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

[SquareChaos]

I'm not excusing anyone or anything said or not said... in other words, this statement is not about what has gone on in this thread, just a general observation.

 

It's very difficult to talk about economics, legalities, or historical precedence on much of anything without at least straying into politics in some small part. I'm uncertain how you would express views on this topic without exposing some underlying bias you may have towards one ism or another.

 

I think as long as you're not thumping people over the head with it, or directly talking about modern politics.... live and let live.

[Bronty]

I'm not excusing anyone or anything said or not said... in other words, this statement is not about what has gone on in this thread, just a general observation.

 

It's very difficult to talk about economics, legalities, or historical precedence on much of anything without at least straying into politics in some small part.

 

I think as long as you're not thumping people over the head with it, or directly talking about modern politics.... live and let live.

 

Exactly

[vodou]

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"

Not a fan of the Koch Brothers. Sorry. You guessed. And got it wrong.

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.

That's correct, sort of. Some people do not think there should be any non-private assets (see: property rights, very much ON-Topic), and among those that do think there should be some public assets, what they should be, how much should be paid for them, how they are paid for and supported in an ongoing way...all open to much debate. So what? Getting even more ON-Topic, some believe "art" should be public. All of it. Including your collection. Too (culturally) valuable to be privately held. Ready to give it up? If not...then you're on the slippery slope of individual property rights. Don't worry: we are here to help you with this

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.

So what? Plenty on this board and the entirety of the internet that may run into this thread down the road that...(surprise!) may transact outside the USA and/or do not live in the USA. You know, perhaps places where royalts rights are law? I'm one of them and have paid for items won from UK and EU auction houses. The discussion is for them and me too (can't we all just share?)

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

According to you those are the issues. I disagree and wouldn't want to be limited to the limited world you live in. Sorry my mind is at work outside the box

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.

Factually incorrect ("wider gap"), I'll refer you offsite to http://www.garynorth.com/public/15056.cfm re: Pareto's Distribution as I don't think anybody else much cares about this sidebar you and I are having to begin with.

[Mephisto]

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.

 

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.wrestlezone.com/news/773659-joey-styles-fired-from-evolve-following-donald-trump-related-joke/amp?client=safari

[Taylor G]

I thought I was visiting the CGC OA discussion board, but I seem to have wandered into Zero Hedge. Can someone direct me to the discussion of OA?

 

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.

Factually incorrect ("wider gap"), I'll refer you offsite to http://www.garynorth.com/public/15056.cfm re: Pareto's Distribution as I don't think anybody else much cares about this sidebar you and I are having to begin with.

If you're going to continue to inject your politically motivated economic theories into discussions, you have to expect that people will continue to refute them.

 

Trying to recover this discussion from Vodou's warnings that The Communists Are Coming For Your Art, here is a question: Some will say that owners of art are in truth curators of that art (since hopefully the art will live long beyond the "owner"). There are expectations that people will not paint over the Mona Lisa (adding their own image, for example) or burn the art. Now, artists editions have made OA available to many who would never otherwise see the art. So what of an owner of OA who refuses to make their art available for an artists edition?

 

Here's another example: Putting back together a story that has been broken up. Economically this is obviously lunacy. Some may do it out of love for the original story, but the likelihood is that the story will get broken up again when they pass on (there's been plenty of discussion of where the art is going when the owner is dead). People who do this may feel a "higher purpose" toward the art, that it's up to someone else to pick up the baton (by keeping the art together) when they're gone. Again, this idea of curatorship rather than ownership.

 

[vodou]

I thought I was visiting the CGC OA discussion board, but I seem to have wandered into Zero Hedge. Can someone direct me to the discussion of OA?

 

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.

Factually incorrect ("wider gap"), I'll refer you offsite to http://www.garynorth.com/public/15056.cfm re: Pareto's Distribution as I don't think anybody else much cares about this sidebar you and I are having to begin with.

If you're going to continue to inject your politically motivated economic theories into discussions, you have to expect that people will continue to refute them.

 

Trying to recover this discussion from Vodou's warnings that The Communists Are Coming For Your Art, here is a question: Some will say that owners of art are in truth curators of that art (since hopefully the art will live long beyond the "owner"). There are expectations that people will not paint over the Mona Lisa (adding their own image, for example) or burn the art. Now, artists editions have made OA available to many who would never otherwise see the art. So what of an owner of OA who refuses to make their art available for an artists edition?

