AquaLung Album Art
0

28 posts in this topic

7,868 posts
Just now, Bronty said:

FYI in case you don’t know  illustrators painted themselves into works for hire all the time.    All the time.   No cheaper models then you, your kids, friends, and neighbors.    Changes zero. 

I agree, it seems WFH. I didn't like that this claim was made but never put to the people involved and they were castigated for what the artist's son assumes their reaction would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,726 posts
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Who cares if it’s his likeness or that if mother teresa’s?   I don’t care if it’s a picture of the artists azzcheeks.   ;) The reproduction rights belonged to the band irrespective of whose face it was

In case you missed it from the article, and why it was referenced here, douchenozzle band member claimed:

"Using his corporate stationary and in a haughty tone, Anderson said any dispute regarding royalties and the rights to the artwork were between dad and Ellis. He also doubted that Ellis would fail to spell out future rights in a written contract (he did), yet again insisted falsely that dad modeled the figure on the front and back cover after him, and suggested dad could not “legally hold copyrights in an artistic representation of a real person.

An artist can maintain the copyright for a representation of another human being, famous or not. But Anderson’s sense of entitlement in the letter, the combination of grandiosity and the instistance on false claims, plus his side hustle selling autographed lithographs — bearing Anderson’s signature, to be clear, not dad’s — on the cover still bugs dad to no end.

Edited by comicwiz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,942 posts
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

In case you missed it from the article, douchenozzle band member wrote:

"Using his corporate stationary and in a haughty tone, Anderson said any dispute regarding royalties and the rights to the artwork were between dad and Ellis. He also doubted that Ellis would fail to spell out future rights in a written contract (he did), yet again insisted falsely that dad modeled the figure on the front and back cover after him, and suggested dad could not “legally hold copyrights in an artistic representation of a real person.”

Who.  Cares.   He. Was. Paid. For. The.   Painting.   ;)

And the right to reproduce it.     

Someone's lies or omissions about an aspect of a painting don't generally change the ownership of the rights to reproduce that painting.   And the ownership of reproduction rights never belonged to the artist.    Ask yourself.    If I lie to him and say my eyes are bright orange, does that mean my eyes belong to him?  :boo:  If you lie to him and tell him you live in a brown house when you live in a red house, does he now own your house?     

Lying about something does not imply your loss of ownership.    Things don't work that way.    Whether or not he lied about who it was a picture of is totally irrelevant to the question of ownership of reproduction rights.  

Edited by Bronty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,942 posts
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

selling autographed lithographs — bearing Anderson’s signature, to be clear, not dad’s — 

That gripe I can fully understand.   He should at least have been afforded the opportunity to provide his real signature.   But that's a side discussion; the crux is ownership of reproduction rights.   

(Btw, I suspect that had he politely asked Anderson to be able to provide his real signature - that wish would have been granted?   But that wasn't the discussion nor the real issue, was it?   The real issue was/is money. )

Edited by Bronty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,977 posts

As to reproduction rights, I know 1 rpg publisher to save money just gets the rights to use the art in a specific product it's created for, so if they want to use it again, they need to enter into a new contract.  So, they don't give up full reproduction rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
952 posts
On 5/16/2018 at 7:01 PM, Bronty said:

Yeah.    What they want is a time machine to change what they agreed to (but only if it would benefit them).    Well I want a time machine too!

Time machine wouldn’t help them. 

The record company would take one look at that list of demands and find someone else to do the cover. 

Somewhere there is another artist who didn’t get that shot who given the same time machine would still take that job for the exposure it offered. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49,826 posts

Great point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20,824 posts
23 hours ago, buyatari said:

Time machine wouldn’t help them. 

The record company would take one look at that list of demands and find someone else to do the cover. 

Somewhere there is another artist who didn’t get that shot who given the same time machine would still take that job for the exposure it offered. 

Yup.  And the album would probably still have sold all 7 million copies that it has.  The merchandising revenue may have been less, depending on how the alternate reality cover turned out, but, I doubt the delta would have been that significant.  I think the value of the piece both in terms of the OA, and in terms of the associated merchandising revenue, is probably a lot, lot less than what is being implied by this article.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0