Next HA Auction ! 4 4

[Bird]

I thought voodoo's post was fine.

 

 

[Bronty]

Yeah I thought it was totally fine as well. Bluechip to be perfectly honest your post seems like an overreaction to me

[bluechip]

Yeah I thought it was totally fine as well. Bluechip to be perfectly honest your post seems like an overreaction to me

 

 

It's perfectly fine if made in a forum that doesn't have rules about injecting politics into talk about comic art.

 

OR-- it's perfectly fine in the eyes of people who agree with his political views.

 

I presume it would not be considered perfectly fine if I had injected references to political views that you or Voodou don't agree with.

 

Had I posted something about this and said the corporate greed of comic companies in regard to OA illustrates creeping fascism and oligarchism, or perhaps the need for workers to rise up and demand single payer health care, it would -- and should -- be flagged

 

And it would stink up this forum.

 

(There were two posts by the way. One in which he injected a bizarre political point into the discussion, and another insulting me and insisting on making the point again after I had reminded him there is not supposed to be politics on this board)

 

If you want to be on a site where people use things like the selling and reselling of comic book art to make a point about whether an artist should retain any ownership in the piece in perpetuity, this is the place (and for the record, I vote "no").

 

But if you want to be on a site where people use things like the selling and reselling of comic book art to make a point about how the whole damn country is going commie, then go to your Grampa's facebook page.

 

And you will see there how the discussions poison every other discussion.

 

All of which is why CGC says NO POLITICS ON THIS BOARD.

 

Edited January 1, 2017 by bluechip

[SquareChaos]

I guess I'll post my

 

As I was reading that original post we're speaking of, I found it odd to see an opinion about modern society creeping towards communism/socialism - this seems to have little to nothing to do with the main point being discussed and it did feel like an unnecessary political observation to me. It didn't add anything at all to the point at hand, it just made wonder why the poster felt the need to include it.

 

In summary, the comment did not bother or offend me, I read it and moved on, but I could have as easily done without it. I found the resulting tit-for-tat that followed more annoying than the original unasked for opinion on the state of modern society... so of course, I'm now taking part!

 

It is a time honored internet tradition - butting in on something you're low key complaining about

[rocket1312]

Voudu's post was fine. All he was doing was putting the issue at hand within its proper legal/political context. I read no judgement one way or the other in his post. Condemning his post would be like condemning someone referencing the 2008 recession when discussing market fluctuations in the hobby. It's not good or bad. It just is.

Edited January 2, 2017 by rocket1312

[Mighty Hal]

I guess I'll post my

 

As I was reading that original post we're speaking of, I found it odd to see an opinion about modern society creeping towards communism/socialism - this seems to have little to nothing to do with the main point being discussed and it did feel like an unnecessary political observation to me. It didn't add anything at all to the point at hand, it just made wonder why the poster felt the need to include it.

 

In summary, the comment did not bother or offend me, I read it and moved on, but I could have as easily done without it.

 

Exactly how I felt.

[bluechip]

Voudu's post was fine. All he was doing was putting the issue at hand within its proper legal/political context. I read no judgement one way or the other in his post. Condemning his post would be like condemning someone referencing the 2008 recession when discussing market fluctuations in the hobby. It's not good or bad. It just is.

 

The only reason it didn't bother you was that you, like him, consider it "the proper legal/political context." So much so that you equate labeling our system with "socialism/communism" as if it were an objective fact -- like the 2008 recession.

 

The only way that talk of the 2008 recession would be similar to his extreme, looney tunes, highly political comment, would be if he referenced the 2008 recession as a part of the market fluctuation an then said that auction fees were Leninist.

 

On a board that is not supposed to involve politics, you don't get to say that it's not political just because you believe it to be so. Otherwise, anybody gets to do it, and suddenly we're in a facebook thread about supply side economics.

 

Artists were badly treated by comics companies in their initial pay and in their ability to sell their art. Some artists have suffered badly from not having health insurance which they could have bought with the money they were due. None of which would've happened if not for the Heritage Foundation and other right wing groups undermining any chance at affordable health care. All of which means that we cannot discuss OA prices without concluding that we must have a single payer system

 

See how easy it is to abuse the dialogue to inject a left wing view into a conversation about the art market and artists' rights? If I did so, I suspect you and voodou and others would cry foul. And rightly so.

