Artists Gone Digital: No More "Hand-Drawn" OA From These Pros...

[Brian Peck]

Original digital comic art? I think thats an Oxymoron.

 

Isn't that just like collecting prints. There is nothing original about the print, its a copy of the image created on a computer? Unless you collect digital files of the artwork. But then that would also be a copy of the original digital file.

[MyNameIsLegion]

Artist created digital art file, backs it up (if he's smart) sends it to inker, (he backs it up) send it to color house, (they back it up) send it to publisher (they back it up) they review, send a copy to Marketing, send to Printer, they send it to separation house to make the plates....I've already lost count of how many copies of that digital file there are.....over a dozen.

 

yeah, digital original art is an oxymoron at best, a gold mine for fraud at worst.

[AKA Rick]

That was my point too, as far as my comment about the collectibility of digital artwork.

 

I do agree to the other point made that basically anyone can collect and acquire anything they like. People collect what they enjoy and that's what makes collecting fund.

 

As for there being a valued based market for digitial artwork, I'm not sure it's as sustainable as the traditional pencil/ink medium. Personally, i'd probably opt to save my personal funds to invest in the pre-digital age of comic art rather then spend more than whatever a print is worth to me, which is probably under $50 and closer to $5-20 on anything that resembles a digital print whether promised to be a one of a kind or a signed limited edition.

 

So, if the most beautiful cover was created digitally, and it were available for $2,000, and if it had been done in traditional pencil/ink, and I'd normally jump at the chance at it for let's say $2,000-5,000, as other collectors would (so similar to when an Adam Hughes or J. Scott Campbell piece initially hits the market as an example), I'd still find it doubtful within the same market amongst the same group of collectors if many would pony up even 10% of that or $200 for a one of a kind digital print. I'm sure a few would, but the majority wouldn't.

 

But I guess only time and the laws of supply and demand will tell whether or not the ditial art hobby can sustain the same interests as the hand drawn original art hobby.

 

Luckily there's pleanty of pencil/inked original art from the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, 1990's and up to the Y2K's first decade for us old timers to chase, and maybe just save up for major key pieces as well.

 

Original digital comic art? I think thats an Oximoron.

 

Isn't that just like collecting prints. There is nothing original about the print, its a copy of the image created on a computer? Unless you collect digital files of the artwork. But then that would also be a copy of the original digital file.

[SC in SC]

It's not much different from blue line inks though. A print, by most collector's standards, is a copy of an original work. A piece of original digital art IS the original artwork of the pubslished work. It's only printed because there is no physical work. It's not the same as collecting prints, in my eyes at least, simply because this is the original, that no one else should have as the artist is not authorized to create more of them.

 

Blue line inks is a print of the original pencils that has been inked. In this case, the pencils may exist with the penciler, but the inks are the published image. Yet, the inks are less desireable. Why? Is it because the inker is less famous? What if the inker is a famous comic artist? Would his blue line inks be more valuable?

 

A further question will be what will be the case if digital art becomes the norm?

 

As for an oxymoron, original art means the first and true physical artwork. Reproductions of any sort are just that,reproductions, legal or otherwise. Why should digital art be any different? Wouldn't the one legally allowed printed image of the digital work be the first physical representation, and thus the first and true physical artwork. Hence original digital comic art. I wouldn't use such a phrase for purely digital art. That would be digital art.

 

Like I said though, this is my way of looking at things. I also have prints that are framed and hanging in my house. Art is art, regardless of if it's a print, original pages, or sketches. As long as it's not stolen, I'm fine with it.

[SC in SC]

Do I think a digitally created cover done by Adam Hughes would fetch the same price as a pencilled and inked coverby Adam Hughes? Not right now, but I think the day will come when that would be the case.

 

As you say Rick, time will tell.

 

I do know there are artists who charge more to color a piece of art digitally than if they color it by hand.

 

 

 

 

[MyNameIsLegion]

sooo....what if the Official Original Digital Print gets destroyed? Can you get a replacement? Suppose you buy the official digital original print and it gets damaged in shipping, can you just send it make for a new one?

 

Originality as a concept become meaningless in a digital environment, all things digital are infinitely reproducible, unlike a second generation copy of an analog form, that becomes something less and less true to the original with each successive copy. 20 years ago no one cared so much if you taped a song or a movie, it was an inferior copy of the original. Copy a DVD now, and share it with a friend, and it's against the law. Its no longer a conversation about originality, or even possession. The old saying possession is nine-tenths of the law doesn't apply here. Its more about who has the "rights' to something. In the absence of a physical work of art, you and the artist own nothing, most likely the publisher does. If you ever wanted to sell or trade your digital original, you'd probably have to get a damn lawyer. I'll pass.

