Batman 251 Cover 0

[Sideshow Bob]

1 hour ago, comix4fun said:

He's not "making money over and over on someone else's work". We are talking about personal property. The "work" is a physical piece of property that, once sold, belongs entirely to the person who purchased it. Like a car, a house, a comic book, or any other item that is bought and sold in the course of regular and every day commerce. 

If a piece of property is sold, outright, without reservation or condition at the time of sale it belongs entirely to the person who paid the agreed upon price for it. 

The person who created the work has the right to strike whatever legal terms they would like at the time of sale. They can retain copyright (such as they are entitled) or set any other term they and the person they are contracting with for the sale shall agree. If they don't set additional terms concerning the rights to the physical piece of art changing hands then they cannot demand those additional terms at a later date, unilaterally. 

Do we know that Neal originally sold this piece to a collector and its just sour grapes that the price has increased exponentially since then? Or that it was held in DC's office and somehow found its way out of the office, unprotected by a contract that said the OA was specifically his?

When I asked him to sign a pencil prelim to the cover of Batman #226, he said "you know that's stolen property?" I followed up with an email asking him for the police report so I could take it up with Heritage (obviously got no reply to that...).

But I believe that is the crux of his bitterness and the core of his advocacy for other artists: there weren't actual contracts for the "work-for-hire" crowd when he was in his hey-day, and if there had been, he'd have gotten all his art back and would be sitting on a veritable goldmine. Instead, his OA was produced without the specific artist rights terms that exist nowadays (which he fought for), thereby allowing someone else to profit from every subsequent sale. Now he seethes with every commission he pops out to make a good living, albeit at rock-star prices, every day adding to his ongoing bitterness and crystallizing in his purported shakedown of every major OA sale of his work by creating strawman "authenticity concerns". 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Sideshow Bob

[Bronty]

Obviously I don't know Neal to be able to say, but from 1000 miles away that would be my guess as well with the exception that any art returned to him he would have sold for a three figure amount in the 1970s through Mitch or whomever.     There'd be no goldmine.

[Sideshow Bob]

4 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Obviously I don't know Neal to be able to say, but from 1000 miles away that would be my guess as well with the exception that any art returned to him he would have sold for a three figure amount in the 1970s through Mitch or whomever.     There'd be no goldmine.

Yep, its the old Hindsight Trading 20/20 phenomenon. Of course he would never have sold those covers for hundreds in the 70's since they would eventually be worth hundreds of thousands each, and only he would be the one to figure that out.  My read is that its a case of very sour grapes, but that bitterness is fueled by the work-for-hire ambiguity. 

 

[BCarter27]

41 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Obviously I don't know Neal to be able to say, but from 1000 miles away that would be my guess as well with the exception that any art returned to him he would have sold for a three figure amount in the 1970s through Mitch or whomever.     There'd be no goldmine.

And yet that's what the droit de suite is supposed to help with... future upswings. I can see both sides with this. I feel like I am more likely to pay the royalty if I know about it in a contract up front -- as in the case of a BWS original. But as was also pointed out, Adams may never have had the opportunity to attach his preferred terms to the piece if it went out the door straight from DC.

The droit de suite is also such a low royalty I cannot imagine it being anything more than assistance for a potentially poverty-stricken artist or estate. Because let's be real... Adams is the exception, not the rule. His skill and fame and business acumen have kept him afloat where most others drowned.

I don't think all of this talk about houses and other forms of property apply. Art is IP. Some custom cars might fit that bill. Some unique pieces of architecture might. But not most.

Think of the droit de suite as a royalty. If you were a publisher (and not an art dealer/investor/speculator), you'd pay out a royalty after an advance if a work sells well. And you don't expect the creator to share in your risk if the work flops. You absorb that risk knowing you could get the biggest piece of the pie -- but not the WHOLE pie. So all of this talk about Adams covering a possible loss on an OA sale is just silly.

Would anyone be up in arms if Adams was below the poverty line and asking for a piece of this sale? If the answer is no, then that's the point of the droit de suite.

[Bronty]

50 minutes ago, BCarter27 said:

And yet that's what the droit de suite is supposed to help with... future upswings. I can see both sides with this. I feel like I am more likely to pay the royalty if I know about it in a contract up front -- as in the case of a BWS original. But as was also pointed out, Adams may never have had the opportunity to attach his preferred terms to the piece if it went out the door straight from DC.

The droit de suite is also such a low royalty I cannot imagine it being anything more than assistance for a potentially poverty-stricken artist or estate. Because let's be real... Adams is the exception, not the rule. His skill and fame and business acumen have kept him afloat where most others drowned.

