Property Rights: OA, hopefully a friendly and reasoned discussion :)

[vodou]

Quoting myself a bit here to get things going, originally posted with various replies from others out to page 15: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9712048&fpart=12

 

But in the future, who knows... eventually a case is going to make it to a real court, right?

What will most likely happen is that the BIG art world (where 'art wealth' and income/other wealth tend to be more closely aligned, including artists/estate themselves) will decide the broad subject of "property rights for all parties, initially at and after point of sale" and the comic art world (realistically Heritage as they deal in both categories, the rest will follow along) will be dragged along as the only other option would be to pursue overturning precedent (at that point), and that in another art "category" no less!

 

If we've learned anything the last hundred+ years of property rights gradually sliding away from rugged individualism toward socialism/communism...the interests/wants/needs of the group/society tend to trump (no pun) those of the individual. Meaning: what you or I individually "want" here probably won't matter. Even if one of us is sitting on 500 pieces of prime Silver Kirby all acquired directly and with an unimpeachable signed receipt from Jack himself. Which group underdogs/downtrodden (artists/estates) or lucky/privileged/1% (art collectors) is viewed more favorably by the court/s and constituents -at that moment- probably will. Again probably not a matter to be decided re: "comic" art to begin with.

 

I thought there was to be no politics on this board.

 

How do you take an example which illustrates (pun intended) how property rights can be taken from a "rugged individual" by a large corporation and somehow conflate that to be proof of creeping "socialism/communism"? Actually, I know the answer and it involves starting with an ill-informed agenda and injecting into discussions about other things. Which then leaves other people with the choice of leaving a silly ill-informed idea floating out there, or responding with more talk of politics.

 

All of which the board has sought to avoid by saying --

 

NO POLITICS ON THIS BOARD.

You're a mess here. I intentionally posted quite apolitical. But to keep it on point and simple for you, for everyone - where do you stand on property rights: absolutist or shades of grey? Your answer would inform (or should) how you feel about all aspects of: property/wealth tax, altering/destroying art (accidental or otherwise), displaying it, selling it and what, if any, obligation you have back to the creator on all these points. There are the moral positions one could take but then also the legals. The legals to date are muddy at best and vary widely across minutiae and jurisdictions. Because the political atmosphere of the past, present and future bears on this...should we not discuss it because it's (if not ever so gently posted) potentially "political"? And really if I wasn't gentle enough in my posting, I'll try to be more so go-fo, it's a distraction from the serious subject of property rights.

 

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/

 

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.

 

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?

[SquareChaos]

I'm a computer programmer by profession. I'm retained to do an inherently creative job by an opportunistic employer. That employer pays me an agreed upon wage, I do work (tasks are in the neighborhood of what one would expect, and sometimes more is asked - just like in most jobs, the exact responsibilities are fluid), I design projects, implement code, lead teams, advise business, and do my best to hit milestones and provide deliverables.

 

Some of the code I have written has resulted in a net gain of tens of millions of dollars for my employer - I haven't seen a penny of this beyond my salary, and I never will.

 

At the heart of it, just like most work that one might call creative, these aspects of my profession are similar to those of an illustrator. Should the illustrator be granted greater rights over the results of their labor? Why is it even up for discussion? If this question is being raised at all, it should have a much wider span, it's ridiculous to act like this is a special circumstance.

 

As an aside, I'm aware these things become more complicated due to the mere existence of the secondary market and the fact that many of these images are licensed intellectual property (as in the characters and settings) of massive corporations. Having said that, at the root of it, that doesn't change anything when you consider the simplest scenario - if one has legally purchased a page, you should own it outright with no further... leins? ... against it. If there are gray areas in the chain of possession, that complicates the matter and may open the matter up for debate, but I don't know why anything else would or why some special rules or laws are necessary to govern the legality of art that was acquired 100% above board.

[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.

The easiest way for collectors to be open to artists' rights is to practice a bit of empathy, put yourself in the other guy's shoes. Some of us have jobs where there is a quasi- or even fully creative aspect that we don't get compensated for beyond straight salary (and maybe a YE bonus), regardless of multiple or end-uses of the work product. Maybe it's not so hard to walk in the other guy's shoes a bit after all?