 

Here's another example: Putting back together a story that has been broken up. Economically this is obviously lunacy. Some may do it out of love for the original story, but the likelihood is that the story will get broken up again when they pass on (there's been plenty of discussion of where the art is going when the owner is dead). People who do this may feel a "higher purpose" toward the art, that it's up to someone else to pick up the baton (by keeping the art together) when they're gone. Again, this idea of curatorship rather than ownership.

Nonsense at the beginning (OP and all that follow are re: Property Rights pertaining to OA, so there's your OA discussion right htere), but I appreciate the second half of your post.

 

Many collectors consider themselves temporary curators, more than 'owners' (as consumers of products do), myself included. As Gene has suggested many times in the past, most of today's collectors will sell through most of their collections over the next thirty years. It's unlikely they will be donated to institutions or passed down inter-generationally intact. So we own these things for a season or two (of a sort), then try to pass them on in the condition we received them (for hopefully a few bucks more!) and life goes on. Sounds a lot like temporary curation doesn't it?

 

(And btw anybody assuming they know my personal moral/political/yaddayadda positions on anything I haven't explicitly stated as such - expect yourself to be quite wrong. Friend to the Koch Brothers, Red Scare, etc... lol . I much play at Devil's Advocate here on the Board! Further I'm human, and as such allow for myself to be conflicted, contrary, wrong today and right tomorrow, and vice versa - I do change my mind and am always learning and refining my thoughts.)

 

Pretty much all the OA we talk about here everyday will live beyond any of us active today, probably our kids and grandkids too, short of fires and earthquakes taking out large collections. Those inked bristol boards if cared for should be good for several hundred years. Or more.

 

So yeah one of the basic questions I thought would be good to look at in here is: "what does it mean to say we 'own' something (property rights) when we do not consume or discard (landfill) it during our lifetimes?" Maybe we really don't "own" the art. (Much like "land"?) And if not, then who does (the artist, perpetually as IP?, even after the physical object ceases) or everybody as cultural/society? What about 'bad' art, that which almost nobody cares for or about (today, ever?) but may in the future. Even the stuff most of us whine about that 'pollutes' CAF and eBay, the endless pin-ups of comic characters of varying 'adult' presentations by artists of little/no reputation? Is that art? How will future society judge our curatorship (taking that as an assumption to begin with) where so much 'art' was actually maligned, mistreated, ignored, ultimately...non-curated! I think that's at least interesting to consider, as a mental exercise.

 

I don't know...I'm still working this stuff out for myself and am always interested in reading many sides of an 'argument' not just the one I lean towards or it's carefully crafted polar opposite.

[vodou]

There are expectations that people will not paint over the Mona Lisa (adding their own image, for example) or burn the art. Now, artists editions have made OA available to many who would never otherwise see the art. So what of an owner of OA who refuses to make their art available for an artists edition?

Yes good. Can/should that owner be compelled to "share"? Is IDW or any "private" enterprise the proper (cultural/art) way to re-present OA to the public? Food for thought. Institutionally...those folks don't seem to care much at present about comic OA and taking over the cultural promotion of same (in all the myriad ways that could happen). LOC took the AF15 book (imo) because First Spidey is 'obvious'. I think the Smithsonian and other major institutions with names we all know would have too. But what about...GS X-Men 1, Walking Dead 1, etc? And aside from taking the donation and making it available for viewing what cultural promotion has LOC done with the donation? (Not that LOC is in the business of promoting anything, just sayin', and thus maybe LOC wasn't the ideal place to donate to in hindsight?)

 

Now to modification, destruction and the like of art: while those 'rights' to 'owners' are in question, depending on where you live...what about the artists? Do they retain those rights (as 'artist') always? Or not? Were Leonardo alive today (or his heirs, as Estates do carry water in these discussions) or instead another work rose to similar stature in an artist's lifetime...would we expect/want Society to prevent the artist themself from modifying/destroying the work that Society has deemed 'culturally important' (or whatever)?

 

Walking all this back to the Kirby situation at present, that's brought up a lot of mixed feelings and being a retroactive sort of thing makes dismissing it somewhat easier (for many anyway)...but isn't it good to think about private contracts that address this down the road, maybe public policy that does too...NOW...before things are decided go-fo (perhaps by disinterested non-hobby third parties) and we figure out THEN that maybe that's not (collectively) what was the best after all?

[SquareChaos]

This thread is pretty much dead at this point. I'm not interested in the political argument.