I don't think all of this talk about houses and other forms of property apply. Art is IP. Some custom cars might fit that bill. Some unique pieces of architecture might. But not most.

Think of the droit de suite as a royalty. If you were a publisher (and not an art dealer/investor/speculator), you'd pay out a royalty after an advance if a work sells well. And you don't expect the creator to share in your risk if the work flops. You absorb that risk knowing you could get the biggest piece of the pie -- but not the WHOLE pie. So all of this talk about Adams covering a possible loss on an OA sale is just silly.

Would anyone be up in arms if Adams was below the poverty line and asking for a piece of this sale? If the answer is no, then that's the point of the droit de suite.

And as was pointed out, you can't legislate fairness.   You can't even get two people to agree on what fairness is.

You sell something, its not yours anymore.  Period.

If an artist wants to participate in his market, all he has to do is keep some of what he produces.    Adams could have done that if he had wanted to, and he's not on food stamps.   Remind me why he needs to be paid twice?   Because I'd like to be paid twice too.   

Clearly, its intended to help the artist who is poor but whose work is valuable.    Like other socialist ideas, the devil is in the details.    Say I collect Warhol or Damien Hirst (I don't and couldn't afford it).   I'm supposed to send Andy's heirs a check?  Damien a check?   He doesn't need any help.    

The legislation is rooted in the idea of the poor struggling artist needing help from the state.    I'm not sure that's the reality very often.   I'm no expert but my perception is that many fine artists who achieve success (and high prices) these days (fine artists or otherwise) achieve that success and get those high prices while they are relatively young while those that don't experience success and high prices while young, for the most part never do.    A resale right/royalty is poor policy for many different reasons.    

Edited September 10, 2019 by Bronty

[BCarter27]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

I'm not sure that's the reality very often. 

Wait, are we still talking about comic art?

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

Like other socialist ideas

If baked in from the get go (again BWS), I don't find this to be socialist at all, but quite capitalistic.

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

He doesn't need any help. 

No, presumably because he had people looking out for him from the beginning -- people who thought to include such clauses or otherwise protect his interests in the first place. That isn't always the case.

Is all charity socialist? Would you rather wait and give a starving, elderly comic artist a donation through Hero Initiative? Or have a system in place where the creator doesn't have to beg for their fair share and can maintain their dignity? All of this conversation doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has to be placed in the context of the history of comic art and its lack of maturity regarding creators' rights. (An issue Adams has always stood his ground on.) So although fine art correlations can point the way forward, it's hard to overlay them on such a busted industry's history.

Maybe Marvel and DC should throw out their film/TV payouts to older creators too. They didn't contract for it back in the 60s. Screw 'em.

Edited September 10, 2019 by BCarter27

[NelsonAI]

Other options for the seller / HA / buyer include hiring a professional restoration specialist like Robert Dennis to evaluate the art.  His knowledge in restoration will help spot a fake with a high degree of certainty.  I would trust his professional opinion if I were a potential buyer looking to spend big $ on a piece of vintage comic art.

 

[Bronty]

7 minutes ago, BCarter27 said:

Wait, are we still talking about comic art?

 

Again, its in the details no?   Comic art is a miniscule part of the overall art market that such a policy would apply to.

[grapeape]

13 hours ago, Superhero said:

 

I stared at the 251 recreation on Neal's site for several years knowing the original cover was well beyond me so I eventually picked it up.  link below.  It is a great piece.  I confirmed with him that it was all him.  The title/logo/trade dress are stats on a separate overlay.  I talked to Neal about it for a while.  At that time, he didn't know if the original cover still existed or who might have it.   Interesting thing is I know he did it in the late 90's early 2000s but he dated the certificate of authenticity when I purchased it instead of when he actually drew it. 

 

https://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=807921

You could ask Neal to write you a short letter saying something about “when” he actually made your recreation. He might do it and maybe for a charge.

 Is that the one and only recreation of the 251 ?

[Bronty]

8 minutes ago, BCarter27 said:

 

Is all charity socialist? Would you rather wait and give a starving, elderly comic artist a donation through Hero Initiative? Or have a system in place where the creator doesn't have to beg for their fair share and can maintain their dignity? All of this conversation doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has to be placed in the context of the history of comic art and its lack of maturity regarding creators' rights. (An issue Adams has always stood his ground on.) So although fine art correlations can point the way forward, it's hard to overlay them on such a busted industry's history.

Maybe Marvel and DC should throw out their film/TV payouts to older creators too. They didn't contract for it back in the 60s. Screw 'em.

Charity is great and I support it wholeheartedly.   But giving shouldn't be legislated.  

