Is anyone here buying into monoprints 1 1

[ShallowDan]

11 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

The copyright granted by the Copyright Act is held by the creator, not the publisher. The creator, however, can assign, license  or sell whatever rights he/she has to the publisher, as I expect many of them do. So, if the artist chooses to break his promise and make more copies, he may be in breach of contract, but not in violation of the copyright laws. That could potentially be very different in terms of damages if someone wanted to sue.

I'm imagining a couple of different scenarios here (with the caveat that I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV):

- Creator-Owned title: I would see this following very closely to what you're describing.  The artist basically agrees to give the publisher the rights to publish the title, under whatever form that agreement might take.  In this scenario, I could see the artist retaining rights to sell prints (whether a mono-print, limited edition or open edition) of the art to collectors, and this right being exclusive to them.

- Publisher-Owned title: Here, I'm thinking of traditional work-for-hire under Marvel/DC.  In the past, the agreement was the the publisher retrained all copyright to the art, but the physical art itself was returned to the artist, who was then able to sell it to collectors.  This is the scenario I was alluding to above, where I could see an artist offering a exclusive mono-print of a cover, but having no ability to stop the publisher if they ever decided to license out the image to Mondo or publish their own exclusive/limited edition prints.   

[filmboyuk]

I think we're seeing a lot of convergence between the original art and the comic collecting markets, and mono prints ultimately form a mid-tier between the two - extremely high-priced collectables, but not as unique as hand-drawn / inked art. If that's right, it would explain why there is so much volatility in terms of the current pricing of mono prints. The comic collecting market right now is overheated, and I think we're seeing some of the spill-over from that in the monoprint market, especially around characters that have become desirable in the comic market (e.g. Punchline). $6k is an awful lot to pay for a very pretty monoprint, but if you've got an awful lot of money, maybe you just wouldn't notice - although in time you would expect the pricing of monoprints to roughly line up at a certain multiple of original art (e.g. 0.25x of what it would be worth if it was original art).

My view on the prospect of future printing is that it's a bit of a red herring. Getting as close as possible to having a truly "mono" print is ideal, both for collecting and for valuation. But, as with the general art and photography market, if there were to be other printings (if the publisher decided to do a run of prints as someone mentioned earlier in the thread) the earlier printings would not only retain their value, but arguably increase in value as their desirability was underscored by successive commercial print runs.

[Rick2you2]

10 minutes ago, ShallowDan said:

I'm imagining a couple of different scenarios here (with the caveat that I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV):

- Creator-Owned title: I would see this following very closely to what you're describing.  The artist basically agrees to give the publisher the rights to publish the title, under whatever form that agreement might take.  In this scenario, I could see the artist retaining rights to sell prints (whether a mono-print, limited edition or open edition) of the art to collectors, and this right being exclusive to them.

- Publisher-Owned title: Here, I'm thinking of traditional work-for-hire under Marvel/DC.  In the past, the agreement was the the publisher retrained all copyright to the art, but the physical art itself was returned to the artist, who was then able to sell it to collectors.  This is the scenario I was alluding to above, where I could see an artist offering a exclusive mono-print of a cover, but having no ability to stop the publisher if they ever decided to license out the image to Mondo or publish their own exclusive/limited edition prints.   

I am a lawyer, and I do know a little about the subject. Your second scenario was specifically changed by the Copyright Act of 1976. But, publishers can buy/take an assignment of rights for reproduction purposes (or anything else the creator agrees to sell).

[ShallowDan]

2 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

I am a lawyer, and I do know a little about the subject. Your second scenario was specifically changed by the Copyright Act of 1976. But, publishers can buy/take an assignment of rights for reproduction purposes (or anything else the creator agrees to sell).

Any idea of how the standard agreement with Marvel/DC reads?  I would imagine it grants sole reproduction rights to the publisher (or at least I'm having a hard time imagining them not insisting on this).  