 

As a collector I tend to hold a more conservative and rigid view of property rights, as a (BIG) art dealer and artist myself...I still do. Let me parse that a bit more.

 

1. Without question I don't think we (as in "society") should be going back in time and trying right wrongs (if they are even?) at the expense of collectors today that paid FMV with an unspecified but generally agreed upon by all parties non-TAR scenario.

 

2. Go forward I think we (again as a society) should come to some sort of agreement, the more-encompassing the better, of what rights are and are not automatically conveyed when money and original change hands. Not just for comic art, but for all art. And we should figure out what is and is not art, in a non-trivial way ("I know it when I see it" - pretty much useless imo!) TAR is an answer, it's a free market answer too. But it's one-off. As long as a TAR (or like) document is formed correctly and all parties (including BWS) understand exactly what they are (and are not) agreeing to. I think there was some comments last year about the BWS document not being very well formed however. Or maybe that an earlier 1980s version was not but the more recent 21st century version is? This is all IIRC from (maybe?) comments made on a different board even...just putting it out there to encourage review/discussion.

[vodou]

Some of the code I have written has resulted in a net gain of tens of millions of dollars for my employer - I haven't seen a penny of this beyond my salary, and I never will.

I've been in a similar situation when I worked for others, for straight salary and YE bonus (calculated against organizational goal success, not specific product success). My worldview then and since has been to spend more time thinking about my blessings (what I've got) than my curses (what I haven't). I am blessed, I can understand that not everybody else is or feels it's enough though. All this assuming First World lifestyle, Third World...whole 'nother thing though as food/shelter is a daily consideration! But this 'abundance' worldview has given me comfort, it's killed my desire to worry about what I'm leaving on the table at every negotiation and transaction. But it has also fine-tuned for me that I'd rather be a lot more in control of my work product and work ethic. Which is one very important reason I now work for myself instead of others. My preference is to directly participate in my own success and failure, and the extent of either, at all times. And adjust accordingly in the future too.

 

Getting back to rewarding beyond salary for the market value of creative work product, I think the slippery slope here is...isn't everything "creative"? Or at least can be reasonably argued to be so -if the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is big enough, making it worth the trouble to chase? Because if so, then all we (again, as a society) will end up doing is over time creating special rules for special circumstances, then moving more and more circumstances into the "special" category and less and less remain in the "regular" category. (And the regulars start to feel demeaned by this too?) This as each group makes their voice (and "injuries") known and demands reparations or at least go-fo renegotiation of rights/compensation, not between employee and employer but between minority and society. And then financially adjust (as a society) to the new rules.

 

Going out on a limb here, if we figure out that the only thing (only to make a point here is) that isn't "creative" is garbage collecting...won't the garbage collectors eventually be the minority, the "creatives" the majority, with that minority then asking for "something" to make up for that? I won't go further at the risk of getting too political (which I really don't want to do), but to an extent this does go to: a certain Thatcher quote about "other people's money" that folks can go off-site to find for themselves, if they like.

[Bronty]

I'm a computer programmer by profession. I'm retained to do an inherently creative job by an opportunistic employer. That employer pays me an agreed upon wage, I do work (tasks are in the neighborhood of what one would expect, and sometimes more is asked - just like in most jobs, the exact responsibilities are fluid), I design projects, implement code, lead teams, advise business, and do my best to hit milestones and provide deliverables.

 

Some of the code I have written has resulted in a net gain of tens of millions of dollars for my employer - I haven't seen a penny of this beyond my salary, and I never will.

 

At the heart of it, just like most work that one might call creative, these aspects of my profession are similar to those of an illustrator. Should the illustrator be granted greater rights over the results of their labor? Why is it even up for discussion? If this question is being raised at all, it should have a much wider span, it's ridiculous to act like this is a special circumstance.

 

As an aside, I'm aware these things become more complicated due to the mere existence of the secondary market and the fact that many of these images are licensed intellectual property (as in the characters and settings) of massive corporations. Having said that, at the root of it, that doesn't change anything when you consider the simplest scenario - if one has legally purchased a page, you should own it outright with no further... leins? ... against it. If there are gray areas in the chain of possession, that complicates the matter and may open the matter up for debate, but I don't know why anything else would or why some special rules or laws are necessary to govern the legality of art that was acquired 100% above board.

