My commission turned to print

[eewwnuk]

OA that sees print is far more valuable than otherwise. By using your piece he has increased its value tremendously.

 

Not sure about that. Have a commission become published in a book sure. But having it made into a print adds little value imo.

[G.A.tor]

OA that sees print is far more valuable than otherwise. By using your piece he has increased its value tremendously.

 

Not sure about that. Have a commission become published in a book sure. But having it made into a print adds little value imo.

my awareness of my commission turning to print happened via a facebook group, where I saw someone selling prints of "my" commission...

 

apparently greg horn keeps them under his table, because dc is not overly joyed about it (maybe that is just a sales pitch used , no idea)

 

but from my posting that I own the art the print is made from, I received several "offers" to purchase...about 10x what I paid years ago...so, who knows

 

I thanked them for the offers and politely declined, but maybe some truth ?

[malvin]

It increases value for sure. There is more exposure. Just like reading a comic driving nostalgia, buying a print could create nostalgia for the OA behind it.

 

How much it increases of course depends on many factors (the image on the commission, the artist, etc)

 

Malvin

[DeadOne]

Everybody's talking about money, G.A.tor, but how does this make you feel about the piece now compared to when you had it commissioned?

 

[BCarter27]

because dc is not overly joyed about it

 

I think it is a point of pride that your commission sparked something creatively in an artist that motivated them to work it further into a painting and then a print.

 

However, you are drawing unwanted attention to a very grey area: con print sales. Technically, nobody is allowed to make a dime from reproducing images of any Marvel, DC, or other publisher's copyrighted character without paying out royalties to that publisher in the form of a licensing agreement. Artist's Alley is basically a giant black market.

 

That being said, the publishers look the other way on these limited distribution, person-to-person sales at cons BECAUSE THEY KNOW THESE ARTISTS ARE STRUGGLING -- particularly the veterans. They take advantage of them in their youth with low page rates and then move on to new talent when the prices increase. This is the benefit of a freelance market. And frankly, it is the only way to keep publishers afloat. But it is no shock that we see a crowd-funding campaign or HERO fundraiser every other week for THE FANS to bail someone out.

 

Therefore, everyone discussing or reselling prints in a public forum is just drawing more and more attention to a much-needed revenue stream. Artists have mortgages, taxes, families, and retirement hopes just like the rest of us. If we want to support them, buy commissions, buy prints (in person), buy original art, buy their signed books in floppy and in trade... Make it worthwhile for them to attend shows.

 

Because all it takes is one mis-informed exec at Warner or Disney to put an end to the fun one day. Hopefully, wiser heads will prevail when they realize the marketing impressions these prints give far outweigh any perceived lost licensing revenue.

 

And further to the point, would the same fan seeking a signed print from their favorite artist (and I have a pile myself) turn around and spend that same money on the same print at art.com (if it was even available)? I know I wouldn't. I am already lining up which artists I know I want to buy prints or art from at the next show. The artists (or in the case of this commission, you) are generating these fun, creative, brilliant ideas for commissions and prints precisely because they think they will be able to hand sell them at shows. Again that much-needed revenue stream is a strong motivator for creativity. And there is a lot of creativity left in many veterans who can't get steady work. (Not to say that Greg Horn isn't getting steady work or can't, but who do you draw the line with?)

 

The best thing we can all do is let threads like this die. And tell the people on Facebook to go buy their prints at the next show direct from the artist.

[fsumavila]

excellent point...

 

because dc is not overly joyed about it

 

I think it is a point of pride that your commission sparked something creatively in an artist that motivated them to work it further into a painting and then a print.

 

However, you are drawing unwanted attention to a very grey area: con print sales. Technically, nobody is allowed to make a dime from reproducing images of any Marvel, DC, or other publisher's copyrighted character without paying out royalties to that publisher in the form of a licensing agreement. Artist's Alley is basically a giant black market.

 

That being said, the publishers look the other way on these limited distribution, person-to-person sales at cons BECAUSE THEY KNOW THESE ARTISTS ARE STRUGGLING -- particularly the veterans. They take advantage of them in their youth with low page rates and then move on to new talent when the prices increase. This is the benefit of a freelance market. And frankly, it is the only way to keep publishers afloat. But it is no shock that we see a crowd-funding campaign or HERO fundraiser every other week for THE FANS to bail someone out.

 

Therefore, everyone discussing or reselling prints in a public forum is just drawing more and more attention to a much-needed revenue stream. Artists have mortgages, taxes, families, and retirement hopes just like the rest of us. If we want to support them, buy commissions, buy prints (in person), buy original art, buy their signed books in floppy and in trade... Make it worthwhile for them to attend shows.

