The rising popularity of original art reproduction prints 2 2

[Mr. Machismo]

Lately I’ve been seeing a lot of giclées printed on 11x17” artboard, in an effort to reproduce the original art as closely as possible. Capullo’s inker Glapion seems to have recently popularized this among certain artists and reps, upping the print game at conventions considerably. The average person will often mistake these for the originals.

One example of an artist doing this is Scott Williams with the Batman 50 cover and splash, albeit on larger paper. 

Marquees are sometimes added. 

Someone messaged me on CAF the other day saying I owned his favourite page in comics, and expressed his interest even to own a print of the original art (to simulate the real thing.)

A collector friend of mine with a sizeable collection has also mentioned framing reproductions and storing away the originals.  

While I dislike the idea of someone owning a near-indistinguishable reproduction (at least from wall-viewing distance) or displaying a repro, I do see the benefit of allowing an accessible entry-point to the hobby which also acts to educate the typical reader to the existence of original art. Will it bring in new collectors, increase the circulation of counterfeits, create a niche corner of the hobby which crosses prints with originals, or...?

What do you all think?

To clarify: I’m not talking about digital art being printed, I’m talking about traditional art being reproduced digitally. 

Edited October 8, 2018 by Mr. Machismo

[MagnusX]

There is a lot of that on Ebay,
and sadly now with some artists

Its looks more like a con effort
focus on newbies or uneducated collectors...

Production Art
Original proof
Comic Book Production Art Page
Production Cel
Production drawing

 

[PhilipB2k17]

The amount of ignorance about OA, even among comic collectors is amazing. I visited a pretty well-known comic shop recently where they had a lot of OA gallery and artists editions for sale. One was an EC edition, which they had on sale and I looked through. I talked about the art with one of the shop clerks and they were surprised to know that this art was reproduced for the book at actual size. They assumed it was blown up or something. 

 

Edited October 8, 2018 by PhilipB2k17

[JadeGiant]

I have to admit that the idea of cutting up an artist edition to have some wall hangers of art I don’t have access to has crossed my mind. I didn’t but not because I thought it was “wrong” but rather just never decided to do it. I am really surprised we haven't seen more of a proliferation of this at shows and more likely on eBay. I can’t believe that all the eBay sellers churning out all the “production” art haven’t done this already.

Edited October 8, 2018 by JadeGiant

[delekkerste]

22 minutes ago, JadeGiant said:

I have to admit that the idea of cutting up an artist edition to have some wall hangers of art I don’t have access to has crossed my mind. I didn’t but not because I thought it was “wrong” but rather just never decided to do it.

Yeah, I bought an extra copy of the Gil Kane ASM Artist Edition for that purpose, but, ended up shelving the idea.  Easy enough to just flip through the book to see the art instead. 

[Pete Marino]

I had a similar issue a few years ago with RPG art.

The artist did high quality prints of his art that he'd throw in as freebies to fans.  Apparently 1 fan thought that he threw in like 10 extra originals for free () and started questioning the authenticity of my art when i was selling it since he was given that original as a gift 10 years ago.  It was so crazy I wound up having to get the artist to pop into my sales thread directly to say that he had given the guy prints and I had the original.  In this case it was pretty easy to figure out as the art was done on duo-tone board, and the print was just on thick cardstock.  But it can show you an uninformed customer base can cause a lot of issues down the road unless the prints are clearly labeled as so on the front or back.

[chico_suave_58]

I think art prints serve a couple of different purposes for the informed buyer. First, it is an additional revenue stream for the artist (1:200 at $100 per less printing costs is a nice chunk of change). Second, it allows budget-constrained collectors to participate in this increasingly expensive hobby (e.g. OA piece at $10k vs 1:200 print at $100).

This can be analogous to the fine art realm where the artist has sanctioned art prints/multiples of very popular pieces (and are clearly signed & numbered). Not meaning to plug Heritage, but as an example, HA have a print/multiple auction ending later this month.

My $0.02...

Edited October 8, 2018 by chico_suave_58

[Peter L]

1 hour ago, chico_suave_58 said:

I think art prints serve a couple of different purposes for the informed buyer. First, it is an additional revenue stream for the artist (1:200 at $100 per less printing costs is a nice chunk of change). Second, it allows budget-constrained collectors to participate in this increasingly expensive hobby (e.g. OA piece at $10k vs 1:200 print at $100).

This can be analogous to the fine art realm where the artist has sanctioned art prints/multiples of very popular pieces (and are clearly signed & numbered). Not meaning to plug Heritage, but as an example, HA have a print/multiple auction ending later this month.

My $0.02...

Also I will be more inclined to hang and frame a colored visually nice artwork rather than a black and white pen and ink original art.  

[RB3]

Question about prints.  If I own a piece of OA and I'm not an artist of the piece, just own the OA, can I make prints to sell them?

[Pete Marino]

1 minute ago, RB3 said:

Question about prints.  If I own a piece of OA and I'm not an artist of the piece, just own the OA, can I make prints to sell them?

it's weird, this is a question i've seen a bunch of times of late.

the answer is no.  You own the art, not the reproduction rights.

if you want the reproduction rights, you'd have to purchase them separately from the entity that owns them.  If it's art from the big 2, that means buying the rights to reproduce the image from WB or Disney.