 

I think what he's getting at is what does it mean for you to own the page. What are your rights.

 

For example, it is generally the case that ownership of the original does not convey reproduction rights. Ie you own the page but you can't go and make prints and posters for commercial sale out of the image. You own the physical art but the artist owns the image rights. Vodou alluded to destruction/modification scenarios and although I don't know much about that I think there is something to that - you can't modify it at will. Etc

[otherworldsj33]

How far does this extend? If a house is deemed as a creative property, does the builder get a TAR type of deal?

Furniture?

[Twanj]

As an aside, I'm aware these things become more complicated due to the mere existence of the secondary market and the fact that many of these images are licensed intellectual property (as in the characters and settings) of massive corporations. Having said that, at the root of it, that doesn't change anything when you consider the simplest scenario - if one has legally purchased a page, you should own it outright with no further... leins? ... against it.

 

I work on software as well.

 

even though there may not be a physical product, depending on your contract someone's employer may retain the rights to the source code or the original author may keep the rights, which would allow them to sell or redistribute the source code. in the 60s this may not have been spelled out but it was expected I guess, you did the work & the company owned it.

 

it all goes back to the original Kirby contract. did it specify that he owned the art? if not, stop doing the work & get that written into your contract.

[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.

The easiest way for collectors to be open to artists' rights is to practice a bit of empathy, put yourself in the other guy's shoes. Some of us have jobs where there is a quasi- or even fully creative aspect that we don't get compensated for beyond straight salary (and maybe a YE bonus), regardless of multiple or end-uses of the work product. Maybe it's not so hard to walk in the other guy's shoes a bit after all?

 

As a collector I tend to hold a more conservative and rigid view of property rights, as a (BIG) art dealer and artist myself...I still do. Let me parse that a bit more.

 

1. Without question I don't think we (as in "society") should be going back in time and trying right wrongs (if they are even?) at the expense of collectors today that paid FMV with an unspecified but generally agreed upon by all parties non-TAR scenario.

 

2. Go forward I think we (again as a society) should come to some sort of agreement, the more-encompassing the better, of what rights are and are not automatically conveyed when money and original change hands. Not just for comic art, but for all art. And we should figure out what is and is not art, in a non-trivial way ("I know it when I see it" - pretty much useless imo!) TAR is an answer, it's a free market answer too. But it's one-off. As long as a TAR (or like) document is formed correctly and all parties (including BWS) understand exactly what they are (and are not) agreeing to. I think there was some comments last year about the BWS document not being very well formed however. Or maybe that an earlier 1980s version was not but the more recent 21st century version is? This is all IIRC from (maybe?) comments made on a different board even...just putting it out there to encourage review/discussion.

 

1) I agree. No retroactive solutions.

 

2) I agree in negotiating your rights in a free market as well. I do believe that "art" is different and yes I am holding it to a different standard. All work is creative; art is different and I would consider a TAR in some situations. If "you" think that the work you do, whether it is the house you built or the code you wrote etc etc, is such that you can negotiate better terms of providing your work I suggest that you do so. (General you not you specifically.) It is a type of royalty that I am willing to pay to reflect my appreciation of the source of the purchase.

 

3) sorry for butchering your name earlier vodou!

[SquareChaos]

I guess the meat of what I'm saying is that if you want to retain full rights for your work - in any "creative" field - then don't sell it. License it.

 

This is speaking generally of course, we know there is no time machine available for someone to go back and suggest this to Kirby or Ditko or Simon or whomever, but even if there had been, it was a far different time and they probably wouldn't have had many real options.

 

So... Again, I say I see no special loopholes or laws necessary for this. Certain workers / artists were wronged, but most of these cases are literally decades old and have been litigated in one form or another to set precedent already. I personally think it's gone as far as it can and rightfully should go, but I think the Kirby family, and any others, are within their rights to attempt to legally define where the legal limit finally ends up.

