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

[drdroom]

 

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

 

Yes, I'm not asserting a legal responsibility.

[Bird]

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!) .

 

Nope, I got no problem with any of that. I own my stuff. I erased some stuff once upon a time even. But I would be open to negotiating some stuff, such as right to exhibit.

 

Simply put, I feel the artist drives the value and should share the reward. It is no work to buy, hold, and sell and takes little talent...cut in the creator for just a little bit. (10% of profit seems very very fair to me.) The source of the art is the talent, not the ability to buy it.

[vodou]

What about the Viking Funeral aspect? It's extreme, everybody jokes about it, probably none will do it...but the artists...I bet that would bum them out, even though they were paid FMV at pop or even just the day before a collector's heart attack.

[SquareChaos]

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!) .

 

Nope, I got no problem with any of that. I own my stuff. I erased some stuff once upon a time even. But I would be open to negotiating some stuff, such as right to exhibit.

 

Simply put, I feel the artist drives the value and should share the reward. It is no work to buy, hold, and sell and takes little talent...cut in the creator for just a little bit. (10% of profit seems very very fair to me.) The source of the art is the talent, not the ability to buy it.

 

What if you sell for less than you paid - will the artist make up the difference? If they drive the value such as your describe, are they responsible for my loss? Or am I just out of luck because I overpaid?

 

Such a system is a recipe for litigious disaster.

[Bird]

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!) .

 

Nope, I got no problem with any of that. I own my stuff. I erased some stuff once upon a time even. But I would be open to negotiating some stuff, such as right to exhibit.

 

Simply put, I feel the artist drives the value and should share the reward. It is no work to buy, hold, and sell and takes little talent...cut in the creator for just a little bit. (10% of profit seems very very fair to me.) The source of the art is the talent, not the ability to buy it.

 

What if you sell for less than you paid - will the artist make up the difference? If they drive the value such as your describe, are they responsible for my loss? Or am I just out of luck because I overpaid?

 

Such a system is a recipe for litigious disaster.

 

Well, you have to make good decisions. Not all appreciates in value, no. But you make that decision. the art drives value, yes...bad decisions and bad art drive financial loss.

 

What I support is a collaboration and a royalty when art appreciates in value. Depreciation is another discussion, but no, you would not be entitled to a clawback based on past values and your own decisions made independent of the artist when selling.

[SquareChaos]

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!) .

 

Nope, I got no problem with any of that. I own my stuff. I erased some stuff once upon a time even. But I would be open to negotiating some stuff, such as right to exhibit.

 

Simply put, I feel the artist drives the value and should share the reward. It is no work to buy, hold, and sell and takes little talent...cut in the creator for just a little bit. (10% of profit seems very very fair to me.) The source of the art is the talent, not the ability to buy it.

 

What if you sell for less than you paid - will the artist make up the difference? If they drive the value such as your describe, are they responsible for my loss? Or am I just out of luck because I overpaid?

 

Such a system is a recipe for litigious disaster.

 

Well, you have to make good decisions. Not all appreciates in value, no. But you make that decision. the art drives value, yes...bad decisions and bad art drive financial loss.

 

What I support is a collaboration and a royalty when art appreciates in value. Depreciation is another discussion, but no, you would not be entitled to a clawback based on past values and your own decisions made independent of the artist when selling.

 

What about intellectual property? The artist in many instances would have created their art using characters owned by corporations. Would Marvel on DC be entitled to a cut of a secondary market sell of an image of Spider-Man or Superman? If not, why not? If so, how much of the 10%? What about the inker, letterer, editor, or other collaborators? What if some of the characters used were initially created by other artists that did not work on the particular piece in question - are they entitled to anything? Finally, what about the writer that originally may have envisioned the image in the first place, do they get a cut, or is this strictly limited to the visual arts side of the equation?

 

 

I think a voluntary donation to an artist following such a sell would be a neat thing, but attempting to write laws around it seems like folly to me.

[Bronty]

well said. Its a slippery slope and that's why you need hard lines.

 

which is no doubt why Marvel never settled with Jack during his life. Give some to Jack, then what? Everyone in the whole building wants a piece.

[Bird]

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!) .

 

Nope, I got no problem with any of that. I own my stuff. I erased some stuff once upon a time even. But I would be open to negotiating some stuff, such as right to exhibit.

 

Simply put, I feel the artist drives the value and should share the reward. It is no work to buy, hold, and sell and takes little talent...cut in the creator for just a little bit. (10% of profit seems very very fair to me.) The source of the art is the talent, not the ability to buy it.

 

What if you sell for less than you paid - will the artist make up the difference? If they drive the value such as your describe, are they responsible for my loss? Or am I just out of luck because I overpaid?

 

Such a system is a recipe for litigious disaster.

 

Well, you have to make good decisions. Not all appreciates in value, no. But you make that decision. the art drives value, yes...bad decisions and bad art drive financial loss.

 

What I support is a collaboration and a royalty when art appreciates in value. Depreciation is another discussion, but no, you would not be entitled to a clawback based on past values and your own decisions made independent of the artist when selling.

 

What about intellectual property? The artist in many instances would have created their art using characters owned by corporations. Would Marvel on DC be entitled to a cut of a secondary market sell of an image of Spider-Man or Superman? If not, why not? If so, how much of the 10%? What about the inker, letterer, editor, or other collaborators? What if some of the characters used were initially created by other artists that did not work on the particular piece in question - are they entitled to anything? Finally, what about the writer that originally may have envisioned the image in the first place, do they get a cut, or is this strictly limited to the visual arts side of the equation?

 

 

I think a voluntary donation to an artist following such a sell would be a neat thing, but attempting to write laws around it seems like folly to me.

Rights are handled when the art is initially distributed/returned already, so that would stay in my mind. Or they can negotiate accordingly. Production are would need hard rules yes. Not hard to make though. BWS has never asked me to sign a TAR, but he only uses that in cases where he has the IP rights if I understand correctly. It is much cleaner that way obviously. (I have BWS Storyteller art which he owns I believe, but no TAR requests.)