 

Because all it takes is one mis-informed exec at Warner or Disney to put an end to the fun one day. Hopefully, wiser heads will prevail when they realize the marketing impressions these prints give far outweigh any perceived lost licensing revenue.

 

And further to the point, would the same fan seeking a signed print from their favorite artist (and I have a pile myself) turn around and spend that same money on the same print at art.com (if it was even available)? I know I wouldn't. I am already lining up which artists I know I want to buy prints or art from at the next show. The artists (or in the case of this commission, you) are generating these fun, creative, brilliant ideas for commissions and prints precisely because they think they will be able to hand sell them at shows. Again that much-needed revenue stream is a strong motivator for creativity. And there is a lot of creativity left in many veterans who can't get steady work. (Not to say that Greg Horn isn't getting steady work or can't, but who do you draw the line with?)

 

The best thing we can all do is let threads like this die. And tell the people on Facebook to go buy their prints at the next show direct from the artist.

[Lucky Baru]

because dc is not overly joyed about it

 

I think it is a point of pride that your commission sparked something creatively in an artist that motivated them to work it further into a painting and then a print.

 

However, you are drawing unwanted attention to a very grey area: con print sales. Technically, nobody is allowed to make a dime from reproducing images of any Marvel, DC, or other publisher's copyrighted character without paying out royalties to that publisher in the form of a licensing agreement. Artist's Alley is basically a giant black market.

 

That being said, the publishers look the other way on these limited distribution, person-to-person sales at cons BECAUSE THEY KNOW THESE ARTISTS ARE STRUGGLING -- particularly the veterans. They take advantage of them in their youth with low page rates and then move on to new talent when the prices increase. This is the benefit of a freelance market. And frankly, it is the only way to keep publishers afloat. But it is no shock that we see a crowd-funding campaign or HERO fundraiser every other week for THE FANS to bail someone out.

 

Therefore, everyone discussing or reselling prints in a public forum is just drawing more and more attention to a much-needed revenue stream. Artists have mortgages, taxes, families, and retirement hopes just like the rest of us. If we want to support them, buy commissions, buy prints (in person), buy original art, buy their signed books in floppy and in trade... Make it worthwhile for them to attend shows.

 

Because all it takes is one mis-informed exec at Warner or Disney to put an end to the fun one day. Hopefully, wiser heads will prevail when they realize the marketing impressions these prints give far outweigh any perceived lost licensing revenue.

 

And further to the point, would the same fan seeking a signed print from their favorite artist (and I have a pile myself) turn around and spend that same money on the same print at art.com (if it was even available)? I know I wouldn't. I am already lining up which artists I know I want to buy prints or art from at the next show. The artists (or in the case of this commission, you) are generating these fun, creative, brilliant ideas for commissions and prints precisely because they think they will be able to hand sell them at shows. Again that much-needed revenue stream is a strong motivator for creativity. And there is a lot of creativity left in many veterans who can't get steady work. (Not to say that Greg Horn isn't getting steady work or can't, but who do you draw the line with?)

 

The best thing we can all do is let threads like this die. And tell the people on Facebook to go buy their prints at the next show direct from the artist.

 

I think you make some excellent points. Not to derail the thread but the amount of horror stories collectors hear and experience at the hands of artist they have commissions paid for up front makes it kind of hard to feel bad or jump behind crowd funding for someone who has a history of screwing fans out of their money.

 

Those same "mis-informed" executives at Disney/Marvel put an end to the Punisher symbol being placed on items in a specific industry in the last year. The attorneys for Marvel/Disney sent out misuse of intellectual property letters to entities that for years had been using that symbol. I wonder how long it will take for them to get around to this area?

[G.A.tor]

Everybody's talking about money, G.A.tor, but how does this make you feel about the piece now compared to when you had it commissioned?

cool I guess.

[alxjhnsn]

Everybody's talking about money, G.A.tor, but how does this make you feel about the piece now compared to when you had it commissioned?

I'm happy that tney can make more money off of the idea.

[JadeGiant]

Good thread. I think most of us, as collectors, are surprised at the notion of someone reusing art we commission when we are new in the hobby. I think it is natural to feel a sense of pride and satisfaction when we acquire a great piece of art through commissioning an artist. That can lead to a feeling of “mine” and ownership that we all learn is really not there. As comix4fun said, we essentially own the paper and the art on it, nothing else. I know a few of my pieces have show up as prints and early on I was slightly bothered but some seasoned vets in the hobby explained how it works (much as is being done here). Now, about 10 years into the commission game, my perspective is completely reversed and I love it when I see my art pop up on an artists table and I always make sure to grab a print (usually I am given one). I love to see inks or color added to a piece and the idea that the artists gains more benefit from the piece is a very good feeling. Heck, for a really nice piece of art, the artist can clear a lot more money on prints for a lot less effort than the original cost.