[Bird]

These rights already exist as well. The BWS TAR is basically an attempt to get some of the rights already given routinely to fine arts. (Specific rights about altering the art, showing in galleries, etc.) Or Watterson's letter as seen in the other thread where he negotiate's rights for his art (that he disturbingly does not offer for the art he is to receive, a Krazy Kat). This is just yet another wrinkle that comes from trying to make production art into art; since I believe in the artistic merits of the form I agree we should consider granting them the same rights as more accepted artists.

 

 

[vodou]

How far does this extend? If a house is deemed as a creative property, does the builder get a TAR type of deal?

Furniture?

Are we talking about the architect, the GC, the 'workers', the guy that designed the darned 'nail' (and his many, many heirs) etc etc etc? Slippery slope there. "Everything" can be "creative" if you're not careful.

 

I think Frank Lloyd Wright may have had a TAR of sorts. Anybody more familiar want to add color?

 

I hope you'll bring your natural order of things post over here, it's a valid pov in my opinion. What you're tapping into is the folly of youth: that blind assumption that "we" (in a very selfish way) are the only people, generation, society, whatever that mattes, that has ever mattered and that we need to right all wrongs and solve all problems in our lifetimes (because that's just how important, wonderful, and enlightened "we" are!) Cool. Except the counter-point, yours is that everything under the sun has always been under the sun, and will still be too long after "we" are gone. Two extremes there. How do we stake our claims to "private property" (and the rights attached to same) when we ourselves are temporal but everything else is eternal? Even "the art" is the physical elements...the drawing (or whatever) will eventually decay back into those elements again, but probably long after we are gone.

 

How do we square the infinite (everything else) with the finite (our unique brainwaves stuffed into these fleshbags that we tend to think are the end/all be/all of everything...for about 75 years or so anyway!), in a way that we can all live with and not be fighting too much amongst ourselves, burning up the scarce resources (our general goodwill/reputations, savings, and especially finite lifespans) on trivial -against the Big Picture- matters?

[vodou]

I guess the meat of what I'm saying is that if you want to retain full rights for your work - in any "creative" field - then don't sell it. License it.

This works for me. But let's not work in a vacuum here, in case anybody is, doing this makes your work product "more expensive" because you're giving less for the same price. In the abstract, big deal. But in the global competitive marketplace, unless your work product is truly unique, you will be competing against those offering a similar product with either less strings attached and/or at a lower total price too. Or maybe just a shorter shelf-life as other innovators eventually come to market. The "seller" needs to be aware of this before possibly pricing themselves out of business.

[SquareChaos]

I guess the meat of what I'm saying is that if you want to retain full rights for your work - in any "creative" field - then don't sell it. License it.

This works for me. But let's not work in a vacuum here, in case anybody is, doing this makes your work product "more expensive" because you're giving less for the same price. In the abstract, big deal. But in the global competitive marketplace, unless your work product is truly unique, you will be competing against those offering a similar product with either less strings attached and/or at a lower total price too. Or maybe just a shorter shelf-life as other innovators eventually come to market. The "seller" needs to be aware of this before possibly pricing themselves out of business.

 

There are consequences to everything. If you want to own the fruits of your labor out right, there may be some risks associated with that.

 

As a for instance, as I've stated, I am a programmer and I work in a FTE position. If I wanted to take in more risk, I could strike out on my own and begin my own business or go into 1099 contracting or... I don't know, open the world's worst dance studio.

 

There's an existing path for artists to take if they want these type of protection and rights we're speaking of. Artists that made the mistake of being born in the wrong time are basically out of luck. The artists of present day owe something to those that came before that have fought these fights... As it ever was and probably ever will be.

[Bird]

I guess the meat of what I'm saying is that if you want to retain full rights for your work - in any "creative" field - then don't sell it. License it.

This works for me. But let's not work in a vacuum here, in case anybody is, doing this makes your work product "more expensive" because you're giving less for the same price. In the abstract, big deal. But in the global competitive marketplace, unless your work product is truly unique, you will be competing against those offering a similar product with either less strings attached and/or at a lower total price too. Or maybe just a shorter shelf-life as other innovators eventually come to market. The "seller" needs to be aware of this before possibly pricing themselves out of business.