 

So, here it is again.

 

NO POLITICS ON THIS BOARD.

 

[thethedew]

Can we get back on-topic, please? I was enjoying all the darkly legal talk.

[rocket1312]

You can suspect anything you'd like. The truth is you don't know a thing about me or my politics and as you've pointed out repeatedly, this is not the place to discuss such things.

 

I will concede that perhaps voodou's specific use of the terms socialism and communism was improper, but I still don't believe discussing the the Kirby situation within the context of the current legal climate as it relates to property law is improper, and I'll leave it at that.

[Bronty]

Voudu's post was fine. All he was doing was putting the issue at hand within its proper legal/political context. I read no judgement one way or the other in his post. Condemning his post would be like condemning someone referencing the 2008 recession when discussing market fluctuations in the hobby. It's not good or bad. It just is.

 

The only reason it didn't bother you was that you, like him, consider it "the proper legal/political context." So much so that you equate labeling our system with "socialism/communism" as if it were an objective fact -- like the 2008 recession.

 

The only way that talk of the 2008 recession would be similar to his extreme, looney tunes, highly political comment, would be if he referenced the 2008 recession as a part of the market fluctuation an then said that auction fees were Leninist.

 

On a board that is not supposed to involve politics, you don't get to say that it's not political just because you believe it to be so. Otherwise, anybody gets to do it, and suddenly we're in a facebook thread about supply side economics.

 

Artists were badly treated by comics companies in their initial pay and in their ability to sell their art. Some artists have suffered badly from not having health insurance which they could have bought with the money they were due. None of which would've happened if not for the Heritage Foundation and other right wing groups undermining any chance at affordable health care. All of which means that we cannot discuss OA prices without concluding that we must have a single payer system

 

See how easy it is to abuse the dialogue to inject a left wing view into a conversation about the art market and artists' rights? If I did so, I suspect you and voodou and others would cry foul. And rightly so.

 

So, here it is again.

 

NO POLITICS ON THIS BOARD.

 

Whatever any of us does or doesn't think of the post, if it bothers you so much, flag a mod and get over it. Just call it what it appears to be - you don't like the guy. Whatever, I have people that wear on me as well. Try the ignore function.

 

 

[Mephisto]

Yet he goes and creates posts like this

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=421315&Number=9644775#Post9644775

 

[vodou]

Food for thought, from the BIG art world:

 

Creator or Buyer: Who Really Owns the Art?

 

When we purchase an item, whether it’s a blender, a car, or a really cool toboggan for snowmageddon races, the purchaser owns what the bought and can modify it to their heart’s content. Buying an artistic work, on the other hand and the ownership is joint, with some right going to the buyer while others are retained by the work’s creator. Whether the purchase is an original oil painting or a corporate logo, ownership rights are not the same as owning a toboggan, even if it is handmade from ancient oak found in the forests of Valhalla.

 

As you can imagine, many lawsuits are fought over ownership right for artistic works and other intellectual property, many of which would not have happened had the parties known the basic rules surrounding IP ownership. Although every case is unique and requires a thorough analysis (that why we have lawyers after all), looking at a few hypothetical scenarios, should help us map but some of the boundaries of ownership rights when purchasing visual art. Imagine the following situation:

 

A wealthy executive purchases an oil painting from a living artist to be the centerpiece of his private library. After hanging the work, he feels he may have made a mistake in purchasing the painting, but thinks that if he cuts it into three smaller pieces, it might look better in the room.

After some negative reaction to his idea, the executive instead decides it would be better just to sell it and consigns it to a reputable gallery for the sale.

Before the gallery takes possession of the oil painting, a major fashion magazine rents the executive’s home for a photo shoot. The photographer uses the private library as the main setting and the oil painting is shown in the background of several photos, which the magazine publishes in its next issue.