 

On the other side, with the proliferation of the web, I have seen other people not involved with the commission (not me or the artist) take a digital scan and make prints and I find this bothersome. I had a Herb Trimpe commission pop up in my eBay search and discovered someone was selling prints of my art and it wasn’t Herb. I attended a con shortly thereafter and noticed the prints at Herb’s table and asked and he said that someone had taken it upon themselves to make prints and he ended up with a stack. Since he was making money I wasn’t bothered as much but I still don’t know if the eBay sales were making their way back to him. Herb tossed me a free print as well.

 

[comix4fun]

 

On the other side, with the proliferation of the web, I have seen other people not involved with the commission (not me or the artist) take a digital scan and make prints and I find this bothersome. I had a Herb Trimpe commission pop up in my eBay search and discovered someone was selling prints of my art and it wasn’t Herb. I attended a con shortly thereafter and noticed the prints at Herb’s table and asked and he said that someone had taken it upon themselves to make prints and he ended up with a stack. Since he was making money I wasn’t bothered as much but I still don’t know if the eBay sales were making their way back to him. Herb tossed me a free print as well.

 

 

 

People are pretty brazen sometimes. At least that guy did something to compensate the artist. A lot of guys just steal it and never look back.

 

[JadeGiant]

True, I had an email half planned in my head a couple times to send to the eBay seller but I never did … just didn’t want the hassle and once I saw Herb was getting something it was easier to move along (and I don’t see these on eBay any longer).

 

Here’s another one that jumps off the rails a bit. I have had at least 2 commissions I have had done where someone else took my idea and used it to have a sculptor create a statue exactly from the reference art. I was flattered that they liked my idea so much (and I had a lot of input on the commissions) but fell flat when they were made into statues and I wasn’t even contacted in any context.

 

[Mxwll Smrt]

Did you sign any kind of agreement with him? You could file for copyright rights and try to collect royalties for the sale of the prints.

 

 

Doubt it would work. Artists hold copyright to their work unless that was worked into the original deal. I've done enough of these to have dealt with all these issues more than once. All we are buying when we commission artwork is the piece of art itself.

 

So help me here... the original commission is for an original piece of artwork (proprietary), correct??

 

And then after being paid, the artist unilaterally made the decision to create a set of prints (derivative works) based on and off of the proprietary work??

 

And you're stating that the artist holds all of the rights??

[Peter G]

OA that sees print is far more valuable than otherwise. By using your piece he has increased its value tremendously.

 

+ 1

[comix4fun]

Did you sign any kind of agreement with him? You could file for copyright rights and try to collect royalties for the sale of the prints.

 

 

Doubt it would work. Artists hold copyright to their work unless that was worked into the original deal. I've done enough of these to have dealt with all these issues more than once. All we are buying when we commission artwork is the piece of art itself.

 

So help me here... the original commission is for an original piece of artwork (proprietary), correct??

 

And then after being paid, the artist unilaterally made the decision to create a set of prints (derivative works) based on and off of the proprietary work??

 

And you're stating that the artist holds all of the rights??

 

 

The commissioner owns just the piece of art. The tangible thing they hold in their hands and nothing more. It's a simple property right, not rights to the intellectual property. Only explicit agreement between the parties can transfer copyright.

 

And it's not me stating it as just my opinion, it's established case law including SCOTUS chiming in on the subject. Read further down the posts you'll find the work for hire test they ran through that eliminates that possibility too.

[AKA Rick]

Did you sign any kind of agreement with him? You could file for copyright rights and try to collect royalties for the sale of the prints.

 

 

Doubt it would work. Artists hold copyright to their work unless that was worked into the original deal. I've done enough of these to have dealt with all these issues more than once. All we are buying when we commission artwork is the piece of art itself.

 

So help me here... the original commission is for an original piece of artwork (proprietary), correct??

 

And then after being paid, the artist unilaterally made the decision to create a set of prints (derivative works) based on and off of the proprietary work??

 

And you're stating that the artist holds all of the rights??

 

I believe artists have different rates, so let's say you get a big named artist to draw you Spider-Man, you can't take that commission to Marvel and get it published. However, the artist has every right to take that rendering to Marvel with or without your permission to get it published.