Interestingly enough, that raises the question of whether the terms of their standard agreements even acknowledge / provide for artists to sell prints at all.  

For me, the entire subject is just one of academic interest, given how much digital technology has changed the process for all of the players. 

[vodou]

2 hours ago, Andahaion said:

I figure this hobby would talk if the vendor started breaking that agreement.  

That's definitely the most buyer-friendly aspect: reputational damage risk on the part of artist and dealer.

2 hours ago, cstojano said:

espressobeans.com (a print collecting website),

I'm on the team/mod over there.

2 hours ago, cstojano said:

In the COA above I would think the artist could change the paper, tweak the size, change the inks and not really violate the stated terms of the COA.

I'm seeing the language only and of this work to be very limiting. I guess anybody can do anything and it won't matter much (except until challenged legally) but...I don't see this here. It sure does happen all the time in the more formal prints/posters market and marketplace. But there - those are very rarely starting as 1/1 runs. Maybe the test will be when there is a robust after-market where these things are trading at much higher values than primary. In a sense, this is the golden age for this stuff...if you like, buy for cheap and enjoy, what the market does afterwards will likely result in higher prices one way or dilution the other way (such as run size creep of Shepard Fairey prints from the 1990s - present).

2 hours ago, ShallowDan said:

When I start playing out various scenarios in my mind with regards to these prints, I always come back to the fact that copyright to the O/A is held by the publisher and not the artist.  So, while the artist himself my only authorize this particular print, it seems that if DC were so inclined, they could either produce (or license) additional prints.  

Now obviously that's probably all academic nit-picking, but if Mondo or someone decided to jump in the game, I don't see how the artist could block this.

Good point. What nobody can duplicate is the unique transactional aspects when purchased from primary including - second only the the "piece" itself - the timestamps/dates on associated documents. First will always be first. DYODD would be making sure you are first to begin with before making that purchase.

[vodou]

1 hour ago, filmboyuk said:

My view on the prospect of future printing is that it's a bit of a red herring. Getting as close as possible to having a truly "mono" print is ideal, both for collecting and for valuation. But, as with the general art and photography market, if there were to be other printings (if the publisher decided to do a run of prints as someone mentioned earlier in the thread) the earlier printings would not only retain their value, but arguably increase in value as their desirability was underscored by successive commercial print runs.

Thanks for reminding me of photography again, where "first" isn't always "best" (according to the demand market), sometimes "best" is largest or some specific characteristics of one over another (dodge 'n burn, exposure time, etc). This line of thinking brings me to the King of Multiples: Andy Warhol. The market was initially very worried, as prices were ripping higher during Andy's lifetime, that Andy could/would just knock out some more Marilyns and Jackies. He could've, who would know, but as it turned out buyers didn't really care that much. They bought what they liked at a price they accepted. And, as it turned out, he tended to keep moving forward -as you'd expect an artist to do- not resting on his laurels by revisiting the same old easy money-makers...even though Andy was the original and ultimate art Factory! Then...when he passed the fear, among dealers and large holders, was the his Estate would be loaded with Marilyns and Jackies, et al. But it really wasn't and things pretty much continued forward uninterrupted.

[Rick2you2]

5 hours ago, ShallowDan said:

Any idea of how the standard agreement with Marvel/DC reads?  I would imagine it grants sole reproduction rights to the publisher (or at least I'm having a hard time imagining them not insisting on this).  

Interestingly enough, that raises the question of whether the terms of their standard agreements even acknowledge / provide for artists to sell prints at all.  

For me, the entire subject is just one of academic interest, given how much digital technology has changed the process for all of the players. 

Sorry, I don’t. I should point out that Neal Adams does sell reprints of individual pages and covers he has done, so perhaps the publishers don’t mind except if someone wants to reprint a whole story.

[Rick2you2]

4 hours ago, vodou said:

That's definitely the most buyer-friendly aspect: reputational damage risk on the part of artist and dealer.

