jjeanius Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I practice English law, not US, but the idea that Image or any other publisher owes a legal or equitable duty of care to the consumer with respect to how many copies of a comic they print, or the price on the secondary market, is frankly a bit ridiculous. In any case, people bought them at the con for what, $5? And they're probably still worth that now, even with the loads of other copies being printed. So where's the loss? Under English law, lost profits/lost opportunities are only relevant in certain limited situations - and this wouldn't be one of them. What about the people on the board who bought them for $40 bucks a pop and when it takes a nose dive, their investment will be gone? Who told them to pay $40 a pop...? That's not what Image was charging. Using this line of logic, I guess everyone that bought Walking Dead #1 back in the day for cover price likely owes Image $1500 or so now, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balham's Finest Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I practice English law, not US, but the idea that Image or any other publisher owes a legal or equitable duty of care to the consumer with respect to how many copies of a comic they print, or the price on the secondary market, is frankly a bit ridiculous. In any case, people bought them at the con for what, $5? And they're probably still worth that now, even with the loads of other copies being printed. So where's the loss? Under English law, lost profits/lost opportunities are only relevant in certain limited situations - and this wouldn't be one of them. What about the people on the board who bought them for $40 bucks a pop and when it takes a nose dive, their investment will be gone? Who told them to pay $40 a pop...? That's not what Image was charging. Using this line of logic, I guess everyone that bought Walking Dead #1 back in the day for cover price likely owes Image $1500 or so now, right? Yes, that's exactly the point. Image don't set the price in the secondary market, and they are not asking the consumer to pay $40. Anyone who wanted to could have gone to NYCC and picked up a copy for $5. Some people paid $40 because they wanted to be guaranteed a great copy that would be shipped properly, some because they wanted to get in on the ground floor of a series they thought was going to take off... either way, it's not Image's problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticmoz Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 FWIW the Image exclusives page for NYCC still has the same text http://www.imagecomics.com/news/244/IMAGE-COMICS-EXCLUSIVES-AND-PANELS-AT-NEW-YORK-COMIC-CON NYCC Exclusive BEDLAM #1 variant (limited to 500) Not that it means much, but I think a lot of folks (misguided or not) based their speculative information off that page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeanius Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 FWIW the Image exclusives page for NYCC still has the same text http://www.imagecomics.com/news/244/IMAGE-COMICS-EXCLUSIVES-AND-PANELS-AT-NEW-YORK-COMIC-CON NYCC Exclusive BEDLAM #1 variant (limited to 500) Not that it means much, but I think a lot of folks (misguided or not) based their speculative information off that page. I'm sure they did. IMO, it doesn't matter if there are 500 or 1000...the future value of this book (or any of the other variants) will have a lot more to do with the quality of the book going forward than with the print run. Saga had an enormous print run for a #1, and is now a solid $25 book because the series is awesome. Epic Kill had a tiny print run, and now it lines cat boxes because it was NOT awesome. Print run is only one factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balham's Finest Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 FWIW the Image exclusives page for NYCC still has the same text http://www.imagecomics.com/news/244/IMAGE-COMICS-EXCLUSIVES-AND-PANELS-AT-NEW-YORK-COMIC-CON NYCC Exclusive BEDLAM #1 variant (limited to 500) Not that it means much, but I think a lot of folks (misguided or not) based their speculative information off that page. I'm sure they did. IMO, it doesn't matter if there are 500 or 1000...the future value of this book (or any of the other variants) will have a lot more to do with the quality of the book going forward than with the print run. Saga had an enormous print run for a #1, and is now a solid $25 book because the series is awesome. Epic Kill had a tiny print run, and now it lines cat boxes because it was NOT awesome. Print run is only one factor. Not to mention the fact that Image can say "Yes, it was limited to 500 copies for sale at the con. Nobody said anything about not printing any more" And +1 on awesomeness being a far greater determinant of value than print run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico Esq Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I practice English law, not US, but the idea that Image or any other publisher owes a legal or equitable duty of care to the consumer with respect to how many copies of a comic they print, or the price on the secondary market, is frankly a bit ridiculous. In any case, people bought them at the con for what, $5? And they're probably still worth that now, even with the loads of other copies being printed. So where's the loss? Under English law, lost profits/lost opportunities are only relevant in certain limited situations - and this wouldn't be one of them. In America, the seller can't make material misrepresentations that the buyer relies upon to their detriment and when people act together in a joint venture or joint enterprise they are liable for one another's misconduct based upon agency principles. The case may be valuable as a class, but the damages for an individual who purchased a few copies here and there are too insubstantial to support litigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krighton Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 