 

[grapeape]

3 hours ago, Sideshow Bob said:

Do we know that Neal originally sold this piece to a collector and its just sour grapes that the price has increased exponentially since then? Or that it was held in DC's office and somehow found its way out of the office, unprotected by a contract that said the OA was specifically his?

When I asked him to sign a pencil prelim to the cover of Batman #226, he said "you know that's stolen property?" I followed up with an email asking him for the police report so I could take it up with Heritage (obviously got no reply to that...).

But I believe that is the crux of his bitterness and the core of his advocacy for other artists: there weren't actual contracts for the "work-for-hire" crowd when he was in his hey-day, and if there had been, he'd have gotten all his art back and would be sitting on a veritable goldmine. Instead, his OA was produced without the specific artist rights terms that exist nowadays (which he fought for), thereby allowing someone else to profit from every subsequent sale. Now he seethes with every commission he pops out to make a good living, albeit at rock-star prices, every day adding to his ongoing bitterness and crystallizing in his purported shakedown of every major OA sale of his work by creating strawman "authenticity concerns". 

You asked him for a copy of the police report? That’s champion balls my friend!

brilliant 

[BCarter27]

8 minutes ago, Bronty said:

But giving shouldn't be legislated.

OK, should it be contracted for? Should all reps be baking this into their artists' sales going forward? We've talked a lot in recent years about how we are living in the days of the maturation of the OA hobby. For me, the key indicator of that is reps asking (and somewhat getting) "tomorrow's prices" today. (As in, it will take a few years to see a return for potential resellers. I credit Albert Moy for setting this trend.) Maybe the next step is to start adding this clause in for the higher-end pieces. I'm not saying every run-of-the-mill panel page. But if I were a rep, it might be worth thinking about for the covers and splashes.

The high initial prices and a resale royalty serve to effectively weed out speculators. I personally think speculators and lots of buying and selling is healthy for the hobby as well as crucial for building an artist's market.

Buyers would decide whether they are willing to stomach a resale royalty in order to collect/speculate on a given piece. As usual, the market would sort itself out.

Edited September 10, 2019 by BCarter27

[vodou]

2 hours ago, BCarter27 said:

Would anyone be up in arms if Adams was below the poverty line and asking for a piece of this sale?

Yes. Legislating theft by weakening property rights is not the way to fix poverty.

[BCarter27]

2 minutes ago, vodou said:

Yes. Legislating theft by weakening property rights is not the way to fix poverty.

Agreed, in a vacuum. But this is not a zero-sum game. Especially given more complicated optics such as PR (and major auction houses thrive on PR), and the contextual troubled history of art ownership in comics.

[vodou]

6 minutes ago, BCarter27 said:

OK, should it be contracted for? Should all reps be baking this into their artists' sales going forward? We've talked a lot in recent years about how this is the maturation of the OA hobby. For me, the key indicator of that is reps asking (and somewhat getting) "tomorrow's prices" today. (As in, it will take a few years to see a return for potential resellers. I credit Albert Moy for setting this trend.) Maybe the next step is to start adding this clause in for the higher-end pieces. I'm not saying every run-of-the-mill panel page. But if I were a rep, it might be worth thinking about for the covers and splashes.

Speaking for myself, not Bronty who you replied to, I'm okay with any private contract situation between two adult, willing parties, yadda yadda. But predictably, same as BWS, this would possibly harm the demand. Reps know what this means.

[BCarter27]

1 minute ago, vodou said:

this would possibly harm the demand

Agreed. I hit Reply too soon and had to add to my post above.

[vodou]

1 minute ago, BCarter27 said:

Agreed, in a vacuum. But this is not a zero-sum game. Especially given more complicated optics such as PR (and major auction houses thrive on PR), and the contextual troubled history of art ownership in comics.

I'm not really sure what you mean, but I know I'm absolutely against it: legislatively I mean. Voluntary "anything" is totally fine with me, and trust me - I do my part already.

But maybe the other side of the coin is there should be a fund created for collectors that get smoked on overpriced art by stars that later don't deliver?

[BCarter27]

3 minutes ago, vodou said:

same as BWS

Then again, a lot of that stuff sold off the Gorblimey site! Not much left up there when I went back to it later.

[vodou]

Overpriced relative to resale would be: nearly 100% of all commissions (for example).

[BCarter27]

1 minute ago, vodou said:

But maybe the other side of the coin is there should be a fund created for collectors that get smoked on overpriced art by stars that later don't deliver?

No artist has ever forced a speculator to buy his art for resale later on. The risk lies with the buyer.