[MHoes]

so how come, not any of this gets removed, but romitaman's totally excellent piece on his history on getting together the original comic art of entire books - which at the very end only had a slight comic remark about the president-elect - did ?

 

SMH

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9675503&fpart=3

 

 

Tech Support !

 

[AKA Rick]

Without reading threads and attachments, general opinions on how artists are contracted to render work for hire...

 

Contracts today should be buttoned up detailing usage and terms, and I'd expect major license owners like Marvel and DC would have rights to reproduce without limit in time or scope, including comic book covers, reprints, licensed merchandise, etc. - and in exchange, the artist gets their rate/fee and nowadays, a scheduled royalty (and terms if/when the artist is deceased whether their heirs retain any rights for payment or not), and ultimately who owns the actual artwork versus just the image.

 

Back in the days, original art wasn't monetized, just seen as part of the process, with no intrinsic value for the most part, and if an artist wanted to retain it or the publisher wanted to secure it, it wasn't an economic debate.

 

Now, it is, and in fact, an artist like Adam Hughes, J. Scott Campbell, Arthur Adams, etc. probably get paid their rendering rate while retaining the original artwork, but make 3x more more on top of that by selling their original artwork, so it's become a predictably factor in their economics and to whether or not they accept assignment requests. But for lesser known artists, the exchange of the opportunity to showcase their artwork and a marketplace that values their art with minimal interest and value, it may make sense for different contracts/agreements.

 

The buyer (unless license owner) of the artwork is only buying the art itself, not the rights to reproduce it for their own use or exploitation such as creating prints, merchandise, use in advertising or promotion, etc. It's for private use and display only. It's like when you request a commission, it gives you no right to use that piece by that artist for your own commercial use. Artists have commission "fan" rates and publication "professional" rates.

 

I think any artwork without a contract should be assumed that is was and is a pure "work for hire" job and if that artwork was surrendered to the publisher or license holder, that was what was in exchange for their payment. The publisher can do what they want with it, and if artwork eventually ended up into the secondary market of the public, unless there's substantiation of ownership, it should be left alone. Shame on the artist and publisher for not having detailed contracts if they don't exist, and they exist now because of these issues, so these cases should be exempt.

 

As for artists claiming a piece of the action on subsequent sales or even royalties when not offered, if they want to play the game of investments and investing, then publishers might want to start paying artists in a "advance against royalties" so that if a piece of work is used and subsequently the license holder doesn't make any profits and in fact loses, that the artist share in that loss in part. Or if an art collector/investor buys a piece and sells it at a loss, then the artist should share in that loss, if they want to also share in the gain. I know that won't happen, but since most artists are not business savvy and just look at the money coming into other's pockets, but not really being aware of the overhead of what goes out of their pockets to cover overhead and the fact that losses are often endured, they should be reminded if they want to partake in the pleasure they may have to also partake in the pain.

 

So, that's why I know many people who buy artwork from artists direct or dealers/reps, now ask for receipts to at least prove the acquisition was believed to be legitimate on the buyer's end and that there is a paper trail from whom the piece was secured and subsequently released to the buyer.

 

That's a step closer to having property ownership rights, having some sort of proof and removing hearsay as best possible.

 

 

[NelsonAI]

 

Standard industry practice for that time period also factors in. If you go back to the 1930's and 1940's, art was often recycled for the paper (and acetate for animation cels). It was rare for an artist to receive any art back.

 

In the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's, recycling was less of an issue but the art was still retained by the publishers. Not just in comics but publishing in general. I am assuming that the originals were probably kept by publishers in case they needed to reprint something. Otherwise, why spend $ for storage and warehousing? It would have been easier and cheaper to throw the art away or give it away. Presumably, this is what happened to some of the art.

 

I am also assuming that once the technology for photostats improved, they could reprint from photostats and no longer needed the originals. This may have opened the door for publishers saying, okay if the artists want the art back, let them have it. The industry practice changed over time.

 

A possible offset from a publisher's viewpoint may be looking the other way when an artist sells commissions of copyrighted characters at conventions. There are plenty of commissions by Kirby, Adams, etc. across all eras.

 

Just my thoughts and assumptions.

 

Cheers!

N.

 

 

[bluechip]

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"

Not a fan of the Koch Brothers. Sorry. You guessed. And got it wrong.

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.

