• 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.

What The ?

Started by Kwan Chang,

95 posts in this topic

drewincanada

drewincanada

Posted
Posted

If he was legitimately the winner of the HA auction, could he have paid for the auction and received the OA so quickly?

 

My experience with Heritage is that the invoice isn't generated until the week after the auction, and once paid, it takes days for the items to ship. Given that this guy is in the UK, he wouldn't receive the artwork for weeks.

 

The only way I see this being even remotely possible is if he was bidding in person and consummated the deal there and then.

 

He's not using the Heritage scans in his listing. Wonder where those pics came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
murch

murch

Posted
Posted
He stated he's selling a print, not the original art:

 

"You are bidding for The Todd McFarlane Batman #423 Cover Art print (DC, 1988)."

 

Haha! Can't believe we all missed that.

 

He must have taken the scan from Heritage and printed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kwan Chang

Kwan Chang

Posted
  • Author
Posted

good point yoram................

 

yes you are correct.....but read on. he also states in the same paragraph................

 

 

"You are bidding for The Todd McFarlane Batman #423 Cover Art print (DC, 1988). This is Todd McFarlane's only cover for this series which came in 1988, the year when he was busy setting Marvel on its ear with his stint on Amazing Spider-Man. Not much DC art by McFarlane exists, and much of that is from the early years as he was still developing his signature style on features like Infinity Inc.

 

 

Here's a chance to own his striking rendition of DC's number one character. The art is in excellent condition and signed by the artist at the bottom. From the Shamus Modern Masterworks Collection."

 

he states that its a print...then changes it in the next paragraph so it is art now :)

 

 

still confused..............

K

Link to comment
Share on other sites
malvin

malvin

Posted
Posted

yeah, I saw that as it was listed, my first instinct was fake, then I read that it was a print.

 

I'm not even sure if "official" prints of that were made, but the guy probably doesn't know OA, saw that HA was selling similar and listed on ebay and plagiarized the description after seeing what it went for on HA.

 

Malvin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AKA Rick

AKA Rick

Posted
Posted

Isn't it illegal to reproduce the image? Whether for promotional purposes, advertising or sale, it's owned by the copyright owner, DC Comics.

 

I think several folks would have issue with the selling of this print, ethically it would probably be the new owner of the original art (selling prints to a degree diminishes the value and causes marketplace confusion with potential copies floating around that may erroneously be mistaken for the original), but legally it should be DC Comics who has the biggest claim.

 

I think the "charity" portion is a good trojan horse to mask the activity as charitable, but only 10% of the proceeds of ill gotten gain goes to the charity, who by receiving those funds may also be exposed legally as well. At the end of the day it is profiteering from something you don't own.

 

Photocopying a a copyrighted image and calling it art or a print is like making color copies of currency, it's not only illegal to create, but illegal to distribute (or attempt to spend) but also illegal to possess, be it the by the seller or the buyer.

 

This is not bad practice, it's illegal. I'd be surprised if this auction is not pulled before it ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
malvin

malvin

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure if illegal is the right word, but making prints of a DC cover without DC's permission (and paying them royalties) definitely infringes on their intellectual property.

 

I'm not sure if this is the case, but I've seen "official" prints of DC and Marvel covers before. I'm not sure if they made any for this Todd McF cover or if the seller just made their own. (from the HA scan?)

 

Malvin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RYEBABY

RYEBABY

Posted
Posted

I emailed the seller early yesterday (UK time) asking for clarification as to whether or not the image is a print. Still waiting for a reply.....

 

I wonder if Richard Rae/Vince Greck has emigrated ? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AKA Rick

AKA Rick

Posted
Posted

If Marvel can go after Mike Ploog for selling prints and sue him...

 

http://www.digitalspy.com/comics/news/a364882/marvel-demands-usd17000-in-ghost-rider-counterclaim.html

 

Then, I wouldn't be surprised if DC Comics made an example out of an individual profiteering, basically telling everyone, "if you violate the law, you will be punished, no matter how big or small you are, we will go after you and you will go down" type of move.

 

Companies don't take too kindly to counterfeiters at any level, as you can see in this article:

 

https://www.iacc.org/news-media-resources/news-archive/2-1-mil-judgment-against-ny-counterfeiter.php

 

The risk is far greater than the reward, so I'd advise supporting the efforts of the buying/selling of unlicensed prints.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alxjhnsn

alxjhnsn

Posted
Posted
If Marvel can go after Mike Ploog for selling prints and sue him...

Gary Friedrich was sued not Mike Ploog. This was the culmination of battles over ownership and credit for creation of Ghost Rider. I'm not sure that the two examples align.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Troll King

The Troll King

Posted
Posted

You guys are touching base on an art issue that has happened in the fine art world that we have indeed discussed here even in other threads.

 

If I take a picture of a piece of art, and then call my photo "art" it becomes a new piece.

There is interesting case law concerning this topic as well. Several "artists" have made quite a living doing this very thing.

 

If I were the seller of this on eBay I would call myself an "artist" and not run into any problem at all.

I'm not trying to give any of you an ideas either. (tsk)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing