A couple of thoughts (I don't want to give myself a headache, so I'll limit my brain to just two for now)...
Thought #1: Original art should be first and foremost made for comic book reproduction. Meaning that the artwork should be made to look good on the comic book page. I've seen instances of art that looked very nice and detailed in the printed comic, but the original did not have the same sort of detail. On the flipside, I've seen original art where the reproduction did not do it justice. Sometimes poor printing is to blame and other times the responsibility lies elsewhere.
Thought #2: For original art (including sketches) that is resold for a net profit, some sort of percentage should be paid to the artist. I'm still deciding how I feel about money going to the artist's estate. Also unsure about this being in effect for various resellings of the art over numerous years.
The math for what is considered a net profit could be very tricky, as Hollywood proves on a daily basis. If we break it down into common sense, then it would be something along the lines of how long a reseller kept a piece (storage having a value) + any complimentary improvements the reseller made to the art such as complimentary framing - any other pieces of art the reseller may've sold at a loss by the same artist.
All of this leading up to me deciding to look for some original art. There are only a few artists I'm interested in and the art will be for nostalgia reasons more than anything. I plan to get something by JB, George Perez, Jose Garcia Lopez, Dick Dillin and Curt Swan. I haven't locked in on any pieces (except for one) yet. My goal is if I'm not buying the art directly from the artist (or their dealer) then I will send an extra percentage of what I pay to the artist (at least in the case of the living artists.)
Thought #2: For original art (including sketches) that is resold for a net profit, some sort of percentage should be paid to the artist. I'm still deciding how I feel about money going to the artist's estate. Also unsure about this being in effect for various resellings of the art over numerous years.
**********************
Legally, I believe this is in fact the case, tho I do not know of anyone who has invoked it in the case of comicbook original art, and I suspect the first time someone does (like if I asked for a piece of the $5000 that Wolverine page I sold for $35 went for. . . ) it would either destroy the marketplace, or drive it so far underground only Cave Carson would ever find it again.
We are, after all, working within a culture that has somehow trained people to think that not making as much money as they think they should have is the same as losing money.
Droit de suite provisions, which govern this sort of thing, were first established in France to help widows of artists who died during World War One. Several European countries have since adopted it.
As far as I know, there is no federal droit de suite legislation in the U.S., and the only state to have droit de suite legislation is California.
This message has been edited by HealthyColours on Apr 24, 2004 2:32 PM
"We are, after all, working within a culture that has somehow trained people to think that not making as much money as they think they should have is the same as losing money."
--
Well put. And not just true for the comics business. If droves of consumers decide one Christmas season that they don't really need to buy a dozen new pieces of plastic crap that'll fall apart after two days, then the manufacturers of plastic crap cry that they've had a "bad season," and that their profits have been "off." Then "consumer confidence" is considered "falling," the growth of the economy is "sluggish," and when enough consumers respond to this by buying even less crap that they don't need, then it's a "recession," and then they blame the president.
This oversimplification is provided by Mark Lerer Economic Forecasters. MLEF, "Where Thread Drift is our Hallmark."
Current Topic - Thoughts on comic book original art