 

Exactly. The more valuable work generally is associated with a bigger name. The tying together of art and value has happened; better art is more valuable and more valuable art is better. The work and the market for the work are inseparable. None of us are the ones who made it so but that matters not. ALL of our grails are expensive (maybe even you, vodou?).

[Bird]

I guess the meat of what I'm saying is that if you want to retain full rights for your work - in any "creative" field - then don't sell it. License it.

This works for me. But let's not work in a vacuum here, in case anybody is, doing this makes your work product "more expensive" because you're giving less for the same price. In the abstract, big deal. But in the global competitive marketplace, unless your work product is truly unique, you will be competing against those offering a similar product with either less strings attached and/or at a lower total price too. Or maybe just a shorter shelf-life as other innovators eventually come to market. The "seller" needs to be aware of this before possibly pricing themselves out of business.

 

There are consequences to everything. If you want to own the fruits of your labor out right, there may be some risks associated with that.

 

As a for instance, as I've stated, I am a programmer and I work in a FTE position. If I wanted to take in more risk, I could strike out on my own and begin my own business or go into 1099 contracting or... I don't know, open the world's worst dance studio.

 

There's an existing path for artists to take if they want these type of protection and rights we're speaking of. Artists that made the mistake of being born in the wrong time are basically out of luck. The artists of present day owe something to those that came before that have fought these fights... As it ever was and probably ever will be.

 

I agree with this especially and think that consumers of art also owe something to those who fought for those rights as well. Society benefits from treating it's artists well.

[bluechip]

Some of the code I have written has resulted in a net gain of tens of millions of dollars for my employer - I haven't seen a penny of this beyond my salary, and I never will.

I've been in a similar situation when I worked for others, for straight salary and YE bonus (calculated against organizational goal success, not specific product success). My worldview then and since has been to spend more time thinking about my blessings (what I've got) than my curses (what I haven't). I am blessed, I can understand that not everybody else is or feels it's enough though. All this assuming First World lifestyle, Third World...whole 'nother thing though as food/shelter is a daily consideration! But this 'abundance' worldview has given me comfort, it's killed my desire to worry about what I'm leaving on the table at every negotiation and transaction. But it has also fine-tuned for me that I'd rather be a lot more in control of my work product and work ethic. Which is one very important reason I now work for myself instead of others. My preference is to directly participate in my own success and failure, and the extent of either, at all times. And adjust accordingly in the future too.

 

Getting back to rewarding beyond salary for the market value of creative work product, I think the slippery slope here is...isn't everything "creative"? Or at least can be reasonably argued to be so -if the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is big enough, making it worth the trouble to chase? Because if so, then all we (again, as a society) will end up doing is over time creating special rules for special circumstances, then moving more and more circumstances into the "special" category and less and less remain in the "regular" category. (And the regulars start to feel demeaned by this too?) This as each group makes their voice (and "injuries") known and demands reparations or at least go-fo renegotiation of rights/compensation, not between employee and employer but between minority and society. And then financially adjust (as a society) to the new rules.

 

Going out on a limb here, if we figure out that the only thing (only to make a point here is) that isn't "creative" is garbage collecting...won't the garbage collectors eventually be the minority, the "creatives" the majority, with that minority then asking for "something" to make up for that? I won't go further at the risk of getting too political (which I really don't want to do), but to an extent this does go to: a certain Thatcher quote about "other people's money" that folks can go off-site to find for themselves, if they like.

 

You are just relentlessly determined to put politics into a board that is supposed to be free of politics. Would you consider it just as appropriate if somebody countered you by making an oblique reference to quotes by Marx? But then, maybe you would, if it was one of the times he praised capitalism. But here's the thing. It would not be appropriate. Just as it's not appropriate for you to keep injecting your comments about "socialism"

 

You know the policy of the board but you try circumvent it by injecting absurd comparisons to buying and reselling art with comments that the country is sliding into "socialism/communism" and apparently thinking of yourself as a "rugged individual" whose needs are synonymous with the Koch Brothers, as if you think ranting about "socialism" makes you at one with them. People who buy into this argument are the right wing equivalent of Lenin's "useful insufficiently_thoughtful_persons"

 

(since the site blocks out the word, see Lenin's quote about "useful" people and then see how the same "useful" misinformed people have been just as valuable to the far right as they are to the far left. Fascists and Monarchists cannot succeed without "useful" people of limited intelligence. All it takes is giving them someone to look down on along with fantasies about lottery wins and fairy tales in which it's revealed that you, all along, were a prince/princess (so, you see, the systems not so unfair after all)

 

The problem with Thatcher's financial royalist quote about socialism and "other people's money" is that people think it means that there should be no such thing as public property, so they advocate, corrupt the system and downright steal as much as they can from what belongs to everybody.

