversity of style even when I am not thrilled with the piece. I think a good way to highlight the good in your collection is to mix in some “eh” pieces for comparison.

You may want to read an article in the New Yorker entitled “Before Lichtenstein went Pop”. Bottom line: it’s deliberate.

They are easy to find, with prices and demand on the low end. Just go to CAT and for a search, try words like romance or love.

One of the considerations is how it is to be used. Lichtenstein didn't copy the image to put in a comic book and sell it. That would be a clear violation. He blew it up to highlight its absurdity by drawing emphasis to what would ordinarily be a plain panel. By the way, they are not all line-for-line. The changes tend to emphasize its flatness. With that said, you are not the only one questioning whether it is a copyright violation. But then, you get into the question of damages. Unless it was registered, the odds are none would be provable since no sales were stolen by its use. They have to be registered if you want that sort of payday (actual calculations are a little different). If you want to get a cheap fake that's as every bit as good Lichtenstein, just buy virtually any page from a Romance book and put it in an eye popping colored frame. They really are funny. Take this one, for example (currently on sale, with more of the story):

To some extent. But, the other issue is fair use as parody, since Lichtenstein would alter the work in ways other than color. Love that fake zipatone!

“The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”

Any chance someone will be selling Mylar sleeves for a change? Should be easy money

Try Romeo Tanghal on Facebook.

His pacing is always very good (within the confines of -script-based artwork). Notice how, in the above example, he used a long panel as the set-up, 3 follow-on panels of fighting which are almost, but not quite, the same size, a dramatic half panel, and then his beauty, the punch? You get a real sense of time from the layout, with appropriate “movie” close-ups. Too many artists might have overdone the “suffering” on the first page (at least these days), or not given the beginning of the sequence a splashy sort of feeling.

Oh my, no. He sent me what he said he would, as well as a few of his own orphan pieces I'm sure he didn't know what to do with. They included what may be the strangest Phantom Stranger illustration I have ever seen, and wouldn't recoginze if I didn't know what it was (heck, even the Bristol Board is from the wrong company). By Duke Mighten, for a proposed pre-Justice League Dark kind of book: Aside from a companion Plastic Man piece like this, the other things were lovely. By the way, I sent him a Green Lantern story.

I’ve only done one “sort of” trade, because, well, this is my stuff and Phantom Stranger art can be hard to find. Someone was willing to trade some PS art I really wanted but I had nothing to offer. So, he advised me that something was coming up for sale at auction, and if I won, he would accept it. I won it, at a pretty low price, and he honored our deal. I felt guilty, so I threw in a Phantom Sunday section I had lying around. Never heard from him again and he vanished from CAF. Then, I felt even worse.😕. But no, I didn’t offer to give my new stuff up.

His Green Arrow stuff isn’t too expensive.

Apparently, in Batman v. Robin #2, but I didn’t read it. His other major villain(ess) is Talia, who I am pretty sure was intended to be PS’s opposite number.

When I saw these 2 pages by Jim Aparo come up for sale from Phantom Stranger 11, that was that. I had previously seen them posted on Facebook, and hadn't owned any with Tannarak (a vampire of human souls) and PS together. This is a nice fight scene between the 2 of them with PS delivering his classic roundhouse punch. For my money. the best pair since Jayne Mansfield (with a young Jennifer Love Hewitt close behind).

No collector would, but a dealer might. This market presumably has some pieces with value that doesn’t change much over time (like Sekowsky), but other artists and pieces appreciate more quickly (in general, 1990’s and 2000 pieces). So, I could see trades in which the trade value is close to even.

Not surprised. They told you the truth.

Star artists have the audacity to expect more money. Disney has never been known for “giving it away”. So why bother paying more for a star if he won’t necessarily improve sales?

I think you have drifted off into hyperbole when discussing some legitimate points. First, I am firmly in the 50+ segment of collectors, but I have regularly expressed my appreciation of newer artists and newer design approaches which have come a long way from the old 6 panel layout. There are quite a few people who have. But you haven’t paid attention to the fact that a lot of people here knowingly evaluate based on financial value, and that is mostly a function of nostalgia. They also recognize in many cases that “quality” is distinct from pricing, while diverging on what qualifies as quality, and that can be a matter of taste. Notice the debate involving Sal B? “Wretched excess” is a common thread in lots of areas. There is no good reason to pay for a rare, clear, flawless diamond to use as jewelry when cubic zirconium is at least as good (the main visibility difference involves single vs. double refraction)(unless you also want to use it for grinding, in which case, take an industrial grade diamond). They are both sparkly, and similarly sparkly. And I still can’t figure out why someone would want a house with a dozen bedrooms—except to show off their wealth—unless they are housing “Cheaper by the Dozen” kids. Do I think the purely artistic merit of much OA justifies the price or the gasps of praise? No. It is all about supply and demand, and the demand for people to buy what they grew up with. Which they still love. By all means, start a thread on page composition, or inking lines, or panel borders. You will get a fair number of comments. Just bear in mind that some people here don’t buy many new comics, not even with the Phantom Stranger in them, so don’t be surprised if responses often relate to older pieces.

There is something to that...

No question the vulgarity filter is funny. Try inputting Richard Giordano or Richard Dillon by their nicknames. The thing about crud is that it isn’t always crud. The definition can change with the times. Are there things on eBay, for example, which I doubt will ever be admired? Sure. Some by any standard are awful. Are there breakthrough artists whom you know it when you see it? Yup. Look at The Spirit. But in my view, a lot of what we like or dislike is a matter of current taste which can change with time. Go look at great-grandma’s old brown furniture for example. It is, for the most part, ugly by modern standards. But, great- grandma probably loved its baroque lines. A lot of people love Silver Age Marvel art. While I recognize some of it as excellent, I don’t care for a lot of it. What we people think as terrific in 50 years is anybody’s guess, although there are worthy and unworthy candidates for each category. Bottom line: buy it if you like it and keep your own counsel as the best counsel.

.

Colleen has posted this one on a few occasions, and it has gotten quite a few likes. I had asked her to do a female version of the Phantom Stranger, and she hit it.