• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Should you pay 5% of your profit when you sell your art work

Started by CycloneComics,

23 posts in this topic

CycloneComics

CycloneComics

Posted
Posted

From CARFAC Canadian Artists' Representation /

Le Front des artistes canadiens web site :

 

The Artists’ Resale Right

 

Many people profit when an artwork is resold – but not the artist. The Artist Resale Right would allow visual artists to share in these profits just as they do in 59 other countries around the world.

 

* The Artist Resale Right would entitle artists to receive 5% from the resale of their work.

o The full value of an artwork often isn’t realized on the initial sale. It is common for visual art to appreciate in value over time, as the reputation of the artist grows

o For example, acclaimed Canadian artist Tony Urquhart sold a painting, The Earth Returns to Life in 1958 for $250. It was later resold by Heffel Fine Art auction house in 2009 for approximately $10,000.

* Canada’s Aboriginal artists in particular are losing out on the tremendous profits being made on their work in the secondary market.

o Many artists living in isolated northern communities live in impoverished conditions, while their work dramatically increases in value

 

 

 

Website link

 

 

As someone who owns some art work as well as Comic book original art

 

Good luck with that :screwy:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brian Peck

Brian Peck

Posted
Posted

What is the artwork sells for less than what was bought for from the artist? Do they them pay me 5% of what was lost o n the deal?

If you resell a car, TV or house the original builder doesn't get a percentage of the resale so why should artists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
What is the artwork sells for less than what was bought for from the artist? Do they them pay me 5% of what was lost o n the deal?

If you resell a car, TV or house the original builder doesn't get a percentage of the resale so why should artists?

 

 

Also I don't see any allowance for inflation over time. $10,000 in 1960 and $10,000 today are drastically different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
D Parker

D Parker

Posted
Posted

Interesting to see this come up. There was a similar discussion on John Byrne's message board but it quickly became heated and the whole thread was deleted. I thought that was too bad, as I wanted to re-read the arguments having just sold my first page. I bought it directly from the artist nearly twenty years ago for a low price and sold it for over 50 times what I paid for it. I really thought I owed the artist something, but I wasn't sure what. Here were the problems I came up with, keeping in mind that I would probably sell some pages in the future:

 

* The sale of an inexpensive page seemed more trouble than it was worth. Five or ten percent of the profit on a $25.00 sale isn't worth writing a check for.

 

* If there is a separate penciller and inker for a page, who do you send the money to? The person the page was bought from? What if you don't know? Split it between both? What percentage should be assigned to each? What would be the percentage split for layouts/finishes?

 

* Who (if anyone) should the money go to if the artist has passed away?

 

* Keeping track of all artists (or their heirs) would be very difficult.

 

Say that you were tasked to make this work for future art sales... how would you go about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ShaneTurgeon

ShaneTurgeon

Posted
Posted
This reminds me of the SOCAN fee that I have to pay (as a Hotel) to play music, another just ridiculous charge. If the government could find a way to get the money from people they will.

 

Totally reminded me of SOCAN when i read this too, Randy. I suspect that if these jackholes were to try to make this happen, they'd end up taking a nice little cut of the money they're supposedly working so hard to earn for the struggling artists for all their effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted
Interesting to see this come up. There was a similar discussion on John Byrne's message board but it quickly became heated and the whole thread was deleted. I thought that was too bad, as I wanted to re-read the arguments having just sold my first page. I bought it directly from the artist nearly twenty years ago for a low price and sold it for over 50 times what I paid for it. I really thought I owed the artist something, but I wasn't sure what. Here were the problems I came up with, keeping in mind that I would probably sell some pages in the future:

 

* The sale of an inexpensive page seemed more trouble than it was worth. Five or ten percent of the profit on a $25.00 sale isn't worth writing a check for.

 

* If there is a separate penciller and inker for a page, who do you send the money to? The person the page was bought from? What if you don't know? Split it between both? What percentage should be assigned to each? What would be the percentage split for layouts/finishes?

 

* Who (if anyone) should the money go to if the artist has passed away?

 

* Keeping track of all artists (or their heirs) would be very difficult.

 

Say that you were tasked to make this work for future art sales... how would you go about it?

 

The entire idea is ridiculous. The artist sold it. Its no longer theirs. If the market for their work goes up, they benefit from that DIRECTLY from the sale of the material they have left and from their increased commission rates.

 

Oh, and let's say the work goes down 50% in value. Is the artist going to cut me a check? Give me a :censored:ing break

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicartcom

comicartcom

Posted
Posted

In reality, there are already some laws regarding this issue in California, though they are only enforced on fine art I believe

 

I don't like it in any case and I think it's a wrong headed idea.

 

The facts are - the art sold for the market price at that moment. The artist needed the money, which helped him buy supplies to make even more art (as well as rent, gas and the food that kept him alive). Ergo, the artist got his benefit from the cash he was given. Why should a buyer be penalized when he gets lucky? As one member asked "does the artist give me 5% when I lose?"

 

oh parlourguy: whatever your thinking about government is, they aren't a beneficiary of anything in this situation. This is not a government tax.It's a tax that artists want to collect, but I'm sure if you have this story off to Rush, he'll be happy to turn it into some "government takeover of your life" story

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted

Exactly. Or lets say it is destroyed in a fire and you *don't* have insurance. Is he going to pay you 5%?