That's correct, sort of. Some people do not think there should be any non-private assets (see: property rights, very much ON-Topic), and among those that do think there should be some public assets, what they should be, how much should be paid for them, how they are paid for and supported in an ongoing way...all open to much debate. So what? Getting even more ON-Topic, some believe "art" should be public. All of it. Including your collection. Too (culturally) valuable to be privately held. Ready to give it up? If not...then you're on the slippery slope of individual property rights. Don't worry: we are here to help you with this

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.

So what? Plenty on this board and the entirety of the internet that may run into this thread down the road that...(surprise!) may transact outside the USA and/or do not live in the USA. You know, perhaps places where royalts rights are law? I'm one of them and have paid for items won from UK and EU auction houses. The discussion is for them and me too (can't we all just share?)

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

According to you those are the issues. I disagree and wouldn't want to be limited to the limited world you live in. Sorry my mind is at work outside the box

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.

Factually incorrect ("wider gap"), I'll refer you offsite to http://www.garynorth.com/public/15056.cfm re: Pareto's Distribution as I don't think anybody else much cares about this sidebar you and I are having to begin with.

 

Voodou, prior to your socialism/communism comments, nobody on this board that I saw came within a mile of saying that original comic art was or should be public property whether or not the artist or the owner wants it to be.

 

Raising that notion here doesn't make it pertinent to the discussion. The fact is you sought a way to inject a political argument into the discussion of resale rights in comic art.

 

You have done this before. You have got a hard-on for the issue of "socialism/communism" as you see it and you have been trying to insert it into discussions where it's not appropriate.

 

It is clear that you want to engage in discussion about it and sway people to your point of view.

 

And there is nothing wrong with that, except it is not supposed to be done on this board.

 

 

 

 

[bluechip]

I thought I was visiting the CGC OA discussion board, but I seem to have wandered into Zero Hedge. Can someone direct me to the discussion of OA?

 

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.

Factually incorrect ("wider gap"), I'll refer you offsite to http://www.garynorth.com/public/15056.cfm re: Pareto's Distribution as I don't think anybody else much cares about this sidebar you and I are having to begin with.

If you're going to continue to inject your politically motivated economic theories into discussions, you have to expect that people will continue to refute them.

 

Trying to recover this discussion from Vodou's warnings that The Communists Are Coming For Your Art, here is a question: Some will say that owners of art are in truth curators of that art (since hopefully the art will live long beyond the "owner"). There are expectations that people will not paint over the Mona Lisa (adding their own image, for example) or burn the art. Now, artists editions have made OA available to many who would never otherwise see the art. So what of an owner of OA who refuses to make their art available for an artists edition?

 

Here's another example: Putting back together a story that has been broken up. Economically this is obviously lunacy. Some may do it out of love for the original story, but the likelihood is that the story will get broken up again when they pass on (there's been plenty of discussion of where the art is going when the owner is dead). People who do this may feel a "higher purpose" toward the art, that it's up to someone else to pick up the baton (by keeping the art together) when they're gone. Again, this idea of curatorship rather than ownership.

Nonsense at the beginning (OP and all that follow are re: Property Rights pertaining to OA, so there's your OA discussion right htere), but I appreciate the second half of your post.

 

Many collectors consider themselves temporary curators, more than 'owners' (as consumers of products do), myself included. As Gene has suggested many times in the past, most of today's collectors will sell through most of their collections over the next thirty years. It's unlikely they will be donated to institutions or passed down inter-generationally intact. So we own these things for a season or two (of a sort), then try to pass them on in the condition we received them (for hopefully a few bucks more!) and life goes on. Sounds a lot like temporary curation doesn't it?

 

(And btw anybody assuming they know my personal moral/political/yaddayadda positions on anything I haven't explicitly stated as such - expect yourself to be quite wrong. Friend to the Koch Brothers, Red Scare, etc... lol . I much play at Devil's Advocate here on the Board! Further I'm human, and as such allow for myself to be conflicted, contrary, wrong today and right tomorrow, and vice versa - I do change my mind and am always learning and refining my thoughts.)

 

Pretty much all the OA we talk about here everyday will live beyond any of us active today, probably our kids and grandkids too, short of fires and earthquakes taking out large collections. Those inked bristol boards if cared for should be good for several hundred years. Or more.