Impressed with the photographer’s work, the executive commissions her to shoot his home. A couple of years later, the executive puts the home on the market and gives the photos to his real estate agent to use in the listing. The agent’s brokerage posts the photos on its site and also u0loads them to a Multiple Listing Service.

The brokerage is in the midst of a branding redesign including a new website. The company hires several freelancers to create the new designs, including some amazing drawings of streets in the area, which the company uses, along with photos of the executive’s home on its homepage.

The Brokerage also makes large posters of the drawings that it sells on its website.

 

The purchaser in each of these scenarios may be infringing on the rights of the artist or creator. Let’s look at each scenario and see what the purchaser may have done wrong and whether there are any defenses to get them out of trouble.

 

... the rest at http://artlawjournal.com/visual-art-ownership/

[Brian Peck]

Interesting how paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs are treated one way where the work can not be destroyed but other items that are also artistic like buildings can be and are destroyed all the time.

[vodou]

Interesting how paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs are treated one way where the work can not be destroyed but other items that are also artistic like buildings can be and are destroyed all the time.

Living in CA, a more recently settled area of the country, I'm not sure if you see this as much or at all but here in New England buildings and even private homes are protected from destruction or great modification if doing so is viewed as having cultural impact. Now protected is how your community views it...as the property "owner"...it may also be interpreted as pita

 

Thanks for teasing this out Brian, this is what I'm trying to bring out...how uneven policy is applied (nationally, and even locally one zip code or state to the next) and how potentially hypocritical one's position on one object can be versus another, maybe only dependent on personal preference (comic art vs. architecture), how much money things are "worth" (today, what about tomorrow?) or what group has the present and/or future money or political pull to classify something as "art" or block it being classified too!

 

Philosopher's Questions for today:

 

1. What does it mean to say one owns something? (property rights)

2. What does it mean to say something is art, fine art, etc? (as exception: where not all rights are immediately conveyed at point of sale)

 

A working framework for those two questions to be answered, that most can agree on...then maybe we can figure out how comic art (is it general property or art/fine art?) fits in to the bigger narrative without having to hire $500/hr lawyers every time two people disagree, whether the "injured" party atm is artist or collector.

[vodou]

Interesting how paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs are treated one way where the work can not be destroyed but other items that are also artistic like buildings can be and are destroyed all the time.

Another thought off this re: not destruction but modification (art again protected). What rights are retained by the artist of those pencil sketches that collectors get inked by a third-party, whether vintage or contemporary...without the penciller's "permission"? Many of us, but not all, think it's a bad idea to get them inked directly over the pencils vs blueline or lightbox on a separate sheet...but do we want to turn our "opinion" into enforceable law? Maybe it already is anyway?

 

Again: what does owning a 1974 Batman pencil sketch by (let's say) Neal Adams really mean? What are the collector's property rights? What are retained by Neal/estate, if any?

 

And to bring up a further subject near to Felix's heart: how can we apply the above to the current rampage of "restoration" where significant parts of SA art are being redrawn? Is this modification (without the artist's approval!!) or are we creating another exception for "restoration"? If so, how do we define restoration? Is the lack of modification disclosure a separate 'criminal' act of evasion of some sort??? Yadda yadda yadda

 

At a minimum I think it's fair to say (others may disagree) that we as buyer's ought to have a (relatively) clear understanding of what we are buying for what price, otherwise we may want to negotiate lower or even walk away at pos. This whole "finding out years later" that making (once reasonable) assumptions just make an @ss out of you and me aspect is, at a minimum, not fun. Right?

[Bird]

Interesting how paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs are treated one way where the work can not be destroyed but other items that are also artistic like buildings can be and are destroyed all the time.

Another thought off this re: not destruction but modification (art again protected). What rights are retained by the artist of those pencil sketches that collectors get inked by a third-party, whether vintage or contemporary...without the penciller's "permission"? Many of us, but not all, think it's a bad idea to get them inked directly over the pencils vs blueline or lightbox on a separate sheet...but do we want to turn our "opinion" into enforceable law? Maybe it already is anyway?

 

Again: what does owning a 1974 Batman pencil sketch by (let's say) Neal Adams really mean? What are the collector's property rights? What are retained by Neal/estate, if any?