I'm on the team/mod over there.

I'm seeing the language only and of this work to be very limiting. I guess anybody can do anything and it won't matter much (except until challenged legally) but...I don't see this here. It sure does happen all the time in the more formal prints/posters market and marketplace. But there - those are very rarely starting as 1/1 runs. Maybe the test will be when there is a robust after-market where these things are trading at much higher values than primary. In a sense, this is the golden age for this stuff...if you like, buy for cheap and enjoy, what the market does afterwards will likely result in higher prices one way or dilution the other way (such as run size creep of Shepard Fairey prints from the 1990s - present).

Good point. What nobody can duplicate is the unique transactional aspects when purchased from primary including - second only the the "piece" itself - the timestamps/dates on associated documents. First will always be first. DYODD would be making sure you are first to begin with before making that purchase.

The general rule for copyright infringement can be viewed as whether the second product is “passing off” or trading on the original product to make a sale. So, if the author tweaks his original version a bit and tries to get buyers as though it was the original, that would be a violation of law, not copyright law, since he owns the copyright already, but probably, the Lanham Act or perhaps fraud and breach of contract (implied promise).

In reality, none of this matters because no one is going to court over this stuff in my lifetime. In terms of uniqueness, that is a problem you will never have with inks and pencils.

[vodou]

1 hour ago, Rick2you2 said:

...that is a problem you will never have with inks and pencils.

Not true. There are numerous cases of two version of the same cover existing. Most often this occurred when one was lost and thus a second had to be knocked out to fulfill obligation to the publisher. Then the first would later be found. They can look almost exactly the same. What we can say is that this situation is the exception not the rule, so we don't run into it every day.

[BuraddoRun]

I just can't go in on monoprints like I do pencils and inks. I even felt kinda weird getting my Stegman piece that has his digitally printed blueline roughs, even though the finished work has his detailed pencils and his inks over those roughs. To me, a monoprint feels like any other print, even if there literally won't be any other print. But high quality monoprints, just like giclées or any other high quality print, can still look very nice and be something desirable to own. There's just something about owning THE original, something done by hand that can't be 100% reproduced to exactness, that seems more special than any reproduction. The problem is that digitally produced stuff CAN be 100% reproduced to exactness. The original is a digital production, something that automatically gets backed up within the computer where it was made anyway, and where copies are sent to colorists, letterers, publishers, etc. I won't fault anyone who wants to buy and collect them, but they're not for me, at least not as long as the hand-drawn stuff is available.

I will say that I highly doubt monoprints will ever be reproduced officially, except maybe in those artist's edition books. Hmmm, have we considered that possibility yet? But I think an "original" monoprint would be honored by both the artist and publisher, especially in this hobby where the old ways are still used by many artists.
 

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by BuraddoRun

[Unstoppablejayd]

Well - I took the plunge on mono prints.. I was initially against the whole thing but have been softening to the idea as more and more artists are just doing pages digitally . I was hunting pages from the Giant Size X-men tribute and a large portion where digital only so I figured if I was taking the plunge now was the time: I ordered two mono prints of pages I really liked , the artist both had the same rep. And he was great about my apprehension on them. I did make one ask ... I asked for both artists to sketch something on the back of the print so I would get some true art and act as a provenance of sort. Funny thing - I ordered two and got two very different results/ 

the Matteo Lolli page - looks feels and seems like a “real” page and honestly I think someone would have a hard time distinguishing it from a normal page (scary) and he delivered a great sketch on the back. 
 

the Rod Reis page looks like a print.. it is very pretty but what I would expect in this realm .. a bit different and not really what I will be looking to add more of to my collection . Although happy to have this one. He also forgot to sketch it but I will be gettting it. 
 