 

So yeah one of the basic questions I thought would be good to look at in here is: "what does it mean to say we 'own' something (property rights) when we do not consume or discard (landfill) it during our lifetimes?" Maybe we really don't "own" the art. (Much like "land"?) And if not, then who does (the artist, perpetually as IP?, even after the physical object ceases) or everybody as cultural/society? What about 'bad' art, that which almost nobody cares for or about (today, ever?) but may in the future. Even the stuff most of us whine about that 'pollutes' CAF and eBay, the endless pin-ups of comic characters of varying 'adult' presentations by artists of little/no reputation? Is that art? How will future society judge our curatorship (taking that as an assumption to begin with) where so much 'art' was actually maligned, mistreated, ignored, ultimately...non-curated! I think that's at least interesting to consider, as a mental exercise.

 

I don't know...I'm still working this stuff out for myself and am always interested in reading many sides of an 'argument' not just the one I lean towards or it's carefully crafted polar opposite.

 

You and the guy before you made interesting points and raised interesting notions. I would not call that politics, but I would respect it if the board mods said it was an therefore disallowed it.

 

You touched on my basic point. Any discussion of collectibles could be called tengentially relevant to a discussion of property rights, and voodou is effectively taking that to mean that any discussion of collectibles therefore opens the gate to go on a rant (or slip in a subliminal "lesson") about the country is being taken over by the commies.

 

If voodou's interpretation is correct then any ban on politics here would be completely useless, because he or anyone else can say whatever they want and say that all talk about property rights, therefore nothing I say is about politics.

 

If you wanna say that should include my own joke about a cabinet position related to collectibles, then fine. I've already said that I accept it if you believe that should also be avoided here. So I'll repeat that now but I think that closes the issue in that regard. Just as it would close the issue if voodou said from now on he won't inject right wing quotes on this board.

 

The coming years will be very divisive politically. This needs to be a place where people can come and argue vehemently about lesser things.

 

People say things here that I consider strange. People sometimes talk about comic art or comic books as if the collectibles themselves have rights above and beyond the rights of their owners. That, to me, is strange. But it's an acceptable notion to discuss here.. --- so long as you don't tie the argument to some larger political philosophy and use it as a political soapbox.

 

[Bronty]

I thought I was visiting the CGC OA discussion board, but I seem to have wandered into Zero Hedge. Can someone direct me to the discussion of OA?

 

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.

Factually incorrect ("wider gap"), I'll refer you offsite to http://www.garynorth.com/public/15056.cfm re: Pareto's Distribution as I don't think anybody else much cares about this sidebar you and I are having to begin with.

If you're going to continue to inject your politically motivated economic theories into discussions, you have to expect that people will continue to refute them.

 

Trying to recover this discussion from Vodou's warnings that The Communists Are Coming For Your Art, here is a question: Some will say that owners of art are in truth curators of that art (since hopefully the art will live long beyond the "owner"). There are expectations that people will not paint over the Mona Lisa (adding their own image, for example) or burn the art. Now, artists editions have made OA available to many who would never otherwise see the art. So what of an owner of OA who refuses to make their art available for an artists edition?

 

Here's another example: Putting back together a story that has been broken up. Economically this is obviously lunacy. Some may do it out of love for the original story, but the likelihood is that the story will get broken up again when they pass on (there's been plenty of discussion of where the art is going when the owner is dead). People who do this may feel a "higher purpose" toward the art, that it's up to someone else to pick up the baton (by keeping the art together) when they're gone. Again, this idea of curatorship rather than ownership.

Nonsense at the beginning (OP and all that follow are re: Property Rights pertaining to OA, so there's your OA discussion right htere), but I appreciate the second half of your post.

 

Many collectors consider themselves temporary curators, more than 'owners' (as consumers of products do), myself included. As Gene has suggested many times in the past, most of today's collectors will sell through most of their collections over the next thirty years. It's unlikely they will be donated to institutions or passed down inter-generationally intact. So we own these things for a season or two (of a sort), then try to pass them on in the condition we received them (for hopefully a few bucks more!) and life goes on. Sounds a lot like temporary curation doesn't it?

 

(And btw anybody assuming they know my personal moral/political/yaddayadda positions on anything I haven't explicitly stated as such - expect yourself to be quite wrong. Friend to the Koch Brothers, Red Scare, etc... lol . I much play at Devil's Advocate here on the Board! Further I'm human, and as such allow for myself to be conflicted, contrary, wrong today and right tomorrow, and vice versa - I do change my mind and am always learning and refining my thoughts.)