 

I hear that quote most often from people who are campaigning to "privatize" all the massive resources of the USA, which at present are (supposedly) owned equally by us all. Privatization is nothing more complex than taking what already belongs to everybody and effectively giving it to the few. And the people on the receiving end of it love to go on and then complain that anything they are required to pay for is, effectively, taking money from the higher beings (themselves) and giving it to the lesser beings.

 

And what's more you are injecting these looney angry grampa rants in ways that are not only against the policies of the board but nonsensical.

 

There is no connection between your silly rants about socialism and the business of buying and selling old comic books and comic original art.

 

People who create paintings and other pieces of art in socialist regimes generally do not retain ownership of their pieces. Scientists and other do not retain patents. When one Soviet Scientist was awarded a Nobel Prize for his work, Kruschev denied him the right to claim it saying it had been won not by him but by the USSR. So you injecting of "socialism" into this argument makes no sense, whatsoever, except that it's something you like to inject into any discussion whether it's relevant, polite, or not.

 

Some artists were given back their work by comic companies. Some weren't. Some retained rights and some didn't. There hasn't been, and are not, any laws in the US that require buyers of original art to pay royalties to an artist. There are simply laws about ownership, and laws regarding theft of property which is later resold.

 

You want to talk about property rights in regard to original art, those are essentially the issues.

 

Jamming in quotes about socialism and looneybin comments that the US -- which now has a wider gap between the rich and poor than at any time since the days of the robber barons, is "socialist/communist" isn't relevant, appropriate, appreciated -- or within the agreed upon rules of this website.

 

 

[Mephisto]

Seriously Bluechip get a life. I like how you keep praddling on about NO POLITICS on this board yet a 2 minute search brings up you being the very definition of the pot calling the kettle black.

Nothing political about this post at all, taking a thinly veiled shot at the President elect and his administrative picks. So yeah keep going on about how politics shouldn't be on this board when post a little gems like this after the election which is much more politically charged than anything

Vodu posted.

 

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

[bluechip]

Seriously Bluechip get a life. I like how you keep praddling on about NO POLITICS on this board yet a 2 minute search brings up you being the very definition of the pot calling the kettle black.

Nothing political about this post at all, taking a thinly veiled shot at the President elect and his administrative picks. So yeah keep going on about how politics shouldn't be on this board when post a little gems like this after the election which is much more politically charged than anything

Vodu posted.

 

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

 

That was intended as a joke which I wrote because I was, at that moment, specifically logging in to this site because I wanted a place that would not be talking about the election. Then, I thought what if this site was also embroiled in the cabinet picks? Hence the joke.

 

But I'll admit that the choice of Dupcak for the punchline was probably not a good one, because when his name comes up the conversation is not really divided.

 

Had I thought longer I might have used "Vince Colletta" put in charge of preserving Kirby's pencils, or something about pressing or another topic about which people take clearly different sides.

 

 

[Mephisto]

Yet you come on here harping absolutely NO POLITICS ON THIS BOARD.

 

Anyway it's gym time!

[bluechip]

Yet you come on here harping absolutely NO POLITICS ON THIS BOARD.

 

Anyway it's gym time!

 

A joke about politics is not the same as injecting a political statement. If Bob Hope (a decidedly right wing guy) were alive today, he'd be making jokes about how some of the incoming cabinet picks have advocated eliminating the agencies they will be heading. It's apolitical to point that out because it's true. What's political is arguing that the choices (and their views) are right or wrong.

 

Still, if you say that the joke thread should be deleted and I will have no problem with it.

 

Especially... If you can also agree that it's not appropriate to inject quotes about socialism into threads over and over again.