[Brian Peck]

Its completely different than blue line art. The print even if its the only one is a copy not original in any way shape for form. Artwork inked over blue line does have an original component, the inker doesn't trace he or she adds their own artistic input. Yes it can be valued lower than if it was inked over the original pencils but it still original art. How famous an inker is has nothing to do with if his contribution is original or not.

 

"the artist is not authorized to create more of them" - doesn't mean an artist won't make another print/copy of it.

 

original art doesn't mean the first or true physical artwork. Original artwork is a product of the the artist's creative skill, once he makes a print from the digital file it has nothing to do with his creative skill but a product created my a machine.

 

Once digital art becomes the norm the original art market will be dead for new comic books.

 

 

[SC in SC]

sooo....what if the Official Original Digital Print gets destroyed? Can you get a replacement? Suppose you buy the official digital original print and it gets damaged in shipping, can you just send it make for a new one?

 

If the original gets destroyed, no you can't get a replacement. If it gets damaged in shipping, you're sol, just like if you bought any other page.

[SC in SC]

"the artist is not authorized to create more of them" - doesn't mean an artist won't make another print/copy of it.

 

VERY TRUE. Of course, there's nothing stopping an artist from using a lightbox to make a copy of his pencilled and inked pages either. Nothing beyond ethics, and we've seen people do similar things in the past. Crooks will always be crooks and will continue to be dishonest.

[SC in SC]

Original artwork is a product of the the artist's creative skill, once he makes a print from the digital file it has nothing to do with his creative skill but a product created my a machine.

 

This is very much like saying once an author prints his final manuscript, it has nothing to do with his creative skill. And it's just as flawed as statement. I do see your point about it, but what you're failing to see digital artwork is nothing more than the next evolution of the medium.

 

Staying with the books angle, a handwritten manuscript is worth FAR more than a computer printed one, so I can see why hand drawn art will be worth more than digital art. They can be from the same author and each took the same talent to create, but one has the quality of actually having been written by their own two hands, something that is not seen in many authors today.

 

When digital art becomes the norm, I think what we will see is that it replaces regular hand drawn artwork, and hand drawn art prices will rise.

[SC in SC]

If you ever wanted to sell or trade your digital original, you'd probably have to get a damn lawyer. I'll pass.

 

No damn lawyer needed. I've bought, sold, and traded digital art. Once it's bought, it's your's to do with what you please. You can keep it, frame it, sell it, trade it, burn it, have sexual relations with it, build an alter to it and worship it, whatever your pleasure.

[Brian Peck]

This has nothing to do with a writer and his manuscript, we are talking about artwork. Artwork is a process of using the creative skill, a product of the creative skill.

Digital artwork isn't the next evolution but the death of the original art market. Once it goes digital, might as well stick with collecting comic books. Oh wait they will be all going digital. The comic book I grew up with that I would flip thru the pages will be just a memory.

[MyNameIsLegion]

If you ever wanted to sell or trade your digital original, you'd probably have to get a damn lawyer. I'll pass.

 

No damn lawyer needed. I've bought, sold, and traded digital art. Once it's bought, it's your's to do with what you please. You can keep it, frame it, sell it, trade it, burn it, have sexual relations with it, build an alter to it and worship it, whatever your pleasure.

 

 

 

oh, I don't know about that, and you might just need that lawyer if you do some of those things with it!

 

and....suppose the artist produces something digitally thats not sold to a publisher, or it's a commission. There would in fact have to be some sort of contract to go with it. Does the artist keep the right to reproduce it? Do you? Maybe you're only buying the North American rights to the original. There's still Europe and Asia. Gotta read that fine print! Suppose he sell prints of the "original" they have a little stamp on them that says "non-original" that magically and legally makes them not the original. Yeah, yeah that's it......

[CollectingFool]

If an artist hasn't used his own hands to lay pencils, inks or color onto the piece of paper you're buying then it's not original art to me and I wouldnt pay more than a nominal fee for a piece like that. I already avoid blue line pieces and couldn't imagine staying in the hobby if this is the direction it goes.

 

 

[Royd]

Hey SC,

 

As Ruben mentioned, unless the artist physically touched the page, then it is purely original inks not pencil and inks.

 

Generally speaking, an inker gets paid less than a penciller and it is the penciller's name and talent which usually attracts readers although good inkers are also worth their weight in gold. (Please note that I am by no means disparaging the contribution of inkers).

 

Obviously, if the inker is also a penciller (eg. Kevin Nowlan) then I would imagine a page with original Nowlan inks (but not original pencils) would be worth more than one would expect. Best,

 

Royd

 

 

 

Blue line inks is a print of the original pencils that has been inked. In this case, the pencils may exist with the penciler, but the inks are the published image. Yet, the inks are less desireable. Why? Is it because the inker is less famous? What if the inker is a famous comic artist? Would his blue line inks be more valuable?