 

The commissioner owns the original artwork, not the image nor publication rights, such as turning it into a print and selling it as that artist's work themselves, which the commissioner would need a licensing agreement from the publisher anyway in addition to a sign off from the artist.

 

Artists can render work for commissioners along with publication rights, but that costs more, it's the same work for hire that publishers pay. So, if you wanted an artist to create a character (your own creation or something they create for you that's not licensed like Spider-Man) that you'd use as a logo, that can be done, but it's a different rate, the professional rate.

 

Artists, I believe charge a certain rate so it's accessible for fans, but without any other rights. As far as the artist using a commissioned image for publication, truth be told that only elevates the profile and therefore the value of the piece, so as a collector the owner of the original art should be proud and as an investor the original art owner can consider that winning a lucky lottery type event.

[BCarter27]

Did you sign any kind of agreement with him? You could file for copyright rights and try to collect royalties for the sale of the prints.

 

 

Doubt it would work. Artists hold copyright to their work unless that was worked into the original deal. I've done enough of these to have dealt with all these issues more than once. All we are buying when we commission artwork is the piece of art itself.

 

So help me here... the original commission is for an original piece of artwork (proprietary), correct??

 

And then after being paid, the artist unilaterally made the decision to create a set of prints (derivative works) based on and off of the proprietary work??

 

And you're stating that the artist holds all of the rights??

 

 

The commissioner owns just the piece of art. The tangible thing they hold in their hands and nothing more. It's a simple property right, not rights to the intellectual property. Only explicit agreement between the parties can transfer copyright.

 

And it's not me stating it as just my opinion, it's established case law including SCOTUS chiming in on the subject. Read further down the posts you'll find the work for hire test they ran through that eliminates that possibility too.

 

All of which applies only to original characters and concepts when it comes time to reproduce and sell a print. My understanding is that the artist has the copyright to that individual work, but for an existing character (Punisher, Michonne, Princess Leia, Twilight Sparkle, whoever...) the rights owner (publisher) can step in and block reproduction and sale (and maybe sale of the commission too if the artist were advertising character-specific commissions or selling character-specific, non-commissioned originals.)

 

...unless the artist can cry "fair use", as in a review or satire. Anybody know what the Fair Use criteria are these days? (Catwoman drinking milk as satire?) Doesn't matter because I doubt most con prints would fall under that. It isn't like the NY Times commissioned a piece of art of Wonder Woman not shaving her armpits for an article on the history or feminism, etc.

 

So I am now following my own advice and letting sleeping dogs lie.

[Mxwll Smrt]

Did you sign any kind of agreement with him? You could file for copyright rights and try to collect royalties for the sale of the prints.

 

 

Doubt it would work. Artists hold copyright to their work unless that was worked into the original deal. I've done enough of these to have dealt with all these issues more than once. All we are buying when we commission artwork is the piece of art itself.

 

So help me here... the original commission is for an original piece of artwork (proprietary), correct??

 

And then after being paid, the artist unilaterally made the decision to create a set of prints (derivative works) based on and off of the proprietary work??

 

And you're stating that the artist holds all of the rights??

 

The commissioner owns just the piece of art. The tangible thing they hold in their hands and nothing more. It's a simple property right, not rights to the intellectual property. Only explicit agreement between the parties can transfer copyright.

 

And it's not me stating it as just my opinion, it's established case law including SCOTUS chiming in on the subject. Read further down the posts you'll find the work for hire test they ran through that eliminates that possibility too.

 

I appreciate your willingness to cite SCOTUS but you are incorrect that its property rights - it’s a breach of contract - and it’s actually the breach of an expressed agreement implied by conduct - and its a “writing” that allows for the transfer of a copyright - but Rick isn’t creating prints for sale off of his piece. Rick purchased the right to a unique piece - that’s what a commission is. In fact, I'd be willing to suggest that Rick's understanding also meets the 5 requirements for a state based contract and that its more than arguable that the artist chose at a later date to violate the essence of that agreement.

 

 

[comix4fun]

Did you sign any kind of agreement with him? You could file for copyright rights and try to collect royalties for the sale of the prints.

 

 

Doubt it would work. Artists hold copyright to their work unless that was worked into the original deal. I've done enough of these to have dealt with all these issues more than once. All we are buying when we commission artwork is the piece of art itself.

 

So help me here... the original commission is for an original piece of artwork (proprietary), correct??

 

And then after being paid, the artist unilaterally made the decision to create a set of prints (derivative works) based on and off of the proprietary work??

 

And you're stating that the artist holds all of the rights??