Figured I would share my experience and the major differences 

 

[Matches_Malone]

18 hours ago, Unstoppablejayd said:

 I did make one ask ... I asked for both artists to sketch something on the back of the print so I would get some true art and act as a provenance of sort. Funny thing - I ordered two and got two very different results/ 

 

That is a pretty good idea. Good thinking.  

[Rick2you2]

42 minutes ago, Matches_Malone said:

That is a pretty good idea. Good thinking.  

I agree. It has gotten me to rethink the subject. I had also been thinking of a “re-mark”, if I correctly understand what it is, but this seems better.

[Unstoppablejayd]

3 hours ago, Matches_Malone said:

That is a pretty good idea. Good thinking.  

Thanks! made me feel better about buying them

3 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

I agree. It has gotten me to rethink the subject. I had also been thinking of a “re-mark”, if I correctly understand what it is, but this seems better.

I asked for Remarque and this is what I got.. really happily surprised about what Matteo did.  

[All-Star Squadman]

Although I guess it's possible for history to prove me wrong, seems like sucker bet

 

[Unstoppablejayd]

11 minutes ago, 35CentEra said:

Although I guess it's possible for history to prove me wrong, seems like sucker bet

 

SO do you think the hobby will die then? More and more artists are moving to digital.. 

[Matches_Malone]

4 hours ago, 35CentEra said:

Although I guess it's possible for history to prove me wrong, seems like sucker bet

 

 

3 hours ago, Unstoppablejayd said:

SO do you think the hobby will die then? More and more artists are moving to digital.. 

 

Fine Art and photography have been doing it for decades. They seem to be doing OK

[Carlo M]

I also crossed the line and just bought two artists proofs from Dauterman's work on GSXM.

At the end of the day, many artists are going digital and this is going to be the only way to have examples.  Dauterman's site featured a large percentage of sold items, with price ranges from 200-300 for a page to 600-800 for a good splash / cover.  So presumably that is the market at the moment.  I would love also to get an example by Larraz, another favourite of mine that does mostly digital.

Still have to receive them, so I will come back with pictures and my impressions for the viewing experience when I get them.

Edited November 4, 2020 by Carlo M
typo

[Carlo M]

On 11/4/2020 at 12:00 PM, Carlo M said:

I also crossed the line and just bought two artists proofs from Dauterman's work on GSXM.

At the end of the day, many artists are going digital and this is going to be the only way to have examples.  Dauterman's site featured a large percentage of sold items, with price ranges from 200-300 for a page to 600-800 for a good splash / cover.  So presumably that is the market at the moment.  I would love also to get an example by Larraz, another favourite of mine that does mostly digital.

Still have to receive them, so I will come back with pictures and my impressions for the viewing experience when I get them.

So I got my first artists proofs today.  They both come from Russell's work on PoX.

One is an example of how digital art can be used by the artist to realise his vision, and render a particular sitaution.  I am sure some people will think I am crazy to spend money on one image replicated four times digitally, but I thought the subtlety of the effects was a sign of things to come (and it kind of looks cool):

 

The other one simply looks very cool:

 

So net net a good experiece.  The two pieces look very slick, with (obviously) thick blacks and nice effects.  I love the simplicity and sophistication of Russell's art and I am glad I have a couple of examples. The fact they are printed on Marvel paper helps.  Russell added one little sketch of Storm on a post-it on each of the pieces, which is nice.  All the nice looking pieces from this and the previous issue have sold, so obviously there is demand for this kind of product.  Not sure if this means that there will be a market for re-sale.  In any case, at these price points (300 and 600 respectively) for this kind of quality I might buy again in the future, but I will be highly selective.

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by Carlo M
typo

[filmboyuk]

Nice pages. I'm a little disappointed to hear that the little sketch promised on the website is on a post-it note rather than on the back, for some reason. But I also like his art and would think about adding some prints to my collection at some point - still kicking myself for not taking one of his Thor covers that I was looking at a few years ago - it's just that physical art pages keep coming up in the meantime! :-)