 

[Dr. Balls]

If you ever wanted to sell or trade your digital original, you'd probably have to get a damn lawyer. I'll pass.

 

No damn lawyer needed. I've bought, sold, and traded digital art. Once it's bought, it's your's to do with what you please. You can keep it, frame it, sell it, trade it, burn it, have sexual relations with it, build an alter to it and worship it, whatever your pleasure.

 

 

 

oh, I don't know about that, and you might just need that lawyer if you do some of those things with it!

 

and....suppose the artist produces something digitally thats not sold to a publisher, or it's a commission. There would in fact have to be some sort of contract to go with it. Does the artist keep the right to reproduce it? Do you? Maybe you're only buying the North American rights to the original. There's still Europe and Asia. Gotta read that fine print! Suppose he sell prints of the "original" they have a little stamp on them that says "non-original" that magically and legally makes them not the original. Yeah, yeah that's it......

 

In school I cover several days of class regarding copyright law - it's a very deep topic that covers all aspects of art, and most people piece together what is legal and what is not based on things they've heard. And, for the most part, most artists I know have a very loose grasp on the rights they do and don't have on their work. While I won't say I am an expert in Copyright Law, I have studied many of the topics that people misunderstand in order to clarify it to students.

 

Reproduction rights are not automatically transferred or inferred once you own an original. If I sell you an original piece, you are not allowed to reproduce it and sell it - that would be considered infringement. You can sell *your* original art to someone else, but you are not allowed to make copies - unless it is written into a contract saying so.

 

If I create a commissioned illustration for a book, there will be a release signed, stating that they have the right to reproduce it in that book. I maintain ownership and the ability to make prints of it as much as I want - again, the only time this is limited is if it specifically states it so in a contract. And this is where it can get dicey - depending on how the contract is worded, an artists work can be considered "work-for-hire" meaning the company, not the artist, retains ownership of the art.

 

While I don't know a lot about the Kirby/Marvel issue, my guess is that the whole "not returning his original art" thing was probably based in conflicts regarding "work-for-hire".

 

As far as worldwide rights - if you want to protect your artwork to the fullest extent of the law, you will need to file for copyright protection in each market you believe it to be in. If your work is going to be shown in Japan, you need to file there, and so forth. But, you have to ask yourself if someone steals your work, are you in a financial position to hire a lawyer from another country to file suit against someone for damages? Are those damages going to be large enough to justify legal action?

 

When you create a piece of art - it already has copyright protection - however, filing with the government provides you additional protection and a legal paper trail to prove your artwork's use should someone infringe on those rights.

 

Speaking as someone who has had their work repeatedly infringed upon in some way - I discovered that most people who stole my work were broke and I wouldn't have recovered 10% of what it would have cost to hire a lawyer. That does't mean it's not always worth it, but for the most part - infringement happens on a small scale. I have discovered most people who infringe on others' artwork usually do so out of ignorance of the law, not maliciousness.

[malvin]

Wow, this is the first I've heard of this, does anyone else buy and collect original one of a kind digital prints?

 

Malvin

 

To answer your question, yes there are people who rep artists whose work is now done entirely in the digital medium. So yes, there are dealers and reps who sell original digital comic art.

 

OK, I'm really curious about this, can you link me to websites of these dealer and reps of original digital art?

 

Malvin

[Dr. Balls]

OK, I'm really curious about this, can you link me to websites of these dealer and reps of original digital art?

 

Malvin

 

Les Barany was my "unofficial" rep while I was in NYC, who got me booked into shows, etc. But he's got several digital artists he reps, Patrick Byers being the only one I personally met.

[SC in SC]

Malvin, check out The Interior Pages. Some of the artists here are digital artists.

[blowout]

I have some digital art in my collection, and I consider it the same as I do any other pages or covers in my collection. Is it exactly the same as a penciled, blue-line inked, or penciled/inked page? Yeah, because it's just another form of original comic art. It's the original artwork, not a reproduction. The fact that the image is a print doesn't matter. My digital cover piece is the original, one-of-a-kind, cover of Green Lantern: Emerald Warrior published by DC. It's the variant cover, and it's no different than the cover of any other comic. It's THE cover, and it's the original work.

 

I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people that would agree with this statement. It sounds very much like a piece of self-rationalisation justifying a purchase.

 

A print is not original art, it is a copy of the the art. You can self-rationalise all you want, but that is the cold hard fact.

 

Collect what you like by all means, but trying to convince yourself and the masses, that a phisical print of a digital piece of art is the original?