win some, lose some. Diamond still has flashes of the greed that killed comics in the early 90s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balham's Finest Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I practice English law, not US, but the idea that Image or any other publisher owes a legal or equitable duty of care to the consumer with respect to how many copies of a comic they print, or the price on the secondary market, is frankly a bit ridiculous. In any case, people bought them at the con for what, $5? And they're probably still worth that now, even with the loads of other copies being printed. So where's the loss? Under English law, lost profits/lost opportunities are only relevant in certain limited situations - and this wouldn't be one of them. In America, the seller can't make material misrepresentations that the buyer relies upon to their detriment and when people act together in a joint venture or joint enterprise they are liable for one another's misconduct based upon agency principles. The case may be valuable as a class, but the damages for an individual who purchased a few copies here and there are too insubstantial to support litigation. What's the material misrepresentation? Did I miss an official communication from Image promising that no more than 500 copies would ever be printed? Didn't they just say that there would be 500 at the con? And you've made my point for me, I think - there's no obvious material detriment to a buyer anyway. You'd have a pretty hard time proving that owning a new modern book that's one of 500 is significantly worse than owning one of 1000. As an aside, I'm not sure the JV point is relevant (I guess you're referring to Image and Diamond, but I assume the books were bought direct from Image at the con) - but how would you prove a JV anyway? Publishers and distributors tend to just have a normal commercial relationship, not a formal JV. Also seems odd to me that participants in a JV would automatically be agents for each other. That's definitely not the case over here and seems counter-intuitive to me. It's an interesting debate - but still looks to me like a total no-go, class action or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Chaos Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I practice English law, not US, but the idea that Image or any other publisher owes a legal or equitable duty of care to the consumer with respect to how many copies of a comic they print, or the price on the secondary market, is frankly a bit ridiculous. In any case, people bought them at the con for what, $5? And they're probably still worth that now, even with the loads of other copies being printed. So where's the loss? Under English law, lost profits/lost opportunities are only relevant in certain limited situations - and this wouldn't be one of them. Fraud is still fraud. Not only is it bad PR but they open themselves up to the posibility of a lawsuit from an upset customer. Those of us who spent our valuable time at the Image booth to get the exclusive for $5 could have gone to other booths for potentially more lucrative exclusives. The damage on this one seems minimal so far but it does set a bad precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HugeRosen Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 (edited) I practice English law, not US, but the idea that Image or any other publisher owes a legal or equitable duty of care to the consumer with respect to how many copies of a comic they print, or the price on the secondary market, is frankly a bit ridiculous. In any case, people bought them at the con for what, $5? And they're probably still worth that now, even with the loads of other copies being printed. So where's the loss? Under English law, lost profits/lost opportunities are only relevant in certain limited situations - and this wouldn't be one of them. Fraud is still fraud. Not only is it bad PR but they open themselves up to the posibility of a lawsuit from an upset customer. Those of us who spent our valuable time at the Image booth to get the exclusive for $5 could have gone to other booths for potentially more lucrative exclusives. The damage on this one seems minimal so far but it does set a bad precedent. This argument makes no sense. If you buy facebook stock at $20 and it goes to $15 per share, you can't sue facebook because you lost money. And you can't say, "well I could've bought shares of apple and that went up in value". That's not an argument. And before someone says 'well, they only printed 500 initially and then decided to print more'. Companies can issue new shares of stock if they want too. There has to be something fraudulent about what they did. They said there would be 500 available at NYCC. From all accounts, they only sold 500 at NYCC. Nowhere does it say they won't print more. Edited October 19, 2012 by HugeRosen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balham's Finest Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I practice English law, not US, but the idea that Image or any other publisher owes a legal or equitable duty of care to the consumer with respect to how many copies of a comic they print, or the price on the secondary market, is frankly a bit ridiculous. In any case, people bought them at the con for what, $5? And they're probably still worth that now, even with the loads of other copies being printed. So where's the loss? Under English law, lost profits/lost opportunities are only relevant in certain limited situations - and this wouldn't be one of them. Fraud is still fraud. Not only is it bad PR but they open themselves up to the posibility of a lawsuit from an upset customer. Those of us who spent our valuable time at the Image booth to get the exclusive for $5 could have gone to other booths for potentially more lucrative exclusives. The damage on this one seems minimal so far but it does set a bad precedent. Dude, there is no fraud. They do not open themselves up to the possibility of a lawsuit in this case (well, they