 

Pretty much all the OA we talk about here everyday will live beyond any of us active today, probably our kids and grandkids too, short of fires and earthquakes taking out large collections. Those inked bristol boards if cared for should be good for several hundred years. Or more.

 

So yeah one of the basic questions I thought would be good to look at in here is: "what does it mean to say we 'own' something (property rights) when we do not consume or discard (landfill) it during our lifetimes?" Maybe we really don't "own" the art. (Much like "land"?) And if not, then who does (the artist, perpetually as IP?, even after the physical object ceases) or everybody as cultural/society? What about 'bad' art, that which almost nobody cares for or about (today, ever?) but may in the future. Even the stuff most of us whine about that 'pollutes' CAF and eBay, the endless pin-ups of comic characters of varying 'adult' presentations by artists of little/no reputation? Is that art? How will future society judge our curatorship (taking that as an assumption to begin with) where so much 'art' was actually maligned, mistreated, ignored, ultimately...non-curated! I think that's at least interesting to consider, as a mental exercise.

 

I don't know...I'm still working this stuff out for myself and am always interested in reading many sides of an 'argument' not just the one I lean towards or it's carefully crafted polar opposite.

 

You and the guy before you made interesting points and raised interesting notions. I would not call that politics, but I would respect it if the board mods said it was an therefore disallowed it.

 

You touched on my basic point. Any discussion of collectibles could be called tengentially relevant to a discussion of property rights, and voodou is effectively taking that to mean that any discussion of collectibles therefore opens the gate to go on a rant (or slip in a subliminal "lesson") about the country is being taken over by the commies.

 

If voodou's interpretation is correct then any ban on politics here would be completely useless, because he or anyone else can say whatever they want and say that all talk about property rights, therefore nothing I say is about politics.

 

If you wanna say that should include my own joke about a cabinet position related to collectibles, then fine. I've already said that I accept it if you believe that should also be avoided here. So I'll repeat that now but I think that closes the issue in that regard. Just as it would close the issue if voodou said from now on he won't inject right wing quotes on this board.

 

The coming years will be very divisive politically. This needs to be a place where people can come and argue vehemently about lesser things.

 

People say things here that I consider strange. People sometimes talk about comic art or comic books as if the collectibles themselves have rights above and beyond the rights of their owners. That, to me, is strange. But it's an acceptable notion to discuss here.. --- so long as you don't tie the argument to some larger political philosophy and use it as a political soapbox.

 

You post the same thing five times saying he can't let something go? Pot meet kettle.

[vodou]

Voodou, prior to your socialism/communism comments, nobody on this board that I saw came within a mile of saying that original comic art was or should be public property whether or not the artist or the owner wants it to be.

 

Raising that notion here doesn't make it pertinent to the discussion. The fact is you sought a way to inject a political argument into the discussion of resale rights in comic art.

 

You have done this before. You have got a hard-on for the issue of "socialism/communism" as you see it and you have been trying to insert it into discussions where it's not appropriate.

 

It is clear that you want to engage in discussion about it and sway people to your point of view.

 

And there is nothing wrong with that, except it is not supposed to be done on this board.

I had a feeling you were carrying around some ancient baggage about me and/or my previous postings, because there really just wasn't enough meat on the bone -this time- to get anybody, but you, that upset. Thanks for confirming. Who are you really, real-world? I wonder if I've wronged you in other ways that I'm not currently aware of -maybe that's something we should discuss too?

 

I'll ask nicely - maybe you could let bygones be bygones? I'm really not trying to do what you are suggesting. Not this time anyway. I too am burned out on political talk and agree this is a nice place to get away from it (I posted as much a few weeks back, check my history if you care to). Not just right now, but always, I'm all in favor of keeping it that way.

 

I think (as much as possible) apolitical conversation about the full range of "property rights" for all concerned parties is interesting and important both from a big art world perspective and then how it may trickle down to our world, especially as some of us think the art is more collectible (as a side-line to collecting comics and related ephemera) while others are pushing hard for it to be "art", probably the artists are there too, and depending on which way that discussion goes long term...may have real impact on how we transact in the future and how our existing collections are treated later, in so many ways. As "collectibles" it's one thing, as "art" it's potentially another, including re-sale royalties (or whatever one wants to call the) back to the artist, culturally important designations, etc.

 

Just because nobody IS talking about it (the Topic), I don't think that means nobody should. Or at least that it shouldn't be brought up. But yeah, if it's just me and you batting back and forth and no other participation...well no need to clutter up the Board with that either. We can take it to PMs or not, if there's no interest or nothing further to say.