 

And to bring up a further subject near to Felix's heart: how can we apply the above to the current rampage of "restoration" where significant parts of SA art are being redrawn? Is this modification (without the artist's approval!!) or are we creating another exception for "restoration"? If so, how do we define restoration? Is the lack of modification disclosure a separate 'criminal' act of evasion of some sort??? Yadda yadda yadda

 

At a minimum I think it's fair to say (others may disagree) that we as buyer's ought to have a (relatively) clear understanding of what we are buying for what price, otherwise we may want to negotiate lower or even walk away at pos. This whole "finding out years later" that making (once reasonable) assumptions just make an @ss out of you and me aspect is, at a minimum, not fun. Right?

 

You should start a new thread, I would love to see discussion on some of this. However I find very few are open to artists' rights extending beyond sale of the work. I am. I would sign BWS' TAR. But no one wants to talk rationally about that really; they get angry very quickly. My daughter just got accepted to Pratt fine art painting program and as the guy who got her started in art I am interested in helping form her thoughts on what creation of her art includes. Yoko Ono wanted to patent her ideas, not anything physical (just read the Richard Bellamy book last week so forgive me) - I think I may owe her a royalty for typing that so I'll stop there.

 

In any event, interesting subject that most do not often consider.

[otherworldsj33]

Excellent points Voodu. Some intelligent and provoking stuff that goes beyond the minutia to the crux of it.

I'll add my 1.5 cents.

 

I believe that at it's core, ownership of just about anything is a perversion of God's

--- (or nature or whatever your belief for those that may not believe in God or have another view - it is not my intention to insult anyone or veer this discussion into religion or dig a rabbit hole, although the ownership subject in itself may be a deep one) --- original intent of the ideal manner in which to live.

 

The world system of the creation of wealth and class, abundance and poverty, (excessive) pride of ownership, or self identification with a object to the level of it being unhealthy. It can push the tendency to focus on objects and competition, where imho it should be relational and spiritual.

 

 

 

.

 

[vodou]

You should start a new thread, I would love to see discussion on some of this. However I find very few are open to artists' rights extending beyond sale of the work. I am. I would sign BWS' TAR. But no one wants to talk rationally about that really; they get angry very quickly. My daughter just got accepted to Pratt fine art painting program and as the guy who got her started in art I am interested in helping form her thoughts on what creation of her art includes. Yoko Ono wanted to patent her ideas, not anything physical (just read the Richard Bellamy book last week so forgive me) - I think I may owe her a royalty for typing that so I'll stop there.

 

In any event, interesting subject that most do not often consider.

Good idea Sean. The Kirby matter to begin with is nearly OT and this stuff definitely is re: "Next HA Auction !". Folks could re-post their comments here to continue the conversation: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9729568#Post9729568

[Bird]

You should start a new thread, I would love to see discussion on some of this. However I find very few are open to artists' rights extending beyond sale of the work. I am. I would sign BWS' TAR. But no one wants to talk rationally about that really; they get angry very quickly. My daughter just got accepted to Pratt fine art painting program and as the guy who got her started in art I am interested in helping form her thoughts on what creation of her art includes. Yoko Ono wanted to patent her ideas, not anything physical (just read the Richard Bellamy book last week so forgive me) - I think I may owe her a royalty for typing that so I'll stop there.

 

In any event, interesting subject that most do not often consider.

Good idea Sean. The Kirby matter to begin with is nearly OT and this stuff definitely is re: "Next HA Auction !". Folks could re-post their comments here to continue the conversation: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9729568#Post9729568

 

Who is this Sean character?

[Moondog]

I'm disappointed to hear that Heritage is shaking down its clients and customers. It's hard to imagine how concerns over this corporate practice would not influence the decision of potential clients/customers in any potential future business.

 

I think your claim that Heritage is "shaking down" its clients and customers is a bit unfair. You're inferring that they are somehow in cahoots with the Kirby family. I think it's clear that the last thing an auction house would want is to have a major segment of a market closed off to them or limit it in any way. This is relatively new ground being covered here and they appear to be taking a prudent approach of working with the family and their clients and waiting to see how things turn out.