do, but not a successful one). There was nothing official, anywhere, that said that there would only ever be 500 copies of this book. Even if there were, you bought a comic for $5 - it's almost certainly still worth that, or a little more. You have lost nothing as a result of there being a higher print run than you though. The fact that you can't sell it on for as much as you thought you could is NOT IMAGE's PROBLEM. I can imagine a situation where a consumer might have a case against a publisher, but this certainly isn't it. I do agree that in some respects it's bad PR, but they're not going to care. I very much doubt future con exclusives will sell any worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBT Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 What about the people on the board who bought them for $40 bucks a pop and when it takes a nose dive, their investment will be gone? They bought them from secondary sellers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBT Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 some because they wanted to get in on the ground floor of a series they thought was going to take off... it hasnt even launched yet, . little early to declare it wont take off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balham's Finest Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 some because they wanted to get in on the ground floor of a series they thought was going to take off... it hasnt even launched yet, . little early to declare it wont take off WTF? I didn't say it wasn't going to take off. I used the past tense because people bought the books in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarrysComics Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 (edited) My opinion...( based on factoids, Jacktoids ) There were supposed to be 500 Bedlam #1's... "Employee X" at Image seeing the pre demand wisely increased print run to one thousand. One thousand. period. To cover his in case of NOT selling out at NYCC he listed with Diamond. Smart. There will be minimal ( if any ) shipping via Diamond. Also... people on this board ALREADY have an unrealistic expectation of how Bedlam is to preform on the secondary market. It AIN'T out yet. Let it get reviewed. Let it develop a fan base. Let it compete on DM shelves. Let it sell through. Lets revisit Bedlam's market prices in 7 months. Edited October 19, 2012 by LarrysComics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThoseBackPages Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 "Also... people on this board ALREADY have an unrealistic expectation of how Bedlam is to preform on the secondary market." i think a lot of people on this board specifically expect EVERY book to be "worth money" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I like pie Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I really have no dog in the fight as I didn't buy any. Facts are though, Image advertised 500 print run. NOT 500 available at the convention. I agree its kind of silly to bring up a lawsuit as well. Using stock isn't a very good analogy. A reasonable person would assume when a print run is announced, its not subject to be changed last second. Unlike stock which a reasonable person knows is much more variable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HugeRosen Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 (edited) I really have no dog in the fight as I didn't buy any. Facts are though, Image advertised 500 print run. NOT 500 available at the convention. I agree its kind of silly to bring up a lawsuit as well. Using stock isn't a very good analogy. A reasonable person would assume when a print run is announced, its not subject to be changed last second. Unlike stock which a reasonable person knows is much more variable. All the advertisements from Image I saw said 'limited to 500'. it didn't mention print run is 500 anywhere. Unless you saw something different from me. limited to 500 could mean 500 sold at nycc or 500 printed. everyone assumed printed. EDIT: I did buy 3 of them so I'd prefer the 500 print run. Edited October 19, 2012 by HugeRosen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I like pie Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I really have no dog in the fight as I didn't buy any. Facts are though, Image advertised 500 print run. NOT 500 available at the convention. I agree its kind of silly to bring up a lawsuit as well. Using stock isn't a very good analogy. A reasonable person would assume when a print run is announced, its not subject to be changed last second. Unlike stock which a reasonable person knows is much more variable. All the advertisements from Image I saw said 'limited to 500'. it didn't mention print run is 500 anywhere. Unless you saw something different from me. limited to 500 could mean 500 sold at nycc or 500 printed. everyone assumed printed. As a customer, wouldn't you think of that as them insulting your intelligence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HugeRosen Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I really have no dog in the fight as I didn't buy any. Facts are though, Image advertised 500 print run. NOT 500 available at the convention. I agree its kind of silly to bring up a lawsuit as well. Using stock isn't a very good analogy. A reasonable person would assume when a print run is announced, its not subject to be changed last second. Unlike stock which a reasonable person knows is much more variable. All the advertisements from Image I saw said 'limited to 500'. it didn't mention print run is 500 anywhere. Unless you saw something different from me. limited to 500 could mean 500 sold at nycc or 500 printed. everyone assumed printed. As a customer, wouldn't you think of that as them insulting your intelligence? Absolutely. I'm upset about it and think it's crappy for them to do that and I was like everyone else assuming that it's 500. But people start bringing up fraud and lawsuits, which is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