[Bronty]

Just because nobody IS talking about it (the Topic), I don't think that means nobody should. Or at least that it shouldn't be brought up. But yeah, if it's just me and you batting back and forth and no other participation...well no need to clutter up the Board with that either. We can take it to PMs or not, if there's no interest or nothing further to say.

 

I think its interesting stuff I just don't have a lot to add because as you've outlined really well, there are a few different paths this could go down, all of which of seems so uncertain that the discussion seems largely academic at this point.

 

For my value system, if someone sells me physical art I should be able to do anything with it... kiss it, hug it, even burn it. Now.. I would have no reason to ever do so, but I should be able to if I really like. (Never would). I don't see us as temporary caretakers but as absolute owners. De facto temporary caretakers, perhaps, since we all (or our estates) will sell eventually as you said.. but only temporary caretakers in that de facto sense (because selling is what we probably will do but not what we HAVE to do). In an absolute sense there should be no restrictions on what I can do with the physical object, IMO. Hang it with pride or use it for TP, its all game... that's what I paid for.

 

I never owned or paid for the reproduction rights so I would have no rights to limit reproduction, but no obligation to make the image available if the image rights owner didn't have a suitable file, either.

 

And from that view of rights, I find even the suggestion of someone else having a cut (of the rewards only and not the costs and risks) completely offensive.

[vodou]

For my value system, if someone sells me physical art I should be able to do anything with it... kiss it, hug it, even burn it. Now.. I would have no reason to ever do so, but I should be able to if I really like. (Never would). I don't see us as temporary caretakers but as absolute owners. De facto temporary caretakers, perhaps, since we all (or our estates) will sell eventually as you said.. but only in that de facto sense. In an absolute sense there should be no restrictions on what I can do with the physical object, IMO.

I think your position is that which most comic OA collectors would take. Maybe not Bird (Sean!) I've always collected at the edge of comic OA and fine art, so the first I heard of another pov was from Jeff Jones, maybe late 90s? He had a fine art pov that there are moral rights that an artist retains post-sale of the physical object. One of them is "no mutilation or destruction allowed", another was "no cutting down big boards with large borders or off-center images" (neither are actual quotes, more paraphrases). His position was the collector should never suppose to 'know' the art better than the actual artist! When presented that way, I had to agree!! But then the internal conflict begins and here we are nearly twenty years later, I really can argue either side quite well...I emphasize with both. All fine in the abstract (as a mental or academic exercise) but these things are being discussed very seriously in the fine art world and those artists that ride the line, the Jeff Jones of today (McKean, Pratt, Hampton, et al) would tend to favor that over the traditional collectibles/collector pov. So it's not totally academic. Anyway, I am interested in other voices than my own and the best way to hear them is to ask. That's what I've been about here, along with giving some push back and trying to advance the conversation...

[vodou]

And from that view of rights, I find even the suggestion of someone else having a cut (of the rewards only and not the costs and risks) completely offensive.

The genesis of this concept, best that I know, came out of the 1973 Scull auction where Robert Rauschenberg felt wronged by the numbers his pieces were pulling down, not to his benefit.

http://www.artmarketmonitor.com/2014/09/02/the-famous-rauschenberg-scull-shoving-match-didnt-go-down-the-way-you-think-it-did/

 

John Byrne has made comments on his board that he would be in favor of it for comic art. Probably others too, JB is the only one I can think of atm. Oh and of course there's the BWS TAR.

 

 

[drdroom]

For my value system, if someone sells me physical art I should be able to do anything with it... kiss it, hug it, even burn it. Now.. I would have no reason to ever do so, but I should be able to if I really like. (Never would). I don't see us as temporary caretakers but as absolute owners. De facto temporary caretakers, perhaps, since we all (or our estates) will sell eventually as you said.. but only temporary caretakers in that de facto sense (because selling is what we probably will do but not what we HAVE to do). In an absolute sense there should be no restrictions on what I can do with the physical object, IMO. Hang it with pride or use it for TP, its all game... that's what I paid for.

 

Can't go that far! I REVERE the artists I collect, especially Kirby, and I feel a responsibility to caretake the work for future generations. Now, if I collected Boris, for example, I can see where a person might feel differently...

 

[Bronty]

 

Good line, although I don't think you NEED to caretake... just SHOULD... reverence (or not) for artists notwithstanding- there's a difference