[ExNihilo]

3 minutes ago, RB3 said:

Question about prints.  If I own a piece of OA and I'm not an artist of the piece, just own the OA, can I make prints to sell them?

The answer to that is a resounding no.  The creator or publisher still owns all rights to that character.  I have an original piece penciled by Ron Lim and wanted to shrink it down and print a postcard sized copy to leave on my desk and Kinko's wouldn't do it due to copyright laws.

Regarding the subject of OP's post, as an owner of several said prints (including the Batman 50 cover/splash), I personally like it as it allows me to own and showcase art that I like.  I would obviously prefer the uniqueness of the original art, but I am in no position financially to spend $10k+ on those pieces.  The high quality giclee prints and what not definitely fill a niche in the market and for that I'm appreciative. 

[NelsonAI]

A few years ago, some dirt bag reproduced a stack of art by Mark Brooks and wanted him to autograph each one.  Mark refused to sign because they were unauthorized prints that the guy was planning to sell on eBay.  The dbag was actually arguing with Mark about it.

I used to watermark a lot of my art on CAF to prevent people from making unauthorized prints.

If you want an autographed print or high end giclee ( high resolution ink jet or painted canvas print), buy direct from the artist.

Cheers!

N.

 

Edited October 8, 2018 by NelsonAI
Typos

[timguerrero]

This is something that should worry Original Art Collectors as you might not be able to tell from an ebay auction if what you are purchasing is really Original Art or a print. I live outside the USA and sometimes OA gets sent to a friends house and I don't get it until 3 onths later to a year thus making it impossible for me to file a claim after such a long time since purchase has passed. Needless to say another thing to worry about when purchasing OA.

[NelsonAI]

Btw - Warner Bros.' stores was doing this for years.  The store, which was also a subsidiary of Time Warner, commissioned DC artists like Bruce Timm, Alex Ross, and Jim Lee to do pin-ups which were monetized by selling limited edition giclees.  When those sold out, limited edition artist proofs were sold.

Alex Ross was smart enough to replicate the business model without Warner Bros.

Everyone else has been catching up.

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by NelsonAI
Typos

[cstojano]

Been meaning to ask if the TSR artist reprints (CC, LE, KP) are worth the money. 200-300 for a Keith Parkinson giclee seems high, but then the art will never, ever, ever grace my walls now will it.

[Carlo M]

Definitely an interesting topic.  In general, a proliferation of high quality scans of OA would be a danger to the hobby.  I guess vintage OA can always be recognised in person, but the risk for online acquisitions would be there.

On the other hand, I do see the attraction to being able to enjoy visually a great piece of OA, otherwise unachievable, in a high quality scan.  I have also thought about buying spare copies of AE books to take ou a couple of prints.  The Jack Kirby Thor and FF large include some stunning splashes and covers that would display wonderfully on a wall (have you seen the double sized Doom pin-up in the FF AE?).

Also, one can play around with prints.  I have a great cover that I did not want to display to protect it from sunlight.  So I had a high resolution scan made, had it cleaned from all the imperfections, and had it printed in shining B&W on a massive aluminium sheet (approx 60x40) and had it hung in my study,.  It is so impressive. Obviously the experience of looking at it is a different experience from looking at the original cover, with all its imperfections, in my portfolio.  But both are greatly satisfying.

I have also toyed with the idea of playing Lichtenstein with some of my interiors, exploding some interesting panels, or creating collages of different images. Have not got around to doing it but will probably experiment a bit in the future.

So I don't think buying / creating prints necessarily needs to be frowned upon, just a different way of enjoying our hobby, IMHO.

 

Carlo

[Rick2you2]

On 10/8/2018 at 4:22 PM, Pete Marino said:

it's weird, this is a question i've seen a bunch of times of late.

the answer is no.  You own the art, not the reproduction rights.

if you want the reproduction rights, you'd have to purchase them separately from the entity that owns them.  If it's art from the big 2, that means buying the rights to reproduce the image from WB or Disney.

Agreed

[Rick2you2]

15 hours ago, Carlo M said:

Also, one can play around with prints.  I have a great cover that I did not want to display to protect it from sunlight.  So I had a high resolution scan made, had it cleaned from all the imperfections, and had it printed in shining B&W on a massive aluminium sheet (approx 60x40) and had it hung in my study,.  It is so impressive. Obviously the experience of looking at it is a different experience from looking at the original cover, with all its imperfections, in my portfolio.  But both are greatly satisfying.

I did a cheaper version. I just printed some images on the office copier on ledger paper and leave them around to casually look at. I have pet birds which will chew or dump on anything.I go to the originals, safely tucket away, when I want to really look at them. The birds know when not to bother me. 

[rogue14]

In essence we cannot make copies of art that we do not have the rights to reproduce? I’d think making a photocopy of an image just for personal use would be ok. Surprised kinkos didn’t allow this. 

I’d agree that keeping the OA in safe keeping and a reprint for showing is ideal.

Edited October 9, 2018 by rogue14
Spelling

[Michael Browning]

3 hours ago, rogue14 said:

In essence we cannot make copies of art that we do not have the rights to reproduce? I’d think making a photocopy of an image just for personal use would be ok. Surprised kinkos didn’t allow this. 

I’d agree that keeping the OA in safe keeping and a reprint for showing is ideal.

No, copyright law doesn't cover you making a photocopy for personal use and Kinko's won't allow you to make a print at their shop without an authorization form from the company that owns the actual image.