 

Or lets say you DO have insurance. Is the artist going to pay 5% of your premiums? lol

 

This entire idea really takes the cake :insane: We should all just sit in a circle, holding hands and singing Kumbaya around a campfire lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AKA Rick

AKA Rick

Posted
Posted

Okay, if an artists work increases in value, as their career rises, and they want a part in that incremental revenue as the art appreciates in value and exchanges hands...

 

So, then would they be willing to, if their artwork is then ever sold at a loss, be liable for part of the decline in the value of their artwork as well, and rebate any percentages back to the last seller who endures a loss, for possibly being the cause of the decline, either through mismangement of their career (not hitting deadlines, subsequently falling asleep at the wheel in art quality, or allowing their popularity to fall into a downward spiral of mediocrity)?

 

I think once the artist's art leaves their hands, their involvement with the economics should end. They've been paid whatever they asked or negotiated and should live with the deal they made, otherwise simply keep their artwork and let it remain not for sale 'til they get the price that ultimately will make them happy with no regrets, whatever that price may be or whenever that time may be.

 

I think many artists are alreay doing that, in just looking at what prices some artists charge versus others, the spread for the cost of a current modern day cover by several artists of similar popularity swings pretty wide.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vodou

vodou

Posted
Posted

The broad theory that attempts to justify this is worth considering, although I do not support it's legal implementation in any form.

 

The theory starts off that when you buy art directly from the artist, you're paying the "spot" price of the moment and it's an exact exchange of cash for art. No different from when you buy anything in a retail environment. I think everybody on all sides of the discussion agrees with that. The artist does whatever with the cash and the buyer takes the art away. If there's an agent or middleman involved, same thing, everybody walks away with their piece of the transaction. The next stage is what sets artwork apart from other "products" on a shelf.

 

If the artist, through much hard work of their own and maybe some luck too, goes on to have a higher profile in the art world (gallery shows, critical reviews, auction house sales records, etc.) then those that took the financial risk and got in early will likely have benefited indirectly from this effort when they go on to sell that artwork for a higher price. At present, generally the artist does not benefit from this, only the holder of the art. So the idea here is that the artist would like to participate in some of that benefit because they have indirectly created the situation for that profit to exist.

 

It's easy enough to see how this theory plays out in the fine art world. Not as easy applying it to our hobby where sale and resale prices are largely determined by sentimental value for characters, titles and story lines. Those factors don't have anything to do with the actual artwork or future of the artist's career. A great example would be comparing the sale and resale prices for McFarlane's Spider-Man art vs. anything else he's done. How about Kirby FF vs. Kirby Destroyer Duck? Byrne X-Men vs. Byrne Namor. Extreme examples but I think my point is made. Kirby FF and Byrne X-Men aren't top price tier because of any sort of post-publication career effort on the part of the artists aside from longevity in the industry. Top resale prices are mostly based on general acknowledgment by the hobby that those were the respective artist's career high points artistically and the books were popular as heck.

 

Scenarios involving loss against price paid don't really play into this theory. The artist and buyer at original sale agreed to each respectively "sell" art for cash and cash for art. Both walked away with a product at that time, either art or USD. If either goes down in value or burns in a fire that's the buyer's problem. Likewise the artist "bought" cash with the art and if inflation destroys the value of that cash (as it did all through the 1970s, Weimar Germany, etc.) that again the "buyer's" (artists) problem.

 

I'm not saying I agree with all this, but nobody else was mentioning these aspects of the argument, so I thought it good to put them out there. Debate away.

 

Also, here's an explanation of how Christie's is implementing this scenario in the UK:

 

Droit de Suite

the Artist's Resale Right

 

Droit de Suite is a royalty payable to a qualifying artist or the artist's heirs each time a work is re-sold during the artist's lifetime and during the 70 years following the artist's death. Taking effect in the UK on 14 February 2006, it will initially only apply to the works of living artists. In 2012, Droit de Suite will be extended to apply to an artist's works for a period of 70 years after his death.

 

Following the introduction of the Artist's Resale Right Regulations 2006 on 14 February, Christie's has decided an amount equal to the resale royalty will be collected from the buyer of a work of art covered by these Regulations. This will then be passed to the relevant collecting agency.

 

Royalties will be calculated using a sliding scale of percentages of the sale price, net of tax. For auction companies, the sale price is the hammer price (i.e., the price without the premium). However, the total amount of royalty on any one sale or lot shall not exceed €12,500. Resale royalties are not subject to VAT. Resale royalty does not apply when the hammer price is less than €1,000.

 

(taken from http://www.christies.com/features/guides/buying/droit-de-suite.aspx)

 

And if laws are enacted (lobbied for heavily by intermediary artist rights groups) there are always indirect beneficiaries of such legislation. Whatever group manages collection and disbursement of payments will charge administrative expenses. Lawyers will charge clients on both sides in cases of dispute and lawsuit. More work overall for politicians and courts. All to the detriment of both artists and resellers as those costs are a big drag on the actual amount moving from reseller to artist. It's much better if resellers that feel morally obligated to share profits just send some bucks to the artist. And it's best if artists build their careers and bank accounts by looking forward not backward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing