• 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.

1st Wolverine art @ $140K with 22 days to go!!
0

Started by drdonaldblake,

519 posts in this topic

bronze_rules

bronze_rules

Posted
Posted
The great beauty of this debate (disagreement, speculation, whatever...) is that if the price does not approach/breach the 400k that the peanut gallery projects, the legitimizers have been legitimized, while if it does, then the buyers are insufficiently_thoughtful_persons from the peanut gallery. Either way, the legitimizer is was and shall always be right! :eyeroll:

 

$657k

Peanut Gallery ^^ Legitimizers(s) 0

 

:whee:

 

errr... but the legitimizer(s) are proper, learned, and correct, and the peanut gallery are just ignorant insufficiently_thoughtful_persons.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hekla

Hekla

Posted
Posted
The great beauty of this debate (disagreement, speculation, whatever...) is that if the price does not approach/breach the 400k that the peanut gallery projects, the legitimizers have been legitimized, while if it does, then the buyers are insufficiently_thoughtful_persons from the peanut gallery. Either way, the legitimizer is was and shall always be right! :eyeroll:

 

$657k

Peanut Gallery ^^ Legitimizers(s) 0

 

:whee:

 

errr... but the legitimizer(s) are proper, learned, and correct, and the peanut gallery are just insufficiently_thoughtful_persons.

 

 

To be fair, there were a lot of OA pieces that had shocking hammer prices in today's auction

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cyclops

Cyclops

Posted
Posted
I'm not up to date - is that a record for artwork?

 

 

For an interior page? Yes.

 

It basically matched what the McFarlane ASM 328 cover sold for a while back.

 

The Heritage site says it sold for $657,250 - the exact same price as the ASM cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaybuck43

jaybuck43

Posted
Posted

The one piece I was able to win (and had to overpay to get) hammered at 0.25% the price of the wolverine page. Holy balls wolverine!!!! What on earth would the 181 cover sell for? 750? A million?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeffro.

Jeffro.

Posted
Posted

Frankly, I'm surprised comic artists ever even got their artwork back. Not saying they aren't deserving. But in places like Silicon Valley or Wall Street-- day 1-- you sign over ABSOLUTELY anything of value created while there- forever. If the company thinks you have something even remotely of value to anyone, that YOU created, guess what -- it ain't yours. People are sent to jail for taking (ahem stealing) work they did while employed.

 

While I understand the point you are trying to get across, the "corporate" world example doesn't apply to situations where an artist should own the right to "original" works they either produced or had a hand in creating...Think also about the way this has stunted the motivation/inclination for artists to be a part of creating a new stable of characters for the big 2 in comics.

 

+1

 

Just to add: Comic artists did more than create technical drawings, etc of products - they created the product. There's some grey area there. Working in the field I work in, it's all work-for-hire, but I am not creating images or graphics that will continue on in a life of their own. Comic artists who created characters should have been treated a little differently because their creations spawned other endeavors. A logo is just a logo no matter how many times you print it.

 

I'm not saying that sole ownership resides with the creator working for a publisher, but there are some considerations that need to be made when creating something of that nature.

 

A character is almost a living thing unto itself - and it's a very different type of creative work than a typical work-for-hire gig where you have certain parameters that are set by the client. The whole topic should have been treated differently from the start, but sometimes it takes one guy to be made an example of for things to change.

 

Sounds like you want different rules for comic creators. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Senormac

Senormac

Posted
Posted

Frankly, I'm surprised comic artists ever even got their artwork back. Not saying they aren't deserving. But in places like Silicon Valley or Wall Street-- day 1-- you sign over ABSOLUTELY anything of value created while there- forever. If the company thinks you have something even remotely of value to anyone, that YOU created, guess what -- it ain't yours. People are sent to jail for taking (ahem stealing) work they did while employed.

 

While I understand the point you are trying to get across, the "corporate" world example doesn't apply to situations where an artist should own the right to "original" works they either produced or had a hand in creating...Think also about the way this has stunted the motivation/inclination for artists to be a part of creating a new stable of characters for the big 2 in comics.

 

+1

 

Just to add: Comic artists did more than create technical drawings, etc of products - they created the product. There's some grey area there. Working in the field I work in, it's all work-for-hire, but I am not creating images or graphics that will continue on in a life of their own. Comic artists who created characters should have been treated a little differently because their creations spawned other endeavors. A logo is just a logo no matter how many times you print it.

 

I'm not saying that sole ownership resides with the creator working for a publisher, but there are some considerations that need to be made when creating something of that nature.

 

A character is almost a living thing unto itself - and it's a very different type of creative work than a typical work-for-hire gig where you have certain parameters that are set by the client. The whole topic should have been treated differently from the start, but sometimes it takes one guy to be made an example of for things to change.

 

Sounds like you want different rules for comic creators. Why?

 

I guess its better (more profitable) to be a publisher than an artist. Still, they totally need each other. I think the artist/creators should work for a % and not a flat rate........ which brings us to Image and Dark Horse I suppose hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tth2

tth2

Posted
Posted (edited)
I guess its better (more profitable) to be a publisher than an artist.

It all depends. As the publisher, you`re taking all the risk and have downside as well as upside. If the titles you publish are duds, then you`re going to lose money because you`ve got to pay for all of the operating expenses, infrastructure overhead, etc.

 

The artist only has upside if he gets a cut. If the title is a dud, he at least gets paid his flat rate, he doesn`t lose anything. If it`s a hit, then he gets royalties or a percentage or whatever upside deal he`s struck.

Edited by tth2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicwiz

comicwiz

Posted
Posted
I guess its better (more profitable) to be a publisher than an artist.

The artist only has upside if he gets a cut.

 

If you make it so their pay rate is fair wage, with points, it effects the creator just as well when a project tanks, because they too may have been depending on getting some sort of commission. Ask anyone who works sales how important those commissions/bonuses are, and how that helps motivate them to work hard.

 

The other thing that's absent is a "pooling" type of arrangement where creators all share a bonus from the companies earnings. Makes it awfully lopsided a benefit for the publisher/license holder when they are the only ones making insane bank from the box office, all while ignoring the creators who were the first people to bring those characters to life, and helped plant the seed and made the waxing of memories possible for the current generation to want to see these characters on the big screen in the first place.

 

Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, it's a sad commentary on the history of properly compensating creators, especially when you consider these movies are breaking box office records, and fans/collectors/individuals are the only ones minding the gap through charitable avenues like Hero Initiative and dividing earnings from the sale of OA (i.e. Hulk 180 page) to help creators get by. 2c

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
The great beauty of this debate (disagreement, speculation, whatever...) is that if the price does not approach/breach the 400k that the peanut gallery projects, the legitimizers have been legitimized, while if it does, then the buyers are insufficiently_thoughtful_persons from the peanut gallery. Either way, the legitimizer is was and shall always be right! :eyeroll:

 

$657k

Peanut Gallery ^^ Legitimizers(s) 0

 

:whee:

 

errr... but the legitimizer(s) are proper, learned, and correct, and the peanut gallery are just ignorant insufficiently_thoughtful_persons.

 

 

Remember...the sale of the Spidey #328 cover was "kabuki theatre", so it shouldn't be taken seriously at that price....

 

...I wonder what this one is.

 

hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0
Go to topic listing