pinupcartoonguy

For me, looking at this list ties in with another thread (comic art value/nostalgia). The values here are really tied in with a not just a particularly character, but often a very specific story arc. I'd argue in some cases, some artists work has gotten better over time, but earlier art they did is worth more because of the story it was attached to. That's why I think any comparison between fine art and comic art is silly. Comic art was never meant to be stand alone art, which to me, is what really makes is unique.

What's considered his first run?

I think prelims are a great substitute when you can't get (or afford) the published art. Here are three of my favorites: As someone noted above, prelims come in all different sizes, and these are about half a regular sheet of paper.

Depends how you define "breakdowns."

I'm not quite sure what the point is of bringing in artists like Dali and like to this discussion. Those are situations of outright fraud and misrepresentation. Here, it was more of a means to an end, and Miller's hand is all over the art whether he actually touched it or not.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying as a practical matter proper attribution doesn't effect value of the piece. I'm just saying on a certain level is really shouldn't.

I'd argue that even if Miller didn't touch the page, and assuming he did the thumbnail layouts, you are getting a Miller. Frank Lloyd Wright might not have hammered as single nail, but his signature is all over his houses. As I said before, comic art is a collaborative process, and the interplay between all the parts were merely a means to an end, the production art. Can't really analogize to fine art.

Sometimes I think we get too hung up on who did what. Comics in general are a collaborative creative process that ends up as what is really nothing more than a piece of production art. I really like this page regardless of who did what and when, and it was the culmination of a historic run . . .

I've always wondered who the poor sap is who designed the Campbell soup can label and never received his due credit . . .

I don't understand why you are kicking someone who is way down. Spencer was clear -- he will take on new commissions as he needs to pay bills. By the way, there are MANY people for whom Joe has done commissions and done them quickly. There is a SMALL group of people (SMALL) for whom he has been terribly, terribly, terribly late. There is NO EXCUSE for that but please don't confuse the fact that he has delivered the vast majority of his commission work on time and will continue to do so. Again, that is of little consequence to the few people who have had to wait so very long BUT Joe is going to get to them and Spencer is working hard to make that happen. I would think that this is a good story -- it was brought out in the public that a few fans were way way overdue and Spencer has stepped in to get the ship righted and the pieces done. Many artists simply take your money and are never seen or heard from again -- that is not the case -- the vast majority of folks who have dealt with Joe are HAPPY and received their work on time. There is a small group who have had a horrid experience and Spencer is working with Joe to turn that around. We've already heard that the painting is done so lets see what happens with the next one. Give Joe a break, please. Have you never done anything you are ashamed of or done something wrong -- he is trying to make it right so why persist in piling on again and again. Hear hear! There is no better process for this situation, given the facts. I don't know why people can't just give this new process a chance to work. Because despite the intervention, some people are still pissed about being strung along and screwed over--and rightly so.

As a journalist, I can't stand it when other journalist are factually incorrect about something significant: "Lichtenstein was 40 and already an established artist when he suddenly became famous for painting huge, made-up comic strips, and after that he went on to do much else."

If, as you say, theft is theft, you do realize that every time an art draws a, say, Marvel or DC character for a commission they are violating the publisher's trademark, which is in essence, theft.

Assuming these guys are stealing, have any of them been successfully sued, and if not, why not?

Well it depends on who you ask. I am sure there are people upset with both instances. Legally, it's getting permission, paying permission to the holder of the rights. That's not where I am coming from. I am just correcting the mistaken assumptions about whether what went down was completely acceptable. Where I am coming from is, if this art that was created came from some pure artistic place, from some self-expression and deep examination of the human condition that has changed the world....then I would think giving the true origin of the piece, and its creator, from the very beginning, in clear terms, in the description of the piece where ever it is exhibited, would be something that would have been done from day 1. I think if Lichtly had given credit, a lot of people still wouldn't be satisfied. I think there's a segment that can't come to grips with the fact that comic art is not "fine" art, and that the panel that was used should be on at least a high a pedestal (if not higher since it was first) as the derivative piece. But as another poster accurately stated earlier, most comic art was just a paycheck, and by all accounts, many of the earlier comic book artists didn't really want to be comic book artists.

So is all this about giving the original artist credit or having violated a copyright? Let's say Lichtenstein had gotten permission from the publisher to use the images, he still wouldn't have to give the artist credit. At the most, he'd be compelled to include Copyright (insert publisher).

Out of curiosity, are people more offended by the fact the Lichtenstien profited from the use of the work or the fact that the original artist didn't profit?

Kinkade was almost purely about marketing and speculation, and that market was house of cards that came crashing down. Re Lichtenstein et al., I'd argue that were part of a viable movement (pop art) that really captured a time and place. There's also a nostalgia factor associated with it, a factor which also seems to drive another hobby where many "hack" artists garner a fair chunk of change.

The copyrights were valid for 28 years from the time of first publication for any piece produced prior to 1978. Those pieces were eligible for a renewal of another 28 years as well. In 1978 copyright law was changed to allow for an additional 67 years instead of 28. So the potential length of copyright on these images is most likely still in effect. However, we don't even have to dig that deeply. The piece that started this thread: "I CAN SEE THE WHOLE ROOM AND THERE'S NOBODY IN IT ! " as produced in 1961.....it was lifted from a Steve Roper Sunday Strip published in August 1961. Ah, but 1963 is a magic year in terms of copyright. So unless those images published prior to 1963 were renewed 28 years later, they are in the public domain. Also, to receive copyright production prior to 1963, simply having the art published wasn't enough. You actually had to have the notation copyright (or the c with the circle around it) 19xx. I didn't say all the stuff the Lichtenstein used was in the public domain, but some of it may have been, especially the romance stuff. I don't think that piece was in the public domain, being that the ink on the Sunday strip wasn't even dry when it was ...dun dun dun... "Transformed" .

Oh, , it's also very possible that some of the panels that Lichtenstein used were in the public domain, which would mean that that were free to use by anyone--legally. It man be an explanation for why he was never sued for copyright. By the way, how many of you have actually seen these things in a museum? As many of you like to note re twice up art, bigger is better.

To me the big difference here is you have an artist that is capitalizing on something that was already popular and well known. Lichtenstein, at least, took something that was nothing and turned it into a topic of conversation.

The publisher doesn't necessarily own the copyright. Depending on how the contract reads, the artist may retain the copyright in the same manner that a writer retains the copyright for their materials. The publisher my have printing and rights to the artwork, but those rights generally are not transferable to another entity beyond the publisher and are not the same as the copyright. If you're talking about the stuff Lichtenstein used, the publishers do own copyright. At that time, all the stuff was work for hire. Which artists are you thinking about who retained their copyright?

Wait a minute. Let's assume for argument's sake the Lichenstein did violate a copyright. Even if that were true, it's the publishers that have a claim (since they own the copyright), not the individual artist. Since the publishers don't seem to care, what's the big deal?

You know, I came that close to making a similar remark . . .

I think calling LIchtenstein a scam artist is a bit of a stretch. I don't believe he defrauded any investors, but I could be wrong.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have to give credit to a guy who can take a throw away panel from a comic book and turn it into a multi-million dollar enterprise. On a certainly level, whoever the original artists were are certainly getting more exposure than if Lichenstein had never lifted the panels.