 

 

The commissioner owns just the piece of art. The tangible thing they hold in their hands and nothing more. It's a simple property right, not rights to the intellectual property. Only explicit agreement between the parties can transfer copyright.

 

And it's not me stating it as just my opinion, it's established case law including SCOTUS chiming in on the subject. Read further down the posts you'll find the work for hire test they ran through that eliminates that possibility too.

 

All of which applies only to original characters and concepts when it comes time to reproduce and sell a print. My understanding is that the artist has the copyright to that individual work, but for an existing character (Punisher, Michonne, Princess Leia, Twilight Sparkle, whoever...) the rights owner (publisher) can step in and block reproduction and sale (and maybe sale of the commission too if the artist were advertising character-specific commissions or selling character-specific, non-commissioned originals.)

 

...unless the artist can cry "fair use", as in a review or satire. Anybody know what the Fair Use criteria are these days? (Catwoman drinking milk as satire?) Doesn't matter because I doubt most con prints would fall under that. It isn't like the NY Times commissioned a piece of art of Wonder Woman not shaving her armpits for an article on the history or feminism, etc.

 

So I am now following my own advice and letting sleeping dogs lie.

 

 

Yes, there's a trademark on the characters that runs separate to any copyright to the creation of the original piece.

 

Depending on the rights holder, they usually aren't militant on enforcement unless there's something detrimental to the value of their property. The limited run of such items, specifically numbering the items is usually what occurs and is another factor in how hard people come down.

 

Regardless, in answering the original question, when you commission a piece of art you are buying only a piece of art unless agreed to specifically otherwise. Just like when you buy any other piece of art.

 

Nothing said in this thread is something that any major rights holder isn't well aware of and nothing said or discussed here will enlighten them to crack down on prints. They've known for decades.

[Mxwll Smrt]

Did you sign any kind of agreement with him? You could file for copyright rights and try to collect royalties for the sale of the prints.

 

 

Doubt it would work. Artists hold copyright to their work unless that was worked into the original deal. I've done enough of these to have dealt with all these issues more than once. All we are buying when we commission artwork is the piece of art itself.

 

So help me here... the original commission is for an original piece of artwork (proprietary), correct??

 

And then after being paid, the artist unilaterally made the decision to create a set of prints (derivative works) based on and off of the proprietary work??

 

And you're stating that the artist holds all of the rights??

 

 

The commissioner owns just the piece of art. The tangible thing they hold in their hands and nothing more. It's a simple property right, not rights to the intellectual property. Only explicit agreement between the parties can transfer copyright.

 

And it's not me stating it as just my opinion, it's established case law including SCOTUS chiming in on the subject. Read further down the posts you'll find the work for hire test they ran through that eliminates that possibility too.

 

All of which applies only to original characters and concepts when it comes time to reproduce and sell a print. My understanding is that the artist has the copyright to that individual work, but for an existing character (Punisher, Michonne, Princess Leia, Twilight Sparkle, whoever...) the rights owner (publisher) can step in and block reproduction and sale (and maybe sale of the commission too if the artist were advertising character-specific commissions or selling character-specific, non-commissioned originals.)

 

...unless the artist can cry "fair use", as in a review or satire. Anybody know what the Fair Use criteria are these days? (Catwoman drinking milk as satire?) Doesn't matter because I doubt most con prints would fall under that. It isn't like the NY Times commissioned a piece of art of Wonder Woman not shaving her armpits for an article on the history or feminism, etc.

 

So I am now following my own advice and letting sleeping dogs lie.

 

 

Yes, there's a trademark on the characters that runs separate to any copyright to the creation of the original piece.

 

Depending on the rights holder, they usually aren't militant on enforcement unless there's something detrimental to the value of their property. The limited run of such items, specifically numbering the items is usually what occurs and is another factor in how hard people come down.

 

Regardless, in answering the original question, when you commission a piece of art you are buying only a piece of art unless agreed to specifically otherwise. Just like when you buy any other piece of art.

 

Nothing said in this thread is something that any major rights holder isn't well aware of and nothing said or discussed here will enlighten them to crack down on prints. They've known for decades.

 

For amplification:

 

I appreciate your willingness to cite SCOTUS but you are incorrect that its property rights - it’s a breach of contract - and it’s actually the breach of an expressed agreement implied by conduct - and its a “writing” that allows for the transfer of a copyright - but Rick isn’t creating prints for sale off of his piece. Rick purchased the right to a unique piece - that’s what a commission is. In fact, I'd be willing to suggest that Rick's understanding also meets the 5 requirements for a state based contract and its more than arguable that the artist chose at a later date to violate the essence of that agreement.