A.R.T bill

[Eric Seffinga]

Didn't see this discussed here. Looks like it would only cover work sold at auction though.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-rauschenberg/artists-deserve-royalties_b_5588388.html

[Doc McCoy]

Very interesting article. Thanks for the post, Eric.

[Eric Seffinga]

Yeah, when I read it, the first thing I was thinking of was BWS' art contract he had floated a few years back.

[Dr. Balls]

Yikes. That concept has so much grey area, it's half scary to think that it's actually being proposed. This is like a lawyers wet dream.

 

So, if an artist can get paid from something he created, what about the body man who works on the restoration of a vintage car? Craftsmanship work like filling with lead, using vintage restorative equipment can easily be viewed as 'artistic' - does the body man get a cut of the profits when a car he worked on is on auction at Barret Jackson?

 

What about the painter? Painting cars requires expertise, as well as a knowledge of the medium you're working with, and there are many artistic avenues to that. Does he get a cut?

 

How about the pinstriper? That is an accepted artistic endeavor - does the pinstriper get paid, too?

 

Should Von Dutch's estate get paid royalties for pinstriping, since he single-handedly invented that particular style of car/motorcycle pinstriping?

 

These are all components that come together to create a piece of art. Granted, not a piece of art that hangs on the wall, but an investment piece of creativity that can command big money from well-known artisans working in the industry. And that's just cars. What about homes? Cabinetry and woodwork? Landscaping? Architectural design?

 

I'm an artist, and while I think it'd be great to get paid residuals and royalties, I see this as being unbelievably impractical and litigious.

[suspense39]

Very litigious. Thanks for posting, I've been following this dispute for quite a while. For now one of the best things for artists to do is to hang on to a certain amount of their own work, then they can sell it themselves if prices go through the roof.

[Dr. Balls]

Very litigious. Thanks for posting, I've been following this dispute for quite a while. For now one of the best things for artists to do is to hang on to a certain amount of their own work, then they can sell it themselves if prices go through the roof.

 

+1

 

Absolutely true. I think every artist should do this, regardless of how successful you may or may not end up being.

[Doc McCoy]

In regards to comic art, I can only imagine the disputes that this could lead to between pencillers of the work (& their families) & inkers of the work (& their families).

[DocR]

Very litigious. Thanks for posting, I've been following this dispute for quite a while. For now one of the best things for artists to do is to hang on to a certain amount of their own work, then they can sell it themselves if prices go through the roof.

 

+1

 

Absolutely true. I think every artist should do this, regardless of how successful you may or may not end up being.

 

Totally agree, His father should have been thrilled his painting sold for 85k because now he has an established market for his new work. That whole article entails a child wanting to be paid perpetually for the artistic success of his father. (and grandchild and great grandchild) I find the idea ridiculous. No one forced him to sell his art in the first place. I truly don't want to derail this thread with politics but the statement that the cost is only 5% of a group of people that can afford it is so brazen. What if the sale is at a 20k loss. Should the seller give an additional 5% to the artist. Crazy!

[J.Sid]

No, in that case the artist owes the seller some money to cover the loss.

[desertdogg2006]

as an artist myself. I like the ideal. if I create a painting or any work on my own. for sure yes. but comic art I don,t think that would work unless you pencil. ink. letter. and maybe color the page. so why iam sure they are a few artist that may have done such. it the only way I think this would work for modern comic art. .

 

larry.

[Ironmandrd]

So this bill contemplates payment for successive resales not just the first resale?

[DeadpoolJr.]

If anything the 5% would probably just get added on as a fee the buyer would pay.

[DocR]

So this bill contemplates payment for successive resales not just the first resale?

 

Yup...the crazy thing is that royalties paid on other types of art like music are for use in commercial enterprises. If the paper the original lyrics to a beatles song was first written on was auctioned it wouldn't be subject to royalties. That is the distinction they aren't making. I can't go reproduce art and make a profit on it legally without paying royalties already. This is proposing royalties for the private acquisition and enjoyment of art an artist has already sold.

[Mephisto]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's like missing the boat on investing in something. Some people hold and win some people sell too soon and leave money on the table. If it's using the image again for some type of publication I can see but just the art itself.